#61200 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Ken, Matheesha, and all) - In a message dated 7/8/06 5:32:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Nina: Feeling does not arise alone, as you know, it is always > accompanying citta and other cetasikas. The latter condition the > feeling by conascent-condiiton, and this is very important. It means > that feeling can be kusala, akusala, vipaaka or kiriya, depending on > the citta it accompanies. True, the object is also a condition, it is > object-condition. But this is not the only condition. > ===================== Ok, clear. :-) [Also, it makes sense that the feeling be multiply conditioned.] Now, in this regard, I would ask about the relationship between so called desirability and undesirability of rupas and the operation of feeling: Is a "desirable rupa" felt as pleasant or neutral except when other conditions abnormally change it to unpleasantly felt, in which case, there is perversion? And an analogous question for "undesirable rupa" That is, is a rupa called "desirable" because it normally (i.e., usually or typically) is felt as pleasant, and when it is not so felt that is a perversion of feeling? With metta, Howard #61201 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 2:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life , 13. upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Nina) - In a message dated 7/8/06 6:42:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > How are the 6 doors known now ? Sorry if I am too persistent :-) I am > just wondering what there is beside citta and its object that gives > rise to the idea of doors? > ===================== My opinion: Lets's take hearing as an example. Say we hear the distant singing of a bird. There is the sound, and there is its being present as experience (i.e.,the way I think of "the knowing of the sound"). But there is more. Is there not also the sense of that heard sound as associated with the general location of the ears, even though the sound seems to come from far away? Likewise for sight: an association with a "cone" going outwards from the general eye area. Physiologists will tell us that all sensing is done in the brain, but that is not the experiential locus! Body-door sensations are experientially located in the body. So, I think of the the sense doors as locational rupas with which sensations are experientially associated. With metta, Howard #61202 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 8:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The chariot is not ultimately real. scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Sorry, I was trying to speak of experience, from experience, and avoid any "Buddhist" words. Now, I'll shift gears... H: "How is any experience of a higher order than another experience? Wouldn't that determination just be what is happening while that determination is being made? Experience is just what it is. Every illusion and imagination possible has as much facticity, as much being, as much reality about it as, as any other experience." I read this: "...This is the view (di.t.thi) of the Thus Gone One. This is matter (ruupa.m), this is the arising of matter, and this is the fading of matter. This is feeling (vedanaa), this is the arising of feeling, and this is the fading of feeling. This is perception (sa~n~na), this is the arising of perception, and this is the fading of perception. These are the formations (sankhaaraa), this is the arising of the formations, and this is the fading of the formations. This is consciousness (vi~n~nana), this is the arising of consciousness, and this is the fading of consciousness. Therefore, I say the Thus Gone One has destroyed, is detached, has given up and is released, from all imaginings, recollections, and all latent tendencies of me and mine," MN 72. I realise that its a bit of a play on words to use view (di.t.thi) and experience somewhat interchangeably. I think the above suggests that illusion and imagination have a status other than that of the elements mentioned above. This is based on anicca and anatta. I think, said the parrot, that the above also exemplifies abhidhamma taught in the suttas. Perhaps, at the level of experience as experience, one can experience a "chariot" and one could experience the "chariot" as impermanent. Which of the two has value? The Buddha appears to differentiate. What do you think? Is it fair to bring this in? With loving kindness, Scott. #61203 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Jul 7, 2006 11:13 pm Subject: Sensing the Meaning of Link to Awakening ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: In what sense are the Seven Links to Awakening, links to awakening? They conduce & lead to the state of enlightenment; in this sense are they links to awakening! They are in, of and by themselves enlightened; in this sense are they links to awakening! Establishing as the meaning of the Awareness Link to Awakening is to be directly known. Examination as the meaning of the Investigation Link to Awakening is to be directly known. Exertion of Effort as the meaning of the Energy Link to Awakening is to be directly known. Intent Contentment as the meaning of the Joy Link to Awakening is to be directly known. Stilled Peace as the meaning of the Tranquillity Link to Awakening is to be directly known. Non-Distraction as the meaning of the Concentration Link to Awakening is to be directly known. Even Ballance as the meaning of the Equanimity Link to Awakening is to be directly known. They are enlightened in the meaning of root, thus are they links to awakening. They are enlightened in the meaning of cause, thus are they links to awakening. They are enlightened in the meaning of requisite, thus are they links to awakening. They are enlightened in the meaning of purification, thus are they links to awakening. They are enlightened in the meaning of blamelessness, thus are they links to awakening. They are enlightened in the meaning of withdrawal back, thus are they links to awakening. They are enlightened in the meaning of delivering freedom, thus are they links to awakening. They are enlightened in the meaning of without fermentation, thus are they links to awakening. They are enlightened in the meaning of silent solitary seclusion, thus are they links to awakening. They are enlightened in the meaning of releasing relinquishment, thus are they links to awakening. Source (edited extract): Sariputta Path of Discrimination: Patisambhidamagga. Treatise on the Links to Awakening XIII. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. #61204 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 2:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The fourth "bodily Tie." upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/8/06 6:03:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard and Herman, > Howard, you make a good point. I agree with you. By accumulation a > person can have genuine mettaa. > There are very impressive examples of this. I remember good, > practical councils about giving, not with a sour face, in a post > related to Judaism. Really admirable. -------------------------------------- Howard: I salute you, Nina! You really do read things in a serious way, and you retain them! Admirable!! :-) ------------------------------------ > > Actually, the Abhidhamma helps us not to take kusala or akusala for > mine. > ----------------------------------- Howard: Certainly. All good teachings are helpful. --------------------------------- This is also the aim of the perfections, paramis.> > That is why Lodewijk said, the Abhidhamma should not be separated > from the Brahma vihaaras and the perfections. Insight leading to > enlightenment cannot be developed without also cultivating all kinds > of kusala through body, seech and mind. > Kh Sujin said that people regret lack of mindfulness, but that the > reseaon is that the perfections are still deficient. The perfections > and satipatthaana, and thus also the Abhidhamma, all hang together > Herman was applauding the puggala paññatti as dealing with human > beings (sorry about your inbox). Actually, it deals with > accumulations of different individuals. We cannot say that it only > deals with concepts. > It is closely connected with the other books of the Abhidhamma. > Nina. > Op 8-jul-2006, om 4:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > >Take metta: if we do not know citta and cetasikas > >>we take for metta what is selfish affection. > >==================== > >Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, and many, many > >decent and serious Buddhists of all stripes don't know anything > >about cittas > >and cetasikas, or about Abhidhamma. Do they all confuse open, genuine, > >unconditional love and good will for sentient beings with selfish > >affection? > > > ======================= With metta, Howard #61205 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 10:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 87 and Tiika. lbidd2 Hi Nina, N: "It [the repetition of registration cittas] cannot be a condition for the following citta to gain in strength, like the javanacitta that is repetition-condiiton. L: I think this is an important point that I hadn't recognized. The main feature of repetition condition and, by implication accumulation, is the fluctuations in strength that arise in this particular kind of repetition. Bhavanga citta also repeats but, like registration, doesn't gain or loose in strength. Is this strength factor what determines whether a javana citta conditions the arising of action? Larry #61206 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 7:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > >In a message dated 7/6/06 11:18:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >jonabbott@... writes: > > > >>I'd be interested to know whether you see anything specific in the >>Satipatthana Sutta as supporting the view that satipatthana (as spoken >>of in that sutta) is something other than, and precedent to, the >>development of insight. >> >======================== > Because mindfulness is a requisite condition for insight, the >establishing of mindfulness also is. > Yes, mindfulness is a requisite condition for insight. But the mindfulness and the insight co-arise. Both sati and panna are requisites (as is the appropriate samadhi). I do not see in the Satipatthana Sutta any idea of the establishing of mindfulness as a preliminary step to insight; there is only the knowing that *is* the development of insight. >But that doesn't make the establishing of >mindfulness synonymous with insight. Existence is also requisite for insight. There >are many conditions requisite for insight. Mindfulness, of course, is a crucial >one - and close. Why all of a sudden is there such an inclination to be >imprecise, Jon? > As I said before, the question is not one of language usage but of the meaning of the Satipatthana Sutta. Jon #61207 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 11:11 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 17. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 3 Different Aspects of Citta The Buddha spoke about everything which is real. What he taught can be proved by our own experience. However, we do not really know the most common realities of daily life: the mental phenomena and physical phenomena which appear through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense and mind. It seems that we are mostly interested in the past or the future. However, we will find out what life really is if we know more about the realities of the present moment, and if we learn to be aware of them when they appear. The Buddha explained that citta (consciousness) is a reality. We may doubt whether cittas are real. How can we prove that there are cittas? Could it be that there are only physical phenomena and not mental phenomena? There are many things in our life we take for granted such as our homes, meals, clothes, or the tools we use every day. These things do not appear by themselves. They are brought about by a thinking mind, by citta. Citta is a mental phenomenon; it knows or experiences something. Citta is not like a physical phenomenon which does not experience anything. We listen to music which was written by a composer. It was citta which had the idea for the music; it was citta which made the composer's hand move in order to write down the notes. His hand could not have moved without citta. Citta can achieve many different effects. We read in the Atthasåliní (the commentary to the Dhammasangaùi, the first book of the Abhidhamma) Book I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, 64: How is consciousness (i.e. mind) capable of producing a variety or diversity of effects in action? There is no art in the world more variegated than the art of painting. In painting, the painter's masterpiece is more artistic than the rest of his pictures. An artistic design occurs to the painters of masterpieces that such and such pictures should be drawn in such and such a way. Through this artistic design there arise operations of the mind (or artistic operations) accomplishing such things as sketching the outline, putting on the paint, touching up, and embellishing... Thus all classes of arts in the world, specific or generic, are achieved by the mind. And owing to its capacity thus to produce a variety or diversity of effects in action, the mind, which achieves all these arts, is in itself artistic like the arts themselves. Nay, it is even more artistic than the art itself, because the latter cannot execute every design perfectly. For that reason the Blessed One has said, ``Monks, have you seen a masterpiece of painting?'' ``Yes, Lord.'' ``Monks, that masterpiece of art is designed by the mind. Indeed, monks, the mind is even more artistic than that masterpiece.'' (Kindred Sayings, III, 151) ***** Nina. #61208 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 11:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life , doorways nilovg Hi Herman, Doorways are: the eyesense, earsense, nosesense, tonguesense, bodysense and mind-door. The first five are ruupas, they are the sense organs that can function as doors. Mind-door is naama, it is the last bhavangacitta before the mind-door process begins. When you read the suttas the Buddha speaks often about the objects experienced through the six doors: we read about the eye-visible object and seeing-consciousness. These are void of the self (see Kindred Sayings IV, for example). Ay this moment there is seeing, and this experiences colour through the eyesense. The next moment there is hearing and this experiences sound through the earsense. There cannot be seeing and hearing at the same time, but it seems to us that there can be seeing and hearing and also thinking at the same time. When insight is developed one dhamma at a time as it appears through one doorway can be known. Nina. Op 8-jul-2006, om 12:34 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > How are the 6 doors known now ? Sorry if I am too persistent :-) I am > just wondering what there is beside citta and its object that gives > rise to the idea of doors? #61209 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 8:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 7/8/06 1:59:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@... writes: > Hi Howard > > upasaka@... wrote: > > >Hi, Jon - > > > >In a message dated 7/6/06 11:18:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >jonabbott@... writes: > > > > > > > >>I'd be interested to know whether you see anything specific in the > >>Satipatthana Sutta as supporting the view that satipatthana (as spoken > >>of in that sutta) is something other than, and precedent to, the > >>development of insight. > >> > >======================== > > Because mindfulness is a requisite condition for insight, the > >establishing of mindfulness also is. > > > > Yes, mindfulness is a requisite condition for insight. But the > mindfulness and the insight co-arise. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Not at first, Jon. At first there is sati only, but not yet pa~n~na. Of course, when pa~n~na finally arises, it does so together with sati. ------------------------------------------ Both sati and panna are requisites> > (as is the appropriate samadhi). ----------------------------------------- Howard: Requisites for what? Sati is requisite for pa~n~na, as is samadhi. ---------------------------------------- > > I do not see in the Satipatthana Sutta any idea of the establishing of > mindfulness as a preliminary step to insight; there is only the knowing > that *is* the development of insight. --------------------------------------- Howard: I do. And, Jon, the name of the sutta is not an accident. And if attention and mindfulness do not develop first, what is it then that leads to the wisdom. Jon, what you are claiming here strikes me as a non-issue. I can't imagine what prompts you to take it up. ---------------------------------------- > > >But that doesn't make the establishing of > >mindfulness synonymous with insight. Existence is also requisite for > insight. There > >are many conditions requisite for insight. Mindfulness, of course, is a > crucial > >one - and close. Why all of a sudden is there such an inclination to be > >imprecise, Jon? > > > > As I said before, the question is not one of language usage but of the > meaning of the Satipatthana Sutta. --------------------------------- Howard: The meaning is straightforward and clear to me, and I cannot for the life of me understand you on this matter. -------------------------------- > > Jon > > ================= With metta, Howard #61210 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 9:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... upasaka_howard Hi again, Jon - From the site http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html#msg, the following is the first paragraph of a message by Bhikkhu Bodhi. I have set off with double slashes the part I wish to emphasize:: ________________ The Satipatthana Sutta, the Discourse on the Foundations of Mindfulness, is generally regarded as the canonical Buddhist text with the fullest instructions on the system of meditation unique to the Buddha's own dispensation. //The practice of Satipatthana meditation centers on the methodical cultivation of one simple mental faculty readily available to all of us at any moment. This is the faculty of mindfulness, the capacity for attending to the content of our experience as it becomes manifest in the immediate present.// What the Buddha shows in the sutta is the tremendous, but generally hidden, power inherent in this simple mental function, a power that can unfold all the mind's potentials culminating in final deliverance from suffering. ----------------------------- With metta, Howard #61211 From: "matheesha" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 2:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life , 13. matheesha333 Hi Herman, Nina, Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Herman (and Nina) - > > In a message dated 7/8/06 6:42:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > How are the 6 doors known now ? Sorry if I am too persistent :-) I am > > just wondering what there is beside citta and its object that gives > > rise to the idea of doors? > > > ===================== >Howard: My opinion: Lets's take hearing as an example. Say we hear the distant > singing of a bird. There is the sound, and there is its being present as > experience (i.e.,the way I think of "the knowing of the sound"). But there is > more. Is there not also the sense of that heard sound as associated with the > general location of the ears, even though the sound seems to come from far away? > Likewise for sight: an association with a "cone" going outwards from the general > eye area. > Physiologists will tell us that all sensing is done in the brain, but > that is not the experiential locus! Body-door sensations are experientially > located in the body. So, I think of the the sense doors as locational rupas with > which sensations are experientially associated. M: Thats what I thought, and experience, as well. Location seems to be the key, even though I have yet to notice this being specifically mentioned in the suttas. Perhaps an issue easily lost in translation? The idea of each of the material doors being solid physical organs break down in vipassana. The skin sensations/dhammas which arise and pass away where the ear flap is supposed to be is not exactly the 'point' in space where sound is heard, even though it is located in the immediate vicinity. It is also not compatible with the idea of phassa/contact where ear consciousness, ear and sound 'come together' in one act of hearing. with metta Matheesha #61212 From: "matheesha" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 3:25 pm Subject: Re: desirable and undesirable. matheesha333 Hi KenH, > I think that sutta refers to seeing the pleasant in the unpleasant and > the unpleasant in the pleasant, does it not? It would be interesting > to read the commentary. That way, we could understand the sutta in > a way that was consistent with the Dhamma as a whole. > > Kusala consciousness can experience an unpleasant object and have > pleasant feeling at the same time. Right understanding can see > pleasant objects as inherently fleeting, unsatisfactory and not-self. > I suspect that is the kind of thing the sutta is referring to. M: You might be right on this. I have been unable to find this sutta and I suspect that I might have read it in the visuddihmagga under the various supernormal powers, but I am not certain. >Kenh: One thing for sure is that dhammas are beyond anyone's control. Not > even a Buddha can make the inherently unpleasant pleasant. M: You are right when talking of ultimate levels. But on a mundane terms the Buddha would not agree: "He is then called a monk with mastery over the ways of thought sequences. He thinks whatever thought he wants to, and doesn't think whatever thought he doesn't". -Vitakkasantana sutta/MN with metta Matheesha #61213 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 4:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life , 13. lbidd2 Herman: "How are the six doors known?" Hi Herman, Here's another answer. The doorways that are sensitivity rupas are known by inference by most of us. There is the assumption that they can be known directly through the mind-door with pa~n~naa. Personally, I think of this as reason in the arena of direct experience. Larry #61214 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 4:28 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,88 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 88. (13) A state that assists by means of the action called intervening of consciousness is a 'kamma condition'. It is twofold as (a) profitable and unprofitable volition acting from a different time, and (b) as all conascent volition (see P.tn.1,172), according as it is said: 'Profitable and unprofitable kamma is a condition, as kamma condition, for resultant aggregates and for the kinds of materiality due to kamma performed. Conascent volition is a condition, as kamma condition, for associated states and for the kinds of materiality originated thereby' (P.tn.1,5). *********************** 88. cittapayogasa"nkhaatena kiriyabhaavena upakaarako dhammo kammapaccayo. so naanakkha.nikaaya ceva kusalaakusalacetanaaya sahajaataaya ca sabbaayapi cetanaaya vasena duvidho hoti. yathaaha ``kusalaakusala.m kamma.m vipaakaana.m khandhaana.m ka.tattaa ca ruupaana.m kammapaccayena paccayo. cetanaa sampayuttakaana.m dhammaana.m ta.msamu.t.thaanaana~nca ruupaana.m kammapaccayena paccayo''ti (pa.t.thaa0 1.1.13). #61215 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 4:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life , doorways egberdina Hi Nina, On 09/07/06, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > Doorways are: the eyesense, earsense, nosesense, tonguesense, > bodysense and mind-door. The first five are ruupas, they are the > sense organs that can function as doors. Mind-door is naama, it is > the last bhavangacitta before the mind-door process begins. > When you read the suttas the Buddha speaks often about the objects > experienced through the six doors: we read about the eye-visible > object and seeing-consciousness. These are void of the self (see > Kindred Sayings IV, for example). > Ay this moment there is seeing, and this experiences colour through > the eyesense. The next moment there is hearing and this experiences > sound through the earsense. There cannot be seeing and hearing at the > same time, but it seems to us that there can be seeing and hearing > and also thinking at the same time. When insight is developed one > dhamma at a time as it appears through one doorway can be known. > Nina. Thanks, Nina. Are the 6 doors known by experience, or are they known by insight or something else? When I say, are they known by experience, I mean, is there an experience "eyesense", an experience "ear sense" , which is different to the experience "seeing" , "hearing"? I hope it is clear. If not please ask. KInd Regards Herman #61216 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 5:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The chariot is not ultimately real. egberdina Hi Scott, On 09/07/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Sorry, I was trying to speak of experience, from experience, and avoid > any "Buddhist" words. Now, I'll shift gears... > I appreciated the personal input. I think the discussion is worthwhile in any gear, even reverse :-) > H: "How is any experience of a higher order than another experience? > > Wouldn't that determination just be what is happening while that > determination is being made? Experience is just what it is. Every > illusion and imagination possible has as much facticity, as much > being, as much reality about it as, as any other experience." > > > I read this: > > "...This is the view (di.t.thi) of the Thus Gone One. This is matter > (ruupa.m), this is the arising of matter, and this is the fading of > matter. This is feeling (vedanaa), this is the arising of feeling, > and this is the fading of feeling. This is perception (sa~n~na), this > is the arising of perception, and this is the fading of perception. > These are the formations (sankhaaraa), this is the arising of the > formations, and this is the fading of the formations. This is > consciousness (vi~n~nana), this is the arising of consciousness, and > this is the fading of consciousness. Therefore, I say the Thus Gone > One has destroyed, is detached, has given up and is released, from all > imaginings, recollections, and all latent tendencies of me and mine," > MN 72. > > I realise that its a bit of a play on words to use view (di.t.thi) and > experience somewhat interchangeably. I think the above suggests that > illusion and imagination have a status other than that of the elements > mentioned above. This is based on anicca and anatta. I think, said > the parrot, that the above also exemplifies abhidhamma taught in the > suttas. > If I read the MN quote literally, it is quite clarifying as to how anatta is to be understood. Because the Buddha is addressing this to Vaccha. He calls Vaccha Vaccha. He is speaking to Vaccha. He is hearing Vaccha's responses. The Buddha understands himself to be the very Master Gotama that this very Vaccha is speaking to. So reading literally, the I-making which the Buddha says he is released from cannot be the I-making that relates to the I, me and you of identity. So I would suggest that anatta is not about identity being an illusion. What I am trying to get at is the reality of each and every experience. I would agree that we can know the difference between what is imagined and what is not imagined, but I would add that that is only known through action over time. One sets about validating one's expectations. Whether it is a snake or a rope lying on the ground in the semi-darkness is indeterminate without further action. > Perhaps, at the level of experience as experience, one can experience > a "chariot" and one could experience the "chariot" as impermanent. > Which of the two has value? The Buddha appears to differentiate. > I think the impermanence of the chariot is very much of a different order than the impermanence of a thought about the chariot. The Buddha says this: 6 It is suitable that the ordinary man should conclude, this body of the four elements is my self rather than the mind. 7What is the reason? Monks, he sees this body of the four elements maintain for, one year, two, three, four, five years, for ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty years, maintain for a hundred years and even more. As for this mind, or mentality or consciousness, night and day it rises as one thing and fades as another. (3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta2/12-Abhisamaya-Samyutta/07-Mahavaggo-e.htm) This is from a link on my own computer, but hopefully you'll be able to track it down). There is nothing illusory about the longevity of the chariot, unless of course it was a Ford :-). So, realistically, I don't think we have progressed yet in determining the meaning and value of ultimate reality, but we have perhaps done some useful groundwork. For the time being I will continue to avail myself of the reality of the chariot. Over to you :-) Kind Regards Herman #61217 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abh in Daily Life, no 12. egberdina Hi the two Howards, > > DSG discusses this question at regular intervals, and the advice from > the Abhidhamma students has always been the same. I know how it feels > having to be told the same thing over and over by these good people, > so you are not alone in that respect. > > > Come to think of it, this is one of those areas where I need to be > told the same thing time and time again. Even though I have studied it > quite closely on previous occasions, and taken an active role in the > discussions, I have forgotten this part. Such is life! :-) > The following comes to mind. Both of you are very intelligent, and show great capacity for integrating what is acquired into a personal understanding. So, how should it be that certain matters have to be repeated and repeated. I venture the following. Because those matters are not facts of experience, they are facts by convention. I would go so far as to say that many of the matters indeed can have no experiential correlate, and so no personal understanding of those will ever be possible. It is impossible to go somewhere and experience what is like for there to be a Battle of Hastings in 1066, and therefore any knowledge of that conventional fact can only be acquired through rote learning. Likewise much of what is being repeated in dsg about "what actually happens". If it actually happened, I'd say we would all be quite certain about it. Kind Regards Herman #61218 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life , 13. egberdina Thanks Matheesha, Larry and Howard, On 09/07/06, matheesha wrote: > > M: Thats what I thought, and experience, as well. Location seems to > be the key, even though I have yet to notice this being specifically > mentioned in the suttas. Perhaps an issue easily lost in translation? > > The idea of each of the material doors being solid physical organs > break down in vipassana. The skin sensations/dhammas which arise and > pass away where the ear flap is supposed to be is not exactly > the 'point' in space where sound is heard, even though it is located > in the immediate vicinity. > > It is also not compatible with the idea of phassa/contact where ear > consciousness, ear and sound 'come together' in one act of hearing. > It is good to get this diverse range of input. I hadn't seen these replies before I posted to Nina. Thanks and Kind Regards Herman #61219 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 6:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhism & Solipsism (was death of dear ones.) egberdina Hi Jon, Have you worn your walking stick out yet :-) On 02/07/06, jonoabb wrote: > > > > As I see it, a teaching about cittas is that in the context of two or > > more people so engaged. What is to be recognised is the fugue into > > illusion when that is the case. Any notion of disembodied cittas would > > be a case in point. > > > Sorry, but you've lost me here ;-)). By 'so engaged' you mean engaged > in what? > What I meant was that teachings about cittas, like cittas, are not nebulous things that free-float about in the ether. The context in which there are teachings about cittas, and cittas, is human beings. Bodies. Blood, bones and breath. Not to forget bile and baked dinner, if that's just what you ate. Cittas always have objects, and some objects have cittas. Like you and me. > Regarding 'citta', the correctness or otherwise of others' notions is > not a useful topic of discussion, it seems to me. The only question > is whether or not the teachings speak about the mere experiencing of > an object. > The very fact that you write this indicates to me that you don't actually believe what you are writing. What are you doing writing this, if you do no have a very firm idea that you are writing it to ME? Me, with all the complex characteristics that you attribute to me, and all the expectations and memories you have of me? How very curious that you would seek to artifically limit the extent of the teachings by refusing to see the extent to which they are all about your relationship to "others". Cheers, big ears Herman #61220 From: "Andrew" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 6:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abh in Daily Life, no 12. corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Because those matters are not facts of experience, they are facts by > convention. I would go so far as to say that many of the matters > indeed can have no experiential correlate, and so no personal > understanding of those will ever be possible. > > It is impossible to go somewhere and experience what is like for there > to be a Battle of Hastings in 1066, and therefore any knowledge of > that conventional fact can only be acquired through rote learning. > > Likewise much of what is being repeated in dsg about "what actually > happens". If it actually happened, I'd say we would all be quite > certain about it. > Hi Herman So you're quite certain about the function of your spleen without having to learn about it in anatomy class? Best wishes Andrew #61221 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 6:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sabhaava egberdina Hi Jon, On 03/07/06, jonoabb wrote: > > > Hi Nina (and Howard) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > > My own thoughts exactly! When we feel hungry we may not know whether > it is nama or rupa that appears at a given moment. When there is pain > (rupa) and aversion to the pain (nama), we are not always clear which > is which. > It seems to me that you are saying that there is an ultimate reality different to and masked by what is experienced. It seems that citta can be wrong about what it is experiencing. But that makes no sense to me in the context of there just being citta and its object. If that's all there is, citta and whatever its object is, then that is all there is, and it is only a subsequent citta that can take a former citta as object, and be doubtful about it, Which would be the reality of that moment. And in that context, the belief in some ultimate reality hiding behind what actually appears is also just an object of the current citta. Kind Regards Herman #61222 From: "Andrew" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 6:36 pm Subject: Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > So, realistically, I don't think we have progressed yet in determining > the meaning and value of ultimate reality, but we have perhaps done > some useful groundwork. For the time being I will continue to avail > myself of the reality of the chariot. Over to you :-) Hi Herman and Scott Pardon me for butting in here but I tried to track down Herman's SN quote and failed. In leafing through the pages of Bh. Bodhi's translation, however, at p. 1393-4, I came across the encounter between Vacchagotta, the Buddha and Ananda. Rightly or wrongly, I couldn't help but see a parallel between Herman's above-stated point and Vacchagotta. If Herman had been present and asked the Buddha, "Is there a self?", would the Buddha have answered or remained silent? What do you think? [If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer, Vacchagotta, 'Is there a self?' I had answered 'There is a self', would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that 'all phenomena are nonself'? "No, venerable sir." "And if, when I was asked by him, 'Is there no self?', I had answered 'There is no self', the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking 'It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now'.] Best wishes Andrew #61223 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abh in Daily Life, no 12. egberdina Hi Andrew, It feels kinda good, that I have managed to draw you into the discussion. :-) On 09/07/06, Andrew wrote: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > > wrote: > > Because those matters are not facts of experience, they are facts by > > convention. I would go so far as to say that many of the matters > > indeed can have no experiential correlate, and so no personal > > understanding of those will ever be possible. > > > > It is impossible to go somewhere and experience what is like for there > > to be a Battle of Hastings in 1066, and therefore any knowledge of > > that conventional fact can only be acquired through rote learning. > > > > Likewise much of what is being repeated in dsg about "what actually > > happens". If it actually happened, I'd say we would all be quite > > certain about it. > > > > > Hi Herman > > So you're quite certain about the function of your spleen without > having to learn about it in anatomy class? > You raise a very good and relevant point. My focus is on what is being experienced, and nobody has any doubts about what is being experienced. If I have a pain in my tummy, I have a pain in my tummy and that experience is not altered if the doctor says "your spleen is ruptured". But if the doctor says "your spleen has got to come out" and I'm feeling no different to what I normally do, then it seems that a crook spleen has no experiential correlate. And that is what I am saying about a lot of this stuff that people so readily forget. It has no experiential correlate. There is no experience of kusalaness, or vipakaness, or kiriyaness etc etc. And this flies in the face of assertions that the (Abhi)Dhamma is descriptive. Clearly, these matters are not descriptive, they are explanatory, like what goes on in anatomy class. And the proof of anatomy class is in the surgery, not in the anatomy class. If I don't feel better after surgery, then the anatomy class was a waste of time. Likewise if (Abhi)Dhamma explanations have no bearing on the experience of daily life. Kind Regards Herman #61224 From: "Andrew" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 6:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhism & Solipsism (was death of dear ones.) corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > What I meant was that teachings about cittas, like cittas, are not > nebulous things that free-float about in the ether. The context in > which there are teachings about cittas, and cittas, is human beings. > Bodies. Blood, bones and breath. Not to forget bile and baked dinner, > if that's just what you ate. Cittas always have objects, and some > objects have cittas. Like you and me. Hi Herman and Jon I have to butt in to dispel my confusion. Herman, can you please point me to the passage in Jon's writing where he says that the reality equation *doesn't* include rupa and sanna? Many thanks Andrew 31) #61225 From: "Andrew" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 7:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abh in Daily Life, no 12. corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > > Likewise much of what is being repeated in dsg about "what actually > > > happens". If it actually happened, I'd say we would all be quite > > > certain about it. > > > > > > > > > Hi Herman > > > > So you're quite certain about the function of your spleen without > > having to learn about it in anatomy class? > > > > You raise a very good and relevant point. My focus is on what is being > experienced, and nobody has any doubts about what is being > experienced. If I have a pain in my tummy, I have a pain in my tummy > and that experience is not altered if the doctor says "your spleen is > ruptured". > > But if the doctor says "your spleen has got to come out" and I'm > feeling no different to what I normally do, then it seems that a crook > spleen has no experiential correlate. And that is what I am saying > about a lot of this stuff that people so readily forget. It has no > experiential correlate. There is no experience of kusalaness, or > vipakaness, or kiriyaness etc etc. > > And this flies in the face of assertions that the (Abhi)Dhamma is > descriptive. Clearly, these matters are not descriptive, they are > explanatory, like what goes on in anatomy class. And the proof of > anatomy class is in the surgery, not in the anatomy class. If I don't > feel better > after surgery, then the anatomy class was a waste of time. Likewise if > (Abhi)Dhamma explanations have no bearing on the experience of daily > life. Hi Herman Thanks for letting me into this thread. Question: what if the "experiential correlation" you are talking about is in truth a type of mental proliferation somewhat removed from the base-level experience? "What is being experienced" is something that involves attention and attention doesn't always have to be strong (or even "noticeable" in the common meaning of that word) or lasting (even in the conventional sense of that word). So you're saying 'if what happens in reality is not strong enough for me to *think* about, then I can't be certain about it and thus haven't experienced it'. Right? Best wishes Andrew #61226 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 8:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... ken_aitch Hi all, I am sorry to raise the subject of formal meditation again: it upsets some members. But sometimes, as in he following exchange, a critical point is reached where there is no alternative. ----------- Jon: > > As I said before, the question is not one of language usage but of the meaning of the Satipatthana Sutta. > > Howard: > The meaning is straightforward and clear to me, and I cannot for the life of me understand you on this matter. > ----------- The meaning of the Satipatthana Sutta is that Right Mindfulness, along with the other factors of the mundane path (satipatthana), experiences conditioned dhammas, not concepts. The ramifications of this are unacceptable to the majority of today's Buddhists. It invalidates their formal meditation practices. It means that most of today's popular Buddhist teachings are contrary to the original Dhamma (or at least contrary to the Dhamma in the original Theravada texts). I suppose, strictly speaking, the quote Howard has given [below] does not, by itself, repudiate the ancient texts. When it describes the object of mindfulness as "the content of experience," it could possibly be taken as referring to dhammas only, and not to both dhammas and concepts. However, I agree with you, Howard: I believe the author teaches that formal meditation is a factor for enlightenment. From what I have seen, Bhikkhu Bodhi, when pressed on this question, claims that some of the original texts must be discredited. He argues that the Abhidhamma is a "later addition" and he believes that the ancient commentaries are unsound. In my opinion, he is rejecting the truly unique and marvellous core of the Buddhadhamma. Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Jon - > > From the site > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wayof.html#msg, the following is the first paragraph of a message by Bhikkhu Bodhi. > I have set off with double slashes the part I wish to emphasize:: > ________________ > The Satipatthana Sutta, the Discourse on the Foundations of Mindfulness, is > generally regarded as the canonical Buddhist text with the fullest instructions > on the system of meditation unique to the Buddha's own dispensation. //The > practice of Satipatthana meditation centers on the methodical cultivation of one > simple mental faculty readily available to all of us at any moment. This is > the faculty of mindfulness, the capacity for attending to the content of our > experience as it becomes manifest in the immediate present.// What the Buddha > shows in the sutta is the tremendous, but generally hidden, power inherent in > this simple mental function, a power that can unfold all the mind's potentials > culminating in final deliverance from suffering. > #61227 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The chariot is not ultimately real. scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Well, I hope I can follow up well on your last work: H: "If I read the MN quote literally, it is quite clarifying as to how anatta is to be understood. Because the Buddha is addressing this to Vaccha. He calls Vaccha Vaccha. He is speaking to Vaccha. He is hearing Vaccha's responses. The Buddha understands himself to be the very Master Gotama that this very Vaccha is speaking to. So reading literally, the I-making which the Buddha says he is released from cannot be the I-making that relates to the I, me and you of identity. So I would suggest that anatta is not about identity being an illusion." I am writing to you. I know you will read this. Nowhere is it said that conventional reality is not "real." It strikes me though that it is often and routinely taught that there is another way of seeing it, that is, the conventional way is not the way things truly are. I'll have to ask you to demonstrate that the Buddha cannot and did not discriminate between conventional reality and the reality as seen and known as ultimate. What was he supposed to call Vaccha - he was teaching the man? Calling him by his name is, in my opinion, merely convention and is the basis for no claims other than that. What is the version of anatta that you are suggesting is referred to by the Buddha? Maybe this would be helpful to bring in to the discussion. H: "What I am trying to get at is the reality of each and every experience. I would agree that we can know the difference between what is imagined and what is not imagined, but I would add that that is only known through action over time. One sets about validating one's expectations. Whether it is a snake or a rope lying on the ground in the semi-darkness is indeterminate without further action." Okay, lets agree that there is a reality to experience. I'm really sorry to be failing yet to understand your point. One's expectations, conditioning one's experience, without being a Buddha and without the Dhamma, can lead almost anywhere. One can "validate" anything, really, if one expects to. I would suggest that the holding of expectations is atta. H: "6 It is suitable that the ordinary man should conclude, this body of the four elements is my self rather than the mind. 7 What is the reason? Monks, he sees this body of the four elements maintain for, one year, two, three, four, five years, for ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty years, maintain for a hundred years and even more. As for this mind, or mentality or consciousness, night and day it rises as one thing and fades as another." (3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta2/12-Abhisamaya-Samyutta/07-Mahavaggo-e.htm) Are you suggesting that this, in isolation, makes some sort of doctinal point? I can't quite imagine that you are because I'm sure you would have read the entire passage. Same sutta, further on: "9. Monks the learned noble disciple reflects this same dependently arising nature, when this is present, this comes to be. With the rising of this, that arises. When this in not present, this does not come to be. With the cessation of this, this ceases. Such as on account of ignorance arise determinations. On account of determination arises consciousness. Thus is this arising of the complete mass of unpleasantness." I'm sorry but I miss the point here. Clearly the first two sections refer to "the ordinary man." Is this not merely a literary device in the Buddha's argument? Do you suggest that he means that the view of the ordinary man is suitable for all? Is the way to see things? This is to be taken in context, is it not? The ninth section refers to the learned noble disciple, who sees things differently than the ordinary man. Ignorance or that lack thereof differentiates the two. Ah well, enough for now, Herman. H: "There is nothing illusory about the longevity of the chariot, unless of course it was a Ford." Well, a Toyota actually, if one is talking longevity (but damn it, I'll argue about anything obviously.) No, not illusory as in some magic trick or that. What say you? With loving kindness, Scott. #61228 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 2:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Fwd: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 87 and Tiika. nilovg Hi Larry, Javanacitta is kusala citta or akusala citta in the case of non- arahats. They are cittas which are cause, because they can motivate kamma through body, speech or mind which can produce result later on. At the moments of javana more kusala or akusala is being accumulated and also if kamma is performed it is at those moments. But (this was discussed before in dsg) I would not say that kamma is always performed during javana. In other words, not every akusala citta is akusala kamma patha, a completed action. The fact that they are repetition condition shows us that they are strong, not weak and effortless (nirussaha) like the vipaakacittas. It is too difficult to find out about fluctuations in strength. Nina. Op 8-jul-2006, om 19:05 heeft Larry het volgende geschreven: > The main feature of repetition > condition and, by implication accumulation, is the fluctuations in > strength that arise in this > particular kind of repetition. Bhavanga citta also repeats but, > like registration, doesn't gain or > loose in strength. Is this strength factor what determines whether > a javana citta conditions > the arising of action? #61229 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 2:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 8-jul-2006, om 15:00 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Now, in this regard, I would ask about the relationship between so > called desirability and undesirability of rupas and the operation > of feeling: Is > a "desirable rupa" felt as pleasant or neutral except when other > conditions > abnormally change it to unpleasantly felt, in which case, there is > perversion? > ----------- N: let us change it into: is the citta that experiences it accompanied by happy feeling or indifferent feeling? This may be kusala vipaakacitta accompanied by indifferent feeling (I exclude ruupa impinging on the bodysense), kusala citta or akusala citta rooted in attachment. We have to consider first of all the jaati or class of citta: kusala, akusala or vipaakacitta. In a process there are first vipaakacittas that experience the object and after that kusala cittas or akusala cittas. When there are akusala cittas there is perversion anyway. Perversion of citta, perversion of saññaa. ------------ > H: And an analogous question for "undesirable rupa" > That is, is a rupa called "desirable" because it normally (i.e., > usually or typically) is felt as pleasant, and when it is not so > felt that is a > perversion of feeling? > ------------ N: Ruupa is desirable when it is produced by kusala kamma, that is the only criterium. As to the cittas that experience it, see above. When akusala javanacittas arise, they may have aversion even towards a pleasant object. An example was the appearance of a Buddha. Then there is perversion. Nina. #61230 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 3:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life , doorways nilovg Hi Herman, it is good you ask. I can never enough consider doorways myself. Op 9-jul-2006, om 1:47 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > Are the 6 doors known by experience, or are they known > by insight or something else? When I say, are they known by > experience, I mean, is there an experience "eyesense", an experience > "ear sense" , which is different to the experience "seeing" , > "hearing"? --------------- N: The answer is: by insight. But if insight is not developed to that stage, by inference. The ruupas that are the five senses are classified among the coarse ruupas, but even these coarse ruupas do not appear now. They are called coarse because there is impingement all the time of colour on eyesense, etc. As to the last bhavangacitta before the mind-door process that is the mind-door, I know that bhavangacitta can be known through insight, but this is not easy. By intellectual understanding I know that eyesense is ruupa and thus different from naama, but this can only become clearer at the fist stage of insight. Nina. #61231 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Knowledge of the Difference Between Naama and Ruupa: Making The... