#64800 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:22 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 564- Understanding/pa~n~naa (c) 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;-) =============================================== Understanding(paññå)contd When understanding accompanies the mahå-kusala citta (kusala citta of the sense-sphere) which performs deeds of generosity or observes morality, it may be of the level of intellectual understanding: understanding of the benefit of good deeds and the disadvantages of bad deeds, understanding of kamma and vipåka. However, when we perform deeds of generosity or observe morality, there can also be the development of direct understanding of realities. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64801 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does anyone know where I can ask questions about Theravada? sarahprocter... Hi JC, --- jcmendoza1000 wrote: > To Everybody: I would like to ask if almost all animals can recall > their former life as devas and brahmas do and if I'm right that all > devas and brahmas can recall their former life. > -JC ... S: Welcome to DSG! I believe this is your first message. Why not tell us a little more about yourself, your interest in the Buddhist teachings and where you live? I haven't read anything to suggest taht 'almost all animlas can recall their former lives'. I wonder where you got this idea? There may be examples of the Bodhisatta in the Jatakas when reborn as an animal recalling past lives, but this would be very exceptional. If we can't recall our former lives, then animals born in lower planes of existence are even less likely to be able to. I'm also not at all sure that 'all devas and brahmas can recall their former life', but I believe some can. There are examples of these in the texts. I believe it depends on their accumulations, attainment of jhanas and so on. I'm sorry, I don't know much about this topic. Why not let us know where your interest comes from? Metta, Sarah ========= #64802 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Having trouble finding these suttas and their name and number... sarahprocter... Hi JC, --- jcmendoza1000 wrote: > -Sutta that says for one who can tell a direct lie there is no evil he > won't do. ... S: I can help with his one: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/ "For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you, there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This: telling a deliberate lie." The person who lies, who transgress in this one thing, transcending concern for the world beyond: there's no evil he might not do." — Iti 25 ******** --- jcmendoza1000 wrote: > TO EVERYBODY: > -Sutta that says to honor devas and they would help us as a mother to > their child. > If there are suttas that tell us to honor brahmas similar to the one > above. .... S: I think we're encouraged to honour and show metta to all as in the 'Metta Sutta': "Thus, as a mother with her life Might guard her son, her only child, Would he maintain unboundedly His thought for every living being His thought of love for all the owrld He would maintain unboundely, Above, below, and all around, Unchecked, no malice with or foe." (Nanamoli transl, Khuddhakapatha, no 9) ***** S: I', not sure if this is the one you're thinking of here. Others may have more ideas. Again, pls let us know what your interest is. Metta, Sarah ====== #64803 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Antaraaparinibbaayati: "attainer of Nibbaana in the interval" sarahprocter... Hi Scott & all, Intermediate states (antaraabhava) is always a good topic* and you raise good questions and references in your two posts on the topic. --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Bhikkhu Bodhi writes: > > "...If we understand the term antaraaparinibbaayi literally, as it seems we should, it then means one who attains Nibbaana in the interval between two lives, perhaps while existing in a subtle body in the intermediate state...Though the Theravaadin proponents argue against this interpretation of antaraaparinibbaayi...,the evidence from the suttas leans strongly in its favour..." (Note 65, Bojjha.ngasa.myutta, Sa.myutta Nikaaya, pp. 1902-1903.)< .... Sarah: I think that B.Bodhi's comments to suggest that this is the correct 'literal' interpretation and that the 'evidence from the suttas leans strongly in its favour' miss the target here. First, on the 'literal' understanding of the term 'antaraaparinibbaayi', I think the explanations by the commentaries make more sense and conform to the rest of the Tipitaka: From the Udana commentary, Enlightenment Chapter, Bahiya, I quoted the following in an earlier post: >“Furthermore, those who still say that there is an intermediate becoming by seizing unmethodically upon the meaning of such sutta-passages as ‘An antaraaparinibbaayin’ (eg Aiv 70ff) and ‘Those who are become or those seeking becoming’(Khp8) are to be rebuffed with ‘there is no (such thing)’, since the meaning of the former sutta passage is that he is an antaraaparinibbaayin since he attains parinibbaana (parinibbaayati) by way of remainderles defilement-parinibbana through attaining the topmost path midway (antaraa), without having gone past the midpoint of his lifespan in this place and that amidst the Avihas and so on, not one who has become in an intermediate becoming, whilst the of the latter (sutta-passage) is that those who, in the former word, are spoken of as ‘those who are become’ (bhuutaa), are those in whom the asavas have been destroyed, being those who are merely become, (but) who will not become (again, (whereas the latter,) being the antithesis thereof, (and spoken of as) ‘those seeking becoming’ (sambhavesino) since it is becoming (sambhava.m) that they seek (esenti), are sekhas and puthujjanas on account of the fetters giving rise to becoming not having been abandoned....” There is a lot more detail, but I’ll leave it here with this last quote given in Ud-a on the same subject: “For when there is a straightforward meaning that follows the (canonical) Pali, what business is there in postulating an intermediate becoming of unspecified capacity?” < ***** Sarah: Masefield gives a footnote about the 'Aviha' realm mentioned above. "The Aviha is the lowest of the five Pure Abodes amongst which, as a whole, non-returners such as the antaraaparinibbaayin are said to take birth. Much the same is said of the antaraaparinibbaayin at AA iv39, whereas SAiii 143=AA ii350 distinguishes three classes of antaraaparinibbaayin (as also found at Aiv 70ff) - one who attains arahantship 100 kalapas after coming into being in the Aviha world (where the lifespan is 1000 kalpas), one who does so after 200 kalpas have passed, and one who does so after four hundred kalpas have passed. All these seem to be in addition to the one who reaches arahantship the same day as he comes into being there, despite the fact that both cties state the division to be threefold (tividho). It is worth noting that since it is merely defilement-parinibbana that is attained at such times, no indication is given as to when any these go on attain khandha parinibbana which could be thought, given nothing to the contrary, to be only the culmination of the lifespan of 1000 kalpas." ***** Scott: > This relates to the discussion of the cuti citta....I wonder how anantara and samanantara conditions relate to this. Any comments?