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Jon) - In a message dated 7/8/06 11:10:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi all, > > I am sorry to raise the subject of formal meditation again: it upsets > some members. But sometimes, as in he following exchange, a critical > point is reached where there is no alternative. > ======================= Any topic you raise is fine, Ken. :-) Thank you for an friendly post and for exhibiting an open mind. (Don't worry - I know you haven't changed your positions! LOL! Nor have I. I guess we're getting old! ;-)) With metta, Howard #61232 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 3:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - I'm sorry. I've studied your post, yet I still don't know what the answer to my question was. I wanted to know what is the relationship between a rupa being (called) desirable and how it is felt, if any. What you did say was that a rupa is said to be desirable when it is produced by kusala kamma, and that is the only criterion. Well, what, then, is the significance for calling it desirable? Desirable for what? In any case, what is the relationship between a rupa being the result of kusala kamma and how it feels? Must it be felt as pleasant or indifferent? You mention the three types of mindstate: kusala, akusala or vipaakacitta, with the latter occurring first in a process. Are the later kusala/akusala states the javana cittas? Also, do they literally have the same, original dhamma as object, or has that already been replaced by a mental duplicate - a conceptualized copy? With metta, Howard With metta, Howard In a message dated 7/9/06 5:47:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > > Op 8-jul-2006, om 15:00 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > >Now, in this regard, I would ask about the relationship between so > >called desirability and undesirability of rupas and the operation > >of feeling: Is > >a "desirable rupa" felt as pleasant or neutral except when other > >conditions > >abnormally change it to unpleasantly felt, in which case, there is > >perversion? > >----------- > N: let us change it into: is the citta that experiences it > accompanied by happy feeling or indifferent feeling? > This may be kusala vipaakacitta accompanied by indifferent feeling (I > exclude ruupa impinging on the bodysense), kusala citta or akusala > citta rooted in attachment. > We have to consider first of all the jaati or class of citta: kusala, > akusala or vipaakacitta. > In a process there are first vipaakacittas that experience the object > and after that kusala cittas or akusala cittas. > When there are akusala cittas there is perversion anyway. Perversion > of citta, perversion of saññaa. > ------------ > >H: And an analogous question for "undesirable rupa" > >That is, is a rupa called "desirable" because it normally (i.e., > >usually or typically) is felt as pleasant, and when it is not so > >felt that is a > >perversion of feeling? > >------------ > N: Ruupa is desirable when it is produced by kusala kamma, that is > the only criterium. > As to the cittas that experience it, see above. When akusala > javanacittas arise, they may have aversion even towards a pleasant > object. An example was the appearance of a Buddha. Then there is > perversion. > Nina. > #61233 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 8:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhism & Solipsism (was death of dear ones.) jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: >Howard: > I would just somehow hope for more, namely to see a detailing of the >"mechanics" of inter-stream interaction at the same level of detail as there is >with regard to intra-stream mental processes in the Abhidhamma and the >commentaries, breaking down processes into javana, registration, etc. This is where I lose the thread, I'm afraid. As I understand it, we are talking about moments at which the object of our consciousness is another person (is there anything more than this in the term 'inter-stream interaction'?). I do not see how the paramattha dhammas at such moments are any different from moments when the object of consciousness is not another person. If you could say anything to explain further I'd be grateful. >How is it that >there *is* interaction between namarupic streams? How doers that work >exactly? The details are missing. (My background as mathematician-scientist leads me >to want more detail, I suppose.) >------------------------------- You feel that the Abhidhamma as it stands does not cover this 'inter-stream interaction'. To my understanding it does, because in ultimate ('dhammic') terms moments of so-called inter-stream interaction are no different from other moments. Jon #61234 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 8:18 am Subject: Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. scottduncan2 Dear Andrew, Hi, discussing things is the aim so of course "butt in." A: "If Herman had been present and asked the Buddha, "Is there a self?", would the Buddha have answered or remained silent? What do you think?" Had I asked the question I imagine that the answer would have been given according to the Buddha's awareness of my level of comprehension and capacities. A: [If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer, Vacchagotta, 'Is there a self?' I had answered 'There is a self', would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that 'all phenomena are nonself'? "No, venerable sir." "And if, when I was asked by him, 'Is there no self?', I had answered 'There is no self', the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking 'It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now'.] I find that these subtleties make it hard to know how to apply some of what is read in the suttas. For instance, is the above a description of the Buddha's teaching style or a doctrinal statement? It seems more the latter to me, imbedded in it the statement of the consistency with which the Buddha affirms that "all phenomena are nonself." But then what I just said is only my reading of it, and who am I? With loving kindness, Scott. #61235 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 8:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 (was, Knowledge of the Difference ...) jonoabb Hi Mateesha (and Howard) To begin with your closing remarks: M: :) hope that wasnt too thick (in a dhamma sense)! I suspect there might be much in that you would disagree to but I was just speaking my mind. :) You have certainly packed a lot of points and ideas into your post! I will try going through them all, but probably not in a single reply, if you don't mind ;-)) matheesha wrote: >>From the Upanisa sutta: >conviction has stress & suffering as its prerequisite, joy has >conviction as its prerequisite, rapture has joy as its prerequisite, >serenity has rapture as its prerequisite, pleasure has serenity as >its prerequisite, concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite, >knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has >concentration as its prerequisite, disenchantment has knowledge & >vision of things as they actually are present as its prerequisite, >dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite, release has >dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as >its prerequisite. > >"Just as when the gods pour rain in heavy drops & crash thunder on >the upper mountains: The water, flowing down along the slopes, fills >the mountain clefts & rifts & gullies. When the mountain clefts & >rifts & gullies are full, they fill the little ponds. When the little >ponds are full, they fill the big lakes. When the big lakes are full, >they fill the little rivers. When the little rivers are full, they >fill the big rivers. When the big rivers are full, they fill the >great ocean. ... Thanks for the sutta reference. I remember this sutta from a lengthy thread I had going with Eric not so long ago. To my understanding, suttas such as this and the following one you quote are explaining the link between different kusala mental factors (cetasikas) that arise in the development of insight. They are not setting out an order of 'practice', but rather are describing the important mental factors and their relationships. I think this can be more clearly seen by looking at a simple list of the factors: conviction, joy, rapture, pleasure, serenity, concentration, etc. The Satipatthana Sutta, on the other hand, describes the range of objects for the development of insight (the 4 'establishments'), the emphasis there being on how mindfulness can be developed regardless of the circumstances or occasion (including mind-state). >[Ananda:] "What, O Venerable One, is the reward and blessing of >wholesome morality?" >[The Buddha:] "Freedom from remorse, Ananda." >"And of freedom from remorse?" >"Joy, Ananda" >"And of joy?" >"Rapture, Ananda" >"And of rapture?" >"Tranquillity, Ananda." >"And of tranquillity?" >"Happiness, Ananda." >"And of happiness?" >"Concentration, Ananda." >"And of concentration?" >"Vision and knowledge according to reality." >"And of the vision and knowledge according to reality?" >"Turning away and detachment, Ananda." >"And of turning away and detachment?" >"The vision and knowledge with regard to Deliverance, Ananda." >-- AN X.1 (Nyanatiloka, trans.; from Path to Deliverance, pp. 65-66) Likewise, this sutta sets out various mental factors that play a role in the development of insight: wholesome morality, freedom from remorse, joy, rapture, tranquillity, happiness, concentration, etc. It does not describe an order of 'practice'. >M: Also in the mahacattasarika sutta talks of each step of the noble >eightfold path leading to the next. So satipattana becomes a >prerequisite for samma samadhi, which then leads to gnana (insight), >leading to samma vimutti. The connection of sila-->samadhi-->panna >should be clear. May I suggest that the factors of the NEP are not 'steps' in the course of development of the path, but are mental factors that co-arise at moments of path consciousness (mundane or supramundane). That is to say, at a moment of magga-citta, all 8 path factors co-arise, while at a moment of mundane path-consciousness some (but not all) of those factors co-arise. If this is correct, then the path factor of samma-sati is the sati cetasika that arises at a moment of insight, and what the Mahacattasarika Sutta is saying is that each path-factor leads to the others, in the sense that they all support each other. It is not describing a temporal progression (in which samma-samadhi is the last of the 8!!). OK, enough for one post ;-)) I'll continue with your other points (snipped for now) in a separate message. Jon #61236 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 8:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 2 (samadhi) jonoabb Hi Mateesha (and Howard) Continuing with your earlier post. matheesha wrote: >M: Samadhi is a singular quality of mind - citta ekaggata. But it can >lead to different things. Pleasant abiding, panna, wakefulness, >special abilities, a pliable mind, suppression of craving, to name >some (all from the suttas), depending on how it is directed. I agree that samadhi plays an important role in all the forms of kusala and attainments you mention here. However, ekaggata cetasika itself is not a sobhana cetasikas; it is a universal cetasika that arises with each and every citta and takes the ethical quality of the citta with which it arises. Thus the samadhi that supports panna can be developed only with the development of panna. There is no such thing as concentration per se to be developed that then 'leads to' panna. To put that another way, a citta that is kusala must be kusala by virtue of other mental factors that arise together with it (such as panna, sati, passadhi, adosa, alobha, etc); the concentration factor is incidental to that (but still imporant). >So I wouldnt differentiate too readily between the samadhi of samatha >and the samadhi 'of panna', because there is a lot of overlap in the >sense of it being citta ekaggata anyway. It's just a very powerful >and useful tool in Buddhist practice because of it's multiple effects. I'm not sure what you mean by 'citta ekaggata' (I'm not familiar with this term). Would you mind saying something about it? There is a world of difference between the citta that is samatha bhavana and the citta that is vipassana bhavana. The panna that accompaines samatha bhavana does not directly experience the true nature of a presently arising dhamma. So at a moment of samatha bhavana there is no 'overlap' with vipassana bhavana. Plenty to discuss already, so will stop here and respond to the rest of your post in a separate message. Jon #61237 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 4:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhism & Solipsism (was death of dear ones.) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 7/9/06 11:14:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@... writes: > Hi Howard > > upasaka@... wrote: > > >Howard: > > I would just somehow hope for more, namely to see a detailing of > the > >"mechanics" of inter-stream interaction at the same level of detail as > there is > >with regard to intra-stream mental processes in the Abhidhamma and the > >commentaries, breaking down processes into javana, registration, etc. > > This is where I lose the thread, I'm afraid. As I understand it, we are > talking about moments at which the object of our consciousness is another > person (is there anything more than this in the term 'inter-stream > interaction'?). I do not see how the paramattha dhammas at such moments > are any different from moments when the object of consciousness is not > another person. If you could say anything to explain further I'd be > grateful. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Here's the issue, Jon: Consider two namarupic streams, for example, "you" and "Sarah". How is it that you are aware of her and she of you? Exactly how? What are the mechanisms of communication and the means of knowing about each other and interacting with each other? How does her cetana and her actions impact you, and vice-versa? Each stream for SURE impacts the other, effects the other, and conditions the other! Each of these two streams consists of actually occurring dhammas. Neither stream is a fiction (in that sense). What are the exact mechanisms of interaction between them? How exactly does one influence the other? (You know darn well that they DO!) Just as conditionality within a mind-stream is important, so is conditionality between streams. Have details been given anywhere? No, not so far as I know. ---------------------------------------------- > > >How is it that > >there *is* interaction between namarupic streams? How doers that work > >exactly? The details are missing. (My background as > mathematician-scientist leads me > >to want more detail, I suppose.) > >------------------------------- > > You feel that the Abhidhamma as it stands does not cover this > 'inter-stream interaction'. To my understanding it does, because in > ultimate ('dhammic') terms moments of so-called inter-stream interaction > are no different from other moments. --------------------------------------- Howard: Well, you are FAR more easily satisfied than I! ;-) -------------------------------------- > > Jon > > ================== With metta, Howard #61238 From: Daniel Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 8:28 am Subject: Re: Words sbhtkk Hi Rob and all, Thank you for your reply, it was interesting. Sorry it took me such a long time to answer - I use public kiosk computers. Given your position that "Two people may hear the same sound or see the same gesture but interpret it very differently because of their conditioning", what would you posit as 'understanding' between two different people, and can 'understanding' be verified between two people - how can two people verify that they understand each other? And what is 'misunderstanding' between two people? Yours, Daniel --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Daniel wrote: > > Hi all, I was wondering if anyone has any insights on how we > understand > words of other people and what levels of understanding exist? I > am not sure > of that, but it might be that we never know the meaning of other's > person's > words since we can never read their mind. I define the "meaning" of > a word as > "that which the person himself wants to express with the word". > Using this > definition, I would say that one can Never know the meaning of of > another > person's word in the way that we know the meaning of the words we > use. > So how do you think communication works? Yours, Daniel ===== >> According to the Abhidhamma, there are two forms of communication: >> - Sound >> - Gesture (called "bodily intimation" in the texts) >> Two people may hear the same sound or see the same gesture but >> interpret it very differently because of their conditioning. >> For example, two people hear the word "air"; the English-speaking >> person thinks of the atmosphere whereas the Indonesian-speaking >> person thinks of water. >> As another example, the traditional Maori greeting of sticking out of >> the tongue is considered rude in some cultures. >> This conditioning impacts everything we sense. For example, imagine >> that you and I are walking down the street together and we both see a >> woman walking the other way. To you, she is a stranger but to me, she >> is my wife. The initial visual image is the same for both of us, but >> after that our minds progress along very different paths as we >> process the visual information. >> Communication works very well when we share common conditioning but >> less well when our conditioning is different. These conditionings are >> accumulated since birth and even pass from one lifetime into the next. >> You have touched on a broad subject. Hope that my reply helps. >> Metta, >> Rob M :-) #61239 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 5:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 2 (samadhi) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Matheesha) - In a message dated 7/9/06 11:29:32 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@... writes: > Thus the samadhi that supports panna can be developed only with the > development of panna. There is no such thing as concentration per se to > be developed that then 'leads to' panna. To put that another way, a citta > that is kusala must be kusala by virtue of other mental factors that arise > together with it (such as panna, sati, passadhi, adosa, alobha, etc); the > concentration factor is incidental to that (but still imporant). > ==================== Jon, the (inadequate) teachers of the Buddha were masters of jhana, some even of all 8 jhanas. So, according to you they had to have developed pa~n~na along with all the jhana factors. So, why were they not awakened? Obviously, the pa~n~na involved had to have been weak. BTW, to say that the jhana factor of concentration is "incidental" to jhana is one of the oddest statements I have read! (In the foregoing, I chose 'oddest' as a polite word. ;-) Don't you think that calls for some reconsideration? ;-) I do, of course, readily admit that *some* pa~n~na must be present for the attainment of jhana, as one must be able to distinguish conditions. Entering and remaining in a jhana is a fine balancing act. Without an adequate degree of discernment, attaining jhanas wouldn't be possible. But, in general, to accomplish most anything of complexity requires at least an iota of discernment. Note that pa~n~na isn't included as a jhana factor. (Nor are sati or viriya, for that matter.) The jhana factors are: 1. Initial application (vitakka) 2. Sustained application (vicara) 3. Joy (píti) 4. Happiness (sukha) 5. One-pointedness (ekaggata) Obviously, sati is *crucial* for attaining jhana, being critical for developing, heightening, and sustaining concentration. Likewise, viriya is crucial. But even sati and viriya, critical as they are, aren't considered jhana factors. And pa~n~na is not a jhana factor. So, yes, certainly, a degree of discernment is needed to enter jhanas, but pa~n~na isn't central to jhanas. It is, of course, an enlightenment factor, but that is another matter. With metta, Howard #61240 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 6:07 am Subject: A Second Reading [Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 2 (samadhi)] upasaka_howard Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 7/9/06 12:23:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > BTW, to say that the jhana factor of concentration is "incidental" to > jhana is one of the oddest statements I have read! (In the foregoing, I > chose > 'oddest' as a polite word. ;-) Don't you think that calls for some > reconsideration? ;-) > ===================== I reread what you wrote, and I see that I misunderstood you. You were not saying that concentation was incidental to jhana, but that it is other factors that make a citta kusala. (Actually, I personally think that concentration is, itself, kusala, being an enlightenment factor. But that is irrelevant to the matter of my misunderstanding you. Sorry about that. :-) With metta, Howard #61241 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 6:45 am Subject: A Second Thought on My Second Reading upasaka_howard Hi again, Jon - One more time! (I'd say "Once more with feeling," but that would be anothger thread! ;-) In a message dated 7/9/06 1:20:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > Actually, I personally think that > concentration is, itself, kusala, being an enlightenment factor. > ======================== If there is anger (for exmple), and if concentration only serves to strengthen it, that concentration is certainly akusala and is not an enlightenment factor. When, OTOH, one is concentrated on the present anger with sati and objectivity, that is a basis for insight to arise and for the rapid, if not immediate, ceasing of that anger. So, it is certainly incorrect to think that concentration in-and-of-itself is kusala. With metta, Howard P.S. Apologies for "Thinking out loud"! ;-) #61242 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 11:25 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, no. 18 nilovg Dear friends, We then read about the many different things which are accomplished by citta: good deeds, such as deeds of generosity, and bad deeds, such as deeds of cruelty and deceit, are accomplished by citta and these deeds produce different results. There is not just one type of citta, but many different types of cittas. Different people react differently to what they experience, thus, different types of citta arise. What one person likes, another dislikes. We can also notice how different people are when they make or produce something. Even when two people plan to make the same thing the result is quite different. For example, when two people make a painting of the same tree, the paintings are not at all the same. People have different talents and capacities; some people have no difficulty with their studies, whereas others are incapable of study. Cittas are beyond control; they each have their own conditions for their arising. Why are people so different from one another? The reason is that they have different experiences in life and thus they accumulate different inclinations. When a child has been taught from his youth to be generous he accumulates generosity. People who are angry very often accumulate a great deal of anger. We all have accumulated different inclinations, tastes and skills. Each citta which arises falls away completely and is succeeded by the next citta. How then can there be accumulations of experiences in life, accumulations of good and bad inclinations? The reason is that each citta which falls away is succeeded by the next citta. Our life is an uninterrupted series of cittas and each citta conditions the next citta and this again the next, and thus the past can condition the present. It is a fact that our good cittas and bad cittas in the past condition our inclinations today. Thus, good and bad inclinations are accumulated. ******* Nina. #61243 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 11:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 2 (samadhi) nilovg Hi Howard, Considering the sobhana cetasikas that accompany jhaanacitta: there have to be paññaa and sati. That you also find. But as to their not being jhanafactors, this is for another reason. The jhaanafactors are helpers but they have to be abandoned successively. This cannot be said of sati and paññaa. Nina. Op 9-jul-2006, om 18:22 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > > ==================== > I do, of course, readily admit that *some* pa~n~na must be present for > the attainment of jhana, as one must be able to distinguish > conditions. > Entering and remaining in a jhana is a fine balancing act. Without > an adequate > degree of discernment, attaining jhanas wouldn't be possible. But, > in general, to > accomplish most anything of complexity requires at least an iota of > discernment. > Note that pa~n~na isn't included as a jhana factor. (Nor are sati or > viriya, for that matter.)... > Obviously, sati is *crucial* for attaining jhana, being critical for > developing, heightening, and sustaining concentration. Likewise, > viriya is > crucial. But even sati and viriya, critical as they are, aren't > considered jhana > factors. And pa~n~na is not a jhana factor. So, yes, certainly, a > degree of > discernment is needed to enter jhanas, but pa~n~na isn't central to > jhanas. It > is, of course, an enlightenment factor, but that is another matter. > #61244 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 12:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling. nilovg Hi Howard, you say: what, then, is the significance for calling it desirable? Desirable for what? N: Well, for the vipaakacitta and accompanying cetasikas, including feeling, that are the result of kusala kamma. A good deed brings an agreeable result. It is just a matter of cause and result. You say: Must it be felt as pleasant or indifferent? N: The vipaakacitta is accompanied by indifferent feeling (not speaking of body-consciousness). The javanacittas which are either kusala cittas or akusala cittas are accompanied by feelings that subject to their own laws (dhamma niyama), as explained before. I mean certain fixed conditions. The feeling is in accordance with the kusala citta or akusala citta it accompanies. You ask: Also, do they literally have the same, original dhamma as object, or has that already been replaced by a mental duplicate - a conceptualized copy? N: The javanacittas arising in a sense-door process still have the same rupa as object, since ruupa lasts longer than citta. Then the rupa is experienced through the mind-door by javanacittas of the same type. That rupa has just fallen away, and Kh Sujin used the term photocopy. But it is not a concept such as a person. In other processes concepts can be the object. Do not hesitate to question again. Nina. Op 9-jul-2006, om 16:29 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > . I wanted to know what is the relationship between a > rupa being (called) desirable and how it is felt, if any. What you > did say was > that a rupa is said to be desirable when it is produced by kusala > kamma, and > that is the only criterion. Well, what, then, is the significance > for calling it > desirable? Desirable for what? In any case, what is the > relationship between > a rupa being the result of kusala kamma and how it feels? Must it > be felt as > pleasant or indifferent? > You mention the three types of mindstate: kusala, akusala or > vipaakacitta, with the latter occurring first in a process. Are the > later > kusala/akusala states the javana cittas? Also, do they literally > have the same, original > dhamma as object, or has that already been replaced by a mental > duplicate - a > conceptualized copy? > #61245 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 12:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 2 (samadhi) m_nease Hi Jon, J: There is a world of difference between the citta that is samatha bhavana and the citta that is vipassana bhavana. The panna that accompaines samatha bhavana does not directly experience the true nature of a presently arising dhamma. So at a moment of samatha bhavana there is no 'overlap' with vipassana bhavana. M: Guess I've missed something here. I have a feeling you've stated this before in different terms but could you please elaborate? Is it impossible for samatha bhaavanaa to arise with a citta experiencing a paramatha dhamma (e.g. color)? mike #61246 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 8:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 2 (samadhi) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/9/06 2:49:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > Considering the sobhana cetasikas that accompany jhaanacitta: there > have to be paññaa and sati. That you also find. > ---------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I do. ---------------------------------- But as to their not > > being jhanafactors, this is for another reason. > The jhaanafactors are helpers but they have to be abandoned > successively. This cannot be said of sati and paññaa. ------------------------------ Howard: Yes, you're quite right on both counts. Still, the degree of pa~n~na must typically be not so high, else jhana alone would lead to liberation. Additional and strengthened wisdom strong enough to cut through and remove defilements would arise only when in addition to the other enlightenment factors there is added the factor of investigation of dhammas, a critical factor it seems to me. The other enlightenment factors of sati, viriya, passadhi, ekagatta, and upekkha also occur in the jhanas. So it must be the investigation, strengthening wisdom, that is what makes the difference. ------------------------------- > Nina. > ================== With metta, Howard #61247 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 8:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/9/06 3:05:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > you say: what, then, is the significance for calling it > desirable? Desirable for what? > N: Well, for the vipaakacitta and accompanying cetasikas, including > feeling, that are the result of kusala kamma. A good deed brings an > agreeable result. It is just a matter of cause and result. > You say: Must it be felt as pleasant or indifferent? > N: The vipaakacitta is accompanied by indifferent feeling (not > speaking of body-consciousness). The javanacittas which are either > kusala cittas or akusala cittas are accompanied by feelings that > subject to their own laws (dhamma niyama), as explained before. I > mean certain fixed conditions. The feeling is in accordance with the > kusala citta or akusala citta it accompanies. -------------------------------------- Howard: You say it is called "desirable", because the result is "agreeable". But if not necessarily pleasant, then why call it "agreeable"? What is agreeable is what is felt as pleasant as far as normal language usage is concerned. But you say that a mindstate conditioned by kusala kamma will, if a vipakacitta, be felt indifferently. So, I guess that so long as the feeling is not that of unpleasantness, it is considered "agreeable"? If so, okay - such usage isn't standard, but it isn't too much of a stretch. ;-) ----------------------------------- > You ask: Also, do they literally have the same, original > dhamma as object, or has that already been replaced by a mental > duplicate - a > conceptualized copy? > N: The javanacittas arising in a sense-door process still have the > same rupa as object, since ruupa lasts longer than citta. > Then the rupa is experienced through the mind-door by javanacittas of > the same type. That rupa has just fallen away, and Kh Sujin used the > term photocopy. But it is not a concept such as a person. In other > processes concepts can be the object. --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I like the "photocopy" terminology. A mind-produced duplicate. That's fine. -------------------------------------- > Do not hesitate to question again. ------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Nina. ----------------------------------- > Nina. > ================ With metta, Howard #61248 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 3:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. egberdina Hi Andrew, On 09/07/06, Andrew wrote: > > > Pardon me for butting in here but I tried to track down Herman's SN > quote and failed. Here is the Internet link. http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta2/12-Abhisam\ aya-Samyutta/07-Mahavaggo-e.html In leafing through the pages of Bh. Bodhi's > translation, however, at p. 1393-4, I came across the encounter between > Vacchagotta, the Buddha and Ananda. Rightly or wrongly, I couldn't > help but see a parallel between Herman's above-stated point and > Vacchagotta. > > If Herman had been present and asked the Buddha, "Is there a self?", > would the Buddha have answered or remained silent? What do you think? > > [If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer, Vacchagotta, 'Is there a > self?' I had answered 'There is a self', would this have been > consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that 'all > phenomena are nonself'? > "No, venerable sir." > "And if, when I was asked by him, 'Is there no self?', I had > answered 'There is no self', the wanderer Vacchagotta, already > confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking 'It > seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now'.] > I read the self that is being rejected in the anatta teachings as being the soul of a person, the alleged lasting / controlling essence of a being, not the being itSELF. Kind Regards Herman #61249 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abh in Daily Life, no 12. egberdina Hi Andrew, On 09/07/06, Andrew wrote: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: > > > > > Likewise much of what is being repeated in dsg about "what > actually > > > > happens". If it actually happened, I'd say we would all be > quite > > > > certain about it. > > > > > > > > > Thanks for letting me into this thread. You are more than welcome. Question: what if > the "experiential correlation" you are talking about is in truth a > type of mental proliferation somewhat removed from the base-level > experience? Again, a very useful point to raise. And to be able to make the distinctions you point out there would need to be an experiential correlate, an experiential difference, to be able to discern between a proliferated state and a base-level one. > "What is being experienced" is something that involves attention and > attention doesn't always have to be strong (or even "noticeable" in > the common meaning of that word) or lasting (even in the conventional > sense of that word). > So you're saying 'if what happens in reality is not strong enough for > me to *think* about, then I can't be certain about it and thus > haven't experienced it'. Right? > If I have not experienced something, I have not experienced it. Yes, you are right, that's what I'm saying. If I am not conscious of something, then I am not conscious of it. It does not alter what I was conscious of to be told that "in truth" it was different. There is no doubt that what can be the object of consciousness is directly correlated to what kind of self one acquires, be that a gross, mind-made or formless one (DN9). But that does not make one state ultimate over another. What is experienced in the context of self A is relevant to state A, and not to other states etc etc. Kind Regards Herman #61250 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 3:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The chariot is not ultimately real. egberdina Hi Scott, On 09/07/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Dear Herman, > > Well, I hope I can follow up well on your last work: > > > I am writing to you. I know you will read this. Nowhere is it said > that conventional reality is not "real." It strikes me though that it > is often and routinely taught that there is another way of seeing it, > that is, the conventional way is not the way things truly are. > > I'll have to ask you to demonstrate that the Buddha cannot and did not > discriminate between conventional reality and the reality as seen and > known as ultimate. In order for me to demonstrate that the Buddha did NOT teach something, I'll have to take you through all the Suttas and we have to agree on there being an absence. Wouldn't it be easier if you showed me where he taught about conventional and ultimate reality, and what that meant? > > What was he supposed to call Vaccha - he was teaching the man? So if the Buddha was teaching Vaccha, where does ultimate and conventional come in? > Calling him by his name is, in my opinion, merely convention and is > the basis for no claims other than that. What is the version of > anatta that you are suggesting is referred to by the Buddha? Maybe > this would be helpful to bring in to the discussion. As I wrote to Andrew, the atta that is being denied in anatta teachings is the lasting/controlling/essential self that is often equated with the soul. It does not deny the reality of being. > > H: "What I am trying to get at is the reality of each and every > > experience. I would agree that we can know the difference between what > is imagined and what is not imagined, but I would add that that is > only known through action over time. One sets about validating one's > expectations. Whether it is a snake or a rope lying on the ground in > the semi-darkness is indeterminate without further action." > > > Okay, lets agree that there is a reality to experience. I'm really > sorry to be failing yet to understand your point. One's expectations, > conditioning one's experience, without being a Buddha and without the > Dhamma, can lead almost anywhere. One can "validate" anything, > really, if one expects to. I would suggest that the holding of > expectations is atta. Well, what would that be saying about atta? Are you suggesting that atta is real? How can something be called into existence, like an expectation, if the thing that supposedly makes it, an atta, is not real? > > H: "6 It is suitable that the ordinary man should conclude, this body > > of the four elements is my self rather than the mind. > > > 7 What is the reason? Monks, he sees this body of the four elements > > maintain for, one year, two, three, four, five years, for ten, twenty, > thirty, forty, fifty years, maintain for a hundred years and even > more. As for this mind, or mentality or consciousness, night and day > it rises as one thing and fades as another." > > (3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta2/12-Abhisamaya-Samyutta/07-Mahavaggo-e.htm) > > > Are you suggesting that this, in isolation, makes some sort of > doctinal point? I can't quite imagine that you are because I'm sure > you would have read the entire passage. > Yes, I have read it. I am not making a doctrinal point. What it says, though, is quite relevant, I think. > Same sutta, further on: > > "9. Monks the learned noble disciple reflects this same dependently > arising nature, when this is present, this comes to be. With the > rising of this, that arises. When this in not present, this does not > come to be. With the cessation of this, this ceases. Such as on > account of ignorance arise determinations. On account of > determination arises consciousness. Thus is this arising of the > complete mass of unpleasantness." > > I'm sorry but I miss the point here. Clearly the first two sections > refer to "the ordinary man." Is this not merely a literary device in > the Buddha's argument? Do you suggest that he means that the view of > the ordinary man is suitable for all? No, but it says that if you have assumed a gross-material self, it is a bit silly to get ahead of yourself, and speak as though you have the vantage point of a noble one. Is the way to see things? This > is to be taken in context, is it not? The ninth section refers to the > learned noble disciple, who sees things differently than the ordinary > man. Ignorance or that lack thereof differentiates the two. Yes, quite. To bring it back to the ultimate reality of the chariot; what changes from moment to moment is the mind, consciousness, citta. On what basis can a determination be made about the reality or permanence of the objects of citta, if citta is the most transient thing known? Kind Regards Herman #61251 From: "Andrew" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 3:38 pm Subject: Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > A: [If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer, Vacchagotta, 'Is > there a self?' I had answered 'There is a self', would this have been > consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that 'all > phenomena are nonself'? > "No, venerable sir." > "And if, when I was asked by him, 'Is there no self?', I had > answered 'There is no self', the wanderer Vacchagotta, already > confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking 'It > seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now'.] > > I find that these subtleties make it hard to know how to apply some of > what is read in the suttas. For instance, is the above a description > of the Buddha's teaching style or a doctrinal statement? It seems > more the latter to me, imbedded in it the statement of the consistency > with which the Buddha affirms that "all phenomena are nonself." Hi Scott I agree. The Buddha's answer encompassed not only Vacchagotta's confusion but also the truth and consistency of the teachings themselves. > But then what I just said is only my reading of it, and who am I? You are a humble Canadian (and those 2 don't often sit together). ((-: Best wishes Andrew #61252 From: "Andrew" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 3:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > On 09/07/06, Andrew wrote: > > > > > > Pardon me for butting in here but I tried to track down Herman's SN > > quote and failed. > > Here is the Internet link. > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta- Nikaya/Samyutta2/12-Abhisamaya-Samyutta/07-Mahavaggo-e.html > > > > In leafing through the pages of Bh. Bodhi's > > translation, however, at p. 1393-4, I came across the encounter between > > Vacchagotta, the Buddha and Ananda. Rightly or wrongly, I couldn't > > help but see a parallel between Herman's above-stated point and > > Vacchagotta. > > > > If Herman had been present and asked the Buddha, "Is there a self?", > > would the Buddha have answered or remained silent? What do you think? > > > > [If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer, Vacchagotta, 'Is there a > > self?' I had answered 'There is a self', would this have been > > consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that 'all > > phenomena are nonself'? > > "No, venerable sir." > > "And if, when I was asked by him, 'Is there no self?', I had > > answered 'There is no self', the wanderer Vacchagotta, already > > confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking 'It > > seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now'.] > > > > I read the self that is being rejected in the anatta teachings as > being the soul of a person, the alleged lasting / controlling essence > of a being, not the being itSELF. Hi Herman Thanks for the link. I'll study it later when I get a moment. I think Scott has given you some feedback on it from his perspective. I like your focus on the teachings. But tell me, as you understand the teachings, what *is* this "being itSELF"? I suppose no answer to this question can be complete without reference to the Anatta-lakhana sutta. The anatta teachings have always been difficult - witness the vagaries of the Puggalavadans. Of the Puggalavadans, Prof. Harvey says "while other schools saw the sutta references to the 'person' as merely a conventional way of referring to the khandas, they saw the 'person' as being just as real as the khandas: a kind of subtle self which, being an organic whole which included them, was neither the same as nor distinct from them." [An Introduction to Buddhism, Cambridge p 85]. Are you a Puggalavadan? Best wishes Andrew #61253 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 4:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the abhidhamma of existentialism egberdina Hi Larry, Prompted by your posts, I have started rereading "Being and Nothingness". I very much appreciate the prompting. I'll keep replying to the various points and questions whenever I see something relevant. On 01/07/06, LBIDD@... wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > Thanks for the precis of existentialism. Could you explain more about > 'nothingness'? How is it different from emptiness or nibbana? Reading JPS prompts me to re-evaluate how I looked at the Buddha's teachings. Perhaps I have been wrong about many things. We'll see. Nothingness and negation are part of the structure and function of consciousness, not of the world. The very fact that consciousness must take objects that are NOT itself is the very basic foundation of that nothingness. Consciousness can never be itself, it must always be of something else. The world is just what it is, and it is entirely positive, meaning it is full of being. There is no emptiness or negation in the world. It is consciousness that is empty, in fact, a no thing. I didn't > understand its role in choice. More about this down the track. But some examples may demonstrate how nothingness is the foundation for freedom. A child negates an unpleasant situation by turning its head away. At the hearing of unwanted news, one may faint. Or is 'nothingness' simply an expression > of dukkha ('anguish')? Part of anguish (I think that is a useful translation of dukkha) is that consciousness can never become anything. It is always seeking to become, to become itself, or to become its object. But the major anguish, the existential anguish, comes from freedom. We can bury that anguish under mountains of beliefs of being choiceless, of having-to, of being determined, but at each moment we are making ourselves. There is no necessity to do any particular thing, only the necessity to do some thing. The idea that we constantly must choose is > interesting. I wonder if there is a way of explaining that in abhidhamma > terms. > I think any system that denies freedom in a given context is off the mark as to the reality of being in the world. But I don't think Abhidhamma denies freedom. More later. Kind Regards Herman #61254 From: "Andrew" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 4:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abh in Daily Life, no 12. corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > If I have not experienced something, I have not experienced it. Yes, > you are right, that's what I'm saying. If I am not conscious of > something, then I am not conscious of it. It does not alter what I was > conscious of to be told that "in truth" it was different. There is no > doubt that what can be the object of consciousness is directly > correlated to what kind of self one acquires, be that a gross, > mind-made or formless one (DN9). But that does not make one state > ultimate over another. What is experienced in the context of self A is > relevant to state A, and not to other states etc etc. Hi Herman Sorry, Herman, but the above isn't making sense to me. Are you saying that "the being, Herman, himSELF" is or identifies only with a conscious state or experience? And when you talk about "being conscious of" something, are you using a Western psychology meaning or a meaning derived from the teachings? If from the teachings, where? Best wishes Andrew #61255 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. egberdina Hi Andrew, On 10/07/06, Andrew wrote: > > > I like your focus on the teachings. But tell me, as you understand > the teachings, what *is* this "being itSELF"? I suppose no answer to > this question can be complete without reference to the Anatta-lakhana > sutta. > > The anatta teachings have always been difficult - witness the > vagaries of the Puggalavadans. Of the Puggalavadans, Prof. Harvey > says "while other schools saw the sutta references to the 'person' as > merely a conventional way of referring to the khandas, they saw > the 'person' as being just as real as the khandas: a kind of subtle > self which, being an organic whole which included them, was neither > the same as nor distinct from them." [An Introduction to Buddhism, > Cambridge p 85]. > > Are you a Puggalavadan? > Thanks for all the above. Just a quick acknowledgement, cuz I gotta race. Kind Regards Herman #61256 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 6:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling. ken_aitch Hi Howard (and Nina), Here I go again, trying to remember previous discussions over the years with you, Nina and others. As I recall, a quality of desirability, moderate desirability or undesirability exists inherently in every sense object. In practice, it is not important that we identify which is which; the importance is in how we react. But when it comes to understanding what is meant by these terms, the texts refer to ordinary merchants and public officials. They explain they are the same qualities that we, as reasonable men and women, recognise every day whenever we say, "This is desirable," "That is not so desirable," or, "That is undesirable." -------- <. . .> H: > What you did say was that a rupa is said to be desirable when it is produced by kusala kamma, and that is the only criterion. Well, what, then, is the significance for calling it desirable? Desirable for what? In any case, what is the relationship between a rupa being the result of kusala kamma and how it feels? Must it be felt as pleasant or indifferent? -------- Not sure I follow you here, Howard. Isn't this exactly what we have been talking about over the last few days - that you said had been made "clear and unambiguous?" ------------ H: > You mention the three types of mindstate: kusala, akusala or vipaakacitta, with the latter occurring first in a process. Are the later kusala/akusala states the javana cittas? Also, do they literally have the same, original dhamma as object, or has that already been replaced by a mental duplicate - a conceptualized copy? ------------ Again, I think you are being sidetracked. What we are talking about here is the same sense-door citta processes that we talk about every other day at DSG. You know the ones - up to seventeen cittas experiencing the same object (which is how we know rupa lasts seventeen times as long as nama) etc., etc. Ken H PS: Had I looked ahead, I would have seen that Nina had already replied. But since I've written this, I may as well post it anyway. :-) #61257 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 7:07 pm Subject: Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. scottduncan2 Dear Herman, I'm trying to keep my response style firm (for emphasis, eh) yet neutral. Am I doing okay by you? H: "In order for me to demonstrate that the Buddha did NOT teach something, I'll have to take you through all the Suttas and we have to agree on there being an absence. Wouldn't it be easier if you showed me where he taught about conventional and ultimate reality, and what that meant?" Okay, I thought I'd done a bit of that. I'll study it, you know, just to learn and I'll provide something if relevant. I think we've done well in just showing sutta passages while staying away from a sort of use of the suttas to just make points for debate. I'd rather stay away from that, as I think we are for the most part. H: "As I wrote to Andrew, the atta that is being denied in anatta teachings is the lasting/controlling/essential self that is often equated with the soul. It does not deny the reality of being." Nyanatiloka notes that the anatta doctrine is that "...neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance." Do you not consider anatta to be a characteristic of things? That is, *no* thing persists, abides or lasts. So there is the sense of no soul/self and the sense of non-abiding or non-persistence. I think that I would state that the concepts of "personality" and "being" would also be included. No soul or self or any other abiding substance means, perhaps, that the notion of being or personality is untenable. Do you think that one could deny the reality of a being (or a person, or a self, or soul, or ego) while accepting the reality of conditioned perception? And that what is perceived can be miscontrued as being real and whole and lasting? What do you mean when you assert the reality of a being? Do you consider "a being" to be a peristent phenomenon? H: "Well, what would that be saying about atta? Are you suggesting that atta is real? How can something be called into existence, like an expectation, if the thing that supposedly makes it, an atta, is not real?" No, I'm not suggesting that atta is real. I meant to say that were one to expect to see something in a certain way, one could easily fool one's self. The mere existence of an expectation does not at all have to mean that there was someone who has it. There can be merely an expectation. H: "No, but it says that if you have assumed a gross-material self, it is a bit silly to get ahead of yourself, and speak as though you have the vantage point of a noble one." I've not assumed a gross material "self." There is materiality, of course. And I certainly hope I didn't give the impression that I myself have the vantage point of "a noble one," Herman, *that* would be silly. I was trying merely to point out that the Buddha refers to an ordinary person and a noble one, both conventionally, and both, as I said, in relation to the amount of ignorance conditioning the way each would see things. He makes the differentiation. He points out that "a noble one" has a different vantage point than an ordinary person. This, to me, is quite clear. I keep wondering what you are saying exactly in this regard. Sorry, but are you suggesting that there is a self which persists just throughout this life or something of that nature? You seem so adamant that the reality of the bodily perceptual process and functions have to mean there is one who has them, and seem not satisfied with the idea that one merely refers to "me" or "she" or whom or whatever conventionally. H: "To bring it back to the ultimate reality of the chariot; what changes from moment to moment is the mind, consciousness, citta. On what basis can a determination be made about the reality or permanence of the objects of citta, if citta is the most transient thing known?" No, I can't agree with the way you have limited impermanence to one dhamma like that. Are you suggesting that citta is impermanent but the chariot is permanent? An earlier cited sutta was clear in showing that ruupa also arises and fades or falls away, as well as citta and the other mental factors. This, of course, is an abhidhamma basic tenet. Citta is said (again abhidhamma) to arise and fall away at a rate of 17 times faster than ruupa. In a sense, then, citta is "more transient" than ruupa, I suppose. But in the above I wonder how you would account for the knowing of anything if, as you seem to be saying, the speed and transience of citta makes it impossible to make any determinations about the reality of anything. I'm understanding the point you are making to be that, since consciousness is so transient, one cannot make the statement that the chariot only exists, ultimately, as a concept because the transience of consciousness precludes that determination. Well, I've no doubt gone and bollocksed up your arguments again. What say you, Herman? With loving kindness, Scott. #61258 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 6:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the abhidhamma of existentialism lbidd2 Hi Herman, Thanks for keeping this thread going. There is an interesting correspondence between the existentialist idea of pre-reflective and reflective consciousnesses and the Buddhist idea of kamma result and kamma formation consciousnesses. The existentialists don't have any notion of kamma of course, but the kinds of consciousness seem to be similar. Nothingness is an attitude toward the world and, as reflective consciousness could possibly be the perception of various kinds of emptiness found in the world, (beauty, lastingness, etc.) but also the emptiness of itself or any consciousness as something graspable. I'll have to get a copy of "Being and Nothingness" so we're on the same page. Currently I'm reading "Elbow Room, The Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting" by Daniel Dennett. This book gives some very cogent and easy to understand insights into choice that we might be able to use in this discussion. Larry #61259 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 7:19 pm Subject: Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. scottduncan2 Dear Daniel, D: "I agree. The Buddha's answer encompassed not only Vacchagotta's confusion but also the truth and consistency of the teachings themselves." Okay, I thought that's what I was getting out of it. D: "You are a humble Canadian (and those 2 don't often sit together)." Yeah. It only happens on alternate weekends for me. With loving kindness, Scott. #61260 From: Ken O Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:40 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... and cycles ashkenn2k Hi Charles k: The reasons on why I asked whether it is physical conditioned the mental condition first or vice versa. If it is the physical aspect then there will be no salvation, because kamma and taints are mental and not physical. One lifetime we are talking about the physical aspect of a human life from infacncy to elderly, many lifetimes they are the mental aspect. the other aspect I would like to say is that in the D.O. there two two kammas, one which is the resultant kamma which is formation and the other which is becoming (future kamma, in this life, next or future lives). this becoming will condition the next resultant kamma as long as it is not cut off. And if in the next resultant kamma, we did not cut off ignorance, becoming will still be operative. Cheers Ken O #61261 From: Ken O Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] On rebirth ashkenn2k Hi Herman > > I don't think that there is an inherent problem in "I" being an > object of consciousness. "I" in that way is simply the thing that unifies a whole bunch of experience. "This and that happened to me" is not about me as creator / initiator of that experience. It would be a problem to think in terms of "my consciousness" but it is not a problem to think in terms of "consciousness of me". Why, even the Buddha, that epitome of anattaness, could recall "his" births. They happened to him, and to no-one else. So there is a big difference between I as identity and I as agent, and these differences are not apparent when we use the same word for both meanings. k: I is a difficult taint to eradicate because it has been with us since endless begining. The notion is to dispell all I being an agent or not because I in the first instance did not exist. We have to look at all our human experience in terms of conditions. There is no agent in seeing and there is no need for an agent for one to see or need for one to be aware that is an I to see. Seeing is just basically the work of conditionality. When this and that, seeing is arise, no magic, no agent or I is involved :-). Recalling is just preception at work, there is no I at work :-) > I believe that true selfless compassion is an impossibility in the > presence of a deterministic outlook. It is only when there is the > freedom to be uncompassionate that true compassion becomes > possible. k: Deterministic this word I am not good at it. True selfless compassion is not possible for those with taints still around. Hence Buddha always declared it is impossible for Arahants to hurt anyone. Do you consider that as deterministic > > I know that verbally it is hard to talk about this, because the > English language pre-supposes an acting subject and an object in > every sentence. And so the statement "we always have to ask ourselves> ......" could so easily be read as an I-making statement. And I> know you don't mean it that way. But, really, avoidance of atta statements becomes very contrived, because in that very act the thing we fear most has already happened, to us (hah hah :-) k: Yes fear is also a taint :-). There is always a difference between chanda and lobha. Unless see as conditionality, chanda will arise with lobha. Cheers Ken O #61262 From: "robmoult" Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:54 am Subject: Re: Words robmoult Hi Daniel, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Daniel wrote: > Thank you for your reply, it was interesting. Sorry it took me such a long time > to answer - I use public kiosk computers. ===== No problem, I often take a while to reply as well :-) ===== > > Given your position that "Two people may hear the same sound or see the same > gesture but interpret it very differently because of their conditioning", what > would you posit as 'understanding' between two different people, and can > 'understanding' be verified between two people - how can two people verify > that they understand each other? And what is 'misunderstanding' between two > people? ===== In the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (MN63) and again in the Simsapa Sutta (SN 56.31) the Buddha made clear the purpose of the teaching, "And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them." In brief, we may not be able to find a specific answer to your question in the teachings of the Buddha. Your questions fall under the broad topic of theoretical linguistics (not my area of expertise). Having qualified myself as a non-expert, I would posit that "understanding" depends on a set of symbols / words / gestures with an agreed-upon meaning. We both read the sentence "The car hit the tree" and we have similar agreed-upon meanings of car, hit and tree. Nevertheless, the image in my mind and the image in your mind when imagining "the car hit the treee" can be very different (model / colour of car, serious of the accident, type of tree, day / night setting, etc.). The need of alignment of details depends on the situation (for example, an accident report requires more detail than a joke). How can people verify? By checking the details of the underlying symbols / words / gestures. Daniel, your questions seem quite theoretical. I am not sure if I my replies are helping. Metta, Rob M :-) #61263 From: Ken O Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 9:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling. ashkenn2k Hi Howard Having desirable objects or agreeable objects are resultant kusala kamma. Kusala here used are just to state the agreeable or desirable objects likewise of the undersirable object for akusala. Feelings are not the conditoin for desirable and undesirable object in this instance. Even in body sense, the undesirable object may accompanied by unpleasant feeling but it is still the undesirable object that arise due to the condition of kamma and not feelings. Feeling is not the condition factor for vipaka, as the name applied it is kamma that condition the vipaka and feelings is then associated. Kind regards :-) Ken O #61264 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... and cycles upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Charles) - In a message dated 7/10/06 9:41:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@... writes: > the other aspect I would like to say is that in the D.O. there two > two kammas, one which is the resultant kamma which is formation and > the other which is becoming (future kamma, in this life, next or > future lives). this becoming will condition the next resultant kamma > as long as it is not cut off. And if in the next resultant kamma, we > did not cut off ignorance, becoming will still be operative. > ================= Excellent point, Ken. I think the second link, sankhara (fabricating), would be the resul tant kamma, from which are fashioned "the twins" vi~n~nana and namarupa, and bhava would be the active kamma. The fabricating involved in the second link, as I see it, is responsible for fabricating a subject-object split as a direct result of ignorance in its inclination to reify [knowing and known]. The later bhava link is tanha-based and upadana-based cetana which leads to a new birth of atta-mired ignorance. I'm aware that my interpretation is idiosyncratic, but it's mine and I'm sticking with it! LOLOL! With metta, Howard #61265 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 7/10/06 12:17:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ashkenn2k@... writes: > Hi Howard > > > Having desirable objects or agreeable objects are resultant kusala > kamma. Kusala here used are just to state the agreeable or desirable > objects likewise of the undersirable object for akusala. Feelings > are not the conditoin for desirable and undesirable object in this > instance. > > Even in body sense, the undesirable object may accompanied by > unpleasant feeling but it is still the undesirable object that arise > due to the condition of kamma and not feelings. Feeling is not the > condition factor for vipaka, as the name applied it is kamma that > condition the vipaka and feelings is then associated. > > > > Kind regards :-) > Ken O > ======================== I take it that what you are saying is that 'desirable' and 'agreeable' as regards an object of vipakacitta are technical terms defined to mean exactly "resultant of kusala kamma". IMO, however, to call something desirable or agreeable, especially the latter, if it is possible that it be experienced as unpleasant is poor language usage - an abuse of language, in fact! Perhaps it would be good not to require a one-word adjective, but to use something like 'wholesomely conditioned'. Of course, if there is a single word that has the same meaning, then by all means use that. One more thought: IF it is so that such an object is always "helpful" in some way, then a good adjective might be 'beneficial' or 'favorable' or 'auspicious'. BTW, I've addressed terminological matters often, including the infamous 'sabhava'! ;-) Some folks think that such matters are unimportant. But I think they are tremendously important, because terminological choices have a major effect on communication and even on one's own understanding. With metta, Howard #61266 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:47 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, no 19 nilovg Dear friends, We all have accumulated many impure inclinations and defilements (in Påli: kilesa). Defilements are for example greed or attachment (lobha), anger (dosa) and ignorance (moha). There are different degrees of defilements: there are subtle defilements or latent tendencies, medium defilements and gross defilements. Subtle defilements do not appear with the citta, but they are latent tendencies which are accumulated and lie dormant in the citta. At the time we are asleep and not dreaming, there are no akusala cittas but there are unwholesome latent tendencies. When we wake up akusala cittas arise again. How could they appear if there were not in each citta accumulated unwholesome latent tendencies? Even when the citta is not akusala there are unwholesome latent tendencies so long as they have not been eradicated by wisdom. Medium defilement is different from subtle defilement since it arises together with the citta. Medium defilement arises with akusala cittas rooted in attachment, lobha, aversion, dosa, and ignorance, moha. Medium defilement is, for example, attachment to what one sees, hears or experiences through the bodysense, or aversion towards the objects one experiences. Medium defilement does not motivate ill deeds. Gross defilement motivates unwholesome actions, akusala kamma, through body, speech and mind, such as killing, slandering or the intention to take away other people's possessions. Kamma is actually volition or intention; it can motivate good deeds or bad deeds. Kamma is a mental phenomenon and thus it can be accumulated. People accumulate different defilements and different kammas. Different accumulations of kamma are the condition for different results in life. This is the law of kamma and vipåka, of cause and result. We see that people are born into different circumstances. Some people live in agreeable surroundings and they have many pleasant experiences in their lives. Other people may often have disagreeable experiences; they are poor or they suffer from ill health. When we hear about children who suffer from malnutrition, we wonder why they have to suffer whereas other children receive everything they need. The Buddha taught that everyone receives the results of his own deeds. A deed or kamma of the past can bring about its result later on, because akusala kamma and kusala kamma are accumulated. When there are the right conditions the result can be brought about in the form of vipåka. ******* Nina #61267 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:54 am Subject: letters from Nina. 1. nilovg Dear friends, I read to Lodewijk after the Abhidhamma in Daily Life some letters I wrote long ago. I shall post parts of them now. ----------- Tokyo, April 10, '71 Dear Friend, I will repeat your questions and then give my comments. "When feeling hot, there is not only nama, there is also rupa. What is the characteristic of body-consciousness, kaya-vinnana? What is the characteristic of the (bodily) feeling which accompanies body-consciousness? What are the characteristics of the other feelings which do not accompany body-consciousness, but arise at other moments? What is the characteristic of the rupa which is heat?" ---------------------- These are questions which are bound to arise when we hear about the characteristics of nama and rupa and learn to be aware of them. Kaya-vinnana, body-consciousness is the citta which experiences rupas which impinge on the bodysense. These rupas can be solidity, which can be experienced as hardness or softness; temperature, which can be experienced as heat or cold; motion, which can be experienced as motion or pressure. The bodysense through which these rupas can be experienced is also rupa. Bodysense is to be found not only on the outside of the body but everywhere, except in those parts which are insensitive, such as hair or nails. The "Visuddhimagga" (XIV, 52) states that "it is to be found everywhere, like a liquid that soaks a layer of cotton". Also in those parts of the body we call "kidney" or "liver" there is body-sense; pain can be felt in these parts. When we notice any bodily sensation, be it ever so slight, it shows that there is impact on the bodysense. When we remember this, it can condition awareness of different kinds of realities, also when the impact on the bodysense is very slight, or inside the body. Body-consciousness which is vipakacitta, the result of kamma, arises in a process of cittas which experience the object which impinges on the bodysense. When the object which impinges on the bodysense is unpleasant, body-consciousness is accompanied by painful (bodily) feeling (dukkha vedana) and when the object is pleasant, body- consciousness is accompanied by pleasant (bodily) feeling (sukha vedana). It cannot be accompanied by indifferent feeling. The object is unpleasant when, for example, the temperature is too cold or too hot, and pleasant when the temperature is just right. The painful feeling or pleasant feeling which accompanies body- consciousness and can therefore be called "bodily feeling", is nama, it experiences something; it is different from rupa which does not know anything. Since body-consciousness is vipaka, the accompanying feeling is also vipaka. ****** NIna. #61269 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 2:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling. nilovg Hi Howard, vipaakacittas such as seeing are produced by kamma. These cittas, as said, experience a desirable or undesirable visible object. Vipaakacitta that sees is so short, just a moment and then it is gone. We think afterwards about it and may know by inference that there was the experience of a desirable object or undesirable object. We may believe that there is still seeing, but there is already thinking about seeing. We confuse different cittas and different feelings. You expect that seeing that experiences an agreeable colour must be accompanied by pleasant feeling, but this is not so. Cittas and feelings take their own course, different from what you would expect. It shows that they are anattaa. Vipaakacitta is quiet, effortless, passive. It is only result, it does not affect our life in the future like the javana-cittas. So, of the four classes of citta or jaatis, kusala vipaakacitta and akusala vipaakacitta are included in one jaati, the jaati of vipaaka. (the others being kusala, akusala and kiriya). You notice pleasant feeling for example when you hear good music, and happy feeling arises. This happy feeling arises with akusala cittas rooted in attachment, not with hearing itself that is vipaakacitta and thus accompanied by indifferent feeling. But since we confuse hearing and thinking about hearing, we believe that hearing must be accompanied by pleasant feeling. You say: Instead of be felt indifferently I would prefer: it is accompanied by indifferent feeling. Lodewijk said that the point you raise is understandable, that it is a difficult subject. I think that we should not try to find out whether an object is desirable or undesirable. It is important to know the characteristics of different cittas and different feelings, to learn that vipaakacitta is different from kusala citta and akusala citta, and I mean not just by thinking about it. You remember you quoted the sutta about divers winds that blow in the sky (Kindred Sayings on Sense). This sutta is an exhorhation to be aware of feelings, to see them as conditioned dhammas, not self. Nina. Op 9-jul-2006, om 21:54 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > You say it is called "desirable", because the result is "agreeable". > But if not necessarily pleasant, then why call it "agreeable"? What is > agreeable is what is felt as pleasant as far as normal language > usage is concerned. > But you say that a mindstate conditioned by kusala kamma will, if a > vipakacitta, > be felt indifferently. So, I guess that so long as the feeling is > not that > of unpleasantness, it is considered "agreeable"? If so, okay - such > usage > isn't standard, but it isn't too much of a stretch. ;-) #61270 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/10/06 6:00:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > vipaakacittas such as seeing are produced by kamma. These cittas, as > said, experience a desirable or undesirable visible object. ---------------------------------- Howard: And my question was why an object produced by wholesome intention is called desirable or agreeable. Desirable for what? And agreeable in what sense (when possibly experirenced as unpleasant). Why those adjectives? -------------------------------- > Vipaakacitta that sees is so short, just a moment and then it is > gone. We think afterwards about it and may know by inference that > there was the experience of a desirable object or undesirable object. > We may believe that there is still seeing, but there is already > thinking about seeing. > We confuse different cittas and different feelings. -------------------------------- Howard: I'm missing the point, Nina. I still do not understand the reason for the terms desirable and agreeable. ------------------------------- > You expect that seeing that experiences an agreeable colour must be > accompanied by pleasant feeling, but this is not so. > ----------------------------- Howard: No, I give up on that. I realize that things which by some criterion or other may be desirable may still be found unpleasant. And certainly there are plenty of harmful things that we find pleasant and crave. This is not what I am persuing here. I only wish to know 1) why the result of kusala cetana is called "desirable"; i.e., desirable for what?, and 2) why it is called agreeable when it is not found to be at all agreeable, being unpleasant. The terminology just makes no sense. ----------------------------- Cittas and > > feelings take their own course, different from what you would expect. ---------------------------- Howard: Okay. I have no argument with that. ---------------------------- > > It shows that they are anattaa. > Vipaakacitta is quiet, effortless, passive. It is only result, it > does not affect our life in the future like the javana-cittas. So, of > the four classes of citta or jaatis, kusala vipaakacitta and akusala > vipaakacitta are included in one jaati, the jaati of vipaaka. (the > others being kusala, akusala and kiriya). --------------------------- Howard: I don't see what bearing that has on my question, Nina. -------------------------- > You notice pleasant feeling for example when you hear good music, and > happy feeling arises. This happy feeling arises with akusala cittas > rooted in attachment, not with hearing itself that is vipaakacitta > and thus accompanied by indifferent feeling. But since we confuse > hearing and thinking about hearing, we believe that hearing must be > accompanied by pleasant feeling. ------------------------- Howard: Yes, I agree. The pleasantness is determined by further mental processing. The mere sound is certainly not pleasant. I wonder, however, about some discordant sounds that *do* seem to be unpleasant. I suspect, however, that it isn't the sound that is unpleasant, but painful bodily sensations conditioned by that discord that are felt as unpleasant. -------------------------- > > You say: vipakacitta,be felt indifferently.> > Instead of be felt indifferently I would prefer: it is accompanied by > indifferent feeling. > Lodewijk said that the point you raise is understandable, that it is > a difficult subject. > > I think that we should not try to find out whether an object is > desirable or undesirable. ------------------------------------- Howard: Why not? Ignorance is not bliss. In any case, I'm not asking about whether a particular object is desirable or agreeable, but what is *meant* by that. ------------------------------------- > It is important to know the characteristics of different cittas and > different feelings, to learn that vipaakacitta is different from > kusala citta and akusala citta, and I mean not just by thinking about > it. > You remember you quoted the sutta about divers winds that blow in the > sky (Kindred Sayings on Sense). > Is drug-immune and, when the body dies, > A saint, lore-perfect, past our reckoning.> ---------------------------------- Howard: I don't think it was I who quoted that. ----------------------------------- > This sutta is an exhorhation to be aware of feelings, to see them as > conditioned dhammas, not self. > Nina. ====================== With metta, Howard #61271 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:34 pm Subject: Bored and Lonely buddhatrue Hi All, My days, nowadays, are filled with endless boredom. I have never enjoyed the summer. I am not teaching so I don't have somewhere to go everyday. I can stay up as late as I want and sleep in as long as I want. I am not seeing Amr too often because he has been vacationing with his family. (BTW, he understands my leaving Egypt. After all, he is leaving Egypt next year to go to Canada.). I have a few friends but I only see them occasionally. So, I am bored--- bored, bored, bored! I am also lonely. But, something struck me today. Why am I so bored and lonely? The Buddha taught that the wise man loves solitude. Well, obviously I am not a very wise man! ;-)) The problem is that I haven't been meditating like I should be doing. I haven't been meditating everyday, just every once in a while. Rather than facing myself, I have been running away from myself. Watching TV, listening to music, reading books (usually about meditation! Lol. Oh, I love to READ about meditating, but I'm not so hot on actually doing it! ;- )), going to the movies, etc., etc., etc. are all the things I do to run away from myself. But, tonight, I just decided to sit down and meditate. I decided to turn off the TV, put down the book, turn off the computer- and meditate. It was hard to do. But, afterwards, I didn't feel bored or lonely; actually, I felt more alive and alert. So, why don't I meditate regularly? It's hard to do! It's hard to keep up the practice if you only do it `when you feel like it'. I like this quote from Thomas a Kempis (a Christian monk, from one of those books I'm reading), "In your cell you will find what you all too often lose when you are outside. But when you are rarely in it, you will only remain in it very reluctantly." I think the same applies to meditation. When you rarely do it, you then only do it very reluctantly. When I get to Taiwan I don't think I am going to have Internet connection in my apartment. I spend far too much time on the Internet- again, running away from myself. I can use the Internet at school or in Internet cafes (just to communicate, not to waste time). I am also going to meditate regularly. Meditation will possibly be a bit easier in Taiwan because it is a Buddhist country and I will again have a temple I can attend, which will inspire me to practice. Metta, James #61272 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abh in Daily Life, no 12. egberdina Hi Andrew, On 10/07/06, Andrew wrote: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: > > > If I have not experienced something, I have not experienced it. Yes, > > you are right, that's what I'm saying. If I am not conscious of > > something, then I am not conscious of it. It does not alter what I was > > conscious of to be told that "in truth" it was different. There is no > > doubt that what can be the object of consciousness is directly > > correlated to what kind of self one acquires, be that a gross, > > mind-made or formless one (DN9). But that does not make one state > > ultimate over another. What is experienced in the context of self A is > > relevant to state A, and not to other states etc etc. > > Sorry, Herman, but the above isn't making sense to me. Are you saying > that "the being, Herman, himSELF" is or identifies only with a > conscious state or experience? And when you talk about "being > conscious of" something, are you using a Western psychology meaning or > a meaning derived from the teachings? If from the teachings, where? > No worries, Andrew. I'm actually unclear about what you are unclear about so I'll ramble a bit and see where it gets us :-) I am saying that the locus of experience for the average Herman is the body, to wit, his body, by which he is known to others. Unless, of course, the average Herman is in a jhana state, in which case the locus of experience is the mind, to wit, Herman's mind, and while others may still know Herman's body, Herman doesn't. I would hope that the teachings, and Western psychology, both treat of matters that are testable. Reality is the only candidate that lends itself to testing, that I know of. It seems a given that consciousness of an object implies consciousness of consciousness. In knowing its object, and knowing it as not itself, citta knows citta as well as its object. Is that contrary to the teachings? Kind Regards Herman #61273 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. egberdina Hi Scott, On 10/07/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Daniel, > > D: "I agree. The Buddha's answer encompassed not only Vacchagotta's > > confusion but also the truth and consistency of the teachings > themselves." > I think you'll find that you are corresponding with Andrew, not Daniel Kind Regards Herman #61274 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. egberdina Hi Andrew, On 10/07/06, Andrew wrote: > > > > > > Thanks for the link. I'll study it later when I get a moment. I > think Scott has given you some feedback on it from his perspective. > > I like your focus on the teachings. But tell me, as you understand > the teachings, what *is* this "being itSELF"? I suppose no answer to > this question can be complete without reference to the Anatta-lakhana > sutta. Well, it would be easier to start of negatively, to say what this being itself is NOT. And that means there certainly ain't no such thig as a soul. And that is neither a conventional or ultimate distinction. I find myself going back to the lesser discourse on emptiness again and again. To find out what this being itself is, you start where you are, and find that it is empty of what is NOT there. If you do this consistently and methodically, you wil eventually turn inward, away from the body and the outside world, and examine what this mind is empty of. Then, on having reached the pinnacle of perception, and passing beyond that to the cessation of perception, you eventually come back to this : "and there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition". MN121 But don't take my word for it ... :-) > > The anatta teachings have always been difficult - witness the > vagaries of the Puggalavadans. Of the Puggalavadans, Prof. Harvey > says "while other schools saw the sutta references to the 'person' as > merely a conventional way of referring to the khandas, they saw > the 'person' as being just as real as the khandas: a kind of subtle > self which, being an organic whole which included them, was neither > the same as nor distinct from them." [An Introduction to Buddhism, > Cambridge p 85]. > > Are you a Puggalavadan? > Nah, I'm Dutch Australian. What are you, a disembodied citta? :-) Kind Regards Herman #61275 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:24 pm Subject: Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. scottduncan2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Andrew, (Name change to improve accuracy, although with all this anatta...) > > D: "I agree. The Buddha's answer encompassed not only Vacchagotta's > confusion but also the truth and consistency of the teachings > themselves." > > Okay, I thought that's what I was getting out of it. > > D: "You are a humble Canadian (and those 2 don't often sit together)." > > Yeah. It only happens on alternate weekends for me. > > With loving kindness, > > Scott. > #61276 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. scottduncan2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Scott, > > > On 10/07/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dear Daniel, > > > > D: "I agree. The Buddha's answer encompassed not only Vacchagotta's > > > > confusion but also the truth and consistency of the teachings > > themselves." > > > > > I think you'll find that you are corresponding with Andrew, not Daniel > > > Kind Regards > > > > Herman > Yes. I did find that. And no, the slip was not performance art to demonstrate that I have complete and contemptuous mastery of anatta such that names are interchangeable. See a post I must have sent at about the time you sent yours. S. #61277 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 5:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. egberdina Hi Scott, On 10/07/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > > Dear Herman, > > I'm trying to keep my response style firm (for emphasis, eh) yet > neutral. Am I doing okay by you? No probs. > > H: "In order for me to demonstrate that the Buddha did NOT teach > > something, I'll have to take you through all the Suttas and we have to > agree on there being an absence. Wouldn't it be easier if you showed > me where he taught about conventional and ultimate reality, and what > that meant?" > > > Okay, I thought I'd done a bit of that. I'll study it, you know, just > to learn and I'll provide something if relevant. I think we've done > well in just showing sutta passages while staying away from a sort of > use of the suttas to just make points for debate. I'd rather stay > away from that, as I think we are for the most part. > Oh, I see, you are saying that teachings about anatta are teachings about ultimate and conventional reality. Well, I'm afraid I don't see that at all. Nowhere that I know of does the Buddha acknowledge the reality of conventional attas. Atta is out - full stop. I guess to find out what anatta refers to you first have to find out what atta refers to. And that is nothing more than the soul, as far as I can tell. > H: "As I wrote to Andrew, the atta that is being denied in anatta > > teachings is the lasting/controlling/essential self that is often > equated with the soul. It does not deny the reality of being." > > > Nyanatiloka notes that the anatta doctrine is that "...neither within > the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can > be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a > self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance." > > Do you not consider anatta to be a characteristic of things? That is, > *no* thing persists, abides or lasts. So there is the sense of no > soul/self and the sense of non-abiding or non-persistence. I think > that I would state that the concepts of "personality" and "being" > would also be included. No soul or self or any other abiding > substance means, perhaps, that the notion of being or personality is > untenable. It depends on what sort of time spans you are talking about when you talk about persisting and not persisting. Are you denying the continuity of process in a human body from birth to death? Are you denying the identity of a human body from birth to death? If personality and being are out, why would accumulations and underlying tendencies be OK? > > Do you think that one could deny the reality of a being (or a person, > or a self, or soul, or ego) while accepting the reality of conditioned > perception? And that what is perceived can be miscontrued as being > real and whole and lasting? What do you mean when you assert the > reality of a being? Do you consider "a being" to be a peristent > phenomenon? > See above. I do not think that it is part of the definition of a human person that they must be completely non-changing to qualify as the same human person over time. Just like it is not the definition of a river that it must have the same water in the same place to still be that river. A person changes over time, mostly gradually. But sometimes, when a drastic change occurs, we say, He is not himself. And then when things settle down again, we say, he is his old self. > H: "Well, what would that be saying about atta? Are you suggesting > > that atta is real? How can something be called into existence, like an > expectation, if the thing that supposedly makes it, an atta, is not > real?" > > > No, I'm not suggesting that atta is real. I meant to say that were > one to expect to see something in a certain way, one could easily fool > one's self. The mere existence of an expectation does not at all have > to mean that there was someone who has it. There can be merely an > expectation. This sounds like a disembodied citta sort-of-thing. Are you suggesting that cittas, expectations, just occur without context? Are you suggesting that anything described in the abhidhamma happens without human bodies as pre-condition? > > H: "No, but it says that if you have assumed a gross-material self, > > it is a bit silly to get ahead of yourself, and speak as though you > have the vantage point of a noble one." > > > I've not assumed a gross material "self." There is materiality, of > course. And I certainly hope I didn't give the impression that I > myself have the vantage point of "a noble one," Herman, *that* would > be silly. What I meant with assuming a gross-material self is just having a body with arms and legs. The fact that you have sent me this email suggests that you have typed it with your fingers. To that extent you have assumed a gross material self. And when you're doing your jhanas, that is when you have assumed a subtler, or non-material self. > > I was trying merely to point out that the Buddha refers to an ordinary > person and a noble one, both conventionally, and both, as I said, in > relation to the amount of ignorance conditioning the way each would > see things. He makes the differentiation. He points out that "a > noble one" has a different vantage point than an ordinary person. > This, to me, is quite clear. Sure. But we shouldn't talk as though we understand what that vantage point would be. For laymen it is quite OK to talk in terms of our bodies, our selves. > > I keep wondering what you are saying exactly in this regard. Sorry, > but are you suggesting that there is a self which persists just > throughout this life or something of that nature? You seem so adamant > that the reality of the bodily perceptual process and functions have > to mean there is one who has them, and seem not satisfied with the > idea that one merely refers to "me" or "she" or whom or whatever > conventionally. No, I don't believe that there is a little Herman in my head that runs the show, and who is the locus of experience. But when I am up and about, this body, this typing body, is the locus of all experience. Is it different in your case? > > H: "To bring it back to the ultimate reality of the chariot; what > > changes from moment to moment is the mind, consciousness, citta. On > what basis can a determination be made about the reality or permanence > of the objects of citta, if citta is the most transient thing known?" > > > No, I can't agree with the way you have limited impermanence to one > dhamma like that. Are you suggesting that citta is impermanent but > the chariot is permanent? I quoted the Buddha. He said that the body lasts 10, 20, 30 etc years, but that citta changes from moment to moment or words to that effect. He is suggesting that there are degrees of rate of change. Ayers Rock will still be there even after I have worn out my 10th Ford chariot. And amongst all that, no thought is the same from moment to moment. > > An earlier cited sutta was clear in showing that ruupa also arises and > fades or falls away, as well as citta and the other mental factors. > This, of course, is an abhidhamma basic tenet. > > Citta is said (again abhidhamma) to arise and fall away at a rate of > 17 times faster than ruupa. In a sense, then, citta is "more > transient" than ruupa, I suppose. But in the above I wonder how you > would account for the knowing of anything if, as you seem to be > saying, the speed and transience of citta makes it impossible to make > any determinations about the reality of anything. > > I'm understanding the point you are making to be that, since > consciousness is so transient, one cannot make the statement that the > chariot only exists, ultimately, as a concept because the transience > of consciousness precludes that determination. > What I was trying to get at was an anomaly in the Abhidhamma method. If citta is the unit of cognition/knowing, and it has a maximum duration of x, then it seems pretty straight forward that nothing can know anything about durations of objects beyond x. How can citta x2 know that it is has the same object as citta x1? Personally, I don't buy that particular theory of cognition at all. > Well, I've no doubt gone and bollocksed up your arguments again. > > What say you, Herman? > I think we're doing all right. But if you want to convince me of your somehow disembodied anattaness, then you've gotta stop typing emails. Those two just don't make sense together :-) Kind Regards Herman #61278 From: "Andrew" Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abh in Daily Life, no 12. corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > I am saying that the locus of experience for the average Herman is the > body, to wit, his body, by which he is known to others. Unless, of > course, the average Herman is in a jhana state, in which case the > locus of experience is the mind, to wit, Herman's mind, and while > others may still know Herman's body, Herman doesn't. > > I would hope that the teachings, and Western psychology, both treat of > matters that are testable. Reality is the only candidate that lends > itself to testing, that I know of. It seems a given that consciousness > of an object implies consciousness of consciousness. In knowing its > object, and knowing it as not itself, citta knows citta as well as its > object. Is that contrary to the teachings? Hi Herman By suggesting that the teachings and psychology are "testable", are you not implying that you are able to design a test that meets the requirements of the scientific method in respect of such matters as nonself and consciousness? My big medical dictionary says that scientists don't really know what consciousness is. What *is* your scientific test, Herman? Also, if everything about the teachings is testable by us worldlings, why did the Buddha stress saddha (faith/confidence) so often? Where is the place of saddha in your understanding of the teachings? Best wishes Andrew #61279 From: "Andrew" Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:53 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. corvus121 Hi Herman Some comments interspersed below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > I like your focus on the teachings. But tell me, as you understand > > the teachings, what *is* this "being itSELF"? I suppose no answer to > > this question can be complete without reference to the Anatta- lakhana > > sutta. > > Well, it would be easier to start of negatively, to say what this > being itself is NOT. And that means there certainly ain't no such thig > as a soul. And that is neither a conventional or ultimate distinction. > > I find myself going back to the lesser discourse on emptiness again > and again. To find out what this being itself is, you start where you > are, and find that it is empty of what is NOT there. If you do this > consistently and methodically, you wil eventually turn inward, away > from the body and the outside world, and examine what this mind is > empty of. Then, on having reached the pinnacle of perception, and > passing beyond that to the cessation of perception, you eventually > come back to this : "and there is just this non-emptiness: that > connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body > with life as its condition". MN121 > > But don't take my word for it ... :-) A: No danger of that, my friend! ((-: MN 121 is about the fruitition attainment of arahantship according to BB. That's a long way from where we have to start ("you start where you are"). No comments on the Anatta-lakhana sutta? > > > > The anatta teachings have always been difficult - witness the > > vagaries of the Puggalavadans. Of the Puggalavadans, Prof. Harvey > > says "while other schools saw the sutta references to the 'person' as > > merely a conventional way of referring to the khandas, they saw > > the 'person' as being just as real as the khandas: a kind of subtle > > self which, being an organic whole which included them, was neither > > the same as nor distinct from them." [An Introduction to Buddhism, > > Cambridge p 85]. > > > > Are you a Puggalavadan? > > > > Nah, I'm Dutch Australian. > > What are you, a disembodied citta? :-) A: I thought it was a fair question but I don't mind if you prefer not to answer it. From what you have written, it still seems to me that you see a self beyond the khandhas and that you treat anatta as a technique rather than a description of reality. That's the view from this nama-rupic stream, for what it's worth. Zip. Best wishes Andrew #61280 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Glad to see you're still hanging in there... H: "Oh, I see, you are saying that teachings about anatta are teachings about ultimate and conventional reality. Well, I'm afraid I don't see that at all. Nowhere that I know of does the Buddha acknowledge the reality of conventional attas. Atta is out - full stop. I guess to find out what anatta refers to you first have to find out what atta refers to. And that is nothing more than the soul, as far as I can tell." ...until I write the following steaming pile: I must suck at communicating my ideas. No, I understand anatta to be about no-self. Ultimate reality, to me, is the expression of anatta, although, as you know, I follow the Abhidhamma explanations of this. The teachings about citta, cetasika, and ruupa, about the arising and falling away of dhammas - all that, to me, is what there is instead of self. Self is conventional reality and entirely conceptual. Did I actually say that I acknowledge atta as real? Didn't I bore you with the quote from that bastion of Theravada orthodoxy, Nyanatiloka, on anatta? Didn't that say that "nothing in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance?" We agree, man! Atta is out. H: "It depends on what sort of time spans you are talking about when you talk about persisting and not persisting. Are you denying the continuity of process in a human body from birth to death? Are you denying the identity of a human body from birth to death?" I'll accede to the "continuity of process" easily enough since process is not static and by nature, I guess, has continuity (see below). That's like agreeing that continuity is continuous. I'll agree that I am denying the "identity" of a human body from birth to death. I may not know what you mean by the use of "identity," though. If you mean that the body at birth is identical to the body at death then, yes, I am denying the identity of the human body from birth to death. If, on the other hand, you mean that there is a human body, of course there is. H: "If personality and being are out, why would accumulations and underlying tendencies be OK?" Paticcasamuppaada. H: "...I do not think that it is part of the definition of a human person that they must be completely non-changing to qualify as the same human person over time. Just like it is not the definition of a river that it must have the same water in the same place to still be that river." I agree. I'd been looking at this a couple of months ago and was shown this note by Bhikkhu Bodhi on a portion of the Nidanvagga Sutta (p. 770, note 156): "Spk:...the body is said to endure for a long time in continuous sequence (pave.nivasena) just as a lamp is said to burn all night as a connected continuity (pave.nisambhavasena) even though the flame ceases right where it burns with out passing over to the next section of the wick." The word "pave.nivasena" has the sense of meaning "through serial arisings," while "pave.nisambhavasena" is more "through serial linking." Serial arisings refer to the body. H: "A person changes over time, mostly gradually. But sometimes, when a drastic change occurs, we say, He is not himself. And then when things settle down again, we say, he is his old self." This is the appearance of things and these are conventions of speech. I thought we agreed earlier about the utter repudiation of atta. I'd include such concepts as self, person, and the like. H: "This sounds like a disembodied citta sort-of-thing. Are you suggesting that cittas, expectations, just occur without context? Are you suggesting that anything described in the abhidhamma happens withouthuman bodies as pre-condition?" No, I'm not saying that there is no context. I'm saying that there is no self. I'm saying that one needn't posit a self in order to have expectation. Expectation can be conceptual, in which case, ultimately it doesn't exist. It is an object of the mind, for example, which is cognisable by citta, which arises and falls away. Perhaps it is conditioned, though, and becomes an object of mind repetitively. H: "What I meant with assuming a gross-material self is just having a body with arms and legs...." Gosh am I ever embarassed. I thought you meant assumed as in "made an assumption" as in the philosophical sense whereas you meant assumed as in "taken on." Sorry for slowing up the conversation. Duh. H: "Sure. But we shouldn't talk as though we understand what that vantage point would be. For laymen it is quite OK to talk in terms of our bodies, our selves." Yeah, only when we're not mixing up bodies and selves (concepts) with dhammas (realities). Now you're gonna get all grumpy with me... H: "No, I don't believe that there is a little Herman in my head that runs the show, and who is the locus of experience. But when I am up and about, this body, this typing body, is the locus of all experience. Is it different in your case?" What point of Dhamma are you making here? Why this insistence on the body? H: "I quoted the Buddha. He said that the body lasts 10, 20, 30 etc years, but that citta changes from moment to moment or words to that effect. He is suggesting that there are degrees of rate of change. Ayers Rock will still be there even after I have worn out my 10th Ford chariot. And amongst all that, no thought is the same from moment to moment." May I ask you to say more about "degrees of rates of change?" I'm afraid we may always differ in these matters of interpretation. You seem to take from the sutta that "rates of change differ" such that citta and Ayers Rock are the same and differ only in rate of change, or that Ayers Rock is as real as citta, it just changes more slowly. One of the reasons I accept Abhidhamma teachings is that it clarifies such things. Ayers Rock is reducible, and I know you abhor reductionism, to kalapas of ruupas arising and falling away (albeit seventeen times slower than citta which, in process, cognises colour through seventeen arisings and fallings away. There is no Ayers Rock. Both naama and ruupa are continuously arising and falling away. Robert K. once wrote that the "continuity of both naama and ruupa obscures the fact of the rise and fall" or something to that effect. H: "What I was trying to get at was an anomaly in the Abhidhamma method. If citta is the unit of cognition/knowing, and it has a maximum duration of x, then it seems pretty straight forward that nothing can know anything about durations of objects beyond x. How can citta x2 know that it is has the same object as citta x1?" Every citta is said to have its object. Citta falls away. Object falls away. Citta x2 will never have the same object as citta x1, as I understand it. This is where those nasty accumulations come in to play. There are, in series, seventeen cittas which arise and fall away with say, colour, as object. When the series ends and falls away, so too does ruupa. Any corrections from real Abhidhamma students please. H: "Personally, I don't buy that particular theory of cognition at all." Yours isn't, in my opinion, an accurate portrayal of the Abhidhamma "theory of cognition." H: "I think we're doing all right. But if you want to convince me of you somehow disembodied anattaness, then you've gotta stop typing emails. Those two just don't make sense together :-)" I'm so glad you cleared that up for me! Talk about uncanny and downright spooky... With loving kindness, Scott. #61281 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bored and Lonely upasaka_howard Hi, James - I've read your entire post, but I'm not reproducing it here. I'm very sorry to hear you are bored, and even more that you are lonely! Please do keep up with the meditation. But also, try to get regular exercise, and do get out and join some activities - whatever you like. Join a Buddhist group if possible, or a social group, or something which will put you with other people engaged in an activity that appeals to you. Seclusion is well and good, but note that in most cases, even monks have friends! Humans, like porpoises and elephants are social animals! ;-) With metta, Howard P.S. Please do keep in touch! :-) #61282 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Jul 9, 2006 10:21 pm Subject: Esala Poya Day ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: How to be a Real True Buddhist through Observance? This Esala Poya day is the full-moon of July, which is noteworthy since on this celebrated day: 1: The Blessed Buddha preached his First Sermon: The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. 