< .... Sarah: It's impossible for one citta not to follow another citta by anantara (and samanantara) conditions. There cannot be any experience, let alone any realization of nibbana without the arising of cittas. To quote again from one of my earlier posts on the topic: >Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy), Bk V111,2,”Of an Intermediate State’, discusses in detail why the proposition “that there is an intermdiate state of existence” is not valid. In summary from the commentary: “Some (as, for instance, the Pubbaseliyas and Sammitiyas), by a careless acceptation of the Sutta-phrase - ‘completed existence within the interval’ - held that there is an interim stage where a being awaits reconception for a week or longer. The counter-argument is based on the Exalted One’s dictum that there are three states of becoming only - the Kama-, the Rupa-, and the Arupa-worlds . And it is because of that dictum that the opponent (in so far as he is orthodox) has to deny so many of the questions.”< **** --- Scott Duncan wrote: > I'll add the sutta references Bh. Bodhi refers to: > > "This interpretation, adopted by several non-Theravaada schools of early Buddhism, seems to be confirmed by the Purisagati Sutta (AN IV 70-74), in which the simile of the flaming chip suggests that seven types (including the three kinds of antaaraparinibbayaati) are mutually exclusive and have been graded according to the sharpness of their faculties.< .... Sarah: I believe Masefield's comment with regard to the 3 kinds of antaaraparinibbaayin, depending on the time of attainment of arahantship explains this. See also SN48:15 which gives the same detail as referred to. .... Scott (Bodhi note continued): >Additional support comes from AN II 134, 25-29, > which explains antaaraparinibbayaati as one who has abandoned the fetter of rebirth (upapattisa.myojana) without yet having abandoned existence (bhavasa.myojana)." Sa.mmyutta Nikaaya, Bojjha.ngasa.myutta Note 65, p. 1903.< ... Sarah: Yes, the sutta distinguishes between the fetters 'that pertain to this world', 'those that give rise to rebirth' and 'those that give rise to becoming'. The antaaraparinibbaayin [translated in the PTS edition as 'In him who passes finally away in mid-term'(of deva-life)], the first two sets of fetters (i.e those of 'this world' and those giving rise to future rebirth) are eradicated, but the fetter of existence(bhavasa.myojana) continues for the rest of that life. ***** How are we doing here? Metta, Sarah * See: Intermediate States (antarabhava)in 'Useful Posts' for more detail. ======= #64804 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:57 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Mind - What is it? dacostacharles Hi Sarah (Howard, Nina, Plamen, and all others), Sorry for taking so long to get back to this, I have been doing a lot of reading again. Now that I am almost finished with this first leg of research (answering the question "What is the Mind?") I would have to agree with you that to a Theravadan, Mind is most likely 2 things: 1. consciousness (citta), and 2. the statement you made (i.e., "It is the impermanent cognizing or experiencing of an object.") The problem I am having with this that under this definition, Mind is not present when consciousness/awareness is not present, and we know there are mental processes that take place at an unconscious level (e.g., the high-speed switching from one object to another of less importance). And I need a definition of Mind that includes these processes. So yes, sensory awareness is consciousness, but what about all mental activity that is unconscious)? If we believe the Theravadan view is correct then we need to consider this, which means we need to get our view of the Theravadan prospective a little more correct. So far, I am coming to the conclusion that the Mind is a Mahayana concept, and that the activities that goes no in what we are calling the Mind is really the issue for the Theravadan schools - there is no Mind only mental processes that arise and fall away (both processes we are conscious of and those we are not conscious of). What do you think? Charles DaCosta _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sarah abbott Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 13:30 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [dsg] Mind - What is it? Hi Charles D, --- Charles DaCosta TELE.DK> wrote: > Who Knows how the Theravadan School define the Mind and its functions? .... S: The closest I can think of is citta (consciousness). It is the (impermanent) cognizing or experiencing of an object. Seeing is consciousness (citta) Hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and thinking are all very briefly arising kinds of consciousness. Sometimes mano is used which has the same meaning. This may be translated as 'mind', but it's not the Mind we are used to thinking of in a scientific or philosophical sense. Remember, there are only 3 kinds of conditioned dhammas which arise and fall away - cittas, cetasikas and rupas. How are we doing? #64805 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Antaraaparinibbaayati: "attainer of Nibbaana in the interval" scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for your reply. I did read in the stacks, as well. Sarah: "I think that B.Bodhi's comments to suggest that this is the correct 'literal' interpretation and that the 'evidence from the suttas leans strongly in its favour' miss the target here." It seems more common for him to note when he thinks the commentaries have missed the boat; he does, however, seem to make full use of the commentaries. This is why I favour his translations of suttas over others. It was the strong opinion offered by Bh. Bodhi that caught my attention. He doesn't often seem to opine as strenuously on such central points and yet here I found such an opinion to be interesting. S: "First, on the 'literal' understanding of the term 'antaraaparinibbaayi'..." All of what followed made sense, Sarah. Thanks. Sarah: "It's impossible for one citta not to follow another citta by anantara (and samanantara) conditions. There cannot be any experience, let alone any realization of nibbana without the arising of cittas." This is what came to mind for me. Anantara-paccaya, because it is one of the ways things are, makes any "inter-citta" existence or experience impossible. There is no gap between moments of consciousness and there are no more aspects of consciousness taught, seemingly, which could account for existence within such a gap were there to be one. And it would have to be a gap that one postulates between the last moment of conciousness of 'this life' and the first moment of consciousness in the 'next life'. Sarah: "Yes, the sutta distinguishes between the fetters 'that pertain to this world', 'those that give rise to rebirth' and 'those that give rise to becoming'. "The antaaraparinibbaayin [translated in the PTS edition as 'In him who passes finally away in mid-term'(of deva-life)], the first two sets of fetters (i.e those of 'this world' and those giving rise to future rebirth) are eradicated, but the fetter of existence (bhavasa.myojana) continues for the rest of that life." I'm going to try to learn more about bhavasa.myojana. S: "How are we doing here?" For me, very well, Sarah, thank you. I'm grateful for all the kind and thoughtful discussion here. I consider my association here to be very beneficial. With loving kindness, Scott #64806 From: "nidive" Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 7:19 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nidive Hi Ken H, > Never mind about "ontological position;" is there (according to the > Dhamma) a self, or is there not? I think every Dhamma student needs > to know this from the outset. I disagree. A declaration of "there is a self" or a declaration of "there is no self" isn't what the Buddha promised for anyone entering the community of Sangha as a monk. This fact is reified by MN 63. ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html "Malunkyaputta, did I ever say to you, 'Come, Malunkyaputta, live the holy life under me, and I will declare to you that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite,' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?" "No, lord." "And did you ever say to me, 'Lord, I will live the holy life under the Blessed One and [in return] he will declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' or 'The cosmos is not eternal,' or 'The cosmos is finite, ' or 'The cosmos is infinite,' or 'The soul & the body are the same,' or 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' or 'After death a Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?" "No, lord." "Then that being the case, foolish man, who are you to be claiming grievances/making demands of anyone? "Malunkyaputta, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... or that "After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,"' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata. ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > SB: While the statement "there is no self" is true in truth and > > reality, > You are going a step further than Thanissaro. He says "...where a > self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or > reality..." (see post # 64769) That's because I have seen for myself that there is indeed no self through examination by direct insight the not-self characteristic of conditioned dhammas. As I see it, the passage spoken of by the Buddha in MN 22 is not a declaration of "no self" by the Buddha when taken into the context of what he is saying there. If it were so, it would contradict what he said in MN 63. RobertK, of course has his own opinion. I think he sees himself as some sort of Dhamma guru, somewhere high up there and untouchable, so I am not going to bother about him. Nevertheless, I think he is quite an expert in the Dhamma, although sometimes he may not be that accurate. As for Dhammanando Bhikkhu, no comments as requested by Sarah & Jon. > So what is the true Dhamma? The five khandhas are not self, and > nibbana is not self. Does that mean there is no self? Or is there > something else (other than the five khandhas and nibbana)? Did the > Buddha withholding something from us? I offer you a similar piece of advice that the Buddha gave to Ven. Malunkyaputta. ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden- colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him. "In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata. "Malunkyaputta, it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is eternal,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is not eternal,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is eternal,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is not eternal,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now. "It's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite, ' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The cosmos is finite,' and when there is the view, 'The cosmos is infinite,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now. "It's not the case that when there is the view, 'The soul & the body are the same,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'The soul & the body are the same,' and when there is the view, 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now. "It's not the case that when there is the view, 'After death a Tathagata exists,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' there is the living of the holy life. And it's not the case that when there is the view, 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist' there is the living of the holy life. When there is the view, 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' there is still the birth, there is the aging, there is the death, there is the sorrow, lamentation, pain, despair, & distress whose destruction I make known right in the here & now. "So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me. "And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Questions about whether there is a self or not are to be put aside. They are not connected with the goal of nibbana. They are distracting thoughts. The view of "absolute no control" is a thought proliferation following on the thought proliferation of "no self". And that is exactly your problem, Ken H! (and for many others as well). A position of "no self" (or rather the truth & reality of no self) is not something that the Buddha declared. It remains undeclared by him more than two thousand years later. If he had any intention of declaring that there is "no self", he would have openly declared that "the Tathagata does not exist". That would be definitely unambiguous and enlightening. Why would the Buddha resort to eel-wriggling anyway? Sorry to disappoint you, Ken H! :-) Regards, Swee Boon #64807 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 9:25 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 May I add: "Saadhu, bhikkhave. Ahampi kho ta.m, bhikkhave, attavaadupaadaana.m na samanupassaami ya.msa attavaadupaadaana.m upaadiyato na uppajjeya.m sokapridevadukkhadomanassapaayaasaa." And, as shown previously,Thanissaro Bhikkhu renders it: "Very good, monks, I too, do not evision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair." Bhikkhu Bodhi: "Good, Bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it." In Notes to Sutta 22, Majjhima Nikaaya, Bh. Bodhi writes: Note 262: "Attavaadupaadaana.m upaadiyetha, lit. 'you may cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self.' On the problem this idiom involves for translation, see n.176..." (pp. 1210-1211) Note 176: "The Pali idiom, n'eva kaamupaadaana.m upaadiyati, would have to be rendered literally as 'he does not cling to the clinging to sense pleasures,' which may obscure the sense rather than convey it. Upaadaana in Pali is the object of its own verb form, while 'clinging' in English is not. At one stage ~Naa.namoli tried to circumvent this problem by borrowing the word upaadaana's other meaning of 'fuel' and translating: 'he no longer clings to sensual desires [as fuel for] clinging.' This, however, also borders on obscurity, and I have therefore attempted to cut through the difficulty by translating directly in accordance with the sense rather than in conformity with the Pali idiom." (p. 1197) The two translators, in translating, put forward their own views, I think. Bh. Bodhi emphasises that no doctrine of self can be free of sorrow, etc. while Thanissaro Bhikkhu focuses on the clinging as the cause of sorrow etc, leaving aside the doctrine of self. The implications seem clear to me in each case. Bh. Bodhi, I think, implicitly seems to agree that this statement fits with a view that there is no self. Thanissaro Bh. does seem to leave this ambiguous for some reason. With loving kindness, Scott. #64808 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:51 pm Subject: No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi again James > > I was thinking about this - is your confusion that it's hard to see > how a citta that rises and falls away in a split-second, rooted in > greed or hatred, could possibly be an object of mindfulness? I will reply to this post after I get a reply to my post #64772. I need to know how the metaphor of "roots" works with the Luminous Sutta before I can respond to your points. Perhaps you would like to reply to