2: The Bodhisatta was conceived in Queen Maya dreaming a white elephant entered her side. 3: The Blessed Buddha made the Great Withdrawal from the world at the age of 29 years. 4: The Blessed Buddha performed the Twin Miracle (yamaka-patihariya) of dual appearance. 5: The Blessed Buddha explained the Abhidhamma in the Tavatimsa heaven to his mother. 6: The ordination of Prince Arittha at Anuradhapura, under arahat Mahinda on Sri Lanka. 7: The foundation of the celebrated Mahastupa & enshrinement of relics by King Dutugemunu. 8: The next day the yearly 3 months rains retreat (vassa) of Buddhist Bhikkhus start. On such Uposatha Observance days: Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges and undertakes the Five Precepts like this: Newly bathed, shaved, white-clothed, with clean bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha-statue, and bows first three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees and head touch the floor. Then, with joined palms in front of the heart, one recite these memorized lines in a loud, calm & steady voice: As long as this life lasts: I hereby take refuge in the Buddha. I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma. I hereby take refuge in the Sangha. I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time. I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time. I will hereby respect these Three Jewels the rest of my life! I accepts to respect & undertake these 5 training rules: I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs. As long as this life lasts, I am thus protected by these 5 precepts... Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own eyes & children!, since they protect you & all other beings much better than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world! This is the very start on the path towards Nibbana -the Deathless Element- This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Bliss, initiated by Morality, developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training of Meditation... Today indeed is Pooya or uposatha or observance day, where any lay Buddhist normally keeps the Eight Precepts from sunrise until the next dawn... If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha, they may simply forward the lines starting with "I..." signed with name, date, town & country to me or join here. A public list of this new Saddhamma-Sangha is here! The New Noble Community of Disciples: The Saddhamma Sangha: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Saddhamma_Sangha.htm Can quite advantageously be Joined Here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Sangha_Entry.htm May your journey hereby be eased, light, swift and sweet. Never give up !!! Bhikkhu Samahita: what.buddha.said@... For Details on Uposatha Observance Days http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. #61283 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Esala Poya Day ... !!! nilovg Venerable Bhikkhu Samahita, thank you very much for reminding us of poya day, I appreciate this each time. I did not know about the eight things that are commemorated and I am glad about all of these. I wish you a fruitful rains retreat. respectfully, Nina. Op 10-jul-2006, om 7:21 heeft Bhikkhu Samahita het volgende geschreven: > > > This Esala Poya day is the full-moon of July, which is noteworthy > since on this celebrated day: > 1: The Blessed Buddha preached his First Sermon: The > Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. > 2: The Bodhisatta was conceived in Queen Maya dreaming a white > elephant entered her side. > 3: The Blessed Buddha made the Great Withdrawal from the world at > the age of 29 years. > 4: The Blessed Buddha performed the Twin Miracle (yamaka- > patihariya) of dual appearance. > 5: The Blessed Buddha explained the Abhidhamma in the Tavatimsa > heaven to his mother. > 6: The ordination of Prince Arittha at Anuradhapura, under arahat > Mahinda on Sri Lanka. > 7: The foundation of the celebrated Mahastupa & enshrinement of > relics by King Dutugemunu. > 8: The next day the yearly 3 months rains retreat (vassa) of > Buddhist Bhikkhus start. > >> . > > #61284 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bored and Lonely nilovg Hi James, Just an idea that occurred to me. You could post a sutta as you used to do. First you have to read and select one and than post it, also to the benefit of others. Here are kusala cittas involved and at those moments there is no boredom or aversion. You are thinking of others. Reading a sutta is also a meditation that can come quite naturally, without forcing oneself to do it. A sutta refreshes, it can be of consolation and inspiration. Nina. Op 11-jul-2006, om 1:34 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven > > My days, nowadays, are filled with endless boredom. #61285 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:43 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 88 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 88. Kamma-Condition (Kamma-Paccaya) Intro: Kamma is actually cetanå cetasika,volition. Cetanå arises with each citta and it can therefore be kusala, akusala, vipåka or kiriya. Cetanå directs the associated dhammas and coordinates their tasks (Atthasåliní, Book I,Part IV,Ch I,111). Cetanå which accompanies kusala citta and akusala citta has a double function: it directs the tasks of the associated dhammas and it has the function of "willing'' or activity in good and bad deeds. In this last function it is kusala kamma or akusala kamma capable to produce the results of good and bad deeds later on. There are two kinds of kamma-condition: conascent kamma-condition and asynchronous kamma-condition. Cetanå which arises with each citta and coordinates the tasks of the associated dhammas conditions these dhammas by way of conascent kamma-condition, sahajåta kamma-paccaya. The cetanå which is kusala kamma or akusala kamma and which can produce the appropriate results of good deeds or bad deeds later on conditions these results by way of asynchronous kamma-condition or kamma operating from a different time, nå.nakkha.nika kamma-paccaya. ----------- Text Vis 88.: (13) A state that assists by means of the action called intervening of consciousness is a 'kamma condition'. --------- N: As to intervening of consciousness, this is the translation of the Pali cittapayogo. Payogo means action, occupation. Meant is the activity of citta. The Tiika speaks about activity of citta, cittakiriyaa, and adds that striving, aayuuhana, is meant. It states that just as intimation (viññatti) is activity through body and speech, evenso is volition, cetanaa, activity of citta. ---------- Text Vis.: It is twofold as (a) profitable and unprofitable volition acting from a different time, and (b) as all conascent volition (see P.tn.1,172), according as it is said: 'Profitable and unprofitable kamma is a condition, as kamma condition, for resultant aggregates and for the kinds of materiality due to kamma performed. Conascent volition is a condition, as kamma condition, for associated states and for the kinds of materiality originated thereby' (P.tn.1,5). ----------- N: The Tiika adds that there are also ruupas which are conditioned by kamma. Ruupas such as eyesense and the other senses are produced by kamma throughout life, they are the results of kamma operating from a different time. The term vipaaka is used for the citta that is the mental result of kamma. The Tiika explains that conascent cetanaa or kamma is different, it is not like the kamma-condition that is covetousness (abhijjhaa). Conascent kamma is classified as fourfold, in accordance with the four jaatis. -------- N: Conascent kamma, cetanaa accompanying each citta, also conditions ruupa produced by citta at that moment. Citta is one among the four factors that can produce ruupa. ----------- Conclusion: The Pa.t.thaana mentions that the volition accompanying the vipaakacitta that is rebirth-consciousness conditions the associated khandhas and ruupa produced by (asynchronous) kamma by (conascent) kamma-condition. Thus, the rebirth-consciousness and the ruupa arising at the same time are produced by kamma working from a different time. But at that moment the volition, cetanaa cetasika, that accompanies the rebirth- consciousness conditions the associated khandhas and the kamma- produced ruupa by (conascent) kamma-condition. The volition that motivates good deeds or bad deeds we perform at this moment falls away, but since each citta conditions the next citta in the cycle of birth and death, the force of kamma is accumulated from moment to moment. Thus, it can produce result later on, even after many aeons when favorable conditions are present. Akusala kamma and kusala kamma condition vipaakacittas in the form of rebirth-consciousness in unhappy planes of existence or in happy planes of existence. In the course of life kamma conditions the experience of undesirable objects or desirable objects through the senses. Also natural strong dependence-condition is necessary for kusala kamma and akusala kamma to enable it to produce result. In the human plane of existence there are conditions for the experience of both desirable objects and undesirable objects. At the present time we are seeing, hearing and experiencing sense objects through the other doorways time and again. They are results due to kamma performed, they are conditioned by asynchronous kamma. Whatever object is experienced by the vipaakacittas that are the sense- cognitions is conditioned already and nobody can change an undesirable object into a desirable object. The javanacittas that arise after seeing or the other sense- cognitions experience the same object and these may be kusala cittas or akusala cittas. If attachment arises on account of a desirable object or aversion on account of an undesirable object, the javanacittas accumulate ever more akusala and this may motivate evil deeds through body, speech and mind. These deeds are capable to produce akusala vipaaka later on. Through the Buddha’s teachings we learn that the jaati of vipaaka is entirely different from the jaatis that are kusala and akusala. When we, for example, hear a harsh sound aversion is likely to arise. We may not discern the difference between akusala citta and vipaakacitta, since cittas succeed one another extremely rapidly. When aversion arises, there cannot be hearing at the same time. Aversion and hearing are different dhammas arising because of different conditions. Through the Buddha’s teachings we can have more understanding of our daily life and learn that whatever we experience is a conditioned dhamma. We can have more patience and less aversion when events are not as we would like them to be. ********* Nina. #61286 From: "matheesha" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 (was, Knowledge of the Difference ...) matheesha333 Hi Jon, > matheesha wrote: > > >>From the Upanisa sutta: > >conviction has stress & suffering as its prerequisite, joy has > >conviction as its prerequisite, rapture has joy as its prerequisite, > >serenity has rapture as its prerequisite, pleasure has serenity as > >its prerequisite, concentration has pleasure as its prerequisite, > >knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has > >concentration as its prerequisite, disenchantment has knowledge & > >vision of things as they actually are present as its prerequisite, > >dispassion has disenchantment as its prerequisite, release has > >dispassion as its prerequisite, knowledge of ending has release as > >its prerequisite. > > > >"Just as when the gods pour rain in heavy drops & crash thunder on > >the upper mountains: The water, flowing down along the slopes, fills > >the mountain clefts & rifts & gullies. When the mountain clefts & > >rifts & gullies are full, they fill the little ponds. When the little > >ponds are full, they fill the big lakes. When the big lakes are full, > >they fill the little rivers. When the little rivers are full, they > >fill the big rivers. When the big rivers are full, they fill the > >great ocean. ... > > Thanks for the sutta reference. I remember this sutta from a lengthy > thread I had going with Eric not so long ago. > > To my understanding, suttas such as this and the following one you quote > are explaining the link between different kusala mental factors > (cetasikas) that arise in the development of insight. They are not > setting out an order of > 'practice', but rather are describing the important mental factors and > their relationships. I think this can be more clearly seen by looking at > a simple list of the factors: conviction, joy, rapture, pleasure, > serenity, concentration, etc. M: My point in quoting both those suttas were that the Buddha always mentions Samadhi as preceeding insight in the suttas. If samadhi (as defined in the abhidhamma) is present in every moment anyway, why should it be mentioned in this manner? It is said that for enlightenment samadhi and panna are both required and that they counterinfluence each other. What do you think of the sutta quote below - especially in the idea that samadhi is something to be developed actively ?: "As for the individual who has attained insight into phenomena through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of awareness, he should approach an individual who has attained internal tranquillity of awareness... and ask him, 'How should the mind be steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be unified? How should it be concentrated?' The other will answer in line with what he has seen & experienced: 'The mind should be steadied in this way. The mind should be made to settle down in this way. The mind should be unified in this way. The mind should be concentrated in this way.' Then eventually he [the first] will become one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. http://www.metta.lk/mirror/www.accesstoinsight/canon/sutta/anguttara/a n04-094.html I'm short of time! Will answer the rest later, with metta Matheesha > > The Satipatthana Sutta, on the other hand, describes the range of objects > for the development of insight (the 4 'establishments'), the emphasis > there being on how mindfulness can be developed regardless of the > circumstances or occasion (including mind-state). > > >[Ananda:] "What, O Venerable One, is the reward and blessing of > >wholesome morality?" > >[The Buddha:] "Freedom from remorse, Ananda." > >"And of freedom from remorse?" > >"Joy, Ananda" > >"And of joy?" > >"Rapture, Ananda" > >"And of rapture?" > >"Tranquillity, Ananda." > >"And of tranquillity?" > >"Happiness, Ananda." > >"And of happiness?" > >"Concentration, Ananda." > >"And of concentration?" > >"Vision and knowledge according to reality." > >"And of the vision and knowledge according to reality?" > >"Turning away and detachment, Ananda." > >"And of turning away and detachment?" > >"The vision and knowledge with regard to Deliverance, Ananda." > >-- AN X.1 (Nyanatiloka, trans.; from Path to Deliverance, pp. 65- 66) > > Likewise, this sutta sets out various mental factors that play a role in > the development of insight: wholesome morality, freedom from remorse, > joy, rapture, tranquillity, happiness, concentration, etc. It does not > describe an order of 'practice'. > > >M: Also in the mahacattasarika sutta talks of each step of the noble > >eightfold path leading to the next. So satipattana becomes a > >prerequisite for samma samadhi, which then leads to gnana (insight), > >leading to samma vimutti. The connection of sila-->samadhi-->panna > >should be clear. > > May I suggest that the factors of the NEP are not 'steps' in the course of > development of the path, but are mental factors that co-arise at moments > of path consciousness (mundane or supramundane). That is to say, at a > moment of > magga-citta, all 8 path factors co-arise, while at a moment of mundane > path-consciousness some (but not all) of those factors co-arise. > > If this is correct, then the path factor of samma-sati is the sati > cetasika that arises at a moment of insight, and what the Mahacattasarika > Sutta is saying is that each path-factor leads to the others, in the sense > that they all support each other. It is not describing a temporal > progression (in which samma-samadhi is the last of the 8!!). > > OK, enough for one post ;-)) I'll continue with your other points > (snipped for now) in a separate message. > > Jon > #61287 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 (was, Knowledge of the Difference ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Matheesha (and Jon) - In a message dated 7/11/06 8:22:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, dhammachat@... quotes Jon saying with regard to the Upanissa Sutta: > >To my understanding, suttas such as this and the following one you > quote > >are explaining the link between different kusala mental factors > >(cetasikas) that arise in the development of insight. They are not > >setting out an order of > >'practice', but rather are describing the important mental factors > and > >their relationships. I think this can be more clearly seen by > looking at > >a simple list of the factors: conviction, joy, rapture, pleasure, > >serenity, concentration, etc. > > M: My point in quoting both those suttas were that the Buddha always > mentions Samadhi as preceeding insight in the suttas. If samadhi (as > defined in the abhidhamma) is present in every moment anyway, why > should it be mentioned in this manner? > > It is said that for enlightenment samadhi and panna are both required > and that they counterinfluence each other. What do you think of the > sutta quote below - especially in the idea that samadhi is something > to be developed actively ?: > > "As for the individual who has attained insight into phenomena > through heightened discernment, but not internal tranquillity of > awareness, he should approach an individual who has attained internal > tranquillity of awareness... and ask him, 'How should the mind be > steadied? How should it be made to settle down? How should it be > unified? How should it be concentrated?' The other will answer in > line with what he has seen &experienced: 'The mind should be > steadied in this way. The mind should be made to settle down in this > way. The mind should be unified in this way. The mind should be > concentrated in this way.' Then eventually he [the first] will become > one who has attained both internal tranquillity of awareness & > insight into phenomena through heightened discernment. > > http://www.metta.lk/mirror/www.accesstoinsight/canon/sutta/anguttara/a > n04-094.html > ======================== Matheesha, IMO, very well done. (Sadhu x 3) As I see it, you have made two very important and (to me) indisputable points: 1) "... the Buddha always mentions Samadhi as preceeding insight in the suttas. If samadhi (as defined in the abhidhamma) is present in every moment anyway, why should it be mentioned in this manner?" 2) Actively developing samadhi is *clearly* advocated in the sutta provided at the site http://www.metta.lk/mirror/www.accesstoinsight/canon/sutta/anguttara/a n04-094.html With metta, Howard #61288 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:55 am Subject: object and feeling nilovg Hi Howard, H quotes:> vipaakacittas such as seeing are produced by kamma. These cittas, as > said, experience a desirable or undesirable visible object. ---------------------------------- Howard: And my question was why an object produced by wholesome intention is called desirable or agreeable. Desirable for what? And agreeable in what sense (when possibly experirenced as unpleasant). Why those adjectives? -------------------------------- > We confuse different cittas and different feelings. -------------------------------- Howard: I'm missing the point, Nina. I still do not understand the reason for the terms desirable and agreeable. ------------------------------- N: The terms desirable object and undesirable object denote the fact that there are kusala kamma and akusala kamma that produce their appropriate results, namely the vipaakacittas that experience desirable objects and undesirable objects. There is no other explanation. I cannot change the teachings. --------------------------- Howard: I only wish to know 1) why the result of kusala cetana is called "desirable"; i.e., desirable for what? --------- N: No, desirable denotes the object experienced by the vipaakacitta that is result, not the vipaakacitta itself. -------- H: and 2) why it is called agreeable when it is not found to be at all agreeable, being unpleasant. The terminology just makes no sense. ----------------------------- N: This is not so. Kusala vipaakacitta is the result of kusala kamma and it experiences a desirable or pleasant object. The javanacittas however, may be led by perversion and react with aversion, examples were given, the sight of a Buddha for outsiders. ---------------------------- Howard: Okay. I have no argument with that. ---------------------------- > quotes N: It shows that they are anattaa. > Vipaakacitta is quiet, effortless, passive. It is only result, it > does not affect our life in the future like the javana-cittas. So, of > the four classes of citta or jaatis, kusala vipaakacitta and akusala > vipaakacitta are included in one jaati, the jaati of vipaaka. (the > others being kusala, akusala and kiriya). --------------------------- Howard: I don't see what bearing that has on my question, Nina. -------------------------- N: Yes, it pertains to your question. It explains that the feeling with vipaakacitta is indifferent with regard to the objects experienced through four sense-doors. No matter the object is desirable or undesirable. This is a point that is difficult for you, but it is as it is. ---------- > You notice pleasant feeling for example when you hear good music.... ------------------------- Howard: Yes, I agree. The pleasantness is determined by further mental processing. The mere sound is certainly not pleasant. ------- N: Yes it is. Soft, sweet music. Is that not a pleasant sound? Or sound produced by kusala cittas. But, right at the moment sound is experienced it is not known that it is pleasant, only later on, when javanacittas arise then it is known. Hearing only hears sound and does not know anything else about it. This point comes up in Visuddhimagga and tiika 89, vipaaka-condition. ------------ H: I wonder, however, about some discordant sounds that *do* seem to be unpleasant. I suspect, however, that it isn't the sound that is unpleasant, but painful bodily sensations conditioned by that discord that are felt as unpleasant. -------------------------- N: No, sound itself can be unpleasant, and it is heard by hearing- consciousness. However hearing does not know that it is unpleasant. Hearing is only passive, effortless, quiet vipaaka. It is very important to know this. I give an example. I was resting and the neighbours had some drilling in their bathroom, it was deafening. It just seemed to me that hearing and aversion arose together, but this is not so. Aversion and unpleasant feeling arise during the moments of javanacittas, and at such moments there is no hearing, although it seems that hearing lasts. There is hearing again and again, aversion again and again. It shows how fast cittas and the accompanying feelings arise and fall away. I stressed above the four jaatis, because if we confuse them we accumulate more ignorance, more defilements. ---------- > N: I think that we should not try to find out whether an object is > desirable or undesirable. ------------------------------------- Howard: Why not? Ignorance is not bliss. In any case, I'm not asking about whether a particular object is desirable or agreeable, but what is *meant* by that. ------------------------------------- N: See above. There are some matters about kamma that we cannot know. But as to the jaatis, we should develop more understanding. It has to do with wise attention to an object. Different characteristics of dhammas can be gradually known: hearing is not aversion, nor unpleasant feeling, they arise at different moments. But they seem to last and we take them for self. There is an underlying notion of my unpleasant feeling, my hearing. Paññaa can eradicate this wrong notion. Nina. #61289 From: Ken O Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling. ashkenn2k Hi Howard Your questions are important because they make me reflect a lot on the dhammas. Technically speaking, you can said wholesome or unwholesome resultants by the object the vipaka citta received. Desirable use is to reflect the kusala resultants Logically, why sense vipaka cittas cannot have pleasant and unpleasant feelings this mean our eye will be painful and not painful this would make seeing difficult. Other than that I do not really know how to explain it because feeling is weak in vipaka cittas expect for one as according to Abhidhammas if I am not wrong induce by the jhanas. Kind regards Ken O #61290 From: Bhikkhu samahita Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Esala Poya Day ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Thanx friend Nina. May you too reach calm this rains-retreat! PS: It would be good if HTML were accepted at DSG. Then all the embedded links would show up too. vandana Friendship is the Greatest... Bhikkhu Samahita #61291 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:53 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... and cycles dacostacharles Hi Ken O, Keep in mind that suffering due to sickness and pain (i.e., the physical conditioning the mental) can be overcome too. It is not a question of what comes first or what conditions what - when we are concerned with salvation - it is more often a change in view that is needed. We have to also be careful with the idea that, "One lifetime we are talking about the physical aspect of a human life from infancy to elderly, many lifetimes they are the mental aspect." There is also a view that is much more tied to Hinduism/very early Buddhism - many lifetimes also cover the many changes and transformations/births of a physical body (i.e. just be open to the possibility). I really like your last paragraph, it is a good intuitive/logical leap from the basic cycle (i.e., list of links), I had not thought in that direction before. Therefore I will have to give it a lot more thought! Thanks Charles DaCosta _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken O Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 15:41 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... and cycles Hi Charles k: The reasons on why I asked whether it is physical conditioned the mental condition first or vice versa. If it is the physical aspect then there will be no salvation, because kamma and taints are mental and not physical. One lifetime we are talking about the physical aspect of a human life from infacncy to elderly, many lifetimes they are the mental aspect. the other aspect I would like to say is that in the D.O. there two two kammas, one which is the resultant kamma which is formation and the other which is becoming (future kamma, in this life, next or future lives). this becoming will condition the next resultant kamma as long as it is not cut off. And if in the next resultant kamma, we did not cut off ignorance, becoming will still be operative. Cheers Ken O _ #61292 From: "buddhiststudent" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:18 am Subject: Correct Explanation of Anapanasati Sutta Meditation by Bhante Vimalaramsi buddhiststudent Correct Explanation of Anapanasati Sutta Meditation by Bhante Vimalaramsi Dhamma Greetings Adam, I just wrote a chat group about the sutta way to practice anapanasati and thought I would send it along. Hope you enjoy it and if you think it is worth sharing with others please do! Maha-Metta 2U always Bhante Vimalaramsi Dhamma Greetings Tep, By your saying that you don't see how the fourth Noble Truth applies to seeing Dependent Origination I am guessing that you would like me to go to sutta 141 and remark on some of the things mentioned in this wonderful sutta. The First Noble Truth is actually pretty much self evident with this suttas explanation. But when we get to the Second Noble Truth there are some questions that need to be asked. In section 21 it says: "And what, friends, is the origin of suffering? It is craving, which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust (a quick note here is it can also be accompanied by dislike and aversion "I don't like it mind or I don't want it mind" - two sides of the same coin so to speak) and delights in this and that; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for being ( this is the "I Like it or I want it mind"), and craving for non-being (another quick note non-being is talking about aversion the "I don't like it or I don't want it mind) . This is called the noble truth of the origin of suffering". Now there are some questions that might be interesting to ask about this statement - What is craving, exactly? How does craving manifest? How can craving be recognized? What is the way to let go of this craving? (which is the 4th Noble Truth). To answer these questions it comes back to the actual practice of meditation and how the Buddha instructed us to do this practice. Please allow me to explain the meditation instructions given in the Satipatthana Sutta (which are the same as the Anapanasati sutta, the Kayagati sutta etc.) The reason that I need to do this is because in order to truly understand how the eight-fold Path works in D.O. A person absolutely needs to practice meditation in the way that the Buddha taught. All things within the Buddha's path are interconnected and are presented so one can have direct experience. By practicing the way the Buddha taught it takes things out of the realm of philosophy and into the realm of realization and true understanding. If anyone here will actually begin to practice the meditation as explained exactly by the Buddha, the meaning and deep understanding will become a reality. If some people here don't want to try this method because they are happy with the way they do their meditation and are happy with their results, please understand that things may be a bit different from your way of grasping what is being said. And these points of contention can become nothing more than a philosophical debate rather than true realization. Philosophy is words and ideas with no action so it becomes strictly a mental exercise. True realization comes from direct experience and deep understanding of exactly how mind's attention occurs. With that said, let us take a quick look at the instructions given by the Buddha in How to do the practice of meditation (please remember that I am just reporting this, it is not now nor has it ever been my meditation method, I am not adding or subtracting anything but just giving the Buddha's words) Sutta #10 Section # 4 of the Satipatthana Sutta: It says: "And how, bhikkhus, does a bhikkhu abide contemplating the body as a body? Here a bhikkhu, gone to the forest or to the root of a tree, or to an empty hut, sits down; having folded his legs crosswise, sets his body erect, and established mindfulness in front of him, ever mindful he breathes in, mindful he breathes out. Breathing in long, he understands: 'I breathe in long'; or breathing out long, he understands; 'I breathe out long'. Breathing in short, he understands; 'I breathe in short', or breathing out short, he understands; 'I breathe out short'. Now for a short comment the exact instructions say that the meditator breathes both in and out both long and short. There is no mention of nostrils, nostril tips, upper lip, abdomen or any other body location. It simply says that one understands (which means he knows and recognizes precisely) when ones breath is long or short. It does not say to focus only on the breath to the exclusion of anything else that may arise. It does not say to know the beginning, the middle and the end of each breath (these are commentarial instructions and can lead one away from the deep understanding of the Buddha's Teachings). It simply says one knows when their breath is short and when it is long. Next the true instructions are given. It says: "He trains thus: 'I shall breathe in experiencing the whole body', he trains thus: 'I shall breathe out experiencing the whole body'. He trains thus: 'I shall breathe in tranquilizing the bodily formation', He trains thus: 'I shall breathe out tranquilizing the bodily formation'. Here we come to the true instructions of the breathing meditation practice! The words "He trains thus" are very important to understand, this says that this is the way one practices, whereas before it said that one understands. So the actual instructions are given here. If you will notice these instructions are not talking about the "Breath Body", the Buddha would have said that, he was very precise and would have mentioned that if this was the case. But here he simply said to experience the entire body, in other words, to be aware of what is happening in one's body on both the in breath and on the out breath. Next comes the important part of the instructions because it has the action verbs in it that tell us what exactly to do on the in Breath and on the out breath. These instruction say to tranquilize the bodily formation each time one breathes in and each time one breathes out. This is done by the correct translation of the word Pas' sambaya. This Pali word can be a noun, a verb, and adverb or an adjective it all depends on the words used around it. The words 'He trains thus' helps with this translation because it tells us that this word 'Pas' sambaya' is an action verb meaning to consciously tranquilize or relax the bodily formation on the in breath and on the out breath. So, the meditation is about using the breath as a reminder to relax, in this way there is no over-focusing on just the breath, because the instructions say to breathe in and relax then to breathe out and relax. This is a major difference between what is being taught today and what the Buddha teaches us in the suttas, don't you agree? A quick personal note: I have personally found that when tightness or tension is not so apparent in one's body below the neck, there is always some subtle tightnesses or tensions in one's head (and brain, which is a part of one's body!) and this is where it is the easiest to recognize. (again please remember that these are not my ideas about the meditation but they are coming straight from the Buddha.) Why is it important to go over these instructions, when we are talking about craving? Because craving Always arises and can be recognized as being a tension or tightness in both ones body and mind! (anytime body has tightness in it mind has tightness in it, anytime mind has tightness in it body has tightness or tension in it, and it is a subtle tightness in one's head that can be seen - this is what I have found out through personal examination and exploration) To answer the question above, "What exactly is craving? Craving is a subtle and sometimes not so subtle tightness or tension in both one's mind and body. How does craving manifest? How can it be seen and recognized? Craving can ALWAYS be seen as this tightness or tension (at the beginning of the meditation practice it can be seen in both body and mind and let go of, but as one's practice deepens then the tightness or tension is seen in one's head as the rest of the body has become completely relaxed and is only noticed when there is direct body contact) and with practice it can be seen and identified for what it truly is. Another way of looking at exactly how craving begins and is seen by the ardent meditator is this: Craving always manifests as the "I like it or I don't like it" mind (the being and non-being mind). This is why being able to recognize this tightness or tension is so very important, because it is the very start of the false idea in a personal self or identity. When craving is let go of and relaxed (as per instructions) then mind's attention becomes very clear, bright, and alert without any distractions in it, this is called the third Noble Truth or the cessation of suffering (or craving). This mind that has no craving in it is the mind that is brought back to the breath and relaxing! So one's meditation practice deepens fairly quickly and the meditator will be able to experience deeper states of understanding while they are experiencing a jhana (through the practice of Samatha/Vipassana)! The Pali word jhana means a stage of understanding or level of understanding. This is in keeping with the instructions given in many, many suttas. The craving can be rather difficult for one to see as it arises because if mind's understanding and attention are not alert as to how this arises it can be overlooked. The instructions of relaxing on the in breath and relaxing on the out breath are very brilliant because it teaches the meditator how to see and recognize this same craving when it arises. By following the precise instructions given by the Buddha craving becomes even more apparent by direct experience rather than trying to figure it out philosophically. When the meditator's mind becomes distracted by wandering thoughts or sensations arising what do these instructions tell us to do? To understand this we need to take a look at how exactly things work through the eyes of Dependent Origination. Let us take the sense door of the eyes for example. In order to see one must have functioning eyes in good order, there must be color and form, when color and form hits the good working eye, then eye-consciousness arises (Vin~n~ana). The meeting of these three things is called eye- contact (phassa). With eye contact as condition eye-feeling (Vedana) arises (feeling is pleasant, painful, or neither-painful-nor- pleasant) With eye-feeling as condition, eye-craving arises, with eye-craving (Tanha) as condition clinging (Upadana) arises and so on. OK, now when eye-feeling arises it is there for a very short period of time before the eye-craving arises and in turn this is there for just a very short period of time before clinging arises. For now let us take a look at clinging (upadana). Clinging (upadana) is where all of our thoughts, ideas, opinions, concepts, stories, imaginations and "I am That" conceit (papan~ca) are made manifest. This false ego identification (atta) actually starts with the subtler craving (tanha) when it arises but it becomes very apparent when the clinging (upadana) comes up. Every time mind's attention is not on the object of meditation (breath and relaxing) the process of dependent origination is taking place. This is quick and happens over and over again. When one goes deep enough in their meditation they will be able to see this for themselves and again, this takes it out of the realm of philosophy. The experiencing of one's whole body is referring to when the sense- door arises with contact and this process actually takes place in a conscious way. When one consciously lets go of any distraction, relaxes, and then re-directs their mind's attention back to the breath and relaxing on the in and out breath. They are practicing the entire eight-fold Path at that time. As this is rather long and you may have some questions to ask I will stop here and explain how the 8 fold Path works in a later post. May you all attain Nibbana quickly and easily in this very lifetime! Thank You #61293 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:10 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 20 nilovg Dear friends, When we see something unpleasant, it is not self who sees; it is a citta, seeing-consciousness, which is the result of an unwholesome deed (akusala kamma) we performed either in this life or in a past life. This kind of citta is akusala vipåka. When we see something pleasant, it is a citta which is kusala vipåka, the result of a wholesome deed we performed. Every time we experience an unpleasant object through one of the five senses, there is akusala vipåka. Every time we experience a pleasant object through one of the five senses there is kusala vipåka. If one is being hit by someone else, the pain one feels is not the vipåka (result) of the deed performed by the other person. The person who is being hit receives the result of a bad deed he performed himself; for him there is akusala vipåka through the bodysense. The other person's action is the proximate cause of his pain. As regards the other person who performs the bad deed, it is his akusala citta which motivates that deed. Sooner or later he will receive the result of his own bad deed. When we have more understanding of kamma and vipåka we will see many events of our life more clearly. The Atthasåliní (Book I, Analysis of Terms, Part II, 65) explains that kamma of different people causes different results at birth and throughout life. Even bodily features are the result of kamma. We read: ...In dependence on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the destiny of beings without legs, with two legs, four legs, many legs, vegetative, spiritual, with perception, without perception, with neither perception nor without perception. Depending on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the births of beings, high and low, base and exalted, happy and miserable. Depending on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the individual features of beings as beautiful or ugly, high-born or low-born, well-built or deformed. Depending on the difference in kamma appears the difference in the worldly conditions of beings as gain and loss, fame and disgrace, blame and praise, happiness and misery. Further on we read: By kamma the world moves, by kamma men Live, and by kamma are all beings bound As by its pin the rolling chariot wheel. (``Sutta Nipåta'', 654) ******* Nina. #61294 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:17 am Subject: letters from Nina, 2. nilovg Dear friends, Shortly after the body-consciousness has fallen away, there arise in that process javana-cittas which are, if one is not an arahat, kusala cittas or akusala cittas, and these experience the same object as the body-consciousness. When the javana-cittas are kusala cittas, they can be accompanied by happy (mental) feeling, somanassa, or by indifferent feeling, upekkha, and when they are akusala cittas, they can be accompanied by happy (mental) feeling, by indifferent feeling, or by unhappy (mental )feeling, domanassa. These feelings can be called "mental feeling" in order to differentiate them from the feeling which accompanies body-consciousness. Sometimes we have the idea that painful bodily feeling and domanassa can hardly be separated. However, they are different realities arising because of different conditions. When we burn ourselves with fire, the heat, which is an unpleasant object, impinges on the bodysense and is experienced by body-consciousness which is accompanied by painful bodily feeling. At that moment there is no dislike, the body-consciousness which is vipakacitta merely experiences the unpleasant object. The dosa-mula-citta which is accompanied by domanassa arises later on. It experiences the object with aversion. When sati arises it can be mindful of one reality at a time, and thus, different characteristics of realities can gradually be known. When we try to "catch" realities and desire to know whether the phenomenon which appears is citta, feeling, rupa or any other reality, it is thinking, not mindfulness. ****** Nina. #61295 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 3 (Satipatthana) jonoabb Hi Mateesha (and Howard) Continuing (yet again, and lastly) matheesha wrote: >M: I'm trying to follow what the discussion has been so far .. am I >right to say that you feel satipattana has to be moments of insight >because kusala without insight cannot lead to ..insight. My summary of the discussion with Howard so far is as follows (Howard may wish to correct/supplement): The question is whether the establishment of mindfulness described in the Satipatthana Sutta is a form of kusala that precedes the actual development of insight, or is actually the development of insight. In brief, I understand the establishment of mindfulness to refer to sati-sampajanna ('mindfulness and clear comprehension'), where sampajanna is the panna that is insight knowledge, while Howard sees it as a kind of activity or practice that does not include panna but which, if correctly followed, will lead to the arising of insight. >It can be well explained without the use of kusala, as seen in the >suttas above. On the otherhand the obvious classification is under >bhaavana. I see satipatthana as kusala of the kind known as bhavana (and thus involving panna). Howard I think would say that the sutta recommends a certain practice which, given our present (low) level of development, will necessarily involve many moments of akusala but which, if followed conscientiously, will bring more kusala in due course. >Tilakkana are qualities of the dhammas which are arising all the >time. Samadhi leads to a quiet calm mind, away from the five >hindrences which cloud mental/physical processes from observation >(often described as 'mud, dye, algae, rushing water' etc in the sense >of obscuring). I would say that it is the development of samatha (which of course includes samadhi) to the level of absorption concentration that brings the temporary suppression of the hindrances, rather than samadhi per se. For the samatha practitioner, however, there is no suppression, or reduction, of the hindrances outside of moments of samatha of the level of absorption concentration. >When the hindrences are reduced, sati into these >subtle quick processes is possible. Then the mind does not give rise >to strings of thought/concepts which distract from observing what is >arising now. When the mind is calmed, clear and alert, sati arises. I would question the idea that when the hindrances are temporarily suppressed the sati and panna which can directly experience the true nature of dhammas is more likely to arise. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the development of samatha and the development of vipassana are different kinds of kusala. For the person who has developed samatha but not vipassana, there will be no basis for that form of kusala to arise. But the more important point is whether, according to the texts, a reduction or suppression of the hindrances is a necessary condition for the development of satipatthana (or insight). Remember that the Satipatthana Sutta specifically mentions knowing mind with kilesa as mind with kilesa (in the section on mind), and also knowing the hindrances as they are (in the section on dhammas). This clearly implies the arising of satipatthana in the midst of the hindrances (although of course not at precisely the same mind-moment). On my reading of the Satipatthana Sutta, the exhortation to develop satipatthana is not dependent on any time, circumstance, mental state or previous attainment. It applies as much to you and me as it does to the monk who has developed anapanasati to the level of jhana. >When sati keeps arising in this manner it is able to follow these >dhammas from their arising to their passing away. When it keeps doing >this it starts discerning patterns in the dhammas. The most apparent >pattern is the one of impermanence. nothing lasts, everything passes >away. This inturn leads to the understanding that this continuosly >arising and passing away is dukkha, nothing to hold on to, everything >lasts only a moment, is fleeting. Everything we thought was solid >turned out to be exactly the opposite. Then when one keeps seeing >this he applies it to every dhamma which ever arose and understands >to his dismay that there is no self to be seen either. it is all just >dhammas arising and passing away and that one dhamma gives rise to >the next autmatically, mechanically, without the need for a being to >intervene. he gets insight into causality as well. As I read the texts, the knowledge of the impermanence, dukkha and anatta spoken of by the Buddha is the product of the development of insight into presently arising dhammas. As that development proceeds, the knowledge of the tilakkhana gradually emerges. There is no need to direct things to that end, or try and follow a particular order. >:) hope that wasnt too thick (in a dhamma sense)! I suspect there >might be much in that you would disagree to but I was just speaking >my mind. :) Back to where we started. I have spoken my mind also ;-)) I hope we can continue talking. Jon #61296 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhism & Solipsism (was death of dear ones.) jonoabb Hi Herman --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > What I meant was that teachings about cittas, like cittas, are not > nebulous things that free-float about in the ether. The context in > which there are teachings about cittas, and cittas, is human beings. > Bodies. Blood, bones and breath. Not to forget bile and baked dinner, > if that's just what you ate. I am reading you as saying something like this: it's all very well to talk about cittas, cetasikas and rupas as long as we don't forget that what we are actually talking about is real people. Am I reading you correctly? To my understanding, the message of the Buddha's teaching was the other way around: it's OK to talk about people and things, but in reality there are only cittas, cetasikas and rupas. But the teaching of cittas, cetasikas and rupas, and not people and things, as the ultimate dhammas is not a teaching that ignores or denies what you call the context of human beings, because among the different types of nama dhammas are those that are wholesome or unwholesome, and these are defined (in the suttas) by reference to whether or not they are harmful to oneself or to others. > Cittas always have objects, and some > objects have cittas. Like you and me. This is a mixed use of 'objects'. The object of cittas are either dhammas or concepts. Only in the conventional sense of 'object' can it be said that 'some objects have cittas'. > The very fact that you write this indicates to me that you don't > actually believe what you are writing. What are you doing writing > this, if you do no have a very firm idea that you are writing it to > ME? Me, with all the complex characteristics that you attribute to me, > and all the expectations and memories you have of me? How very curious > that you would seek to artifically limit the extent of the teachings > by refusing to see the extent to which they are all about your > relationship to "others". Thanks for the attribution (yet again ;-)). But surely it is more useful to discuss what the Buddha said or meant than to discuss individual members' perceived motives/intent?). To my understanding, what the Buddha taught was that despite our perception of a world of people and things as enduring, continuing entities, the world consists entirely of dhammas that arise and fall away (note: this 'understanding' is at a theoretical level only; I am not claiming to have realised this directly of my own knowledge). > Cheers, big ears > > Herma Always a challenge talking to you ;-)) Jon #61297 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/11/06 9:58:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > > H quotes:> vipaakacittas such as seeing are produced by kamma. These > cittas, as > >said, experience a desirable or undesirable visible object. > > ---------------------------------- > Howard: > And my question was why an object produced by wholesome intention is > called desirable or agreeable. Desirable for what? And agreeable in > what sense > (when possibly experirenced as unpleasant). Why those adjectives? > -------------------------------- > > >We confuse different cittas and different feelings. > > -------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm missing the point, Nina. I still do not understand the reason for > the terms desirable and agreeable. > ------------------------------- > N: The terms desirable object and undesirable object denote the fact > that there are kusala kamma and akusala kamma that produce their > appropriate results, namely the vipaakacittas that experience > desirable objects and undesirable objects. ------------------------------------ Howard: Nina, please excuse me, but this is a repetition, not an explanation. ---------------------------------- > > There is no other explanation. I cannot change the teachings. ---------------------------------- Howard: Evidently, then, the Abhidhamma and commentaries don't explain the terminology. That seeems to be what you are saying. If that is the case, then so be it. :-) ------------------------------- > > > --------------------------- > Howard: > I only wish to know 1) why the result of kusala cetana is called > "desirable"; i.e., desirable for what? > > --------- > > N: No, desirable denotes the object experienced by the vipaakacitta > that is result, not the vipaakacitta itself. ------------------------------------- Howard: I understand that. It's not an issue. ---------------------------------- > > -------- > > H: and 2) why it is called agreeable when it > is not found to be at all agreeable, being unpleasant. The > terminology just > makes no sense. > ----------------------------- > N: This is not so. Kusala vipaakacitta is the result of kusala kamma > and it experiences a desirable or pleasant object. The javanacittas > however, may be led by perversion and react with aversion, examples > were given, the sight of a Buddha for outsiders. ------------------------------------- Howard: Understood. But why is it *called* desirable or agreeable? Because it "should," without perversion, properly be felt as pleasant by the javanacittas? That's the question, Nina: Why is the object *called* desirable? ------------------------------------- > ---------------------------- > Howard: > Okay. I have no argument with that. > ---------------------------- > > > quotes N: It shows that they are anattaa. > >Vipaakacitta is quiet, effortless, passive. It is only result, it > >does not affect our life in the future like the javana-cittas. So, of > >the four classes of citta or jaatis, kusala vipaakacitta and akusala > >vipaakacitta are included in one jaati, the jaati of vipaaka. (the > >others being kusala, akusala and kiriya). > > --------------------------- > Howard: > I don't see what bearing that has on my question, Nina. > -------------------------- > N: Yes, it pertains to your question. It explains that the feeling > with vipaakacitta is indifferent with regard to the objects > experienced through four sense-doors. No matter the object is > desirable or undesirable. > > This is a point that is difficult for you, but it is as it is. > > ---------- > > >You notice pleasant feeling for example when you hear good music.... > > ------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I agree. The pleasantness is determined by further mental > processing. The mere sound is certainly not pleasant. > > ------- > > N: Yes it is. Soft, sweet music. Is that not a pleasant sound? Or > sound produced by kusala cittas. But, right at the moment sound is > experienced it is not known that it is pleasant, only later on, when > javanacittas arise then it is known. Hearing only hears sound and > does not know anything else about it. ----------------------------------- Howard: Yes, that's *exactly* what I meant above by "further mental processing". Here I follow you, and it was also my understanding. When the sound 1st arises, which is what I meant by "the mere sound", it is felt indifferently, not pleasantly, but later it could be felt as pleasant or unpleasant. We are "on the same page" on that matter! ----------------------------------- > > This point comes up in Visuddhimagga and tiika 89, vipaaka-condition. > > ------------ > H: I wonder, however, about some discordant sounds that *do* seem to be > unpleasant. I suspect, however, that it isn't the sound that is > unpleasant, but > painful bodily sensations conditioned by that discord that are felt as > unpleasant. > -------------------------- > N: No, sound itself can be unpleasant, and it is heard by hearing- > consciousness. However hearing does not know that it is unpleasant. > Hearing is only passive, effortless, quiet vipaaka. It is very > important to know this. ------------------------------------ Howard: I understand you, and I agree that this makes sense. (I also think that there may be unpleasant body-door sensations caused by but confusedly identified with the sound.) ------------------------------------- > > I give an example. I was resting and the neighbours had some drilling > in their bathroom, it was deafening. It just seemed to me that > hearing and aversion arose together, but this is not so. Aversion and > unpleasant feeling arise during the moments of javanacittas, and at > such moments there is no hearing, although it seems that hearing > lasts. There is hearing again and again, aversion again and again. It > shows how fast cittas and the accompanying feelings arise and fall away. > > I stressed above the four jaatis, because if we confuse them we > accumulate more ignorance, more defilements. > ---------- > > > N: I think that we should not try to find out whether an object is > >desirable or undesirable. > > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > Why not? Ignorance is not bliss. In any case, I'm not asking about > whether a particular object is desirable or agreeable, but what is > *meant* by > that. > ------------------------------------- > N: See above. There are some matters about kamma that we cannot know. > But as to the jaatis, we should develop more understanding. It has to > do with wise attention to an object. > > Different characteristics of dhammas can be gradually known: hearing > is not aversion, nor unpleasant feeling, they arise at different > moments. But they seem to last and we take them for self. There is an > underlying notion of my unpleasant feeling, my hearing. > > Paññaa can eradicate this wrong notion. > > Nina. > ======================= While my main question hasn't been answered in a way that removes the question for me, I have found this post of yours to be very clear on some important points, and I have learned from it! Thank you. :-) With metta, Howard #61298 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling nilovg Hi Howard, I have learnt likewise, I found your persevering questions good for consideration. I could not answer your main question, but now I would merely repeat what I said before. I cannot formulate it in another way, so let us give it a rest. Nina. Op 11-jul-2006, om 20:03 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > While my main question hasn't been answered in a way that removes the > question for me, I have found this post of yours to be very clear > on some > important points, and I have learned from it! Thank you. :-) #61299 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 7/11/06 2:47:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > I have learnt likewise, I found your persevering questions good for > consideration. > ------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you, Nina. You are sweet, as always. :-) ------------------------------------- I could not answer your main question, but now I would > > merely repeat what I said before. I cannot formulate it in another > way, so let us give it a rest. ----------------------------------- Howard: That's fine, Nina. Yes, let's let it go. ---------------------------------- > Nina. > ================= With metta. Howard #61300 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the abhidhamma of existentialism egberdina Hi Larry, On 10/07/06, LBIDD@... wrote: > > > Hi Herman, > > Thanks for keeping this thread going. There is an interesting > correspondence between the existentialist idea of pre-reflective and > reflective consciousnesses and the Buddhist idea of kamma result and > kamma formation consciousnesses. The existentialists don't have any > notion of kamma of course, but the kinds of consciousness seem to be > similar. Nothingness is an attitude toward the world and, as reflective > consciousness could possibly be the perception of various kinds of > emptiness found in the world, (beauty, lastingness, etc.) but also the > emptiness of itself or any consciousness as something graspable. > Yes, I am baffled by the many similarities between Buddhist ideas and existentialist ideas. It actually fills me with confidence that I'm onto something at least very incisively perceptive . The kamma similarity may also come into it this way. We are defined, and define ourselves, through action, by what we do NOW, while the context in which we act is always a given, partly through how we have defined ourselves / acted in the past. > I'll have to get a copy of "Being and Nothingness" so we're on the same > page. Currently I'm reading "Elbow Room, The Varieties of Free Will > Worth Wanting" by Daniel Dennett. This book gives some very cogent and > easy to understand insights into choice that we might be able to use in > this discussion. > I'm finding "Being and Nothingness" heavy going. But worthwhile. I admire Daniel Dennett in many ways, and look forward to hearing from you about worthwhile ideas of free will. Kind Regards Herman #61301 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jul 10, 2006 1:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] object and feeling. nilovg Hi Ken H, I am so glad you posted this. It is a good thing that different people explain things each in their own way. Don't think this is superfluous, it is helpful. I benefit from your reminders that it is our reaction to an object that matters. Nina. Op 10-jul-2006, om 3:00 heeft ken_aitch het volgende geschreven: > PS: Had I looked ahead, I would have seen that Nina had already > replied. But since I've written this, I may as well post it > anyway. :-) #61302 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abh in Daily Life, no 12. egberdina Hi Andrew, On 11/07/06, Andrew wrote: > > > > > > Hi Herman > > By suggesting that the teachings and psychology are "testable", are you > not implying that you are able to design a test that meets the > requirements of the scientific method in respect of such matters as > nonself and consciousness? My big medical dictionary says that > scientists don't really know what consciousness is. > I am happy to read that you have a big medical dictionary :-) It suggests to me that you have the very balanced position that you will not find everything you need in the teachings. Sure, agreed, scientists don't really know what consciousness is. > What *is* your scientific test, Herman? MIndfulness, mostly. > > Also, if everything about the teachings is testable by us worldlings, > why did the Buddha stress saddha (faith/confidence) so often? > > Where is the place of saddha in your understanding of the teachings? To me, faith in x is meaningless as a momentary phenomenon. Faith in the teachings as just faith in the teachings is as meaningless as faith in a chair, or faith in oranges. Faith is nothing if it is not a conditioning factor for future action. I have faith in the chair to do something, I have faith that it will hold my weight. My faith is manifest by me sitting on the chair. If faith in the teachings does not lead to action, then faith in the teachings is bollocks. That is why the view of Buddhism as being descriptive is meaningless to me. One does not need to have faith in descriptions, but only in prescriptions. The faith in the Buddha of those who have gone before me was manifest in what they did. It DOES require faith to renounce the life one is accustomed to, it does require faith to step into the unknown. Faith is manifest in me each time I purposefully sit down, and allow all the props that make up Herman to be seen for what they are, and eliminated for a while. The proof of faith is in the result, not the anticipation. Kind Regards Herman #61303 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the abhidhamma of existentialism egberdina Hi Larry, On 02/07/06, LBIDD@... wrote: > > > > > L: Am I right in thinking there is a slightly paradoxical nature to > freedom for the existentialists, i.e., that there is no freedom to not > be free? I'm understanding freedom here as choice; so there is no > freedom to not choose. > Yes, that's right. There is no freedom to not choose. I think it points to something in Buddhism here, with the arahant. The arahant seems to be free of the need to choose, in no way can the arahant be said to be acting, making new kamma. I am yet to discover what the paramount way of being is for an existentialist, but I suspect it will have zero monastic overtones :-) > Regarding the determining consciousness (votthapana citta), I see it as > instigating the reaction that is javana citta, but I'm not sure if I > would call this a choice. In abhidhamma, what is the function of votthapana citta, and what are said to be its determinants? > > You bring up an interesting point that 'choice' means the outcome is not > necessarily so. This scenario is usually pointed out in the > feeling>craving arising. Feeling doesn't necessarily condition the > arising of craving while contact, for example, does necessarily > condition the arising of feeling. I believe this unnecessary reaction is > due to latent tendencies which can be eradicated by insight, but I don't > think either 'insight' or emotional reaction is what we mean by > 'choice'. I'm much more inclined to put choice further along in the > process between javana and action. You may well be right. Choice can be manifest in the ceasing of action that has has been started and not yet completed, but also in the starting of action where different possibilities are presented. The concept of value is important here as well, because we act, generally, to meet some pre-existing value criteria, and through action, our values can be changed over time. > > If you come cross an existential phenomenology of choice that might help > us understand it in Buddhist terms. > Choice is rampant in the Suttas, especially so with regards to choosing to nurturing the wholesome, and eliminating te unwholesome. I think that the cognitive model in the abhidhamma is problematic in this respect also, because by defining citta in terms of momentary time, and limited to knowing a single object only, choice is defined out of existence. Hardly a sound phenomenological approach! Kind Regards Herman #61304 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 3:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. egberdina Hi Andrew, On 11/07/06, Andrew wrote: > > > > A: No danger of that, my friend! ((-: MN 121 is about the > fruitition attainment of arahantship according to BB. That's a long > way from where we have to start ("you start where you are"). No > comments on the Anatta-lakhana sutta? Later, perhaps :-) > > > > > > > > > > Are you a Puggalavadan? > > > > > > > Nah, I'm Dutch Australian. > > > > What are you, a disembodied citta? :-) > > > A: I thought it was a fair question but I don't mind if you prefer > not to answer it. From what you have written, it still seems to me > that you see a self beyond the khandhas and that you treat anatta as > a technique rather than a description of reality. Sorry, Andrew, it certainly was a fair question. But to answer it properly, I'd have to first find out what a Puggulavadan believes and doesn't believe. Yes, you are right about how I view anatta. > > That's the view from this nama-rupic stream, for what it's worth. > Zip. > What, you ARE a nama-rupic stream? :-) Kind Regards Herman #61305 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 4:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. egberdina Hi Scott, On 11/07/06, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Dear Herman, > > Glad to see you're still hanging in there... > I'm here for the duration. And I reserve the right to redefine that from time to time :-) And that is nothing more than the soul, as > far as I can tell." > > > ...until I write the following steaming pile: > To keep things a bit managable, I'm going to snip here and there. If I have snipped things that you would like to draw attention to, please introduce them again. > H: "It depends on what sort of time spans you are talking about when > > you talk about persisting and not persisting. Are you denying the > continuity of process in a human body from birth to death? Are you > denying the identity of a human body from birth to death?" > > > I'll accede to the "continuity of process" easily enough since process > is not static and by nature, I guess, has continuity (see below). > That's like agreeing that continuity is continuous. > > I'll agree that I am denying the "identity" of a human body from birth > to death. I may not know what you mean by the use of "identity," > though. If you mean that the body at birth is identical to the body > at death then, yes, I am denying the identity of the human body from > birth to death. If, on the other hand, you mean that there is a human > body, of course there is. > So, for you there is continuity but no identity of process. I don't understand how that is possible. Are you you, or someone else, or nothing? Do you at different times have different mothers, fathers, different children etc. In short, are the relations that define you in the world identifiable, or are they not? Do you wake up different mornings with different memories of who you are? Also, from a scientific point of view, your body is quite identifiably the same body from birth to death. The DNA, as information, remains unchanged. > H: "If personality and being are out, why would accumulations and > underlying tendencies be OK?" > > Paticcasamuppaada. We must read different books. There are no accumulatons or tendencies in my patic.... > > H: "A person changes over time, mostly gradually. But sometimes, when > > a drastic change occurs, we say, He is not himself. And then when > things settle down again, we say, he is his old self." > > > This is the appearance of things and these are conventions of speech. > I thought we agreed earlier about the utter repudiation of atta. I'd > include such concepts as self, person, and the like. > Yes, we agreed there is no soul. No lasting/controlling agent. But please tell me what mechanism you have that I lack by which you can go past appearances and determine that there is in fact an unapparent underlying reality, and how you then proceed to know what that underlying / hidden reality is? > > H: "No, I don't believe that there is a little Herman in my head that > > runs the show, and who is the locus of experience. But when I am up > and about, this body, this typing body, is the locus of all > experience. Is it different in your case?" > > > What point of Dhamma are you making here? Why this insistence on the > body? > You are right, the point is a Dhamma point. I have already pointed to MN 121, where as a completion of the project "the holy life" mental fermentations have ceased, and what is left is THE BODY reacting to life itself. With the cessation of the empty mind, the very real body is left. Now, when there is no longer a mind running hither and thither, you will find that even when you weren't aware of it, this body needs to breathe, drink, eat, piss, poo, have sex, walk, rest, wake, sleep and so forth. With the cessation of the craving mind, there is the locus of what you are, the mass of cravings known as the body. Onto MN 144, where Channa is deadly ill. Another one of those rotten, but real bodily realities. Channa, as you will read, has no illusions about self, and also has no illusions other than that that body of his is literally killing him. He also is quite correct in his understanding that by terminating that body he will terminate his horrendous pain. And that's what he does. He kills himSELF. With the termination of the life of his body, there is no more Channa. You are your body, Scott. When all your mental flights of fancy are done with, that's all there is to Scott. And it doesn't get any prettier with age :-) > H: "I quoted the Buddha. He said that the body lasts 10, 20, 30 etc > > years, but that citta changes from moment to moment or words to that > effect. He is suggesting that there are degrees of rate of change. > Ayers Rock will still be there even after I have worn out my 10th Ford > chariot. And amongst all that, no thought is the same from moment to > moment." > > > May I ask you to say more about "degrees of rates of change?" I'm > afraid we may always differ in these matters of interpretation. You > seem to take from the sutta that "rates of change differ" such that > citta and Ayers Rock are the same and differ only in rate of change, > or that Ayers Rock is as real as citta, it just changes more slowly. > One of the reasons I accept Abhidhamma teachings is that it clarifies > such things. To me, abhidhamma totally obfuscates what is quite clear. Nothing lasts, but not everything arises and disappears completely from moment to moment. > > Ayers Rock is reducible, and I know you abhor reductionism, to kalapas > of ruupas arising and falling away (albeit seventeen times slower than > citta which, in process, cognises colour through seventeen arisings > and fallings away. There is no Ayers Rock. Both naama and ruupa are > continuously arising and falling away. Robert K. once wrote that the > "continuity of both naama and ruupa obscures the fact of the rise and > fall" or something to that effect. Reduction is an activity, it is something that you do. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. But when reducing, it is useful to be mindful that one is reducing. How the world appears when reducing, is markedly different to how it appears when not reducing. Reducing does not lead to ultimacy, however, it only leads to reduction. It would be useful if it was clarified what a rupa is held to be in abhidhamma. When I speak of Ayers Rock, I hold it to be what gives rise to my perception of it. It is independent of consciousness of it. The world does not need consciousness, but consciousness needs the world. > > H: "What I was trying to get at was an anomaly in the Abhidhamma > > method. If citta is the unit of cognition/knowing, and it has a > maximum duration of x, then it seems pretty straight forward that > nothing can know anything about durations of objects beyond x. How can > citta x2 know that it is has the same object as citta x1?" > > > Every citta is said to have its object. Citta falls away. Object > falls away. Citta x2 will never have the same object as citta x1, as > I understand it. This is where those nasty accumulations come in to > play. There are, in series, seventeen cittas which arise and fall > away with say, colour, as object. When the series ends and falls > away, so too does ruupa. Any corrections from real Abhidhamma > students please. I don't get it. Are you saying that seventeen cittas have seventeen different rupas? Why then do you say that only at the end of the series does rupa fall away, and not with each falling away citta in the series of seventeen? > > H: "Personally, I don't buy that particular theory of cognition at all." > > Yours isn't, in my opinion, an accurate portrayal of the Abhidhamma > "theory of cognition." Well, I'm happy to be shown up wrong. Go for it :-) But first, can we get the chariot out the way? Are you saying that chariot rises and falls with the rising and falling of citta, that is has no in-itself outside of consciousness? Kind Regards Herman #61306 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abh in Daily Life, no 12. corvus121 Hi Herman I asked: "What *is* your scientific test, Herman?" and you replied "mindfulness, mostly". A: well, I hope that providing this answer didn't exhaust you! ((-: Care to elaborate on how (mostly) mindfulness scientifically tests consciousness and anatta? You also wrote: "I am happy to read that you have a big medical dictionary :-) It suggests to me that you have the very balanced position that you will not find everything you need in the teachings. Sure, agreed, scientists don't really know what consciousness is." This, of course, is just a playful nonsense. The fact that I read outside "Dhamma books" doesn't necessarily mean that I have identified and am plugging holes in "the teachings". You are attributing a doctrinaire attitude to me. My goal is to ascertain what "the teachings" are in the face of multiple interpretations. The mere fact that I want to know what the orthodox Theravadan teachings are and how they "hang together" doesn't mean I have blind faith in them or a closed mind to other interpretations or subjects. As this is a Theravadan list, that's what I write on here. On faith, you wrote: > To me, faith in x is meaningless as a momentary phenomenon. Faith in > the teachings as just faith in the teachings is as meaningless as > faith in a chair, or faith in oranges. Faith is nothing if it is not a > conditioning factor for future action. I have faith in the chair to do > something, I have faith that it will hold my weight. My faith is > manifest by me sitting on the chair. If faith in the teachings does > not lead to action, then faith in the teachings is bollocks. That is > why the view of Buddhism as being descriptive is meaningless to me. > One does not need to have faith in descriptions, but only in > prescriptions. > > The faith in the Buddha of those who have gone before me was manifest > in what they did. It DOES require faith to renounce the life one is > accustomed to, it does require faith to step into the unknown. Faith > is manifest in me each time I purposefully sit down, and allow all the > props that make up Herman to be seen for what they are, and eliminated > for a while. The proof of faith is in the result, not the > anticipation. You say: faith in the teachings must lead to action or else it is worthless. I suggest that (authentic) faith in the teachings helps condition understanding - and that understanding may be of action that is unwholesome and antithetical to the teachings. Do you think my suggestion has any validity? Best wishes Andrew #61307 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 5:56 pm Subject: Re: object and feeling. ken_aitch Hi Nina and Howard, Chipping in on your discussion has been beneficial for me, thank you. --------- > > Ken H: There is a CMA explanation in which contact with a body object at the body door is likened to a piece of iron on an anvil being struck with a hammer. Contact at the other doors is more like a cotton-ball being struck with another cotton-ball. > > > N: See Topics of Abh. p. 22: here is a differentiation in contact between derived ruupas (upadaaya ruupas) and between the three great elements, tangible object on the bodybase. In the first case the impact is weak, like contact of cottonwool with cottonwool. In the second case, the impact is strong; > -------- Thanks, Nina, the simile is different from the way I remembered it, but basically the same. -------------- N: > We have been talking about cittas and their functions, in particular feelings that accompany these cittas. As said, there is a certain kind of law or fixed order (citta niyama) that cannot be changed. I quote from the same Topics of Abh, p. 129: There is no person who can arrange anything. ----------- This is not quite the angle from which I have been seeing the cottonwool simile, but I think I can see the significance. You say, in a subsequent post to Howard: "Hearing only hears sound and does not know anything else about it," so I suppose this is your point. The vipaka citta is not reacting to its object. Even when body consciousness is accompanied by pleasant vedana for a desirable object, that feeling is purely the result of kamma - not a result of experiencing the object. Thanks again, Nina and Howard, this has been helpful. (Aren't all Dhamma discussions helpful?) :-) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Ken H, Howard, Matheesha and all, > > Ken, you explained the subject of object and feeling ver clearly, > thank you. > > Ken H wrote: > That's right, dhammas have no such property as 'vedanic taste.' > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It would seem that the vedanic evaluation is, indeed, "in the > eye of the beholder", and not "objective". #61308 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:09 pm Subject: Re: object and feeling ken_aitch Hi Howard and Nina, Don't mind me; I am just chipping in from the sidelines - again. :-) --------- > > H quotes:> vipaakacittas such as seeing are produced by kamma. These cittas, as said, experience a desirable or undesirable visible object. > > > Howard: And my question was why an object produced by wholesome intention is called desirable or agreeable. Desirable for what? > -------- Howard, I think Nina is assuming everyone already agrees on this. Health, wealth etc., are the conventionally acknowledged, desirable or agreeable results of good kamma from previous lives. Are they not? Ultimately, there are only rupas at these times (being experienced by vipaka cittas), but those rupas are nonetheless agreeable. ---------- H: > And agreeable in what sense (when possibly experienced as unpleasant). Why those adjectives? ---------- If I understand this part of your question correctly, you are asking, 'In what sense is a rupa agreeable given that, in some cases, the javana cittas react to it as if it were disagreeable?' My answer would be: If, in conventional terminology, someone regards a healthy body as unhealthy, or a wealthy man as poor, so what? A mistaken judgement does not change the facts. ---------- > > We confuse different cittas and different feelings. > > > Howard: I'm missing the point, Nina. I still do not understand the reason for the terms desirable and agreeable. > ---------- I have to wonder why you are having so much difficulty with this, Howard. Is it because you reject the whole idea of sabhava - that dhammas possess their own characteristics? OK, I did say, 'Don't mind me, I'm only chipping in from the sidelines' so feel free to ignore that question. Speed reading ahead; I think you might have agreed to drop the subject altogether, so, as I say, don't mind me. :-) Ken H #61309 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: object and feeling egberdina Hi KenH, Howard, Nina, On 12/07/06, ken_aitch wrote: > > > Hi Howard and Nina, > > Don't mind me; I am just chipping in from the sidelines - again. :-) > > --------- I thought I'd turn it into a chipping-in party :-) > > > > H quotes:> vipaakacittas such as seeing are produced by kamma. > These cittas, as said, experience a desirable or undesirable visible > object. > > > > > > Howard: > And my question was why an object produced by wholesome intention is > called desirable or agreeable. Desirable for what? > > > -------- > > Howard, I think Nina is assuming everyone already agrees on this. > Health, wealth etc., are the conventionally acknowledged, desirable > or agreeable results of good kamma from previous lives. Are they not? > > Ultimately, there are only rupas at these times (being experienced by > vipaka cittas), but those rupas are nonetheless agreeable. > I have watched from the sidelines as Howard has tried to get clarification on what was being put forward. I don't want to put words into Howard's mouth, but I certainly have completely failed to become clearer on the issue. I think now with KenH turning desirable or agreeable objects into ones that are conventionally being acknowledged as such is no more of a clarification. > ---------- > H: > And agreeable in what sense (when possibly experienced as > unpleasant). Why those adjectives? > ---------- > > If I understand this part of your question correctly, you are asking, > 'In what sense is a rupa agreeable given that, in some cases, the > javana cittas react to it as if it were disagreeable?' > > My answer would be: If, in conventional terminology, someone regards a > healthy body as unhealthy, or a wealthy man as poor, so what? A > mistaken judgement does not change the facts. > There are major implications here about what the Dhamma is all about. The whole idea of vipallasa points to a particular understanding of reality, one that implies an absolute reality, irrespective of the means of apprehending it. Which is a complete denial of DO. Kind Regards Herman #61310 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:21 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. corvus121 Hi Herman Some comments interspersed below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: MN 121 is about the > > fruitition attainment of arahantship according to BB. That's a long > > way from where we have to start ("you start where you are"). No > > comments on the Anatta-lakhana sutta? > > Later, perhaps :-) A: Why later? Any reason? > > > > Are you a Puggalavadan? > > > > > > > > > > Nah, I'm Dutch Australian. > > > > > > What are you, a disembodied citta? :-) > > > > > > A: I thought it was a fair question but I don't mind if you prefer > > not to answer it. From what you have written, it still seems to me > > that you see a self beyond the khandhas and that you treat anatta as > > a technique rather than a description of reality. > > Sorry, Andrew, it certainly was a fair question. But to answer it > properly, I'd have to first find out what a Puggulavadan believes and > doesn't believe. Yes, you are right about how I view anatta. A: I'm relieved that you have finally said straight out that you feel the anatta teachings are technique and not a description of reality. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it? Haven't been struck by a bolt of lightning? The moderators haven't booted you out? Good! ((-: Putting all judgments aside, we can at least settle on the fact that your interpretation of anatta is not the traditional Theravadan one. I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong. I'm just sticking to the facts. BTW have you ever reflected that the Dhamma scholars and historians you refer to when denying the authenticity of Abhidhamma as Buddhaword have essentially concluded that the Buddha taught anatta as portrayed in traditional Theravada? What process of reasoning do you go through to accept scholarly historicism in one instance and reject it in another? > > > > That's the view from this nama-rupic stream, for what it's worth. > > Zip. > > > > What, you ARE a nama-rupic stream? :-) A: Here's a good test to see how fair-minded you are. What would an Abhidhammika say is the difference between a "disembodied citta" and a "nama-rupic stream"? Last but not least, when it is said in the Suttas: "If a bhikkhu is an arahant, consummate, with taints destroyed, one who bears his final body, he might still say 'I speak' and he might say 'They speak to me'. Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, he uses such terms as mere expressions." SN I 62 Why are such terms "mere expressions"? What was the Buddha saying here? Best wishes Andrew #61311 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Reading and Hearing the Dhamma egberdina Hi Jon, On 04/07/06, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Hi Herman > > > > > I am obviously out of place here. Everyone else operates at a > > paramattha level, and I am the only silly duffer that is concepting > > all day. Enjoy your non-conceptual paramattha dhammas. > > > I'm sorry if I have somehow given offence. I would really like to > understand what you mean by "humans do not consciously operate at a level > below name/form", if you would care to explain or give an example. I took > you to be saying it was your own idea about things (as opposed to your > understanding of the teachings), but if I am mistaken then my apologies > (and of course there is no reason why folks should not float their own > theories on things). > As we know, the Suttas treat of name and form as codependent. You don't get one without the other. Never. In daily life, you also do not ever get form and content divorced from each other either. There is not abstract blueness and abstract vaseness coming together as a blue vase. The reality is the unity of blue vase in its entire context, and the abstracted concepts are blue and vase. Colour, sound, feeling etc divorced from its arising, from the ground which gives rise to their appearing is abstract, it is concepting. > As regards 'concepting all day', we are all in the same boat, that is to > say, there is a lot of it going on all the time but, if we are to pay any > regard to what is said in the texts, there are also numerous moments that > do not involve conceptualisation, for example, the moments of actual > experience of objects at the 5 sense doors. What is your take on this? > I could appreciate this more if this is what I actually experienced. First of all, I do not experience sense doors at all. How is it that there is so much talk and agreement on sense doors, and I can find nothing that correlates with that. It has to be my view that sense doors are learnt, not experienced. They are a concept. They are an artificial framework. I would agree that the Buddha teaches using the sense doors. But I do not read those teachings as teachings about sense doors, they are teachings about the absence of a soul. Sense doors are tools, they are the means, not an end. Which, of course, they do become down the track. Yes, I agree that there MUST be moments of experience before they become reflected (on). The only experience I know anything about, though, is the one that is attended to, reflected upon. And I don't for a moment believe that I can attend to experience, or reflect on it, without altering it. My selective attention to and reflection on what MUST have been, is actually a creative act, that has no necessary connection to an underlying reality. There is freedom in imagination. > As regards concepting/conceptualisation, there is to be distinguished > (again, according to the texts) that which is kusala, and that which is > akusala and, within the former, that which is accompanied by panna and > that which is not. > Kusala, like everything else, is a concept. An experience becomes kusala by virtue of pigeonholing it as such. Of all the experiences that are kusala, what do they have in common? What is the experiential correlate of kusala? Likewise with panna. What distinguishes panna out of the menatl soup? How is panna known? And by what standard is panna judged to actually be perverted panna? > I do not quite see how this relates to our thread on reading vs. hearing, > but I'm sure it will become clearer ;-)). > Yes, we have lost our way in that regards. I'll have to reread the thread, and see if I can bring it back somehow. All homework :-) Kind Regards Herman #61312 From: Ken O Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:28 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... and cycles ashkenn2k Hi Charles > > Keep in mind that suffering due to sickness and pain (i.e., the > physical conditioning the mental) can be overcome too. It is not a question of what comes first or what conditions what - when we are concerned with salvation - it is more often a change in view that is needed. k: suffering in sickness is physical even you overcome it with medicine it is only temporary as Buddha declare there is suffering in formation. Buddha also suffered physical pain. What come first is important (we are not talking about origination here), it cannot be physical that condition the next life then there will be no escape. In the suttas, Buddha declare it is ignorance and craving that condition rebirth and not otherwise. > > We have to also be careful with the idea that, "One lifetime we are > talking about the physical aspect of a human life from infancy to elderly, many lifetimes they are the mental aspect." There is also a view that is much more tied to Hinduism/very early Buddhism - many lifetimes also cover the many changes and transformations/births of a physical body (i.e. just be open to the possibility). k: In my personal opinion, it is not possible there is one ignorance and there is one craving in one DO of a lifetime of a human. There are counltess ignorance and craving that arise and cease in our period of birth to death. Such arising is what I call many countless cycles (or many citta lifetimes). Ken O #61313 From: "kanchuu2003" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 8:29 pm Subject: Consciousness! kanchuu2003 Hello All, Please help me with Consciousness... What is the difference between Consciousness, Awareness, Knowledge and Education??? How can I be sure that my daily activites are right? Everytime when I do something, I feel it is 100% right and I do it. Later on I realize it was wrong... What is the ultimate rightfull action??? I have been loosing confidence... Everything I do these days, I try to give my best, but am not not sure whether it is right or not??? Kind Regards, Kanchuu #61314 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 (was, Knowledge of the Difference ...) scottduncan2 Dear Matheesha, May I interpose a question? M: "From the Upanisa sutta: "...knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has concentration as its prerequisite..." M: "My point in quoting both those suttas were that the Buddha always mentions Samadhi as preceeding insight in the suttas. If samadhi (as defined in the abhidhamma) is present in every moment anyway, why should it be mentioned in this manner?" "Upanissaya" is defined as base, reliance, support, foundation. It is suggested that it is know as "sufficing condition." I think Nyanatiloka calls it "decisive support." A synonym of upanisa is suggested to be "paccaya." This, too, means resting on, falling back on, or cause, (PTS PED), Bhikkhu Bodhi chooses to translate the term as "supporting condition," whereas Thanissaro Bhikkhu chooses to use "prerequistite." I wonder why these two differently nuanced translations? If one takes the way of Bhikkhu Bodhi, is not the implication that samadhi is a support for, that is, arises along with pa~n~na? The sense implied by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is that it must come first. As a cetasika, samadhi is, I think, one-pointedness or concentration which is ekagataa cetasika. Can one say that ekagataa can arise with pa~n~na along with a single citta? Is it fair to suggest that ekagataa can be there and support the arising of pa~n~na without saying it has to be there in order for pa~n~na to arise? I don't know, what do you think? With loving kindness, Scott. #61315 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the abhidhamma of existentialism lbidd2 Hi Herman, Votthapana citta defines or determines the object but does not determine the javana. CMA p.44: "In the five-door process, determining consciousness succeeds the investigating consciousness. After the investigating consciousness has examined the object, the determining consciousness discriminates it. "In a mind-door process--a cognitive process that occurs through the internal ideation faculty--this same type of consciousness performs another function. Its function then is to advert to the object appearing at the mind-door. In such a role this citta is known as the mind-door adverting consciousness." Here's some interesting stuff from Dennett: "The root idea of control, which has been elevated into a technically precise concept in cybernetics and automata theory, is (in ordinary terms) that A _controls_ B if and only if the relation between A and B is such that A can _drive_ B into whichever of B's normal range of states A _wants_ B to be in. (If B is capable of being in some state s and A wants B to be in s, but has no way of putting B in s, or making B go into s, then A's desire is frustrated, and to that extent A does not control B.) This definition makes it clear from the outset that for something to be a _controllee_ it just needs to have a variety of different states it can be in, but for something to be a _controller_ its states must include desires--or something "like" desires--about the states of something (else)." "Contrary to the familiar vision that opened this chapter, determinism does not in itself "erode control". The Viking spacecraft is as deterministic a device as any clock, but this does not prevent it from being able to control itself. Fancier deterministic devices can not only control themselves; they can evade the attempts of other self-controllers to control them. If we are also deterministic devices, we need not on that account fear that we cannot be in control of ourselves and our destinies. "Moreover, the past does not control us. It no more controls us than the people at NASA can control the space ships that have wandered out of reach in space. It is not that there are no causal links between the Earth and those craft. There are; reflected sunlight from Earth still reaches them, for instance. But causal links are not enough for control. There must also be feedback to inform the controller. There are no feedback signals from the present to the past for the past to exploit. Moreover there is nothing in the past to forsee and plan for our particular acts, even if it is true that Mother Nature--gambling on our general needs and predicaments--did, in effect, design us to fend quite well for ourselves. Far from it being the case that we are completely under the control of our ancestors or our evolutionary past, it is rather the case that that heritage has tended to set us up as *self*-controllers--lucky us." ("Elbow Room" Dennett, 1984, p.52, 72) Larry #61316 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: object and feeling ken_aitch Hi Herman, ------------ <. . .> H: > I have watched from the sidelines as Howard has tried to get clarification on what was being put forward. I don't want to put words into Howard's mouth, but I certainly have completely failed to become clearer on the issue. I think now with KenH turning desirable or agreeable objects into ones that are conventionally being acknowledged as such is no more of a clarification. ------------ First things first, Herman! In a message to Andrew, you said, essentially, that anatta was not an absolute fact but a mere meditation technique. This is what we need to discuss: finer points about the inherent qualities of rupas can wait their turn. Bhikkhu Thanissaro has written copiously about 'anatta as technique.' According to his theory, consciousness has to be freed from stress, and he believes stress is incurred whenever we think, "Do I exist?" or "Do I not exist?" When freed from this stressful thinking, consciousness can see the way out of the conditioned world, whereupon it flies out like a seed from a pod and becomes embedded in the unconditioned, Nibbana. Like you, BT and the people at Access To Insight think the Abhidhamma is quite fascinating in its own right but not conducive to meditation. Since meditation is their main game, they exclude all Abhidhamma-pitaka material from their website. How, with that attitude, could anyone ever learn the Abhidhamma? It is hard enough for people like me who think the Abhidhamma is the pinnacle wisdom. ---------------- <. . .