post #64772? Metta, James #64809 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:52 pm Subject: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi James (and Phil) > These two (roots of good and evil in behaviour, roots of cittas) are > really one and the same. I will reply to this post after I get a reply to my post #64772. I need to know how the metaphor of "roots" works with the Luminous Sutta before I can respond to your points. Perhaps you would like to reply to post #64772? Metta, James #64810 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 4:22 pm Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu buddhatrue Hi Sween Boon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Don't worry about "no self", worry about whether you see the not-self > characteristic of dhammas through direct insight. That's the > simplicity and beauty of the Buddha's Dhamma - non-complication. Bravo! Bravo! Bravo! Nicely put. The members in this group need to spend less time 'talking' about anatta, and more time directly realizing it. > > Regards, > Swee Boon > Metta, James #64811 From: Jaran Jainhuknan Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 105 jjnbdal Dear Nina and Lodewijk: Thank you for your kind words. I will redo my prioritization and hope to join your K. Kracan trip. Best Regards, jaran --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Jaran, > Good to see you. I also want to congratulate you. I hope you > are in > Bgk when Lodewijk and I are there in January. A trip to K. > Kracan is > organised. We also go to Dhammahome in Chiengmai afterwards. > Nina. > Op 27-okt-2006, om 7:59 heeft Jaran Jainhuknan het volgende > geschreven: > > > Thank you. You don't miss a thing. I now reside in Bangkok, > but > > still travel often. Hope to see you next time in Bkk. > > #64812 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cuticitta. jonoabb Hi Han han tun wrote: > Han: The preparation for my final moments is to > accumulate good aacinna-kamma (good habitual kamma) as > much as I can, while I can still do it. Whether it can > influence my aasanna-kamma or not at the last javana > process is beyond my control. I am not afraid to face > that music whatever it may be. Trying to accumulate > good aacinna-kamma to the best of my ability is my > duty; the result is up to my kamma! > Yes, the result of kamma performed is up to the laws of kamma (kamma-niyama, one of the 'imponderables'!). Of course, all we can do is develop kusala; there is no way of knowing to what extent any kusala performed may result in the accumulation of one particular kind of kamma (such as aacinna-kamma) or another, or whether it's result will be experienced at time of death or at any other time (in this life or in a subsequent life). But kusala citta is the best preparation for any future moment ;-)) Thanks for the chat. Jon #64813 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cuti citta and bhavanga citta jonoabb Hi Plamen Plamen Gradinarov wrote: >> What can you tell us about the >> author? >> > > Almost nothing, except what is given at > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratna/index.html > and what is referred to in the Potter's Encyclopedia > http://www.indology.net/biblio-7413.html > Thanks for the links (I thought he may have been someone you were familiar with, but apparently not!). >> A citta that it has no awareness of its object? Where does this >> idea come from, and what does it mean exactly? Is it not a >> self-contradiction? > > So far no one is immediately aware of the object of bhavanga-citta. OK, so you are referring to the fact that the object of bhavangaa-citta is unknown to us. To my understanding, this does not mean there is a citta with no awareness of its object, but only that the sense- or mind-door process cittas subsequent to the bhavanga-citta do not experience the bhavanga-citta or its object. It is the function of a citta to experience an object; so the idea of a citta with an object that is not experienced by the citta would be self-contradictory, as I see it. > It is believed that there is such an object and that it should > probably be the same as in the wake states of mind, but to believe > and to be aware of are quite diiferent mental modi. In the best case > we can talk of a postapperception whose object is problematic or > totally absent, like in the dreamless sleep. Or we can infer the > existence of the bhavanga-citta-alambana, but never have a direct > and distinct jnana when abiding in bhavanga. I think all we can do is to take the matter of bhavanga-citta as something that is stated in the teachings but is not capable of direct verification/of being disproved at our present level of developed understanding (there are many things in the teachings that fall into this category - no surprise really). Jon #64814 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] cuticitta. jonoabb Hi Nina Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon, > this is usually the case, but as far as I understand in this special > case the object of the last javanacittas is also conditioned by > kamma. It is a very special object. > Nina. > Thanks for adding this. Yes, I had read this detail in your messages to Han, but I assumed it applied only to the javana cittas and not to the later patisandhi citta. Is the object of the patisandhi citta also conditioned by kamma? Jon #64815 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some points on art jonoabb Hi Phil Phil wrote: >> Jon:> Are you saying that an interest in developing sila and an >> interest in understanding more about the anusayas do not go >> hand in hand? This does not sound like the Phil I have come >> to know! ;-)) >> > > ... > I'll just reassure you by saying don't worry, I'm not thinking "ok > I will lay down sila perfectly and then when that's down I'll move > on to concentration and insight" I know it's far more subtle and > interwined than that. There is sila and concentration with every > moment of kusala - those moments can be appreciated. And yet....I'll > leave it there! :) Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. I wasn't attributing the 'sila first, insight later' view to you. I was simply pointing out that there was no conflict between an interest in developing sila and an interest in developing insight (indeed, the two are mutually supportive). Let's face it, concern about one's general level of sila and how it compares with others' is most likely to be motivated by expectations about ourselves and desire for progress along the path. We would like things (in this case, our accumulated tendencies) to be other than they are. But kusala cittas and akusala cittas arise by their own conditions and there's nothing we can do about what has arisen already. We have to take ourselves as we are, and that means seeing the ugly as well as the good. And this is no real problem as long as we keep foremost in mind the goal of a better understanding of presently arising dhammas (kusala cittas, akusala cittas, all are equally grist for the mill of insight). But if we compare ourself with others or aspire to be different than we are, we can easily be discouraged and/or become distracted from that goal. Jon #64816 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jonoabb Hi Joop Joop wrote: > Jon: "But the quote contemplates the existence of a round of > rebirths. It is only with the (complete) cessation of ignorance that > there is the cessation of becoming, so until ignorance has been > eradicated, there must be the continuation of becoming." > > Joop: This is in german called 'hineininterpretieren'. I agree