> H: > There are major implications here about what the Dhamma is all about. The whole idea of vipallasa points to a particular understanding of reality, one that implies an absolute reality, irrespective of the means of apprehending it. Which is a complete denial of DO. ----------------- If anatta is a basic characteristic inherent in all dhammas, then the Abhidhamma and the ancient commentaries are totally consistent with the suttas. If not, then of course those texts must be discredited. So we should be discussing anatta. What are your thoughts on what I have written so far? (And remember, there may be children listening.) :-) Ken H #61317 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: object and feeling. nilovg Hi Ken H, The words could create confusion. I suggest: the body consciousness is accompanied by pleasant vedana and they experience a desirable object,... I am inclined to say: it does not matter whether the object is desirable or undesirable. We cannot find out., certainly not when it actually happens, that moment is so short. Nina. Op 12-jul-2006, om 2:56 heeft ken_aitch het volgende geschreven: > The > vipaka citta is not reacting to its object. Even when body > consciousness is accompanied by pleasant vedana for a desirable > object, that feeling is purely the result of kamma - not a result of > experiencing the object. #61318 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: object and feeling, reification? nilovg Hi Ken, I may misunderstand Howard, but perhaps this is the reason: the fact that objectively an object is desirable or undesirable, irrespective of whether it is experienced as such, may suggest as he calls it reification. He is inclined to view it from a subjective side, otherwise it does not make sense to him. This was also the case as to sabhava, but I quoted from Rob K's forum about this subject. Howard likes to spend more time on meditation and may not answer this and that is fine. I found the discussion useful and agreeable. Nina. Op 12-jul-2006, om 3:09 heeft ken_aitch het volgende geschreven: > > Howard: > I'm missing the point, Nina. I still do not understand the reason for > the terms desirable and agreeable. > > ---------- > > I have to wonder why you are having so much difficulty with this, > Howard. Is it because you reject the whole idea of sabhava - that > dhammas possess their own characteristics? #61319 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Consciousness! to Kanchuu. nilovg Dear Kanchuu, Consciousness or citta: this is any mind moment that experiences something, be it seeing, hearing, thinking. We learn that it is citta, not self or I who experiences. There are many types of citta that arise because of their conditions, no self who can choose what type arises. Citta with selfishness, with aversion or hate, for example is unwholesome, akusala. It can motivate bad deeds. Citta with kindness, generosity or understanding is kusala, it can motivate good deeds. Citta which sees or hears is neither kusala nor akusala, it is the result of past kamma. Awareness: some people use this term for citta, but I tend to use it for mindfulness: a wholesome quality that arises with each kusala citta. Knowledge: this can be used in a worldly sense: knowledge of situations in the world, or science. But it can also be used in the sense of understanding of citta, cetasika (mental qualities arising with citta) and rupa or physical phenomena. In this sense it is used as the understanding of Dhamma. Education: in worldly sense, or education in the sense of the development of understanding of the dhamma. > What is the ultimate rightfull action? Action that is done with kusala citta and understanding of the Dhamma. A deed that is done already is gone but we tend to think about it. Do we think with kusala citta or with akusala citta? When we speak words this is motivated by kusala citta or by akusala citta. A word is quickly spoken, before we realize it. We can learn to understand that it is conditioned. Nobody can have kusala citta at will. Afterwards we may start to worry or doubt and have regret. These qualities are also conditioned, they arise with akusala citta. But they are gone immediately. It is of no use to keep on worrying. More understanding of the different types of cittas and of the fact that they arise because of conditions will help us in daily life. When we understands ourselves more we shall also understand others more and this is beneficial for our social life. Here are just a few thoughts. Nina. Op 12-jul-2006, om 5:29 heeft kanchuu2003 het volgende geschreven: > > > Please help me with Consciousness... What is the difference between > Consciousness, Awareness, Knowledge and Education??? > > How can I be sure that my daily activites are right? Everytime when I > do something, I feel it is 100% right and I do it. Later on I realize > it was wrong... What is the ultimate rightfull action??? I have been > loosing confidence... Everything I do these days, I try to give my > best, but am not not sure whether it is right or not??? > >> . > > #61320 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. scottduncan2 Dear Herman, And so we go on... H: "So, for you there is continuity but no identity of process. I don't understand how that is possible. Are you you, or someone else, or nothing? Do you at different times have different mothers, fathers, different children etc. In short, are the relations that define you in the world identifiable, or are they not? Do you wake up different mornings with different memories of who you are?" Even in science there are thinkers who skin the cat quite differently. I don't care for comparative discussions. Dhamma stands on its own, but you ought to read, because it is interesting, "A Universe of Consciousness" by Edelman and Tonini. For example, on "nonrepresentational memory:' "Such a memory has properties that allow perception to alter recall and recall to alter perception. It has no fixed capacity limit, since it actually generates "information" by construction. It is robust, dynamic, associative, and adaptive. If our view of memory is correct, in higher organisms every act of perception is, to some degree, an act of creation, and every act of memory is, to some degree, an act of imagination. Biological memory is thus creative and not strictly replicative..." (Edelman and Tonini, p. 100). H: "Also, from a scientific point of view, your body is quite identifiably the same body from birth to death. The DNA, as information, remains unchanged." Ruupa. H: "We must read different books. There are no accumulatons or tendencies in my patic...." Try using the one taught by the Buddha ;-)) No, seriously, how, then, do you understand conditionality as taught by the Buddha? H: "Yes, we agreed there is no soul. No lasting/controlling agent. But please tell me what mechanism you have that I lack by which you can go past appearances and determine that there is in fact an unapparent underlying reality, and how you then proceed to know what that underlying / hidden reality is?" Sadha? I just consider sutta and abhidhamma to be different and complimentary modes of explanation. H: "You are right, the point is a Dhamma point. I have already pointed to MN 121, where as a completion of the project "the holy life" mental fermentations have ceased, and what is left is THE BODY reacting to life itself. With the cessation of the empty mind, the very real body is left. Now, when there is no longer a mind running hither and thither, you will find that even when you weren't aware of it, this body needs to breathe, drink, eat, piss, poo, have sex, walk, rest, wake, sleep and so forth. With the cessation of the craving mind, there is the locus of what you are, the mass of cravings known as the body." I am not my body. And there is a body that only seems to be me. What does the existence of a body that will die and decay prove? H: "You are your body, Scott. When all your mental flights of fancy are done with, that's all there is to Scott. And it doesn't get any prettier with age :-)" Well, especially since it didn't start off so pretty...Anyway, see above, I couldn't disagree more. As I said, "Scott" is a concept with only the strongest appearance of reality in an ultimate sense. H: "To me, abhidhamma totally obfuscates what is quite clear. Nothing lasts, but not everything arises and disappears completely from moment to moment." And so we run aground again. Will we have to agree to disagree? I'd ask you to substantiate your claim, since I disagree, but will that get us anywhere? H: "Reduction is an activity, it is something that you do. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. But when reducing, it is useful to be mindful that one is reducing. How the world appears when reducing, is markedly different to how it appears when not reducing. Reducing does not lead to ultimacy, however, it only leads to reduction. It would be useful if it was clarified what a rupa is held to be in abhidhamma. When I speak of Ayers Rock, I hold it to be what gives rise to my perception of it. It is independent of consciousness of it. The world does not need consciousness, but consciousness needs the world." H: "I don't get it. Are you saying that seventeen cittas have seventeen different rupas? Why then do you say that only at the end of the series does rupa fall away, and not with each falling away citta in the series of seventeen?" For your Abhidhamma needs, see those in the know. The teachings are, and I hope those who really know this will step in, that ruupa just lasts longer and that a series of seventeen cittas, each with different functions, arise and fall away as ruupa is cognised. All seventeen cittas in the series perform one at a time various aspects of the cognising process. Each falls away, then, because it just persists longer, ruupa falls away. Ask Nina, though for a real answer, not a parrot. Cracker please. H: "But first, can we get the chariot out the way? Are you saying that chariot rises and falls with the rising and falling of citta, that is has no in-itself outside of consciousness?" No, chariot is concept, it is only ruupa - colour, hardness etc. Ruupa doesn't experience anything. It rises and falls away. "The Venerable Udaayi asked the Venerable Aananda: 'Friend Aananda, in many ways [the nature of] this body has been declared, disclosed, and revealed by the Blessed One thus: For such a reason this body is non-self. Is it possible to explain [the nature of] this consciousness in a similar way - to teach, proclaim, establish, disclose, analyse, and elucidate it thus: For such a reason this consciousness is non-self? "It is possible, friend Udaayi. Doesn't eye-consciousness arise in dependence on eye and forms? "Yes, friend. "If the cause and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness would cease completely and totally without remainder, could eye-consciousness be discerned? "No, friend. "In this way, friend, this has been declared, disclosed, and revealed by the Blessed One thus: For such a reason this consciousness is nonself," (SN 35: 234). With loving kindness, Scott. #61321 From: "matheesha" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 (was, Knowledge of the Difference ...) matheesha333 Hi Scott, >S: May I interpose a question? M: Certainly. > > M: "From the Upanisa sutta: "...knowledge & vision of things as they > actually are present has concentration as its prerequisite..." > > M: "My point in quoting both those suttas were that the Buddha always > mentions Samadhi as preceeding insight in the suttas. If samadhi (as > defined in the abhidhamma) is present in every moment anyway, why > should it be mentioned in this manner?" > > "Upanissaya" is defined as base, reliance, support, foundation. It is > suggested that it is know as "sufficing condition." I think > Nyanatiloka calls it "decisive support." A synonym of upanisa is > suggested to be "paccaya." This, too, means resting on, falling back > on, or cause, (PTS PED), > > Bhikkhu Bodhi chooses to translate the term as "supporting condition," > whereas Thanissaro Bhikkhu chooses to use "prerequistite." I wonder > why these two differently nuanced translations? If one takes the way > of Bhikkhu Bodhi, is not the implication that samadhi is a support > for, that is, arises along with pa~n~na? The sense implied by > Thanissaro Bhikkhu is that it must come first. > M: The fact that the Buddha gives a string of paccaya (avoiding the translational confusion) showing how samadhi arises ('like streams of water giving rise to rivers') and how that in turn gives rise to panna suggests that he wasnt talking about a samadhi which is present in every moment. Bikkhu bodhi's use of the word 'supporting condition' doesn't signify exclusivity/importance of samadhi as a cause for giving rise to panna as much as Thanissaro's 'prerequisite', but then it doesnt rule it out either. But then it doesnt really matter. The Buddha used one word 'paccaya' and we can understand it well in this and other contexts in suttas without need for further elaboration. He himself used the similie of the streams/rivers to explain it, and nothing more. One leads to the next, and the definition of samadhi is also clear from the suttas I have quoted. >S: As a cetasika, samadhi is, I think, one-pointedness or concentration > which is ekagataa cetasika. Can one say that ekagataa can arise with > pa~n~na along with a single citta? Is it fair to suggest that > ekagataa can be there and support the arising of pa~n~na without > saying it has to be there in order for pa~n~na to arise? M: "...And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & pursued, leads to the attainment of knowledge & vision?.. http://www.metta.lk/mirror/www.accesstoinsight/canon/sutta/anguttara/a n04-041.html Note, 'developed and pursued'. Samadhi is clearly a very important ingredient but not the only one certainly. Is it essential? To develop direct insight,(samadhi as I define it), yes. To develop sutamaya panna (theoretical wisdom as I see it), no. For that 'abhidhammic samadhi' is adequate. There might be clues in that for those who struggle to get past that stage. This sounds very inappropriate but it must be said as well. :) with metta Matheesha #61322 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: object and feeling. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Nina) - In a message dated 7/11/06 9:17:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > You say, in > a subsequent post to Howard: "Hearing only hears sound and does not > know anything else about it," so I suppose this is your point. The > vipaka citta is not reacting to its object. Even when body > consciousness is accompanied by pleasant vedana for a desirable > object, that feeling is purely the result of kamma - not a result of > experiencing the object. > > Thanks again, Nina and Howard, this has been helpful. (Aren't all > Dhamma discussions helpful?) :-) > =================== This piece of the ongoing conversation on vedana between Nina and me has been particularly clarifying. The distinction between the early passive stage of an object process and the later active stage has been brought home much more clearly to me. With metta, Howard #61323 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: object and feeling upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 7/11/06 9:22:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Howard, I think Nina is assuming everyone already agrees on this. > Health, wealth etc., are the conventionally acknowledged, desirable > or agreeable results of good kamma from previous lives. Are they not? > > Ultimately, there are only rupas at these times (being experienced by > vipaka cittas), but those rupas are nonetheless agreeable. > > ---------- > H: >And agreeable in what sense (when possibly experienced as > unpleasant). Why those adjectives? > ---------- > > If I understand this part of your question correctly, you are asking, > 'In what sense is a rupa agreeable given that, in some cases, the > javana cittas react to it as if it were disagreeable?' > > My answer would be: If, in conventional terminology, someone regards a > healthy body as unhealthy, or a wealthy man as poor, so what? A > mistaken judgement does not change the facts. > > ---------- > >>We confuse different cittas and different feelings. >> > > > >Howard: > I'm missing the point, Nina. I still do not understand the reason for > the terms desirable and agreeable. > > ---------- > > I have to wonder why you are having so much difficulty with this, > Howard. Is it because you reject the whole idea of sabhava - that > dhammas possess their own characteristics? > > OK, I did say, 'Don't mind me, I'm only chipping in from the > sidelines' so feel free to ignore that question. Speed reading ahead; > I think you might have agreed to drop the subject altogether, so, as I > say, don't mind me. :-) > > Ken H > ===================== Ken the matter is simple: When someone says that some sense-door object is desirable, it is a fair question to ask "Desirable for what? Why should it be desired?" (For that is what 'desirable' means - "worthy of and appropriate for being desired". If that is not what is meant, 'desirable' should not be used.) And when someone says that some sense-door object is agreeable, it is a fair question to ask "It's pleasant to you? You like it? You're happy with it?. (For that is what agreeable means - "To one's liking". If that is not what is meant, 'agreeable' should not be used.) Precision in language is *important*! And it is THAT which I am discussing. With metta, Howard #61324 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 (was, Knowledge of the Difference ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Matheesha) - In a message dated 7/12/06 12:21:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Matheesha, > > May I interpose a question? > > M: "From the Upanisa sutta: "...knowledge &vision of things as they > actually are present has concentration as its prerequisite..." > > M: "My point in quoting both those suttas were that the Buddha always > mentions Samadhi as preceeding insight in the suttas. If samadhi (as > defined in the abhidhamma) is present in every moment anyway, why > should it be mentioned in this manner?" > > "Upanissaya" is defined as base, reliance, support, foundation. It is > suggested that it is know as "sufficing condition." I think > Nyanatiloka calls it "decisive support." A synonym of upanisa is > suggested to be "paccaya." This, too, means resting on, falling back > on, or cause, (PTS PED), > > Bhikkhu Bodhi chooses to translate the term as "supporting condition," > whereas Thanissaro Bhikkhu chooses to use "prerequistite." I wonder > why these two differently nuanced translations? If one takes the way > of Bhikkhu Bodhi, is not the implication that samadhi is a support > for, that is, arises along with pa~n~na? The sense implied by > Thanissaro Bhikkhu is that it must come first. > > As a cetasika, samadhi is, I think, one-pointedness or concentration > which is ekagataa cetasika. Can one say that ekagataa can arise with > pa~n~na along with a single citta? Is it fair to suggest that > ekagataa can be there and support the arising of pa~n~na without > saying it has to be there in order for pa~n~na to arise? > > I don't know, what do you think? > > With loving kindness, > > Scott. > ===================== There are numerous places where concentration is given as a requisite condition for insight, but there is cyclic mutuality involved as well - what I have called a spiraling. I close here with pasting at the end an old post of mine to Jon relevant to this matter. With metta, Howard ---------------------- From: upasaka@a... Date: Tue Jul 16, 2002 9:35 am Subject: Jon/ More on Spirals Re: [dsg] Re: Vism study - role of jhanas in enlightenment Hi again, Jon - I just read the first two suttas from the book of tens in the A. Nikaya, and they are quite relevant to what we were discussing (growing out of VI, 50). In the first of these, the Buddha puts forth the following chain of conditionality: Virtuous ways of conduct -> Non-remorse -> Gladness -> Joy -> Serenity -> Happiness -> Concentration of the mind -> Knowledge and vision of things as they really are -> Revulsion and dispassion -> Knowledge and vision of liberation. This, of course, is quite similar to the content of VI, 50. What is interesting to me is the material of the very next sutta, the second sutta of the book of tens. It puts forward the very same chain of conditionality as above, but, at the end *circling back* to virtuous ways of conduct once again. And then the sutta closes with the following: "Thus, monks, the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection, for going from the near shore to the far shore." This is exactly the spiral conditionality that I was suggesting, and is, of course, in harmony with both of our understandings that all the factors affect each other. With metta, Howard --------------------- #61325 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: object and feeling nilovg Hi Howard and Ken H, once more on the subject, but Howard does not need to answer. I very well see Howard's point. I would like to emphasize the aspect of kamma-condition. We know so little about kamma because that is the field of the Buddhas. Each moment there is experience of an object, and depending on kamma that object is desirable (i.t.tharamma.na) or undesirable (ani.t.thaarama.na). We do not know at all whether there is seeing now of an agreeable object or a disagreeable object. If we try to find out all about kamma and the way it conditions our life now it would lead to madness. As to the object being here, lobha arises. But there is no lobha at the moments of vipaakacittas. The object that is desirable is just a given fact. How will the javanacittas react? That is the question. With kusala or with akusala? Also this depends on conditions. Thus, the object being desirable does not necessarily lead to lobha, it can be understood with wisdom. I am just thinking out loudly, that is all. Nina. Op 12-jul-2006, om 16:06 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > When someone says that some sense-door object is desirable, it is a > fair question to ask "Desirable for what? Why should it be > desired?" (For that > is what 'desirable' means - "worthy of and appropriate for being > desired". If > that is not what is meant, 'desirable' should not be used.) > And when someone says that some sense-door object is agreeable, it is > a fair question to ask "It's pleasant to you? You like it? You're > happy with > it?. (For that is what agreeable means - "To one's liking". If that > is not what > is meant, 'agreeable' should not be used.) #61326 From: kanchuu dhakal Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Consciousness! to Kanchuu. kanchuu2003 Dear Nina, Thanks for your reply. "There are many types of citta that arise because of their conditions, no self who can choose what type arises." So, Nina, there is nothing much I can do, at the moment to have more concious living but ratger do the best as I can so that I have good karma at the moment.. So, syudying Abhidhamma would only help me to become wise or knowledgable person.. How do I try to live more conscious life? Warm Regards, Nitesh #61327 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:16 am Subject: Letters from Nina, 3. nilovg Dear friends, You wrote that you recognize lobha and dosa more easily than seeing or hearing. Can we say that anything is easy? Different realities may present themselves closely one after the other, and when pañña is not yet developed, we are bound to confuse them. When there is lobha (attachment), it may be accompanied by somanassa (happy feeling). Are we sure of the difference between the characteristics of lobha and somanassa? We cling so much to feeling, to the body and to the other realities that it is difficult to have clear understanding of different characteristics. When there is lobha-mula-citta (citta rooted in attachment) or dosa-mula-citta (citta rooted in aversion) there are both nama and rupa. These cittas can produce rupas. In the Abhidhamma it is explained that rupa can be produced by four factors: kamma, citta, temperature and nutrition. Can we not notice, for example, that when we are angry there are also rupas arising which are conditioned by dosa-mula-citta? Don't we look different when we are angry or when we are glad? When we are afraid, or when we dislike something we may notice bodily phenomena conditioned by citta. We might have thought that lobha and dosa are easier to recognize, but through the Abhidhamma we learn that it is not easy to distinguish between the different characteristics of realities. We tend to join different realities into a "whole" and thus we will not know them as they are. ****** Nina. #61328 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: object and feeling, reification? philofillet Hi Nina, Ken, Howard and all Predictably, I'm back. > Hi Ken, > I may misunderstand Howard, but perhaps this is the reason: the fact > that objectively an object is desirable or undesirable, irrespective > of whether it is experienced as such, may suggest as he calls it > reification. I appreciate the way howard uses this term - it keeps popping up in my mind as I study survey of paramattha dhammas. But I think it is something that we will someday let go of gradually as understanding develops. For now, metaphors of the king and his retinue help us get a basic grasp of the way cognition works, that's all. And yes, there is a sense of reification, I find, of citta as little agent, little self, accompanied by the cetasikas doing their tasks so efficiently. Understanding will lead us out of this, eventually. These conceptualiations will fall away as understanding deepens. For now they help us understand the anattaness of it all, just a little. BTW, all this talk about pleasant and unpleasant objects, but isn't it all vipaka? Surely everyone agrees that there is no control over vipaka. It's the subsequent javana cittas in which there is a hit (kusala) or miss (akusala) moment, isn't it? Isn't that where our attention best lie? After all, in SN 35 (200 something) there are two suttas in which it is taught that we are thrashed by both pleasant and unpleasant objects, both pleasant and unpleasant objects are village raid dacoits. All sense objects are likely to give rise to akusala response, because "the all" is burning with greed, hatred and delusion. (SN 25:28) So is there great benefit to be had by pressing understanding hard on the nature of objects when they are *all* thrasing us, are all village raiding dacoits??@ Phil #61329 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:14 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Abidharma origins dacostacharles Hi Nina, The only problem I have with this approach is that I would think that it is more correct to say "this is sutra based" when reading the Abidharma. I say this because we all can agree that the sutras were written before the Abidharma. Now this is not to say that the Abidharma is this or that (authentic, .). However, it would appear that it was derived from the sutras, and expanded on them (i.e., the sutras). I do realize that some of the concepts in the sutras are quite advance; however, it was never presented that the sutras should be books of basic teachings alone. And, I do have to admit that the Buddha did call some concepts "Higher Dharma" (thus Abidharma). However, the sutras mentioned in the quote below are not ones called Higher Dharma by the Buddha. I guess my real problem is that the Abidharma is complicated enough without people getting caught-up in trying to prove that it is the real teaching of the Buddha. Especially considering that today, it is recognized as one of the main collections of Buddhist doctrine and teachings. I fear that Abhidhammists need to accept that the Abidharma is not for every body and that it is one of many teachings developed to point to a way to enlightenment. Charles DaCosta _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Nina van Gorkom Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 10:49 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Abhidhamma origins Dear all, some more quotes from Rob K's forum: < http://groups. yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12857 Dear Group, This is a reply by Dr. Maung Lwin to some comments made on another list about Suan's post on Abhidhamma. Thought you might be interested. Dear All, All three parts of the Tipitaka (Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma) can be a valuable source of knowledge, inspiration and encouragement to the practice. As one learns deeper, he or she will become clearer on the Teachings of the Buddha presented in these 3 different parts. ... #61330 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:45 pm Subject: Both Enlightened and Awakening ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: How do the Seven Links to Awakening link & lead to Awakening? They lead to & produce enlightenment, in this way are they links to awakening. They are themselves enlightened, in this way are they links to awakening. They are enlightened since they embrace the root cause of awakening. They are enlightened since they provide & equip the root cause of awakening. They are enlightened since they induce ripening of the root cause of awakening. They are enlightened since they promote distinction of the root cause of awakening. They are enlightened since they completely perfect the root cause of awakening. How do the Seven Links to Awakening remain stably established in mind? The Awareness link remains by arising of other states not being given attention. The Awareness link remains by non-arising of other states being given attention. The Awareness link remains by occurrence of other states not being given attention. The Awareness link remains by non-occurrence of other states being given attention. The Awareness link remains by the sign not being adverted to nor given attention. The Awareness link remains by the sign-less state being given constant attention. The Awareness link remains by mental construction not being given any attention. The Awareness link remains by ceasing of all craving being given full attention. The Awareness link to Awakening indeed remains in these very eight aspects. Exactly and similarly so with the other six links to Awakening. The Awareness link falls away by arising of other states being given attention. The Awareness link falls away by non-arising of other states not being given attention. The Awareness link falls away by occurrence of other states being given attention. The Awareness link falls away by non-occurrence of other states not being given attention. The Awareness link falls away by the sign-less state not being given attention. The Awareness link falls away by the sign being given attention. The Awareness link falls away by ceasing not being given attention. The Awareness link falls away by mental construction being given attention. The Awareness link to Awakening falls away in these eight aspects. Exactly and similarly so with the other six links to Awakening. Source (edited extract): Sariputta Path of Discrimination: Patisambhidamagga. Treatise on the Links to Awakening XIII. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. #61331 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:21 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 21 nilovg Dear friends, The Buddha taught that everything arises because of conditions; it is not by chance that people are so different in bodily features and character, and that they live in such different circumstances. Even the difference in bodily features of animals is due to different kamma. Animals have citta too; they may behave badly or they may behave well. Thus they accumulate different kammas which produce different results. If we understand that each kamma brings about its own result, we will know that there is no reason to be proud if we are born into a rich family or if we receive praise, honour or other pleasant things. When we have to suffer we will understand that suffering is due to our own deeds. Thus we will be less inclined to blame other people for our unhappiness or to be jealous when others receive pleasant things. When we understand reality we know that it is not self who receives something pleasant or who has to suffer; it is only vipåka, a citta which arises because of conditions and which falls away immediately. We see that people who are born into the same circumstances still behave differently. For example, among people who are born into rich families, some are stingy, others are not. The fact that one is born into a rich family is the result of kamma. Stinginess is conditioned by one's accumulated defilements. There are many different types of conditions which play their part in the life of each person. Kamma causes one to be born into certain circumstances and one's accumulated tendencies condition one's character. One may have doubts about past lives and future lives, since one only experiences the present life. However, in the present life we notice that different people experience different results. These results must have their causes in the past. The past conditions the present and the deeds we perform now will bring about their results in the future. In understanding the present we will be able to know more about the past and the future. ******* Nina. #61332 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:32 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... and cycles dacostacharles Hi Ken0, What I am getting at is that the physical can cause ignorance and craving to arise; and with the physical they can, decay, die, and be re-born. There was a case on Discovery TV about a man that got shot in the face by a robber. The re-incarnation of the man was found (and accepted as that by many, including both sets of parents) in a very young boy. The boy had a big birthmark in his face where the man was shot. The birthmark had the same dimensions as the damage due to the bullet in the man's face. Charles DaCosta _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken O Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 04:28 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... and cycles Hi Charles > > Keep in mind that suffering due to sickness and pain (i.e., the > physical conditioning the mental) can be overcome too. It is not a question of what comes first or what conditions what - when we are concerned with salvation - it is more often a change in view that is needed. k: suffering in sickness is physical even you overcome it with medicine it is only temporary as Buddha declare there is suffering in formation. Buddha also suffered physical pain. What come first is important (we are not talking about origination here), it cannot be physical that condition the next life then there will be no escape. In the suttas, Buddha declare it is ignorance and craving that condition rebirth and not otherwise. #61333 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The chariot is not ultimately real. egberdina Hi Andrew, On 12/07/06, Andrew wrote: > > > > way from where we have to start ("you start where you are"). No > > > comments on the Anatta-lakhana sutta? > > > > Later, perhaps :-) > > > A: Why later? Any reason? > > Nothing more sinister than all the other mails in my inbox that I want to spend some time on, as well as the very real requirements of very real daily life. Toodles Herman #61334 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 3:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the abhidhamma of existentialism egberdina Hi Larry, Just a quick thank you and comment. On 12/07/06, LBIDD@... wrote: > But causal links are not enough for control. > There must also be feedback to inform the controller. There are no > feedback signals from the present to the past for the past to exploit. BINGO - feedback loops, that is Something relevant from today's news. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19773994-23109,00.html A PARALYSED man using a new brain sensor has been able to move a computer cursor, open e-mail and control a robotic device simply by thinking about doing it, a team of scientists said. Kind Regards Herman #61335 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 5:52 pm Subject: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" buddhatrue Hi All, I was listening to the talks by K. Sujin which Sarah was so kind to mail to me, and in the third set of talks I heard K. Sujin speak against "trying" to have wholesome mental states arise or to have panna arise to recognize characteristics of nama/rupa. She stated that any such "trying" involves the idea of self who wants something and is therefore clinging. She went on to explain that the dhamma requires detachment and therefore any clinging to expected results will be futile. Additionally, she said that this is something very difficult to understand and thus why the dhamma is so subtle and why it takes a very long time to develop understanding. Everyone who was in attendance at this explanation murmured their approval of her understanding. Unfortunately, no one asked her just where she got this information. She must have cooked up this theory in her own mind because the Buddha didn't teach this. I really have to wonder if any of the people in attendance have even studied the Buddha's teachings, or if they have only studied the Abhidhamma. Well, suffice it to say that K. Sujin is dead wrong on this point. As the Buddha taught in the Noble Eightfold Path concerning Right Effort: "And what, monks, is right effort? [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen. [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen. [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." Metta, James #61336 From: "gazita2002" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:30 pm Subject: Re: object and feeling gazita2002 hello Nina, Howard, KenH and all, Just a few thoughts on this topic. I live in a beautiful part of Australia where there can be amazing sunrises and sunsets, over the bay and mountains. Often, i wonder if this is truly 'pleasant' or is it that I just really like it. However, I tend to dismiss it fairly quickly as I'll never know by thinking about, and the moments of vipaka pass by sooooo quickly that who can know this? Only panna can and panna is not 'me'. As Nina says, this whole kamma thing, if we try and think it out, it may send us mad. I remember Phra Dhammadharo talking about this matter. We know we do things during our daily life that is either wholesome or unwholesome and that those actions will bring result somewhere in the future. Each moment of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching has gone already never to arise again. Does it really matter whether its pleasant or unpleasant? I realise Howard's 'dilema' was the use of certain terms, desirable/undesirable but IMHO, it does not matter what we call the object of vipaka - its gone already! One of my past queries was why feeling was a separate khandha. since discussing it with Achan Sujin and the others in Burma, I have become more aware of 'feeling' if only on a conventional level. It certainly dictates what 'we' do in a day. Unpleasant feeling - unpleasant thoughts- unpleasant words etc. A whole mess of unpleasnt things :-( and most of the time it is 'my unpleasant/pleasant feeling'. Never a thought that it is just feeling - a reality that arises and falls away, not mine. I guess until panna becomes a bala, I'll always be ready whack someone in the head !!!!!!!!!!! but hopefully, kusala will prevail. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard and Ken H, > once more on the subject, but Howard does not need to answer. > I very well see Howard's point. > I would like to emphasize the aspect of kamma-condition. We know so > little about kamma because that is the field of the Buddhas. Each > moment there is experience of an object, and depending on kamma that > object is desirable (i.t.tharamma.na) or undesirable > (ani.t.thaarama.na). We do not know at all whether there is seeing > now of an agreeable object or a disagreeable object. If we try to > find out all about kamma and the way it conditions our life now it > would lead to madness. > As to the object being here, lobha arises. But > there is no lobha at the moments of vipaakacittas. The object that is > desirable is just a given fact. How will the javanacittas react? #61337 From: "gazita2002" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:02 pm Subject: Re: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" gazita2002 Hello James and others, I see no conflict here. You may have also heard A.Sujin say the development of the Path must go along with detachment. It is my understanding that the monk in question does generate desire, endeavours, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for these four right efforts and does so knowing that it is not 'self' that is doin this. I would suggest that this monk undertakes the 4 right efforts with detachment for any result, with the knowledge that desire, endeavour, persistence, intent are realities, dare I say cetasikas, that arise and fall and do not belong to anyone. In fact, I suggest that this 'monk' is unable to do anything else but undertake these four right efforts bec I imagine wisdom and knowledge is highly developed and this 'monk' may even be a sotapanna. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I was listening to the talks by K. Sujin which Sarah was so kind to > mail to me, and in the third set of talks I heard K. Sujin speak > against "trying" to have wholesome mental states arise or to have > panna arise to recognize characteristics of nama/rupa. She stated > that any such "trying" involves the idea of self who wants something > and is therefore clinging. She went on to explain that the dhamma > requires detachment and therefore any clinging to expected results > will be futile. Additionally, she said that this is something very > difficult to understand and thus why the dhamma is so subtle and why > it takes a very long time to develop understanding. Everyone who > was in attendance at this explanation murmured their approval of her > understanding. > > Unfortunately, no one asked her just where she got this > information. She must have cooked up this theory in her own mind > because the Buddha didn't teach this. I really have to wonder if > any of the people in attendance have even studied the Buddha's > teachings, or if they have only studied the Abhidhamma. Well, > suffice it to say that K. Sujin is dead wrong on this point. As the > Buddha taught in the Noble Eightfold Path concerning Right Effort: > > "And what, monks, is right effort? > > [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, > activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of > the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet > arisen. > > [ii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds > & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, > unskillful qualities that have arisen. > > [iii] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, > upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful > qualities that have not yet arisen. > > [iv] "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds > & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, > plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that > have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort." > > Metta, > James > #61338 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:13 pm Subject: Re: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" philofillet Hi James How's it going? I read your post about being bored and unproductive at home and can certainly relate, though these days, since I got my own computer I seem to be writing more. I hope your prep for Taiwan is going well. Living without an internet connection would be wise. I wish I could, but Naomi needs the internet for her work, so I am unable to cut off my addiction. I don't want to get in any debates with you or anyone else here - no more banging my head on brick walls, as you put it once. But just let me rip a bit about the below. > "And what, monks, is right effort? > > [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, > activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of > the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet > arisen. If the above is done with cittas rooted in lobha (greed) it is not right effort. The Buddha taught about the roots of good and evil, the kusala roots of alobha, adosa and amoha, and the akusala roots of lobha (greed/desire/lust) dosa (hatred/aversion) and moha ignorance.) I really don't see what good it does to bear down on objectives with cittas rooted in desire and fear, and I think that is what motivates us when we seek results in Dhamma. You'll say it's chanda, of course, wholesome chanda that is. And maybe it is, at times. But I think if we're honest with ourselves we'll see how much fear and desire there is in our Dhamma practices, whether it's meditating, discussing, whatever. Effort that arises from cittas rooted in greed (lobha) is not right effort. You'll disagree, and perhaps quote the very popular "craving is to be abandoned by craving" quote. That's cool. But it all comes down to whether the effort is rooted in kusala cittas or not. Not so easy to determine. Oh wait, I forgot. We start where we are, rooted in lobha, ploughing through lobha, with lobha that has been transformed into wholesome chanda, which we can have just because we are doing something related to the Buddha's teaching, following his instruction, so it must be kusala! Nah, not for me. Moments of detachment in seeing that is understood, hearing that is understood. Moments of kusala rooted in adosa, alobha, amoha. They come and go, I'm sure of it, and condition the arising of more. Personally, that is enough for me, because I know how very deep the akusala roots are rooted. The thought of this greedy, lustful, hateful fellow throwing himself into right effort by will power is quite absurd. But that's me. And I think there are a lot of "me"s out there in internet land. (Being on the internet is in itself an indication of greedy tendencies, I suspect.) Phil #61339 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 7:30 pm Subject: Ignorance about dhammas >>> wrong understanding philofillet Hi all I read this from the Survey of Paramattha Dhamams by Acharn Sujin: "One erroneously takes attachment, anger and other dhammas that arise for self, for a being, for a person, and that is wrong view, wrong understanding. It is wrong understanding because these dhammas, after they have arisen, fall away, disappear, are subject to change all the time, from birth to death. The reason for erroneously taking dhammas for self, for a being, for a person, is ignorance of the truth about dhammas. (snip) Because of ignorance, one has wrong understanding and takes the dhammas that arise and fall away for self, a being, or a person." Basic stuff, but important to reflect on. Our task is to develop understanding of paramattha dhammas - that is the only way out. And this development of understanding cannot be sped up by throwing oneself into "concentration" rooted in akusala cittas. There is concentration with every moment of understanding, yes, that is true. Phil p.s Anyone can add their comment, if they like, but address comments to the group rather than me personally, please. I won't be debating because I can't do it except with akusala cittas, the desire to prove myself and my teacher right, etc. But that is me. I am such a greedy hateful fellow! (I don't say that with any kind of aversion, just objective understanding of my accumulations. I am very fond of myself these days, very happy - perhaps because I see the truth of my accumulations and know better than to fight them with *more* greed! #61340 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 8:05 pm Subject: Re: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" philofillet Hi again James and all > But just let me rip a bit about the below. > > > > "And what, monks, is right effort? > > > > [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, > > activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of > > the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet > > arisen. > > If the above is done with cittas rooted in lobha (greed) it is not > right effort. As usual I posted too quickly. I should have chosen the bits about arousing effort for giving rise to and maintaining kusala rather than non-arising and abandoning of akusala - the former would have been more in line with my post. Trying to generate kusala to escape fear, for example - that is at what is at the heart of the modern Buddhist industry, in my opinion. Phil #61341 From: "Andrew" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:31 pm Subject: Re: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi All, > > I was listening to the talks by K. Sujin which Sarah was so kind to > mail to me, and in the third set of talks I heard K. Sujin speak > against "trying" to have wholesome mental states arise or to have > panna arise to recognize characteristics of nama/rupa. She stated > that any such "trying" involves the idea of self who wants something > and is therefore clinging. She went on to explain that the dhamma > requires detachment and therefore any clinging to expected results > will be futile. Additionally, she said that this is something very > difficult to understand and thus why the dhamma is so subtle and why > it takes a very long time to develop understanding. [snip] Well, > suffice it to say that K. Sujin is dead wrong on this point. As the > Buddha taught in the Noble Eightfold Path concerning Right Effort: Hi James My suggestion is that you and A. Sujin are at cross-purposes here. I don't take her to be saying that effort doesn't occur. It does. Where you and A. Sujin appear to differ is on the question of how effort arises. When answering that question, you place much reliance on reading the words as we do in everyday life context i.e. 'a person' chooses and decides and makes effort by dint of that choice. A. Sujin reads the words not in an everyday context but using the teachings of anatta and D.O. and Abhidhamma as the principal context. Remember what I put to Herman the other day from the Samyutta Nikaya: An arahant "might still say 'I speak' and he might say 'They speak to me'. Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, he uses such terms as mere expressions." An expression like "I make effort" is a veneer only. A. Sujin is reminding us of this and saying that we need to look deeper to find the sublime meaning of the Dhamma. If we don't look deeper, we end up just fortifying the sense of self. Them's my thoughts. Best wishes Andrew #61342 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:19 am Subject: Re: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" buddhatrue Hi Azita, Nice to hear from you. I would imagine that you are somewhere on this audio tape but I'm not sure if I have heard you yet. (The presentation is quite professional with Jon's introductions and Indian music interludes. Kudos to Jon!) Hello James and others, I see no conflict here. James: No offense, but that doesn't really surprise me. You may have also heard A.Sujin say the development of the Path must go along with detachment. James: Yeah, I heard her say something along those lines. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that but I think the emphasis is a little off. I would say that the development of the Path must go along with renunciation. Detachment is the end result of the Path. But I understand why K. Sujin chooses to emphasize detachment over renunciation: detachment is passive while renunciation is active. It is my understanding that the monk in question does generate desire, endeavours, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for these four right efforts and does so knowing that it is not 'self' that is doin this. James: Why would you assume something like that? Why would you assume that the monk know it is `not self' doing this? After all, the Buddha first taught the Noble Eightfold Path before he taught the teaching of anatta. I would suggest that this monk undertakes the 4 right efforts with detachment for any result, James: I'm sorry but this is not human nature. No one is going to do anything unless they have a vested interest in the result. with the knowledge that desire, endeavour, persistence, intent are realities, dare I say cetasikas, that arise and fall and do not belong to anyone. James: Again, you are putting the cart before the horse. In fact, I suggest that this 'monk' is unable to do anything else but undertake these four right efforts bec I imagine wisdom and knowledge is highly developed and this 'monk' may even be a sotapanna. James: Again, this is a wild assumption. The Buddha first taught the Noble Eightfold Path to fellow ascetics who were not sotapanna. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. Metta, James #61343 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:44 am Subject: Re: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" buddhatrue Hi Phil, Hi James How's it going? James: Just fine, thanks for asking. I read your post about being bored and unproductive at home and can certainly relate, though these days, since I got my own computer I seem to be writing more. James: That's good to hear. I hope it helps you to get more balance in your life. I hope your prep for Taiwan is going well. Living without an internet connection would be wise. I wish I could, but Naomi needs the internet for her work, so I am unable to cut off my addiction. James: Yes, it will be difficult for me also but I realized that I am spending far too much time on the Internet. I leave for Taiwan at the end of this month so this will probably be the last of my participation in DSG. I don't want to get in any debates with you or anyone else here - no more banging my head on brick walls, as you put it once. James: Right, that isn't productive. And, actually, I have posted about this subject before (and got nowhere then as I expect to get nowhere now) but since I will soon be saying adios to DSG I thought I would post about what I consider the most pivotal issue: PRACTICE! But just let me rip a bit about the below. James: Ahhh….just couldn't resist could ya?? ;-)) > "And what, monks, is right effort? > > [i] "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, > activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of > the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet > arisen. If the above is done with cittas rooted in lobha (greed) it is not right effort. James: Yes, of course. But that doesn't mean, as K. Sujin suggests, that all effort is rooted in lobha. The Buddha taught about the roots of good and evil, the kusala roots of alobha, adosa and amoha, and the akusala roots of lobha (greed/desire/lust) dosa (hatred/aversion) and moha ignorance.) I really don't see what good it does to bear down on objectives with cittas rooted in desire and fear, and I think that is what motivates us when we seek results in Dhamma. James: Why do you assume this? You don't know what motivates everyone to do anything. You'll say it's chanda, of course, wholesome chanda that is. And maybe it is, at times. But I think if we're honest with ourselves we'll see how much fear and desire there is in our Dhamma practices, whether it's meditating, discussing, whatever. James: Okay, but so what? We aren't going to get it perfect every time; that's why it's called "Practice". Effort that arises from cittas rooted in greed (lobha) is not right effort. James: Yes, I agree. You said this earlier. You'll disagree, and perhaps quote the very popular "craving is to be abandoned by craving" quote. That's cool. James: I don't feel like quoting anything. I don't have the time as I still have some packing to do! ;-)) But it all comes down to whether the effort is rooted in kusala cittas or not. Not so easy to determine. James: Well, it seems to be easy for you to determine. Earlier you said it is always, always, always rooted in akusala. Oh wait, I forgot. We start where we are, rooted in lobha, ploughing through lobha, with lobha that has been transformed into wholesome chanda, which we can have just because we are doing something related to the Buddha's teaching, following his instruction, so it must be kusala! James: Phil, are you schizophrenic?? ;-)) (just kidding). Nah, not for me. Moments of detachment in seeing that is understood, hearing that is understood. Moments of kusala rooted in adosa, alobha, amoha. They come and go, I'm sure of it, and condition the arising of more. Personally, that is enough for me, because I know how very deep the akusala roots are rooted. The thought of this greedy, lustful, hateful fellow throwing himself into right effort by will power is quite absurd. James: Yes, that would be quite absurd. It isn't done by will power; it is done by setting up the proper conditions. But that's me. And I think there are a lot of "me"s out there in internet land. (Being on the internet is in itself an indication of greedy tendencies, I suspect.) James: Yeah, I would tend to agree with you. Sometimes we have good intentions, but often it is just greed and ego motivating us to post to the Internet. Metta, James #61344 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:00 am Subject: Re: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" buddhatrue Hi Andrew, Hi James My suggestion is that you and A. Sujin are at cross-purposes here. James: Yeah, I would agree. My purpose is to encourage practice and her purpose is to discourage it. I don't take her to be saying that effort doesn't occur. James: I don't take her to be saying that either. Perhaps you have misunderstood my post? It does. Where you and A. Sujin appear to differ is on the question of how effort arises. James: I don't see that as the issue at all. Again, maybe you should re-read my post. When answering that question, you place much reliance on reading the words as we do in everyday life context i.e. 'a person' chooses and decides and makes effort by dint of that choice. A. Sujin reads the words not in an everyday context but using the teachings of anatta and D.O. and Abhidhamma as the principal context. James: Yes, I would agree with you here, but the question becomes who is using the proper context? I believe that I am using the proper context because the Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path (which includes Right Effort) before he taught anatta and DO. Therefore, my emphasis on a conventional interpretation is more correct than K. Sujin's. Remember what I put to Herman the other day from the Samyutta Nikaya: An arahant "might still say 'I speak' and he might say 'They speak to me'. Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, he uses such terms as mere expressions." James: The Buddha didn't first teach the Noble Eightfold Path to arahants, or even to sotapannas, but just to worldlings. Right Effort needs to be viewed in conventional, everyday terms. An expression like "I make effort" is a veneer only. A. Sujin is reminding us of this and saying that we need to look deeper to find the sublime meaning of the Dhamma. If we don't look deeper, we end up just fortifying the sense of self. James: I disagree. The dhamma is a process and K. Sujin is second guessing what the Buddha directly taught. Them's my thoughts. James: Just my thoughts also. Thanks for sharing! Best wishes Andrew Metta, James #61345 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Consciousness! to Kanchuu. nilovg Dear Kanchuu, or is your first name Nitesh? Op 12-jul-2006, om 20:14 heeft kanchuu dhakal het volgende geschreven: > "There are many types of citta that arise because of their > conditions, no self who can choose what type arises." So, Nina, > there is nothing much I can do, at the moment to have more concious > living but rather do the best as I can so that I have good karma at > the moment.. > > So, studying Abhidhamma would only help me to become wise or > knowledgable person.. How do I try to live more conscious life? ------------------- N: There is no prescription for this, there cannot be a sudden change of character. But more understanding of what citta is can be gradually developed and this is of great benefit. The Buddha taught that there is no self who could cause citta to be such or such. Can you change seeing unpleasant things into seeing pleasant things? Can you change hearing? They are cittas arising because of their own conditions. You may become angry all of a sudden, it arises already before you realize it. This shows that citta is non-self, that it does not belong to a self. When you remember this, there is already a beginning of wisdom, you are on the right way. At the moment I am posting small parts of Abhidhamma in Daily Life and also Letters, and perhaps these can be of help to understand what citta is. You can find these also on the following Webs: Perhaps you may have questions on what you read about citta. When we expect to live our life immediately with many kusala cittas, there maybe clinging. We may cling to an idea of our personality we wish to be good. But all such things we have to find out ourselves. Nobody else can tell when we are clinging and when there is kusala citta. Nina. #61346 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abidharma origins nilovg Dear Charles D, I am not inclined to compare sutta and abhidhamma so much, or evaluate the one as more complicated as the other. To me they are the Buddha's teachings to be verified oneself through the development of vipassanaa. The suttas seem to assume a great deal of understanding and those at the Buddha's time who listened could understand. I listened to an audio taken in Srinagar (no 3a, perhaps you could download it). We may repeat the words, everything is dhamma, but it takes time to directly understand that whatever appears through one of the six doors is a conditioned dhamma, not a person, not a thing. The Abhidhamma gives the basics about mental phenomena and physical phenomena with the aim to dircetly experience them, no other aim. Abhidhamma and vipassanaa are closely connected. As to the study of all the details in the Abhidhamma, that depends on the individual. But the Abhidhamma is not to be considered a textbook, it deals with the realities appearing now in daily life: seeing, hearing, all the defilements that arise on account of them and the development of understanding leading to their eradication. Thus, its aim is not different from the Vinaya and the Suttanta. Nina. Op 12-jul-2006, om 10:14 heeft Charles DaCosta het volgende geschreven: > I guess my real problem is that the Abidharma is complicated enough > without > people getting caught-up in trying to prove that it is the real > teaching of > the Buddha. Especially considering that today, it is recognized as > one of > the main collections of Buddhist doctrine and teachings. I fear that > Abhidhammists need to accept that the Abidharma is not for every > body and > that it is one of many teachings developed to point to a way to > enlightenment. #61347 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 2:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ignorance about dhammas >>> wrong understanding nilovg Hi Phil and Azita, I read your posts with appreciation. Azita: Very well said. And Phil below, it is what we heard before but can never reflect on enough. Nina. Op 13-jul-2006, om 4:30 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > I read this from the Survey of Paramattha Dhamams by Acharn Sujin: > > "One erroneously takes attachment, anger and other dhammas that > arise for self, for a being, for a person, and that is wrong view, > wrong understanding. It is wrong understanding because these > dhammas, after they have arisen, fall away, disappear, are subject > to change all the time, from birth to death. #61348 From: "Matt Lawson" Date: Wed Jul 12, 2006 11:46 am Subject: Monasticism and running a business? forestcall Hi- I am thinking about ways to run a monastery in today's modern world. In general constantly asking for donations seems like unnecessary stress for the whole Sangha and at the very least the Abbott. When the original Buddha designed the "rules" there was not insurance, rent, utility bills, and the list goes on. Master Cheng Yen http://www.tzuchi.org/global/master/ started her monastery with a loan from the bank and then began a business. All of the nuns in her monastery work to earn money for the monastery. Ven. Yen has built perhaps the most successful Buddhist charity in the world. She devotes all her time to helping others. My current activities are influenced by helping others. For more than 8 years I have lived as a monk and my main frustration is there are always limited funds to run the monastery. I left my organization I was with for the past 7 years to setup a building material sourcing company based in China. My main goal is to build a monastic university to train people for AID work. In the process I have found interesting ways to raise large sums of funds, like in the hundreds of millions….ever hear the term Anti-Dumping TAX? One of the main areas of business I have focused on is building low cost homes, schools, hospitals, etc. Oddly enough one of the best ways to earn money is to build luxury homes. If monks and nuns devote their time to making money as well as general Buddhist practice with the intent to help others then perhaps billions of USD could be raised! I am very confident if 100 monks worked together on a single project we could raise $1 billion USD in one year. Actually I have started to run the numbers on building and maintaining 1000 schools for children with no money, no family, nothing. Each school with 500 kids at $0.50 cost per day plus a few other fees would be roughly $100k usd. per year for each school and roughly $100 million yearly cost. Setup is roughly $130k per school. Forgive me if I ramble a bit but I would love to spur some interesting conversation….. #61349 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:03 am Subject: worn-out for now...... sarahprocter... Dear All, We're just back (in Hong Kong) after a 28hr journey from Saas Fee in the Swiss Mountains - one extreme to another. Not only are our walking sticks/poles well-worn, Herman, but so are we.....:-) I'll be catching up with rest, the list, personal emails, laundry and other chores over the next few days and look f/w to getting back into full posting stride next week.... Thanks to everyone for all the good threads (and good humour too) in our absence... Can't wait to jump into a shower now.... Metta, Sarah ======= #61350 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:05 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 484- Non-Aversion/Adosa (p) 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;-) ========================================== Ch 29, Non-Aversion(Adosa)contd ***** When we are giving a gift to someone or when we are helping someone, there may be pleasant feeling. However, instead of pure loving kindness there can be attachment. We should remember that pleasant feeling can arise with kusala citta as well as with citta rooted in attachment. We find pleasant feeling very important and we tend to think that it is kusala all the time, but we can easily be misled by pleasant feeling. When loving kindness arises there is not necessarily pleasant feeling all the time. Kusala citta can be accompanied by pleasant feeling or by indifferent feeling. ***** Non-Aversion(Adosa)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #61351 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: object and feeling egberdina Hi Ken, On 12/07/06, ken_aitch wrote: > > > First things first, Herman! In a message to Andrew, you said, > essentially, that anatta was not an absolute fact but a mere > meditation technique. This is what we need to discuss: finer points > about the inherent qualities of rupas can wait their turn. > I'm very willing and happy to re-prioritise my posting to accommodate your and Andrew's posts re anatta sooner. How about we make it a two way street? You tell me how dependency and ultimacy can live together peacefully, and I'll you how anatta means there is no soul. Deal? Kind Regards Herman #61352 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew (and James) - In a message dated 7/13/06 1:34:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@... writes: > Hi James > > My suggestion is that you and A. Sujin are at cross-purposes here. I > don't take her to be saying that effort doesn't occur. It does. > Where you and A. Sujin appear to differ is on the question of how > effort arises. When answering that question, you place much reliance > on reading the words as we do in everyday life context i.e. 'a > person' chooses and decides and makes effort by dint of that choice. > A. Sujin reads the words not in an everyday context but using the > teachings of anatta and D.O. and Abhidhamma as the principal context. > > Remember what I put to Herman the other day from the Samyutta Nikaya: > > An arahant "might still say 'I speak' and he might say 'They speak to > me'. Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, he uses such terms as > mere expressions." > > An expression like "I make effort" is a veneer only. A. Sujin is > reminding us of this and saying that we need to look deeper to find > the sublime meaning of the Dhamma. If we don't look deeper, we end > up just fortifying the sense of self. > > Them's my thoughts. > > Best wishes > Andrew > ========================= Andrew, the point you are making, as I understand you, is that a statement such as "A person can make an effort to ..." may be a perfectly true figurative statement, the underlying reality of which is not usually understood and is incredibly complex. Moreover, to understand the statement as a literal, not figurative, truth is an error that Dhamma corrects. I agree with that. (Of course, I hope I interpret you properly.) I would hasten to point out, however, that there is also a danger, one which I believe some folks on DSG have fallen victim to, in Khun Sujin's emphasis, to incorrectly (and unintentionally from her perspective, I believe) take a statement such as "A person can make an effort to ..." as not being a figurative truth, but as simply false, even conventionally. Such an "over-reading" of what I think is Khun Sujin's point can and does lead some folks to a position of conventional powerlessness and to despairing of being able to engage in useful intentional activities that lead to progress. To take figurative truth (e.g., "A person can make an effort to ...") for literal truth is serious error - no question. To understand a literal truth truth (e.g., "No person can make an effort to ...") as conventionally true is also serious error, and it is one that can have disastrous consequences. With metta, Howard #61353 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 (was, Knowledge of the Difference ...) scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thank you for the reply. H: "There are numerous places where concentration is given as a requisite condition for insight, but there is cyclic mutuality involved as well - what I have called a spiraling. I close here with pasting at the end an old post of mine to Jon relevant to this matter." "Spiraling" is definitely non-linear. H: "...It puts forward the very same chain of conditionality as above, but, at the end *circling back* to virtuous ways of conduct once again. And then the sutta closes with the following: 'Thus, monks, the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection, for going from the near shore to the far shore.' This is exactly the spiral conditionality that I was suggesting, and is, of course, in harmony with both of our understandings that all the factors affect each other." How do you understand: "...the succeeding qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection?" With loving kindness, Scott. #61354 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 (was, Knowledge of the Difference ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 7/13/06 8:02:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > > 'Thus, monks, the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding > qualities; the succeeding qualities bring the preceding qualities to > perfection, for going from the near shore to the far shore.' > > This is exactly the spiral conditionality that I was suggesting, and > is, of course, in harmony with both of our understandings that all the > factors affect each other." > > How do you understand: "...the succeeding qualities bring the > preceding qualities to perfection?" ----------------------------------- Howard: According to the straightforward reading: The preceding qualities are at a certain (initially low) level, the succeeding qualities that are resultant "feed back" leading to a new appearance of "the preceding qualities" at a higher-than-original level, and so on and so forth, with ever higher and higher levels attained, in the form of an ever-widening spiral. ------------------------------------ > > With loving kindness, > > Scott. > ==================== With metta, Howard #61355 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 1:52 am Subject: Rewording Clarification (Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - To make my meaning clearer, it would probably be better to omit the quotes in "feed back" and follow that by a comma, as changed below. With metta, Howard > Howard: > According to the straightforward reading: The preceding qualities are > at a certain (initially low) level, the succeeding qualities that are > resultant feed back, leading to a new appearance of "the preceding > qualities" at a > higher-than-original level, and so on and so forth, with ever higher and > higher > levels attained, in the form of an ever-widening spiral. > #61356 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:51 am Subject: Theravada Utopia In Myanmar :Re: Monasticism and running a business? abhidhammika Dear Matt Lawson, Mike N, Nina, Scott Duncan and all How are you? Theravada monks have renounced any form of money making ever since Gotama the Buddha started Theravada Sasana (Taming System of Arahants). By the way, there are confused and uninformed and or ideologically-biased people including some monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi who think that Buddhaghosa started Theravada. If Sarah is reading this, you are welcome to forward this message to Bhikkhu Bodhi. Therefore, ideally, running any form of income-generating business is outside the function of Theravada Samgha. This type of enterprise is to be left to the lay followers who want to see Buddha's Theravada Sasana continue to turn the wheel of dhamma. But, circumstances may force Theravada Samgha to bend Vinaya rules and run a special form of Utopia as the case of Thamanya in Myanmar indicates. I learnt about Thamanya very recently through a TV program called Compass on ABC (Australian Broadcasting Channel). Thamanya is a region in sourthen Myanmar. It is now turned into a form of Theravada Utopia by an elder monk called Thamanya Sayadaw. All forms of jobs normally done by public servants and private business enterprises are performed by Buddhist monks and novices under the guidance and instruction of Thamanya Sayadaw in Thamanya region where no soldiers and police are allowed to operate. I saw monks loading and unloading bags of commodities. One senior monk is directing road construction workers and discussing wage matters with them. In short, economic hardships in Myanmar seem to have forced the hands of Theravada monks to take business matters into their own hands, at least in this particular region. No, Theravada monasteries should not become shops and other money- generating business centres. But, non-Theravada temples are always run like shops and business centres. So, Matt, if you are a non-Theravada monk, there is nothing stopping you running your monastery like a business centre. While I was studying at university in Rangoon in Myanmar, I and my Aussie girlfriend regularly had lunch and dinner at a restaurant run by a Chinese Mahayana temple near Inya Lake. Very tasty meals, indeed! In Canberra, a Vietnamese Mahayana temple runs a restaurant, too. I eat lunch there from time to time, too. Go For It, Matt! With regards, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Lawson" wrote: Hi- I am thinking about ways to run a monastery in today's modern world. In general constantly asking for donations seems like unnecessary stress for the whole Sangha and at the very least the Abbott. When the original Buddha designed the "rules" there was not insurance, rent, utility bills, and the list goes on. Master Cheng Yen http://www.tzuchi.org/global/master/ started her monastery with a loan from the bank and then began a business. All of the nuns in her monastery work to earn money for the monastery. Ven. Yen has built perhaps the most successful Buddhist charity in the world. She devotes all her time to helping others. My current activities are influenced by helping others. For more than 8 years I have lived as a monk and my main frustration is there are always limited funds to run the monastery. I left my organization I was with for the past 7 years to setup a building material sourcing company based in China. My main goal is to build a monastic university to train people for AID work. In the process I have found interesting ways to raise large sums of funds, like in the hundreds of millions….ever hear the term Anti-Dumping TAX? One of the main areas of business I have focused on is building low cost homes, schools, hospitals, etc. Oddly enough one of the best ways to earn money is to build luxury homes. If monks and nuns devote their time to making money as well as general Buddhist practice with the intent to help others then perhaps billions of USD could be raised! I am very confident if 100 monks worked together on a single project we could raise $1 billion USD in one year. Actually I have started to run the numbers on building and maintaining 1000 schools for children with no money, no family, nothing. Each school with 500 kids at $0.50 cost per day plus a few other fees would be roughly $100k usd. per year for each school and roughly $100 million yearly cost. Setup is roughly $130k per school. Forgive me if I ramble a bit but I would love to spur some interesting conversation….. #61357 From: "matheesha" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 10:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 (was, Knowledge of the Difference ...) matheesha333 Hi Howard, "Thus, monks, the > preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding > qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection, for going from the > near shore to the far shore." Excellent! I was looking for that. Never though I would hear it being said. Every year that passes I realise that dhamma is well said and what is said is not lost :) metta Matheesha #61358 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 (was, Knowledge of the Difference ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Matheesha - In a message dated 7/13/06 1:12:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dhammachat@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > "Thus, monks, the > >preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the > succeeding > >qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection, for going > from the > >near shore to the far shore." > > Excellent! I was looking for that. Never though I would hear it being > said. Every year that passes I realise that dhamma is well said and > what is said is not lost :) > > metta > > Matheesha > ===================== Yes, the Dhamma is wonderful, and it is expressed exquisitely. There is so much beauty to be found in the suttas, so much genuine inspiration, so much wisdom, and such amazing clarity of thought and presentation. We should, I think, be intensely grateful to the Buddha for the magnificent gift he provided, and we should be truly appreciative of the efforts of dedicated Buddhists of the past and present - I think particularly of bhikkhus Bodhi and Thanissaro in our time - to preserve the Dhamma for us. With metta, Howard #61359 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:29 am Subject: Letters from Nina 4. nilovg Dear friends: ******* Nina. #61360 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:36 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 22. nilovg Dear friends, Past, present and future lives are an uninterrupted series of cittas. Each citta which arises falls away immediately to be succeeded by the next citta. Cittas do not last, but there isn't any moment without citta. If there were moments without citta the body would be a dead body. Even when we are sound asleep there is citta. Each citta which arises falls away but it conditions the next citta and evenso the last citta of this life conditions the first citta of the next life, the rebirth-consciousness. Thus we see that life goes on and on. We are moving in a cycle, the cycle of birth and death. The next citta cannot arise until the previous citta has passed away. There can be only one citta at a time, but cittas arise and fall away so rapidly that one has the impression that there can be more than one citta at a time. We may think that we can see and hear at the same time, but in reality each of these cittas arises at a different moment. We can verify through our own experience that seeing is a type of citta which is different from hearing; these cittas arise because of different conditions and experience different objects. A citta is that which experiences something; it experiences an object. Each citta must experience an object, there cannot be any citta without an object. Cittas experience different objects through the six doors of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense and mind. Seeing is a citta experiencing that which appears through the eyes. We can use the word ``visible object'' for the object which is seen but it is not necessary to name it ``visible object''. When visible object contacts the eyesense there are conditions for seeing. Seeing is different from thinking about what we see; the latter is a type of citta which experiences something through the mind-door. Hearing is a citta which is different from seeing; it has different conditions and it experiences a different object. When sound contacts the earsense, there are conditions for a citta which experiences sound. There have to be the right conditions for the arising of each citta. We cannot smell through the ears and taste with the eyes. A citta which smells experiences odour through the nose. A citta which tastes experiences flavour through the tongue. A citta which experiences tangible object experiences this through the bodysense. Through the mind-door cittas are able to experience all kinds of objects. There can be only one citta at a time and citta can experience only one object at a time. We may understand in theory that a citta which sees has a characteristic which is different from a citta which hears, and that citta is different from a physical phenomenon which does not experience anything. Knowing this may seem quite simple to us, but theoretical knowledge is different from knowing the truth by one's own experience. Theoretical knowledge is not very deep; it cannot eradicate the concept of self. Only in being aware of phenomena as they appear through the six doors, will we know the truth by our own experience. This kind of understanding can eradicate the concept of self. ****** Nina. #61361 From: Illusion Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:15 pm Subject: The Burden--Buddhist Story vvhite_illusion THE BURDEN Two monks were returning to the monastery in the evening. It had rained and there were puddles of water on the road sides. At one place a beautiful young woman was stuck, unable to walk, because of a puddle of water. The elder of the two monks went up to lift her in his alms and left her on the other side of the road, and continued his way to the monastery. In the evening the younger monk came to the elder monk and said, "Sir, as monks, we cannot touch a woman ?" The elder monk answered "yes, brother". Then the younger monk asks again, "but then Sir, how is that you lifted that woman on the roadside ?" The elder monk smiled at him and told him "I left her on the other side of the road, but you are still carrying her ". ***MORAL: Be realistic. It's ok to bend the rules (precepts) for a righteous cause. Do not be attached to certain rules and conventions. The younger monk was still carrying the woman in his mind because he is attached to these rules and conventions. http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/resources/buddhist_stories.html -- []\/[][]D (Maya Putra) #61362 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:43 pm Subject: Re: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > James: I disagree. The dhamma is a process and K. Sujin is second > guessing what the Buddha directly taught. > > Them's my thoughts. > > James: Just my thoughts also. Thanks for sharing! Hi James No point in taking it any further. I think we are like 2 ships passing in the dark of night! Good luck in Taiwan. Even if you don't partake of discussion here, I hope you'll keep us posted from time to time of your exploits. Best wishes Andrew #61363 From: "matheesha" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:31 pm Subject: Re: Consciousness! matheesha333 Hi Kanchuu, > How can I be sure that my daily activites are right? Everytime when I > do something, I feel it is 100% right and I do it. Later on I realize > it was wrong... What is the ultimate rightfull action??? I have been > loosing confidence... Everything I do these days, I try to give my > best, but am not not sure whether it is right or not??? M: I sense a certain distress in your words. Just relax a bit. Perhaps take a little break from all of this dhamma thinking. I know that sounds paradoxical but when there is too much viriya, it will result in agitation, not progress. I suspect that this maybe the case, but i might be wrong. Patience. It will come to you. turning wrong actions into right ones takes years usually, so take it slowly. with metta Matheesha #61364 From: "Matt Lawson" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:31 pm Subject: Theravada Utopia In Myanmar :Re: Monasticism and running a business? forestcall Very nice response. Perhaps we can start a friendly debate. First a brief background on my history- In 1998 I was ordained at Taungpula Kaba Aye Monastery in Boulder Creek CA. by the Abbott at the time. I cant remember his name actually. He was Burmese that much I remember. My dharma master or precept master was from Bangladesh and his name is Venerable. Wara Sambodhi. I stayed with this monastery for 19 months. I then decided to enter in to University of Wisconsin to formally study Buddhist philosophy. Since this University masters program was based on the Tibetan Gelupa tradition I became much more aligned with this philosophy. I have formally been with FPMT for the majority of my monk career. With the help of several other monks we built a monastery in Chiang Mai Thailand open to Theravada and Mahayana monks and nuns. Our goal is to build a University to train people for humanitarian AID work. I think it is great to give reference to 2500+ years of monastic history. However in order to properly help people one must have proper motivation and intent. To truly help 150,000 children and successfully support their daily needs this will take a lot of money. Lay people have many more needs that exceed that of a monk/nun, especially those who live in a stable environment like a monastery. Perhaps in some cases monastic's are more suited for this kind of work. My point is we need to re-evaluate how we run a monastery in today's times. Without giving direct reference to Gotama can you please give me some physical and logical reasons why a properly motivated monk can not handle money? Im just thinking about sick and hungry children in the world who could use a helping hand. I meet countless Theravada monks who want to do AID work. I am not here to convince anyone to go against the monastic precepts. Im only suggesting that according to Gotama the precepts or monastic rules were subject to change according to the times and regional conditions (i.e. Burma). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > > Dear Matt Lawson, Mike N, Nina, Scott Duncan and all > > How are you? > > Theravada monks have renounced any form of money making ever since > Gotama the Buddha started Theravada Sasana (Taming System of > Arahants). By the way, there are confused and uninformed and or > ideologically-biased people including some monks like Bhikkhu Bodhi > who think that Buddhaghosa started Theravada. If Sarah is reading > this, you are welcome to forward this message to Bhikkhu Bodhi. > ... #61365 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:35 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,89 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 89. (14) A resultant state that, by effortless quiet, assists effortless quiet [in other states] is 'kamma-result condition'. In the course of an existence it is a condition for states originated by it, and at rebirth-linking for the kinds of materiality due to kamma performed, and in both cases for the associated states, according as it is said: 'One resultant indeterminate aggregate is a condition, as kamma-result condition, for three aggregates and for the kinds of materiality originated by consciousness.... At the moment of rebirth-linking one resultant indeterminate aggregate [is a condition ... ] for three aggregates ... Three aggregates [are a condition ... ] for one aggregate ... Two aggregates are a condition, as kamma-result condition, for two aggregates and for the kinds of materiality due to kamma performed. Aggregates are a condition, as kamma-result condition, for the physical basis' (P.tn.1,173). ****************** 89. nirussaahasantabhaavena nirussaahasantabhaavaaya upakaarako vipaakadhammo vipaakapaccayo. so pavatte ta.msamu.t.thaanaana.m, pa.tisandhiya.m ka.tattaa ca ruupaana.m, sabbattha ca sampayuttadhammaana.m paccayo hoti. yathaaha ``vipaakaabyaakato eko khandho ti.n.nanna.m khandhaana.m cittasamu.t.thaanaana~nca ruupaana.m vipaakapaccayena paccayo...pe0... pa.tisandhikkha.ne vipaakaabyaakato eko khandho ti.n.nanna.m khandhaana.m ka.tattaa ca ruupaana.m. tayo khandhaa ekassa khandhassa. dve khandhaa dvinna.m khandhaana.m ka.tattaa ca ruupaana.m vipaakapaccayena paccayo. khandhaa vatthussa vipaakapaccayena paccayo''ti. #61366 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:14 pm Subject: Rewording Clarification (Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 ...) scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thank you for the clarification. Do you mind if I discuss a little? Howard: "According to the straightforward reading: The preceding qualities are at a certain (initially low) level, the succeeding qualities that are resultant feed back, leading to a new appearance of 'the preceding qualities' at a higher-than-original level, and so on and so forth, with ever higher and higher levels attained, in the form of an ever-widening spiral." Now, I wonder about the aspect of "feedback" in this system. To me this is a theoretical postulate used to deal with the temporal dimension, at least in "direction" from past to present, if that makes sense. Is this a way of making sense of the way in which qualities accumulate? If so, how do you account for the abhidhammic view that a dhamma completely falls away before the next dhamma arises? Doesn't the notion of feedback require an interaction between to temporally co-existent elements? How can there be a feedback loop established between an existent now and a past existent that has fallen away? Sorry if I have misrepresented your view... With loving kindness, Scott. #61367 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:46 pm Subject: Rewording Clarification (Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 ...) scottduncan2 Howard, "...between to temporally co-existent elements?" That, of course, should be "...two temporally co-existent elements." Perfectionistically yours, Scott. #61368 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 6:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: object and feeling ken_aitch Hi Herman, ------- H: > I'm very willing and happy to re-prioritise my posting to accommodate your and Andrew's posts re anatta sooner. How about we make it a two way street? You tell me how dependency and ultimacy can live together peacefully, and I'll you how anatta means there is no soul. Deal? -------- It's a deal, although I think we have different understandings of "dependency" and "ultiamcy." To me, dependency (the doctrine of dependent origination) tells us how dhammas roll on without being controlled by anyone. Every dhamma conditions, and is conditioned by, other dhammas. Ultimacy (your word for the doctrine of ultimate reality) reminds us whenever there seems to be a controlling entity there are really (ultimately) only dhammas - rolling on by conditions. You have asked me to explain how the two live together and I have answered by saying they are the same. I hope you don't think I am dodging the question. Now it's your turn. Please explain how anatta means no soul - as distinct from no self. Ken H #61369 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 (was, Knowledge of the Difference ...) scottduncan2 Dear Matheesha, Thanks for your reply. M: "Note, 'developed and pursued'. "Samadhi is clearly a very important ingredient but not the only one certainly. "Is it essential? To develop direct insight,(samadhi as I define it), yes. To develop sutamaya panna (theoretical wisdom as I see it), no. For that 'abhidhammic samadhi' is adequate. There might be clues in that for those who struggle to get past that stage. This sounds very inappropriate but it must be said as well. :)" Developed is "bhaveti" which also has the sense of to beget, to produce, to increase, and, one I find quite meaningful, to cultivate. Pursue has four paali translations I could find, and "anu.t.thaati" seemed to fit with the cultivate sense of bhaveti in that it is rendered "to look after, to manage, to carry on." (I'm still struggling to navigate my downloaded version of the ti-pitaka to find the Samadhisutta.m in AN. I've not been able to determine which word is used for "pursue.") That notwithstanding, I like the way "cultivate" and "look after" sound in relation to the development of anything kusula. I think the implication gives proper weight to the things done, that is activity, as well as a proper weight to anatta (in the sense that there is no one doing anything while things really happen). Where can I learn more about "abhidhammic samadhi?" In other words, why do you differentiate this and from what is it differentiated? Why do you define "direct insight" as "samadhi?" With loving kindness, Scott. #61370 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:07 pm Subject: Re: Rewording Clarification (Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and insight 1 ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 7/13/06 9:31:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Thank you for the clarification. Do you mind if I discuss a little? > > Howard: "According to the straightforward reading: The preceding > qualities are at a certain (initially low) level, the succeeding > qualities that are resultant feed back, leading to a new appearance of > 'the preceding qualities' at a higher-than-original level, and so on > and so forth, with ever higher and higher levels attained, in the form > of an ever-widening spiral." > > Now, I wonder about the aspect of "feedback" in this system. To me > this is a theoretical postulate used to deal with the temporal > dimension, at least in "direction" from past to present, if that makes > sense. > > Is this a way of making sense of the way in which qualities > accumulate? If so, how do you account for the abhidhammic view that a > dhamma completely falls away before the next dhamma arises? Doesn't > the notion of feedback require an interaction between to temporally > co-existent elements? How can there be a feedback loop established > between an existent now and a past existent that has fallen away? ---------------------------------------- Howard: I think this *exactly* accounts for "accumulation". Don't presume continuity or contiguity is required. Don't presume substantial connection. There is no need whatsoever for a dhamma to persist to serve as condition for future dhammas. There is no contradiction with regard to cessation of dhammas, which, BTW, is a Dhammic view, not just Abhidhammic. Assuming substantial connection, continuity, or even contiguity as requisite for conditionality to operate is based on conventional, macroscopic experience (and Newtonian physics), but it isn't the case in quantum physics, and I don't believe it is the case in reality. With regard to "feeding back", there is no actual feedback loop. (Sorry my terminology suggested that.) The later condition doesn't literally feed back to the original. It conditions a new, increased (or enhanced or strengthened) version of the original. It is a matter of a -> a' -> a'' (or a more compl ex spiral of the form a -> b -> c -> a' -> b' -> c' -> a'' -> b'' -> c'' -> ... ), where x' is an enhanced version of x, and x'' and enhanced version of x'. This is partly why I used the terminology of "spiral" rather than "cycle". All the conditions that arise are new. There are some matters that I *tend* to believe. There are others I *strongly* believe. Though I cannot say why, this is a matter that I am *certain* about. I would be utterly *amazed* to learn that I am wrong on this matter, though, of course, I realize that it is possible. ----------------------------------- > > Sorry if I have misrepresented your view... ---------------------------------- Howard: You did not, but you presumed a matter pertaining to conditionality that is, IMO, not a fact: the requirement of substantial connection. ---------------------------------- > > With loving kindness, > > Scott. ================= With metta, Howard #61371 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 9:07 pm Subject: Born with pa~n~na. scottduncan2 Dear All, In A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas I read, in a footnote to the first entry of a description of the series of cittas in the mind-door process when jhaana is attained, the following statement: "If one is not born with pa~n~na one cannot attain jhaana. If one is ti-hetuka, born with pa~n~na, all bhavanga-cittas are accompanied by pa~n~na," (p.298). 1) Are there references for this statement? 2) How is one to know whether or not one is "born with pa~n~na?" With loving kindness, Scott. #61372 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" corvus121 Hi Howard This my second attempt to answer your kind post. As I type, Lucky the cat is curled up on my lap. Let's hope she stays there and doesn't spring onto the keyboard like she did before!! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Andrew, the point you are making, as I understand you, is that a > statement such as "A person can make an effort to ..." may be a perfectly true > figurative statement, the underlying reality of which is not usually understood > and is incredibly complex. Moreover, to understand the statement as a literal, > not figurative, truth is an error that Dhamma corrects. I agree with that. (Of > course, I hope I interpret you properly.) A: Howard, I'm sure that's about 95% of it. The other 5% is simmering in the non-verbal zone and has something to do with the true function of intention. I'll keep working on it. > I would hasten to point out, however, that there is also a danger, one > which I believe some folks on DSG have fallen victim to, in Khun Sujin's > emphasis, to incorrectly (and unintentionally from her perspective, I believe) take > a statement such as "A person can make an effort to ..." as not being a > figurative truth, but as simply false, even conventionally. Such an "over-reading" > of what I think is Khun Sujin's point can and does lead some folks to a > position of conventional powerlessness and to despairing of being able to engage in > useful intentional activities that lead to progress. To take figurative truth > (e.g., "A person can make an effort to ...") for literal truth is serious > error - no question. To understand a literal truth truth (e.g., "No person can > make an effort to ...") as conventionally true is also serious error, and it is > one that can have disastrous consequences. A: Yes, you have expressed this concern before and I don't dismiss it. Who hasn't, at times, felt powerless and despairing (it's a constant theme among all the meditators I personally know - most of them give up in the end and they've mostly never *heard* of A. Sujin)? My attitude is that right view is right view regardless of whether it is presently palatable or not (no attribution to you is involved here). There are aspects of Dhamma which were extremely unpalatable to me in the past but which I now acknowledge as right view (I used to be a fanatical vegetarian). My experience is that, as understanding grows, the urge to make effort (I'll call it 'forced effort') seems to be supplanted by what I can only call a more natural and patient type of effort. It *is* effort, associated with keen interest and attention and action, but there doesn't seem to be the focus on result. This gives me confidence in A. Sujin's approach. Questions like whether we can or can't make effort don't seem to me so important anymore. As you said, the underlying reality is incredibly complex and, I for one cannot lay claim to knowing how it all works. Effort - great! Understanding - even better!! Effort with understanding - now "we" are going places!! Thanks Howard (and Lucky). Best wishes Andrew #61373 From: Ng Boon Huat Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Burden--Buddhist Story mr39515 My thoughts... Precepts is not a Absolute MUST thing one must take. We take precepts based on our own accumulation and free will. If you can take 5 then take 5. If you can take 8, then take 8. If you can take more than that, take it. And when we decide to take the precepts, we also plan to hold it... There is no such thing as bending the rules for better good. For example: you don't say "I kill the snake as it was going to bite the kid." Once kill, precepts is broken.... It is either you take precepts or don't take precepts. If you take the precepts, don't break it. Metta STEVen --- Illusion wrote: > THE BURDEN > > Two monks were returning to the monastery in the > evening. It had > rained and there were puddles of water on the road > sides. At one place > a beautiful young woman was stuck, unable to walk, > because of a puddle > of water. The elder of the two monks went up to lift > her in his alms > and left her on the other side of the road, and > continued his way to > the monastery. > > In the evening the younger monk came to the elder > monk and said, > > "Sir, as monks, we cannot touch a woman ?" > > The elder monk answered "yes, brother". > > Then the younger monk asks again, > > "but then Sir, how is that you lifted that woman on > the roadside ?" > > The elder monk smiled at him and told him > > "I left her on the other side of the road, but you > are still carrying her ". > > > ***MORAL: Be realistic. It's ok to bend the rules > (precepts) for a > righteous cause. Do not be attached to certain > rules and conventions. > The younger monk was still carrying the woman in > his mind because he > is attached to these rules and conventions. <...> #61374 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:52 am Subject: Focused and Fused ... !!! bhikkhu_ekamuni Friends: The Seven States Focused & Fused on one single object: Nibbâna! The Awareness Link to Awakening is foremost in the sense of rolling overall like a wheel. The Investigation Link to Awakening is the chief in the sense of greatness like an elephant. The Energy Link to Awakening is prime in the sense of being swift & strong like a horse. The Joy Link to Awakening is vital in the sense of giving brilliant radiance like a jewel. The Tranquillity Link to Awakening is primary in the sense of soothing like a mild woman. The Concentration Link to Awakening is best in the sense of giving wealth like a treasurer. The Equanimity Link to Awakening is supreme in the sense of ballance like a good advisor. These seven links to awakening are thus like the 7 treasures of a wheel-turning monarch. They awaken beings into the state of entering the stream leading to the deathless Nibbana. They further awaken beings into the state of returning here as human only one more time. They furthermore awaken beings into the state of never returning here as human again. They finally fully awaken beings into the state of Arahatship by complete Enlightenment. When these seven states coincide simultaneously; fused into the same assemblage; all being joined focused on only one single and even same object: Nibbana, then Awakening occurs... Only this is final Enlightenment!!! Yeah... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bhikkhu Samahita, Sri Lanka. #61375 From: Ken O Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:10 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... and cycles ashkenn2k Hi Charles Physical cannot cause ignorance. How are we getting to get rid of ignorance and gain enlightment if we still have a physical body. Ignorance is mental. And the cause of rebirth is not physical, it is kamma. Cheers Ken O #61376 From: "buddhiststudent" Date: Sat Jul 8, 2006 11:33 pm Subject: Important Message from Venerable Bhante Vimalaramsi buddhiststudent These interview in full length can be download at www.Dhammapada.Buddhistnetwork.com due to not yet uploaded at www.dhammasukha.org June 19, 2006 "Reclaiming the Buddha's Words: An Opening Interview", with Venerable Bhante Vimalaramsi, Annapolis, Missouri, Ozark Mountains. Jeta's Grove & Dhamma Sukha Meditation Center Interviewer: What was the main discovery the Buddha made that was different from other teachings at that time? Interviewer: As a teacher, what are your main sources for teaching the Dhamma? Bhante V: My main sources for teaching come from the Suttas and the Books of Discipline (Vinaya) which brings me to a point that many people misunderstand (especially in the West). The Vinaya is usually thought to be only the ``Rules of Discipline'' for the monks, but actually there is a great deal of wisdom and practical advice one can gain by reading the suttas in the Vinaya. When I give Dhamma talks I read a Sutta and explain how it is relevant to one's daily meditation practice. I mainly use the Majjhima Nikaya, the Samyutta Nikaya (the Bhikkhu Bodhi Translations from Wisdom Publications) and occasionally take some Suttas from the Vinaya. If you want to get a sample of a Dhamma talk go to our website at ............................................................ www.dhammasukha.org/Study/resources.htm#talk . Interviewer: Why are so many people having trouble achieving full liberation from the taints and fetters, through meditation today? Interviewer: What are the qualities and teachings that we should look for in a teacher when we are ready to practice meditation? Bhante V: One of the most important things to look for in the teacher and his guidance is, whether that teacher understands and teaches their students Dependent Origination as seen through the eyes of the 4 Noble Truths. This is the core teaching that the Buddha spent 45 years showing us. In the Samyutta Nikaya there is one sutta that talks about this very thing. This is from The Book of Causation 82 (1) it says: At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, one who does not know and see as it really is, aging-and-death, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to the cessation, (this is the Four Noble Truths) should search for a teacher in order to know this is as it really is. "Bhikkhus, one who does not know and see as it really is birth ... existence ... clinging ... craving ... feeling ... contact ... the six sense bases ... mentality/ materiality ... consciousness ... volitional formations, their origin, their cessation, and the way leading to their cessation, should search for a teacher in order to know this as it really is." This pretty much sums up what one should look for in a teacher. There is the next sutta [83 (2)] that explains How one should approach their training. It says: "Bhikkhus, one who does not know and see as it actually is, aging-and-death... birth... existence... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense bases... mentality/materiality... consciousness... volitional formations, their origin, their cessation and the way leading to their cessation, should practice the training in order to know this as it really is. So this gives a sincere meditator, who wants to get off of this birth-death cycle, the way to truly practice meditation. Also, please notice that there is no mention of the three Characteristics of existence (that is impermanence, suffering, and the impersonal nature of all existence) in this description. Why do you suppose this is? The answer can be found in the Maha-Vagga of the Vinaya it says: "The meditator can see, one or all of the `Three Characteristics of Existence' (impermanence, suffering and the impersonal nature of all existence), without seeing Dependent Origination, but when one sees Dependent Origination directly they will always see all of the `Three Characteristics'." This is very interesting because when people practice straight Vipassana meditation, they are taught that seeing the ``Three Characteristics'' is the main goal of straight vipassana, as it is being taught today! <.....> For more information about meditation retreats and the Buddha's Teachings according to the Suttas and Vinaya, please go to our website at www.dhammasukha.org or contact Bhante Vimalaramsi at Dhamma Sukha Meditation Center, RR1 Box 100, Annapolis, MO. 63620, U.S.A. or write an email to bhantev4u@... or khantikhema@... May all beings always be happy and may you attain Nibbana quickly and easily, in this very life! ********************************************************************* ********* MP3 Dhamma Talks By Ven Dhammavuddho Maha Thera http://www.vbgnet.org Vihara Buddha Gotama KUCHING DHAMMA TOUR - The recorded Dhamma Talks (and Q & As too) are hereby reproduced for both days (27~28 May) .... http://friendsofthedhamma.net/Kuching_Dhamma_Tour1.html www.Dhammapada.Buddhistnetwork.com #61377 From: Ken O Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theravada Utopia In Myanmar :Re: Monasticism and running a business? ashkenn2k Hi Matt Lawson If doing AID work, can get people to gain enlightment. Buddha would have told us to do it. I don't think there is lack of people who needed AID around in Buddha times. In Thervada tradition, Buddha goal is to help people to gain enlightement. Cheers Ken O #61378 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Born with pa~n~na. nilovg Dear Scott, I read this in the Visuddhimagga. I cannot find the passage now. When born with paññaa, all the bhavangacittas of one's life are also accompanied by paññaa but it is hard to find out whether this is the case or not. When born with paññaa, it is the result of kusala kamma performed with paññaa, and nobody can choose what kind of kamma produces his rebirth. We are born with different potentialities and this influences our whole life. It is of no use to speculate about what has happened already. But those born without paññaa and with paññaa can develop paññaa. Those born with paññaa still have to develop it in order to attain jhaana or enlightenment. And those born without paññaa can develop it and this may condition their next rebirth. We can only develop understanding at this moment of the dhamma appearing now through one of the six doors. Nina. Op 14-jul-2006, om 6:07 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > In A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas I read, in a footnote to the first > entry of a description of the series of cittas in the mind-door > process when jhaana is attained, the following statement: > > "If one is not born with pa~n~na one cannot attain jhaana. If one is > ti-hetuka, born with pa~n~na, all bhavanga-cittas are accompanied by > pa~n~na," (p.298). > > 1) Are there references for this statement? > > 2) How is one to know whether or not one is "born with pa~n~na?" #61379 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:17 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 485- Non-Aversion/Adosa (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;-) ========================================== Ch 29, Non-Aversion(Adosa)contd ***** The Visuddhimagga (Chapter IX) gives advice for the application of loving kindness for someone who is inclined to give in to anger. He should review the danger in hate and the advantage of patience. A person harms himself when he is angry. When he is angry with someone he should not pay attention to the bad qualities of that person but only to his good qualities, and if he has none he should be compassionate instead of angry. That person’s accumulation of akusala will bring him sorrow. We should remember that we all are “heirs” of our deeds, we will receive the results of our deeds. We could also regard the person we are angry with as five khandhas (aggregates) or as elements which are impermanent. These arise and then fall away immediately and thus what is then the object we are angry with? The citta of the other person which motivated unpleasant speech or an unpleasant deed has fallen away already and thus it belongs to the past. Another way of overcoming anger is giving a gift. We can learn from experience that, when we give a gift, there are conditions for kusala citta both for the giver and the receiver. Giving and receiving mellows the heart and thus the relationship between people can be improved. ***** Non-Aversion(Adosa)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #61380 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhikkhu Bodhi and Buddhaghosa egberdina Hi Jon (and Joop), On 05/07/06, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Regarding your closing comment ('It's a reason again to prefer the > Suttas more than commentaries on it'), the fact is that there is so much > left unsaid in the suttas that they cannot be 'read' without a > considerable amount of 'interpretation', and I think you'll find that > there is no general consensus on their meaning when taken alone (or as a > body of work) without reference to other supporting material. By the > way, would you agree that individual suttas need to be read in the > context of the body of suttas as a whole? > I think your statements here fairly well capture the whole ethos that pits what the Buddha said from time to time, against "the teachings". I don't attribute any evil motives to the tradition makers, but I see clearly that they have been unaware of their distorting influence. The very notion that specific spoken words of the Buddha need to be read in conjunction with all his other spoken words is entirely symptomatic of tradition-making. What is happening in this process is that words, spoken as being entirely sufficient for the occasion in which they were uttered, become portrayed as originating from their future being assembled together. This is a misrepresentation of the past. Each Sutta is a self-sufficient statement, aimed at a specifc audiece, in a specific context. I do not know of any Suttas that refer the audience to other spoken utterances so that the present one may be understood. I see no requirement or direction or implicit understanding in any Sutta that the Buddha was guaranteed of the same audience from one Sutta to the next. The ability to cross-reference texts is a luxury afforded all of us today, but no-one in the days when they were spoken. Taking a Sutta outside of its own context is to distort it, IMRAO (in my reasonably arrogant opinion :-)). Kind Regards Herman #61381 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 3:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hello* egberdina Hi Jon, On 06/07/06, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Hi Herman > > > Herman Hofman wrote: > > >Hi Jon, > > > >What is the basis for your stressed assertion that insight is > >something that can be developed regardless of how active the mind is? > >How does that relate to anything the Buddha taught, and especially the > >Satipatthana Sutta? > > > > > A good question, and one that I'm happy to discuss any time. It goes I > think to the very heart of the teachings. > > A comprehensive reply is not possible in a single post. However, in > brief, my understanding on the matter is as follows. > > (We should probably agree what we mean by activity of the mind in this > context. I take it to mean discursive thinking, especially of the > akusala kind.) > > First, the factors for the development of insight as given in the sutta > from SN 55's are 4-fold: association with the right persons, hearing > the true dhamma, useful reflection on what has been heard, and practice > in accordance with the dhamma. No reference here to a quiet/non-active > mind. > > Secondly, in the Satipatthana Sutta it mentions, in the section on > mindfulness of the body, mindfulness while going about all personal > activities and, in the section on mindfulness of the mind, knowing mind > with akusala as mind with akusala. > > Thirdly, the dhammas to be known as forming part of 'the all' (SN again) > are dhammas such as the seeing consciousness now arising, the visible > object now arising, mind-states now arising. > > OK, there's a lot more to it than that, of course, but I think you get > my drift. As I see it, an active mind is no bar to the development of > insight. > > Herman, I know you have a different take on this, and I look forward to > discussing it further. > Given my post of a minute or ten ago, I would disallow your entire take on the Satipatthana Sutta. For instance, how does the fake category "kusala" of umpteen years later figure in it? It is a gross distortion of the Satipatthana Sutta to render it as a discussion of generalities compiled by a dead tradition, when it is, in fact, about the only events that ever happen, specific ones. Here and now. And when the here and now is rightly seen, it too disappears. IMRAO Kind Regards Herman #61382 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 7/14/06 2:23:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time, athel60@... writes: > Hi Howard > > This my second attempt to answer your kind post. As I type, Lucky > the cat is curled up on my lap. Let's hope she stays there and > doesn't spring onto the keyboard like she did before!! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Andrew, the point you are making, as I understand you, is > that a > >statement such as "A person can make an effort to ..." may be a > perfectly true > >figurative statement, the underlying reality of which is not > usually understood > >and is incredibly complex. Moreover, to understand the statement as > a literal, > >not figurative, truth is an error that Dhamma corrects. I agree > with that. (Of > >course, I hope I interpret you properly.) > > A: Howard, I'm sure that's about 95% of it. The other 5% is > simmering in the non-verbal zone and has something to do with the > true function of intention. I'll keep working on it. > > > I would hasten to point out, however, that there is also a > danger, one > >which I believe some folks on DSG have fallen victim to, in Khun > Sujin's > >emphasis, to incorrectly (and unintentionally from her perspective, > I believe) take > >a statement such as "A person can make an effort to ..." as not > being a > >figurative truth, but as simply false, even conventionally. Such > an "over-reading" > >of what I think is Khun Sujin's point can and does lead some folks > to a > >position of conventional powerlessness and to despairing of being > able to engage in > >useful intentional activities that lead to progress. To take > figurative truth > >(e.g., "A person can make an effort to ...") for literal truth is > serious > >error - no question. To understand a literal truth truth (e.g., "No > person can > >make an effort to ...") as conventionally true is also serious > error, and it is > >one that can have disastrous consequences. > > A: Yes, you have expressed this concern before and I don't dismiss > it. Who hasn't, at times, felt powerless and despairing (it's a > constant theme among all the meditators I personally know - most of > them give up in the end and they've mostly never *heard* of A. > Sujin)? ------------------------------------ Howard: I don't disagree with that assessment. I believe such abandonment is a consequence of certain defilements: greed & impatience (one defilement, or two closely related ones), and sceptical doubt. To stick with any aspect of Dhamma practice, there must be a modicum of alobha, khanti, and saddha in place. ------------------------------------ > My attitude is that right view is right view regardless of > whether it is presently palatable or not (no attribution to you is > involved here). There are aspects of Dhamma which were extremely > unpalatable to me in the past but which I now acknowledge as right > view (I used to be a fanatical vegetarian). My experience is that, > as understanding grows, the urge to make effort (I'll call it 'forced > effort') seems to be supplanted by what I can only call a more > natural and patient type of effort. It *is* effort, associated with > keen interest and attention and action, but there doesn't seem to be > the focus on result. This gives me confidence in A. Sujin's approach. > > Questions like whether we can or can't make effort don't seem to me > so important anymore. As you said, the underlying reality is > incredibly complex and, I for one cannot lay claim to knowing how it > all works. > > Effort - great! Understanding - even better!! Effort with > understanding - now "we" are going places!! ----------------------------------- Howard: Yes, an unmatchable pair! ---------------------------------- > > Thanks Howard (and Lucky). Best wishes > Andrew > ==================== With metta, Howard #61383 From: "matheesha" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello* matheesha333 Hi Jon, I think your discussion with Herman links into our disucussion on samadhi and panna. > First, the factors for the development of insight as given in the sutta > from SN 55's are 4-fold: association with the right persons, hearing > the true dhamma, useful reflection on what has been heard, and practice > in accordance with the dhamma. No reference here to a quiet/non- active > mind. M: These are factors for becoming a sotapanna, and panna is one (main) component of that state. Your definition of 'practice in accordance with the dhamma' probably does not include calming the mind, but most buddhists would see it that way. > > Secondly, in the Satipatthana Sutta it mentions, in the section on > mindfulness of the body, mindfulness while going about all personal > activities and, in the section on mindfulness of the mind, knowing mind > with akusala as mind with akusala. > M: Yes, exactly. If the mind was full of conceptual thinking, frantically active with thought, there would be no mindfulness, no sati, no insight into phenomena could arise. Sati requires a calm mind, is supported by samadhi, (gives rise to samadhi as well). > Thirdly, the dhammas to be known as forming part of 'the all' (SN again) > are dhammas such as the seeing consciousness now arising, the visible > object now arising, mind-states now arising. > M: Well then we could all read a book on abhidhamma and have direct insight by just being simply being awake and experiencing. But that doesnt happen. You might say more (sutamaya) panna is required, I say the mind is too active and need to cultivate sati and samadhi. > OK, there's a lot more to it than that, of course, but I think you get > my drift. As I see it, an active mind is no bar to the development of > insight. > M: Satipattana sutta talks of being mindful of craving, aversion etc. Yet the gradual path of the Buddhas teaching clearly talks of much preparation of the mind before starting satipattana practice. Just being secluded in itself, not to mention the life of a monk, has great effects on the mind, as I'm sure many here have experienced, in terms of calming it. The sutta itself talks of being away from 'abhijja domanassa' before starting this practice. This is clearly a practical instruction to someone who hasnt attained arahathood and can have no claim to a mind without akusala (or even atta ditti), and is the path to getting rid of those very same defilements. Abhidhamma probably has problems understanding intensities and frequencies as it has a very limited and snapshot view of dhammas, which direct experiencing doesnt produce (-ie the temporal element/causality can clearly be seen in the latter). A state intense mental activity (thoughts) unconducive to insight and a calm mind still giving rise to a few defilements are poles apart in usefeulness to the Path. "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action...In one of right action, right livelihood...In one of right livelihood, right effort...In one of right effort, right mindfulness...In one of right mindfulness, right concentration...In one of right concentration, right knowledge...In one of right knowledge, right release comes into being. Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the Arahant with ten. -mahacattasarika sutta It is clear that samadhi (a calm unified mind) is a forerunner to panna. It is clearly said that a person who doesnt have samadhi should approach another and ask how that samadhi should be developed, the mind unified and concentrated. (samadhi sutta) Maybe the problem was not knowing the samadhi (unifcation) is (almost) essential for a calm mind. with metta Matheesha #61384 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Born with pa~n~na. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for your kind reply. I'll check the Visuddhimagga later today. N: "I read this in the Visuddhimagga. I cannot find the passage now. When born with pa~n~naa, all the bhavangacittas of one's life are also accompanied by pa~n~naa but it is hard to find out whether this is the case or not." My question has arisen as I contemplate anatta and consider all of the aspects of "practise" there seem to be. I guess it would be hard to find this out. And it would be missing the point, as well I suppose, to have this aim as a pursuit. I was more just wondering if pa~n~na would arise, and then considered, well what would it mean if one did not have such an accumulation. N: "When born with pa~n~naa, it is the result of kusala kamma performed with pa~n~naa, and nobody can choose what kind of kamma produces his rebirth. We are born with different potentialities and this influences our whole life. It is of no use to speculate about what has happened already. But those born without pa~n~naa and with pa~n~naa can develop pa~n~naa. Those born with pa~n~naa still have to develop it in order to attain jhaana or enlightenment." It may be of no use to speculate about what has gone, but, one can wait and see if, perhaps, pa~n~na can arise now. This is also part of what was behind my question, just wondering if jhaana would arise. And I've been thinking of development in light of cultivation and tending versus anyone making it happen. N: "And those born without pa~n~naa can develop it and this may condition their next rebirth. We can only develop understanding at this moment of the dhamma appearing now through one of the six doors." So, being born without pa~n~na wouldn't preclude its arising, were conditions to be such, at some point later in the course of a life. With loving kindness, Scott. #61385 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhikkhu Bodhi and Buddhaghosa upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Jon, and Joop) - In a message dated 7/14/06 8:08:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Hi Jon (and Joop), > > > On 05/07/06, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > Regarding your closing comment ('It's a reason again to prefer the > > Suttas more than commentaries on it'), the fact is that there is so much > > left unsaid in the suttas that they cannot be 'read' without a > > considerable amount of 'interpretation', and I think you'll find that > > there is no general consensus on their meaning when taken alone (or as a > > body of work) without reference to other supporting material. By the > > way, would you agree that individual suttas need to be read in the > > context of the body of suttas as a whole? > > > > I think your statements here fairly well capture the whole ethos that > pits what the Buddha said from time to time, against "the teachings". > > I don't attribute any evil motives to the tradition makers, but I see > clearly that they have been unaware of their distorting influence. > > The very notion that specific spoken words of the Buddha need to be > read in conjunction with all his other spoken words is entirely > symptomatic of tradition-making. What is happening in this process is > that words, spoken as being entirely sufficient for the occasion in > which they were uttered, become portrayed as originating from their > future being assembled together. This is a misrepresentation of the > past. > > Each Sutta is a self-sufficient statement, aimed at a specifc audiece, > in a specific context. I do not know of any Suttas that refer the > audience to other spoken utterances so that the present one may be > understood. I see no requirement or direction or implicit > understanding in any Sutta that the Buddha was guaranteed of the same > audience from one Sutta to the next. > > The ability to cross-reference texts is a luxury afforded all of us > today, but no-one in the days when they were spoken. Taking a Sutta > outside of its own context is to distort it, IMRAO (in my reasonably > arrogant opinion :-)). > > Kind Regards > > > Herman > ======================== I am in basic agreement with you on this, Herman. I would add a couple comments: There may be several motivations, not always consciously realized, for saying that a sutta is understandable only "in the context of the body of suttas as a whole." 1) Occasionally one sutta (or a few) may be helpful in throwing light on another sutta whose meaning is not clear on first examination, because of unstated information that was obvious to the original hearers or because of insufficiently reported context. Don't forget, for one thing, that at the time of the Buddha, many bhikkhus and laypersons would have already heard other lectures by him at a time he was teaching them again that served as common but unstated background information. A realization of the foregoing serves as commendable motivation, I'd say, though to literally require a context of the suttas AS A WHOLE is, of course, to make an impossible requirement. It would be far better, I think, to simply say that individual suttas are often usefully read with reference to other related suttas. 2) Another possible motivation, not an admirable one at all, is that this tack of relying on the "suttas as a whole" enables one to dismiss an evident meaning that is not to one's liking and to impose instead a meaning that is quite "a stretch". In that regard, this principle affords one the opportunity to pick and choose those suttas that seem to support one's preferred interpretation. This motivation also applyAn important caveat to keep in mind is that our clinging to views is a blindingly opaque blinder! 3) At issue is not only the matter of reading an individual sutta "in the context of the body of suttas as a whole," but also the matter of back-interpretation of a sutta in the context of later, non-suttic (Abhidhammic and commentarial) teachings. What I wrote above in both items 1) and 2) applies here as well, I'd say: Item 1) particularly with regard to the commentaries, which help explain the background and context of a sutta, and item 2) with regard to the Abhidhamma, a later systemization. With metta, Howard #61386 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:50 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... and cycles dacostacharles Hi Ken O The cause of ignorance is inherent to existence (it is the foundation of which a house of suffering is built); therefore it can be said that the root cause of ignorance pre-dates the current existence (ref: the Buddhist genesis legend). It is not so important whether the physical can cause, or contribute to, ignorance because - yes we work on ignorance via the mental - e.g., we change our view of the physical discomfort. What I have been getting at is the physical can cause, or contribute to, suffering and thus ignorance because of desire (i.e., the supporting walls of which a house of suffering is built). But then you would think that it is the desire - yes - but what causes the desire - the discomfort. Sudden enlightenment, taken from a practical form of Zen, would dictate removing the physical discomfort if practical and thus ending the current life of suffering. In terms of rebirth, the physical has a dimension too - study the old Hindu "views" on re-incarnation. From my stand point: Mind and Body are one; When you touch one you affect the other; they are not meant to be separated when it comes to D.O. - that is why they are present together as one link and not two separate links. Charles DaCosta _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken O Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:11 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [dsg] Q. Dependent Origination ... and cycles Hi Charles Physical cannot cause ignorance. How are we getting to get rid of ignorance and gain enlightment if we still have a physical body. Ignorance is mental. And the cause of rebirth is not physical, it is kamma. Cheers Ken O #61387 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:26 am Subject: TYPO Re: [dsg] Bhikkhu Bodhi and Buddhaghosa upasaka_howard Hi, all - Please delete "This motivation also apply" from the end of the following. It doesn't belong there! Sorry. With metta, Howard In a message dated 7/14/06 9:20:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Upasaka writes: > 2) Another possible motivation, not an admirable one at all, is that this > tack of relying on the "suttas as a whole" enables one to dismiss an evident > meaning that is not to one's liking and to impose instead a meaning that is > quite "a stretch". In that regard, this principle affords one the opportunity > to pick and choose those suttas that seem to support one's preferred > interpretation. This motivation also applyAn important caveat to keep in mind is that > our clinging to views is a blindingly opaque blinder! > #61388 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Born with pa~n~na. nilovg Dear Scott, It is beneficial to consider how many different conditions have to concur just for the arising of one moment of Kusala citta accompanied by paññaa. Many sobhana cetasikas that assist the kusala citta, kusala in the past, living in the right place, associating with wise people. I quoted before the Atthasaalini who explains samaya as concurrence of conditions.This helps not to see a self who can cultivate paññaa. But the situation is not hopeless, by listening and considering the Dhamma understanding can develop. I think that there is no need to think of paññaa, it can arise for a moment when the right conditions are present. Nina. Op 14-jul-2006, om 14:19 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > It may be of no use to speculate about what has gone, but, one can > wait and see if, perhaps, pa~n~na can arise now. This is also part of > what was behind my question, just wondering if jhaana would arise. > And I've been thinking of development in light of cultivation and > tending versus anyone making it happen. > > N: "And those born without pa~n~naa can develop it and this may > condition their next rebirth. We can only develop understanding at > this moment of the dhamma appearing now through one of the six doors." > > So, being born without pa~n~na wouldn't preclude its arising, were > conditions to be such, at some point later in the course of a life. #61389 From: "robmoult" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:24 am Subject: Translation from Pali robmoult Hi Nina (and All); How would you translate the following: "Cittam cetasikam ruupam, nibbaanan ti niruttaro catudhaa desayii dhamme, catusaccappakaasano." This is one of the opening verses of Buddhadatta's Abhidhammavatara. Metta, Rob M :-) #61390 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 8:19 am Subject: Re: K. Sujin on "No 'Tryng'" philofillet Hi James Thanks for your comments. I won't carry it on - we know where we're at. > I leave for Taiwan > at the end of this month so this will probably be the last of my > participation in DSG. Anyways, look me up if and when you visit Japan. And when I have more time during my summer vacation (starts in about two weeks) I'll catch up with you off list. Phil #61391 From: "ericlonline" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 9:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Hello* ericlonline Hey Matheesha & Jon, > M: Yes, exactly. If the mind was full of conceptual thinking, > frantically active with thought, there would be no mindfulness, no > sati, no insight into phenomena could arise. Sati requires a calm > mind, is supported by samadhi, (gives rise to samadhi as well). It is interesting that many dont see this. Being lost in thought, thinking that more thought just clarified better or deeper etc. will lead out of the maze of thought. This was not the Buddha's path out of the delusional maze. > M: Well then we could all read a book on abhidhamma and have direct insight by just being simply being awake and experiencing. But that doesnt happen. You might say more (sutamaya) panna is required, I say the mind is too active and need to cultivate sati and samadhi. Again, interesting that most dont see this as well. We are addicted to words. In a way that is all we know. We filter experience thru a screen of likes and dislikes. Few try to look under the screen. --- Was reading Ayya Khema's _Who is my self?: A Guide to Buddhist Meditation_. She uses the Potthapada Sutta as the basis for her words. She had a neat tip on enterring the 2nd or 3rd jhanna where sukha predominates. Just say the word 'joy' while in the first or second and piti diminishes and sukha will be seen more easily. I tried it and it worked for me. I know, more words! :-) peace e #61392 From: "ericlonline" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:00 am Subject: Buddhadasa Centenial ericlonline Hi y'all, It is 100 years since his birth. Here is a bunch of audio. The monk translating on the spot speaks a bit slow so if you are using MS media player, click the arrow at the bottom right one or 2 times to make it sound more natural. I heard that Ajahn Chah had a picture of Buddhadasa on his altar even though they never met. Quite cool! http://liberationpark.org/audiox/tanaj.htm See Talks by Ajahn Buddhadasa Also here is a class I have been attending. Some good perspectives by different teachers. http://liberationpark.org/study/syllabus.htm If you have not read it already. This book by Joanna Macy is quite good!! http://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=52247 She has a comment about phassa that really was worth the price of the book. Phassa has always puzzled me in DO. I will try and dig the quote out. (I know, more words! :) peace e #61393 From: "ericlonline" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:16 am Subject: Re: Hello* ericlonline Hi Greg, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Gregory Parcell wrote: > I am still having trouble with an overactive mind during meditation so if any of you have some advice on calming the mind I would be appreciative. By overactive I assume you mean thinking. There are at least 2 types. Thoughts that have nothing to do with meditating and comments about what is happening. Either way, give your thinking mind something to do in line with your objective of steady mindfulness of the breath (I know, you may not be using breath as your object). Counting after each exhalation works good. Count from 10 to 1, then 9 to 1, then 8 to 1, till 1. If you have not gotten 'control' of your thoughts by 1, start over. If you have forgotten what sequence or number you are on i.e. lost your mindfulness, start over. A word also may help while focusing. 'Re' on the in breath and 'lax' on the outbreath then the number you are on. Another word commonly used is Buddho. After time, you will see that your intention to sit and be mindfull will be stronger than your intention to think and you will no longer get lost in thought. At that point, you can drop the counting. hope it helps! peace e #61394 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:01 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily life 23. nilovg Dear friends, The objects which we experience are the world in which we live. At the moment we see, the world is visible object. The world of visible object does not last, it falls away immediately. When we hear, the world is sound, but it falls away again. We are absorbed in and infatuated with the objects we experience through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense and mind-door, but not one of these objects lasts. What is impermanent should not be taken for self. In the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Fours, chapter V, §5, Rohitassa) we read that Rohitassa, a deva, asked the Buddha about reaching the world's end. He said to the Buddha: ``Pray, lord, is it possible for us, by going, to know, to see, to reach world's end, where there is no more being born or growing old, no more dying, no more falling (from one existence) and rising up (in another)?'' ``Your reverence, where there is no more being born or growing old, no more dying, no more falling from one existence and rising up in another, I declare that end of the world is not by going to be known, seen or reached.'' ``It is wonderful, lord! It is marvellous, lord, how well it is said by the Exalted One: `Where there is no more being born... that end of the world is not by going to be known, seen or reached!' Formerly, lord, I was the hermit called Rohitassa, Bhoja's son, one of psychic power, a skywalker... The extent of my stride was as the distance between the eastern and the western ocean. To me, lord, possessed of such speed and of such a stride, there came a longing thus: I will reach the world's end by going. But, lord, not to speak of (the time spent over) food and drink, eating, tasting and calls of nature, not to speak of struggles to banish sleep and weariness, though my life-span was a hundred years, though I travelled a hundred years, yet I reached not world's end but died ere that. Wonderful indeed, lord! Marvellous it is, lord, how well it has been said by the Exalted One: `Your reverence, where there is no more being born... that end of the world is not by going to be known, seen or reached.''' ``But your reverence, I declare not that there is any making an end of ill (dukkha) without reaching the world's end. Nay, your reverence, in this very fathom-long body, along with its perceptions and thoughts, I proclaim the world to be, likewise the origin of the world and the making of the world to end, likewise the practice going to the ending of the world. Not to be reached by going is world's end. Yet there is no release for man from ill Unless he reach the world's end. Then let a man Become world-knower, wise, world-ender, Let him be one who lives the holy life. Knowing the world's end by becoming calmed He longs not for this world or another.'' The Buddha taught people about the ``world'' and the way to reach the end of the world, that is, the end of suffering, dukkha. The way to realize this is knowing the world, that is, knowing ``this very fathom-long body, along with its perceptions and thoughts'', knowing oneself. The objects which we experience are the world in which we live. At the moment we see, the world is visible object. The world of visible object does not last, it falls away immediately. When we hear, the world is sound, but it falls away again. We are absorbed in and infatuated with the objects we experience through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense and mind-door, but not one of these objects lasts. What is impermanent should not be taken for self. In the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Fours, chapter V, §5, Rohitassa) we read that Rohitassa, a deva, asked the Buddha about reaching the world's end. He said to the Buddha: ``Pray, lord, is it possible for us, by going, to know, to see, to reach world's end, where there is no more being born or growing old, no more dying, no more falling (from one existence) and rising up (in another)?'' ``Your reverence, where there is no more being born or growing old, no more dying, no more falling from one existence and rising up in another, I declare that end of the world is not by going to be known, seen or reached.'' ``It is wonderful, lord! It is marvellous, lord, how well it is said by the Exalted One: `Where there is no more being born... that end of the world is not by going to be known, seen or reached!' Formerly, lord, I was the hermit called Rohitassa, Bhoja's son, one of psychic power, a skywalker... The extent of my stride was as the distance between the eastern and the western ocean. To me, lord, possessed of such speed and of such a stride, there came a longing thus: I will reach the world's end by going. But, lord, not to speak of (the time spent over) food and drink, eating, tasting and calls of nature, not to speak of struggles to banish sleep and weariness, though my life-span was a hundred years, though I travelled a hundred years, yet I reached not world's end but died ere that. Wonderful indeed, lord! Marvellous it is, lord, how well it has been said by the Exalted One: `Your reverence, where there is no more being born... that end of the world is not by going to be known, seen or reached.''' ``But your reverence, I declare not that there is any making an end of ill (dukkha) without reaching the world's end. Nay, your reverence, in this very fathom-long body, along with its perceptions and thoughts, I proclaim the world to be, likewise the origin of the world and the making of the world to end, likewise the practice going to the ending of the world. Not to be reached by going is world's end. Yet there is no release for man from ill Unless he reach the world's end. Then let a man Become world-knower, wise, world-ender, Let him be one who lives the holy life. Knowing the world's end by becoming calmed He longs not for this world or another.'' The Buddha taught people about the ``world'' and the way to reach the end of the world, that is, the end of suffering, dukkha. The way to realize this is knowing the world, that is, knowing ``this very fathom-long body, along with its perceptions and thoughts'', knowing oneself. ****** Nina. #61395 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:07 am Subject: Letters from Nina, 5. nilovg Dear friends, < Our life consists of nama and rupa. When we are hungry or when we have a headache there are different kinds of nama and rupa. There is rupa such as hardness, there are namas such as painful bodily feeling, unhappy mental feeling (domanassa), there are many realities. When there is no awareness while we have pain, we think that there is a long moment of pain. When there is mindfulness we can find out that there are many other kinds of nama and rupa presenting themselves, besides the pain caused by the impact on the bodysense. Pain does not stay, it falls away, and then it arises again. We find it very important whether we like or dislike something. We let ourselves be carried away by our like or dislike instead of being aware of different realities. We read in the "Kindred Sayings" (IV, Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Third Fifty, Ch III, par. 130, Haliddaka): Once the venerable Kaccana the Great was staying among the folk of Avanti, at Osprey's Haunt, on a sheer mountain crag. Then the housefather Haliddakani came to the venerable Kaccana the Great. Seated at one side he said this:- It has been said by the Exalted One, sir, "Owing to diversity in elements arises diversity of contact. Owing to diversity of contact arises diversity of feeling". Pray, sir, how far is this so? Herein, housefather, after having seen a pleasant object with the eye, a monk comes to know as such eye-consciousness that is a pleasant experience. Owing to contact that is pleasant to experience arises happy feeling. After having seen with the eye an object that is unpleasant, a monk comes to know as such eye-consciousness that is an unpleasant experience. Owing to contact that is unpleasant to experience arises unhappy feeling. After having seen with the eye an object that is of indifferent effect, a monk comes to know as such eye-consciousness that experiences an object which is of indifferent effect. Owing to contact that is indifferent to experience arises feeling that is indifferent. So also, housefather, after having heard a sound with the ear, smelt a scent with the nose, tasted a flavour with the tongue, experienced tangible object with the body, cognized with the mind a mental object, that is pleasant... Owing to contact that is pleasant to experience arises happy feeling. But after having cognized a mental object which is unpleasant ... owing to contact that is unpleasant to experience arises unhappy feeling. Again, after having cognized with the mind a mental object that is indifferent in effect, he comes to know as such mind-consciousness that experiences an object which is of indifferent effect. Owing to contact that is indifferent arises feeling that is indifferent. Thus, housefather, owing to diversity in elements arises diversity of contact. Owing to diversity of contact arises diversity of feeling.> ******* Nina. #61396 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Translation from Pali nilovg Hi Rob M, not every thing is clear.The construction is difficult. Op 14-jul-2006, om 17:24 heeft robmoult het volgende geschreven: "Cittam cetasikam ruupam, nibbaanan ti niruttaro catudhaa desayii dhamme, catusaccappakaasano." This is one of the opening verses of Buddhadatta's Abhidhammavatara. ---- N: citta, cetasika, rupa, nibbaana, the fourfold unsurpassing that is taught in dhamma , the explaining (pakaasano) of four truths. in desayii: ay is a lengthening of e. The i could indicate passive. Not sure. Perhaps Steve could help. Ven. Dhammanando must have his rains retreat. Nina. #61397 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhikkhu Bodhi and Buddhaghosa jwromeijn Hallo Jon, Herman, Howard I agree with the remarks of Herman and Howard to Jon's # 61060 So only some adding remarks. Jon: "Regarding your closing comment ('It's a reason again to prefer the Suttas more than commentaries on it'), the fact is that there is so much left unsaid in the suttas that they cannot be 'read' without a considerable amount of 'interpretation', and I think you'll find that there is no general consensus on their meaning when taken alone (or as a body of work) without reference to other supporting material. Joop: I disagree with that "unsaid" Who knows what is unsaid? It's dangerous to talk about "unsaid": that opens the door for esoteric (secret) texts that are - according some buddhists - spoken to the Buddha to a elite-audience. I'm anti-esoteric: the Buddha has His hand open when teaching, He had no secrets. (When I say "some buddhists" , I not only think of several Mahayana sutras but also think on the mythe about how the Buddha teached personal the Abhidhamma-texts: to His late mother in some heaven) The problem I have with the rest of your remark is that's very difficult to know if commentators don't do more than 'commentate' (I think this is not english but its is clear I hope); it's possible they change a little bit the content. For example because they don't like 'cognitive dissonance'. Looked at all the Suttas together, the impression of a rather anarchistic canon can arise; and some people don't like spiritual anarchy. Jon: "By the way, would you agree that individual suttas need to be read in the context of the body of suttas as a whole?" Joop: A clear question, I can give a clear answer: No The Buddha did not make a complete system of his teachings, that did His followers, in a process, mostly given the name 'scholasticism' Of course I can understand a Sutta (for example in which the Buddha talks about DO) better when relating it to other Suttas (about the same topic). The problem with your question is: who makes the "context" you are talking about? By the way, Jon; you are good in asking question but do not always react to the answers or answer the questions of others. See for example my message # 60587 about Dependent Origination To be honest, that DO-discussion was more important to me than this commentators-discussion. Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Joop > >> Interesting article. I had noticed in his translation of the Samyutta > Nikaya that Bhikkhu Bodhi has no hesitation in questioning the > commentarial interpretation of sutta passages. > > Regarding your closing comment ('It's a reason again to prefer the > Suttas more than commentaries on it'), the fact is that there is so much > left unsaid in the suttas that they cannot be 'read' without a > considerable amount of 'interpretation', and I think you'll find that > there is no general consensus on their meaning when taken alone (or as a > body of work) without reference to other supporting material. By the > way, would you agree that individual suttas need to be read in the > context of the body of suttas as a whole? > > Jon > #61398 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:47 pm Subject: Theravada Utopia In Myanmar :Re: Monasticism and running a business? kelvin_lwin Hi Matt (venerable?), So let's have a debate indeed. > M: (original post) In general constantly asking for donations seems like unnecessary > stress for the whole Sangha and at the very least the Abbott. When the > original Buddha designed the "rules" there was not insurance, rent, > utility bills, and the list goes on. Kel: I already disagree with your assumptions here. A monk should never ask for donations, much less constantly be after it. It's a choice to have a monastery. If there is not enough lay people support then don't have it. > M: With the help of several other monks we built a monastery in Chiang > Mai Thailand open to Theravada and Mahayana monks and nuns. Our goal > is to build a University to train people for humanitarian AID work. Kel: Why not train people to do the work? I don't see why you have to have monks and nuns. If you're so inclined to work and provide AID then disrobe and do it. > M: I think it is great to give reference to 2500+ years of monastic > history. However in order to properly help people one must have proper > motivation and intent. Kel: Fundamentals nature of beings haven't changed over 2500 years. It's also a matter of what is properly helping people. Providing some aid in this life is merely applying bandage to the suffering people go through the samsara. A true monk's motivation and intent is to faciliate liberation. > M: My point is we need to re-evaluate how we run a monastery in today's > times. Kel: Just don't call it a monastery then it would be much easier to deal with. Plenty of non-profit organizations work this way. > M: Without giving direct reference to Gotama can you please give me some > physical and logical reasons why a properly motivated monk can not > handle money? Kel: Because instead of focusing on spreading/understanding the teaching, you worry about how to properly run a business and make a lot of money. How would a bankrupt monk look? A monastic organization needs lay helpers to prosper. It's a job of an assistant to handle money. It's just an unnecessary slippery slope. > M: Im just thinking about sick and hungry children in the world who could > use a helping hand. I meet countless Theravada monks who want to do > AID work. Kel: Every worlding can use a helping hand. It doesn't have to be monetary based help. Every compassionate being should and would help. Theravada monks can do the work within the bounds of the rules they observe. > M: Im only suggesting that according to Gotama the precepts or monastic > rules were subject to change according to the times and regional > conditions (i.e. Burma). Kel: Maybe minor rules ... abandoning a household life to only gain a monastery and 150000 children seem counter productive don't you think? #61399 From: "kelvin_lwin" Date: Fri Jul 14, 2006 1:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Born with pa~n~na. kelvin_lwin Hi Scott, > S: My question has arisen as I contemplate anatta and consider all of the > aspects of "practise" there seem to be. I guess it would be hard to > find this out. Kel: Ledi Sayadaw wrote that when you do anapana and you can see a stream of air coming and going from the nostril then you're tihetuka. Now, none of the text says this but it apparently came from his experience. > S: It may be of no use to speculate about what has gone, but, one can > wait and see if, perhaps, pa~n~na can arise now. This is also part of > what was behind my question, just wondering if jhaana would arise. > And I've been thinking of development in light of cultivation and > tending versus anyone making it happen. Kel: Easiest way to think about it is that it puts a limit on your attainments this life. All the 8 kusala cittas can arise so certainly panna can. None of the jhanas or lokuttara cittas will arise if you're dvihetuka. Sarah and I had a debate about the vipassana-nanas before. According to my teachers, up to sankarupekkha is possible even for dvihetuka. Hence, the practice is still the same. Try to reach the the highest understanding possible this life and use it as a spring board for next life (hopefully in happy realms). Being born into a Buddha sasana gives you pretty good odds of being tihetuka so I wouldn't worry. > S: So, being born without pa~n~na wouldn't preclude its arising, were > conditions to be such, at some point later in the course of a life. Kel: yes, for panna in kusala. - Kel