your > description is one of the ways the formula can be used but I think > the Buddha doesn't have one use in mind (your one), but a more broad > and general formula. So far you've not told us anything about your understanding of the meaning of the 'reverse order' description of DO, so I can't really comment. Could you say something more about the 'broad and general formula' you have in mind here, or give an example or two? > Jon: " I do not see how one can consider DO without also allowing for > the possibility of a round of rebirths." > > Joop: Oh, yes, I can, see for example my message #64617 to Nina. Your message #64617 to Nina is a very short one and doesn't seem to address this issue. Perhaps you had some other message in mind? [Message #64617 reads as follows: ] > Jon: " - Is he [Buddhadasa] saying that (single) thoughts that > generate suffering are all 12 links of DO? > Or is he saying that (single) thoughts that generate suffering > constitute one link of DO?" > > Joop: I think your first answer is the correct one; > If all 12 (or 11) links occur in a single mind moment, then it's difficult to see what would be the purpose of such elaborate and detailed descriptions of the links. How would this link fit in with the idea of insight into a presently arising dhamma? > only one point is, as often, said wrong (in my eyes): > DO has 12 items (for example numbed 1=ignorance … 12=death) > And that gives 11 links (and not 12): 1-->2; 2-->3; …. 11-->12 > I believe what you refer to here as 'items' are commonly referred to as the 'links'. I have no particular views on this. > Jon: "- I am not clear on his use of 'generate suffering', and which > particular thought > moments this would refer to. To my understanding all conditioned > dhammas are 'dukkha'." > > Joop: I'm afraid Buddhadasa didn't talk in a scholastic way so that > this question cannot be answered by me; perhaps he did mean something > special, perhaps not. > I have no problem with the author's general manner of expression, I'm just trying to understand his use of the term 'suffering' (which presumably represents the Pali term 'dukkha') and the expression 'generate suffering'. If the passage is meaningful to you, perhaps you could explain it further for us. Thanks. Jon #64817 From: Jaran Jainhuknan Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 105--MN 20 jjnbdal Dear All: I find the sutta Sarah referred to in her email is very helpful. I notice that I only want to get rid of the thoughts originated from aversion, not from lobha. Lobha is never a problem. :-) Jaran --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Azita, > I appreciate your remark very much. It shows that you are > finding the > cure already. > Nina. > Op 28-okt-2006, om 2:44 heeft gazita2002 het volgende > geschreven: > > > I just realised what the title of this post is: Ab. in daily > life. > > that's exactly perfect - where else can we go for support > except > > right now, that's the only time that awareness can arise and > know the > > present moment, be it full of lobha, dosa, moha or whatever. > #64818 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: cuticitta and bhavanga jonoabb Hi Plamen (and Han) Plamen Gradinarov wrote >> If babies in the womb can react to stimuli, kick and suck their >> thumb, then it seems likely there would be vitthi cittas! ;-)) >> > > Then we have to define what is vitthi citta. For Yoga-darsana, citta- > vrtti are all operational modes of mind, including the uncosncious, > like in the deep sleep without dreams (nidra = susupti). Such > operational modes of citta are: > > 1. Pramana > 2. Viparyaya > 3. Vikalpa > 4. Nidra, and > 5. Smrti > > These are citta-vrtti, while citta-nivrtti is nirodha. If bhavanga > citta is not nirodha, then it must be citta-vrtti. If it is niruddha- > citta then deep sleep with or without dreams, as well as swoon, > cannot be examples of bhavanga citta. > The Pali term 'viithi' means 'process', I believe. Bhavanga, cuti and patisandhi cittas are said to be 'viithi-vimutti' or process-freed. So perhaps we are talking from the standpoint of different definitions ;-)) Jon PS Is there a translation of the Mahayana/Tibetan Abhidhamma on the internet, to your knowledge? #64819 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Sun Oct 29, 2006 11:33 pm Subject: Re: Cuti citta and bhavanga citta pgradinarov Dear Jon, > It is the function of a citta to experience an object; so the idea of a > citta with an object that is not experienced by the citta would be > self-contradictory, as I see it. I also see it in this way. It is a contradiction to claim that a citta is aware of its object (alambanam cetati cittam) without being aware of it. The only citta that is fully aware of its object as such is the tadalambana-citta. All other cittas are only relinking, adverting, instrumentally modifying and preparing the citta to be aware (cetati) of its object - or to depart from its object. > I think all we can do is to take the matter of bhavanga-citta as > something that is stated in the teachings but is not capable of direct > verification/of being disproved at our present level of developed > understanding (there are many things in the teachings that fall into > this category - no surprise really). Buddhist epistemologists and logicians believe that the two established means of adequate knowledge are perception (pratyaksa) and inference (anumana). Neither direct experience nor logic are capable of ascertaining the "cittatva" of bhavanga-citta. Or probably an advanced Yogi can ascertain it in some refined samapatti? Kindest regards, Plamen #64820 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:18 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 565- Understanding/pa~n~naa (d) 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;-) =============================================== Understanding(paññå)contd As regards mental development, one cannot apply oneself with success to this way of kusala without understanding. Also those who do not know the Buddha’s teachings may reflect wisely on the truth that all things in life are susceptible to change and that they do not last, and they may develop calm. There were wise people also before the Buddha’s time who understood the characteristic of true calm which is wholesome. Those who understood the characteristic of calm and did not mistakenly think that clinging to quietness was calm, could develop calm with a meditation subject and in this way attain higher degrees of calm. Those who saw the disadvantages of sense-impressions developed jhåna in order to be free of them. Those who saw the disadvantages of rúpa-jhåna, fine-material jhåna, which still has meditation subjects depending on materiality, developed arúpa-jhåna, immaterial jhåna. The person who had become very skilful in jhåna could develop “supernormal powers”, abhiññås, such as magical powers, remembrance of former lives and the “Divine Eye”, knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings. The cittas which develop such powers are accompanied by understanding, but even this kind of understanding cannot eradicate defilements. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64821 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] K.Sujin says there can be control! sarahprocter... Hi Swee Boon, --- nidive wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I received my copy of Survey and ADL today. I started with Survey on > the chapter "The Natural Way of Development". On page 356, she quoted > the Lesser Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant's Footprint about > the control over the organ of sight. ... S: I'm glad your copy of 'Survey' arrived. (If anyone else would like one, pls let me or Sukin know off-list). Yes, this refers to the 'guarding' or restraint(samvara) of the senses. When there is the development of awareness and understanding the sense doors are 'guarded'. One is not 'overwhelmed' by the nimitta anubya~njana (signs and details) which we usually cling onto. ... > > She says that this kind of restraint can be achieved through the > development of panna that understands the realities that appear as > they are. > > I think this suggests that she doesn't teach "absolute no control", > which I am very glad to know of. ... To quote her paragraph that follows: "This kind of restraint can be achieved through the development of Pa~n~naa that understands the realities that appear as they are. One will begin to let go of attaa-sa~n~naa with regard to what appears through the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, the bodysense and the mind-door, in accordance with the degree of pa~n~naa that has been reached." In other words, by understanding that what is seen is just visible object and so on, there will be less clinging to the details with an idea of someone or something. There will also be less and less clinging to the idea of self having any control at all over what arises and falls away at this very moment and what can appear as the object of awareness. This is the way that sati and pa~n~naa develop to become indriyas or controlling faculties, along with the indriyas of saddhaa (confidence), viriya (energy) and samaadhi (concentration).* Please share any other passages which strike you as being of interest or which you question for any reason. Metta, Sarah * see page 319 ===== #64822 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa sarahprocter... Dear Han (& Nina), I thought your responses to the questions on karuna and mudita were excellent. Also, Nina's further elaborations. --- han tun wrote: > If I were asked that question, I would reply that: > > (1) “intellectual understanding” means > sutta-maya-pa~n~na and cinta-maya-pa~n~naa combined, > and “direct understanding” means > bhavanaa-maya-pa~n~na. .... S: I think it depends on the context as Nina suggested. For example, in the paragraph you quoted which referred to intellectual understanding about ultimate realities, it is suta and cinta-maya panna as you say. However, not all suta and cinta-maya panna is intellectual understanding of paramattha dhammas. For example, in the suttas, cinta-maya panna is often referred to before suta-maya panna. I was told this was because there can be wise reflection of a degree or kind before one has even heard about the teachings. In such cases, it's not about namas and rupas, but may still be wise reflection. .... > or > > (2) “intellectual understanding” means pariyatti, and > “direct understanding” means patipatti, and pativedha > will come towards the end. ... S: Yes, definitely. In this case, the pariyatti always refers to 'intellectual understanding' of realities, not just any wise reflections. Patipatti refers to satipatthana and pativedha to insight wisdom and enlightenment as I understand. I appreciate all your contributions a lot and Nina wrote a further helpful post on all the terms as you said. Anumodana! (As you mentioned, mudita (sympathetic joy) can be an appreciation for the sharing of dhamma or any kusala, not just for material gifts etc. Metta, Sarah ========= #64823 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. cetasikas, compassion, sympathetic joy. sarahprocter... Dear Scott (Han, Nina & all), --- Scott Duncan wrote: > I like finding the term 'maanatthaddha', which is mentioned in Note > 469 to the Braahma.nasa.myutta in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the > Sa.myutta Nikaaya. He renders it as 'stiff with conceit'. Given that > conceit opposes the pliancy etc. of citta and cetasika when it has > arisen, it is easy to see how this factor conditions the stiffness of > the mind at moments it is present. ... S: Yes, 'stiff with conceit' as opposed to the pliancy etc of citta and cetasikas is a good reminder. It's the opposite of metta, gentleness and sympathetic joy. It's a real obstacle to being able to hear and understand the teachings too. As discussed before, the bhikkhus who heard the Mulapariyaya Sutta were not able to rejoice, to 'anumodana' on account of their conceit. Because of their great learning, they thought they had already mastered the teachings and no longer paid respect to the Buddha. The Buddha realizing that they would not be able to become enlightenment whilst such great conceit remained, taught the sutta with the aim of 'shattering their conceit'. At the beginning of A.Sujin's book on "Metta", translated by Nina (see DSG 'Files), she contrasts metta with conceit: "Mettå, loving kindness, can be cultivated when we know its characteristic. When there is true mettå other people are considered as friends: there is a feeling of closeness and sympathy, we have tender care for them and we want to do everything for their benefit and happiness. At such moments the citta is gentle, there is no conceit, måna, which is the condition for asserting oneself, for showing one's own importance and for disparaging others. <...> Conceit is a defilement which is an impediment to mettå. When there is mettå we think of the wellbeing of someone else, whereas when there is conceit we find ourselves important. If we wish to eliminate conceit and to develop mettå we must know the characteristic of conceit. We read in the Atthasåliní (Expositor, Book II, Part II, Chapter 2, 372) about conceit: ``Conceit'', ``overweening'' and ``conceitedness'' signify mode and state. ``Loftiness'' is in the sense of rising upwards or of springing over others. ``Haughtiness'', i.e. in whom conceit arises, him it lifts up, keeps upraised. ``Flaunting a flag'' is in the sense of swelling above others. ``Assumption'' means uplifting; conceit favours the mind all round. Of many flags the flag which rises above others is called a banner. So conceit arising repeatedly in the sense of excelling with reference to subsequent conceits is like a banner. That mind which desires the banner is said to be desirous of the banner (i.e., self advertisement). Such a state is desire for self-advertisement. And that is of the citta, not of a real self; hence ``desire of the citta for self-advertisement''. Indeed, the citta associated with conceit wants a banner, and its state is reckoned as banner-conceit. When we learn about the characteristic of conceit we can see the difference between the moment of akusala citta and of mettå. Akusala citta does not have the characteristic of gentleness and tenderness, at such a moment there is no feeling of closeness and friendship for others. If we want to develop mettå there must be ``sati-sampajañña'', mindfulness and understanding, in order to know when there is kusala citta and when there is akusala citta. At the moment of conceit there cannot be mettå." ***** S: Thank you all again for all your reflections and quotes on this topic. Metta, Sarah ======== #64824 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) sarahprocter... Hi James (Phil, Jon & all), --- buddhatrue wrote: > Thanks for your explanation, but I still don't get it. I am having > trouble with this metaphor of "roots"- it just doesn't seem to make > much sense to me. Did the Buddha ever use this metaphor? ... S: Yes, there are many examples in Nyanaponika's Wheel 'the Roots of Good & Evil' which Phil mentioned. For example: "There are three Roots of the Unwholesome: greed, hatred and delusion; and there are three Roots of the Wholesome: non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion." DN, 33, Sangiti Sutta. Often hetu(root) is translated as cause as in "There are, o monks, three causes for the origin of kamma: greed, hate and delusion..." (AN, 6s,39) etc .... To quote > from Nina's book: > > "They are called root, since they are the firm foundation of the > citta. Just as a tree rests on its roots and receives sap through the > roots in order to grow, evenso are the akusala cittas and sobhana > cittas dependent on the presence of the roots and they cannot occur > in their absence." > > I don't agree with this; .... S: At the end of the Nyanaponika Wheel referred to, he includes excerpts of a similar explanation by Ledi Sayadaw based on what we read in the texts: "Taking a tree as illustration - we see that the roots of a tree, having firmly established themselves in the ground and drawing up sap both from soil and water, carry that sap right up to the crown of the tree, and so the tree develops and grows for a long time. In the same way, greed having firmly established itself in desirable things and drawing up the essence of pleasure and enjoyment from them, conveys that essence to the concomitant mental elements. The same is to be said of hatred....." ... >I don't believe the Buddha taught this. > According to the Buddha, the mind is not dependent on the defilements > for its existence. ... S: Actually, both the mind (citta) and the mental factors (cetasikas) are dependent on each other....When any citta arises, there are always at least 7 cetasikas arising with it - supporting and conditioning it. .... >The mind is naturally pure, naturally luminous, > and it is the outside factors of the defilements which makes the mind > impure. From the Pabhassara Sutta: .... S: This is true. At moments when the bhavanga and other vipaka cittas arise, such as in deep sleep, at moments of seeing and hearing etc, the mind is not impure. As soon as the akusala cetasikas arise during the javana process, the cittas are 'infected', they are impure. At such times, one or two of the unwholesome roots of moha, lobha and dosa 'infect' the other accompanying mental factors and cittas arising. Of course, until such unwholesome tendencies have been eradicated, there is always the potential for them (as well as the wholesome ones) to arise at such times. This is why the latent tendencies (anusayas) are said to be 'deeply-rooted'. Only the development of wisdom and enlightenment can 'up-root' them for good, as opposed to just 'cutting them back' temporarily. James, I like your comments and reflections here and the linking the thread up to the Pabhassara Sutta. Please tell me if you still disagree. Perhaps you can continue your threads with the others now as well:-)). Metta, Sarah ======== #64825 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:35 am Subject: No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) philofillet Hi James You asked me to reply to this. Let's see if I come up with anything > Thanks for your explanation, but I still don't get it. I am having > trouble with this metaphor of "roots"- it just doesn't seem to make > much sense to me. Did the Buddha ever use this metaphor? I was listening to Bhikkhu Bodhi talk about the heartwood sutta just now and he used the word "root" to describe the deeply latent defilements that remain even after some very advanced stage - forget which. Again, the "Roots of Good and Evil" book I mentionned to you is sutta based (there's one chapter on Abdhihamma in the back) so reading through it should dispel any doubts on this point, if you insist on suttas. ." > > I don't agree with this; I don't believe the Buddha taught this. > According to the Buddha, the mind is not dependent on the defilements > for its existence. The mind is naturally pure, naturally luminous, > and it is the outside factors of the defilements which makes the mind > impure. From the Pabhassara Sutta: I have been finding the notion of a perfectly pure, luminous mind that is defiled by incoming defilements very helpful these days. It ties in with all the light-based visualization I have done in the past. I work well with light. But it doesn't feel true to me, somehow, feels too much like a "pure Buddha mind" or something like that, which the Buddha didn't teach, except in the Mahayana tradition, which I am not so interested in. (Though I am glad for it, because I know it makes many people happy.) I've read that the meaning of the sutta you quote below is disputed, that it is said to refer to the bhavanga - I think that's what I read. I find the notion of a luminous mind very attractive, meditating on it now and then, returning to it during the day now and then. It is really helpful for preventing unwholesome states to run amok, as a conceptual object of a kind of mindfulness. But it doesn't feel like it's in line with the true Dhamma. I would like to see some mention of it in Majhima Nikaya, or Samyutta Nikaya, rather than one sutta in Anguttara in Nikaya. If it is a true teaching, it feels too and too - ahem - central to be in one sutta. Phil > > "Luminous, monks, is the mind.1 And it is defiled by incoming > defilements." {I,v,9} > "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming > defilements." {I,v,10} > "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming > defilements. The uninstructed run-of-the-mill person doesn't discern > that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that ?Efor > the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person ?Ethere is no development of > the mind." {I,vi,1} > "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is freed from incoming > defilements. The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones discerns > that as it actually is present, which is why I tell you that ?Efor > the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones ?Ethere is development > of the mind." {I,vi,2} > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an01/an01.049.than.html > > Metta, > James > #64826 From: han tun Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your further clarification. I just want to have a clear idea to start on this new chapter. Please do not think that I am teaching a crocodile how to swim (:>) With due respect to Nina and you, Kind regards, Han #64827 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:56 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu ken_aitch Hi Swee Boon, ----------------- SB: > Sorry to disappoint you, Ken H! :-) ----------------- Your "Dhamma guru" remark was incorrect and uncalled for. But apart from that, no, I am not disappointed. You are not the first person to reject the teaching of no control and you won't be the last. :-) ----------------------------------- <. . .> SB: > A declaration of "there is a self" or a declaration of "there is no self" isn't what the Buddha promised for anyone entering the community of Sangha as a monk. This fact is reified by MN 63. or 'After death a Tathagata exists,' or 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,',' or 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'?" ------------------------------------- It seems to me that the suttas give certain statements as indicators of wrong view. They include, "The self does not exist" "I do not exist" "You do not exist," and, "'After death a Tathagata does not exist." Those statements are worded in such a way as to presuppose a form of self (I, you, a Tathagata-after-death), and then deny its existence. In that way, they typify the annihilationist point of view. On the other hand, the statement "There is no self" does not presuppose a self. I could be wrong, but I don't it was ever given by the Buddha as an example of wrong view. I think he consistently used it himself. ------------------------------- <. . .> SB: > That's because I have seen for myself that there is indeed no self through examination by direct insight the not-self characteristic of conditioned dhammas. -------------------------------- According to the Abhidhamma, only the wisest of wise worldlings could ever have direct insight (of any kind) into the nature of paramattha dhammas. Direct insight into the anatta characteristic is the most advanced form of satipatthana. It is practised only by ariyans and by a tiny elite of worldlings who are on the brink of Stream-entry. ---------------------- KH: > > The five khandhas are not self, and > nibbana is not self. Does that mean there is no self? Or is there > something else (other than the five khandhas and nibbana)? Did the > Buddha withold <> something from us? SB: > I offer you a similar piece of advice that the Buddha gave to Ven. Malunkyaputta. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. ---------------------- As with the other sutta you quoted, this deals with a different issue. It was spoken to someone who had not grasped the middle way (of conditioned dhammas) and who was still trying to follow conventional paths (in which humans, devas, Buddhas (etc) were seen as ultimately real). --------------------------------- <. . .> SB: > Questions about whether there is a self or not are to be put aside. They are not connected with the goal of nibbana. They are distracting thoughts. The view of "absolute no control" is a thought proliferation following on the thought proliferation of "no self". And that is exactly your problem, Ken H! (and for many others as well). A position of "no self" (or rather the truth & reality of no self) is not something that the Buddha declared. It remains undeclared by him more than two thousand years later. If he had any intention of declaring that there is "no self", he would have openly declared that "the Tathagata does not exist". That would be definitely unambiguous and enlightening. Why would the Buddha resort to eel-wriggling anyway? ---------------------------------- Only dhammas exist. Apart from the mere conditioned dhammas that form the five khandhas, there never was a Tathagata. If you think there was something more than the five khandhas before parinibbana, then you will be wrong to think there was no Tathagata after it. (Or that there was, or that there 'both was and wasn't,' or that there 'neither was nor wasn't.') Ken H #64828 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa sarahprocter... Dear Han (James & all), --- han tun wrote: > I just want to have a clear idea to start on this new > chapter. > Please do not think that I am teaching a crocodile how > to swim (:>) .... S: Not at all - we're just sharing and questioning to help us all learn to become crocodiles :>. All your comments and clarifications are very useful. With regard to the different kinds and degrees of wisdom, I was thinking of some comments James has made and particularly the following good quotes. Here, I take the wisdom being stressed to refer to vipassana (insight) through the development of satipatthana: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/45166 James: >I thought I might offer some material which I find informative about the definition of panna. The following are selected (by myself) excerpts from "The Debate of King Milinda", the debate between a Greek King (Milinda) and an Arahant Bhikkhu (Nagasena). It was a dialogue which occurred 500 years after the parinibbina of the Buddha. Nagasena was well versed in the Vinaya, Suttana, and Abhidhamma (an earlier version) before he achieved nibbana: Panna as "Remover" of Defilements: The king said: "Is it through wise attention that people become exempt from further rebirth?" "Yes, that is due to wise attention, and also to wisdom, and the other wholesome dharmas." "But is not wise attention the same as wisdom?" "No, Your Majesty! Attention is one thing, and wisdom another. Sheep and goats, oxen and buffaloes, camels and asses have attention, but wisdom they have not." "Well put, Venerable Nagasena!" The king asked: "What is the mark of attention, and what is the mark of wisdom?" "Consideration is the mark of attention, cutting off that of wisdom." "How is that? Give me a simile!" "You know barley-reapers, I suppose?" "Yes, I do." "How then do they reap the barley?" "With the left hand they seize a bunch of barley, in the right hand they hold a sickle, and they cut off the barley with that sickle." "Just so, Your Majesty, the yogin seizes his mental processes with his attention, and by his wisdom he cuts off the defilements." Panna as "Illumination": The king then asked: "Then, what is the mark of wisdom?" "Cutting off is, as I said before, one mark of wisdom. In addition, it illuminates." "And how does wisdom illuminate?" "When wisdom arises, it dispels the darkness of ignorance, generates the illumination of knowledge, sheds the light of cognition, and makes the holy truths stand out clearly. Thereafter the yogin, with his correct wisdom, can see impermanence, ill, and not self." "Give me a comparison!" "It is like a lamp which a man would take into a dark house. It would dispel the darkness, would illuminate, shed light, and make the forms in the house stand out clearly." Panna as "Temporary": The king said: 'He who has knowledge, Nâgasena, has he also wisdom?' 'Yes, great king.' 'What; are they both the same?' 'Yes.' 'Then would he, with his knowledge--which, you say, is the same as wisdom--be still in bewilderment or not?' 'In regard to some things, yes; in regard to others, no.' 'What would he be in bewilderment about?' 'He would still be in bewilderment as to those parts of learning he had not learnt, as to those countries he had not seen, and as to those names or terms he had not heard.' 'And wherein would he not be in bewilderment?' 'As regards that which has been accomplished by insight--(the perception, that is,) of the impermanence of all beings, of the suffering inherent in individuality, and of the non-existence of any soul' 'Then what would have become of his delusions on those points.' 'When knowledge has once arisen, that moment delusion has died away.' 'Give me an illustration.' 'It is like the lamp, which when a man has brought into a darkened room, then the darkness would vanish away, and light would appear.' 'And what, Nâgasena, on the other hand, has then become of his wisdom?' 'When the wisdom has affected that which it has to do, then the wisdom ceases to go on. But that which has been acquired by means of it remains--the knowledge of the impermanence of every being, of the suffering inherent in individuality, and of the absence of any soul.' 'Give me an illustration, reverend Sir, of what you have last said.' 'It is as when a man wants, during the night, to send a letter, and after having his clerk called, has a lamp lit, and gets the letter written. Then, when that has been done, he extinguishes the lamp. But though the lamp had been put out the writing would still be there.'< ***** S: I'll look forward to anymore illuminating comments or quotes from either of you or anyone else. Metta, Sarah p.s Also more under 'Understanding', 'Pariyatti....', 'Suta-maya panna....', 'bhavana' and more in 'Useful Posts'. ======== #64829 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pannatti: speech and music antony272b2 Dear Scott, > A: "Once in 1995 I felt I had been reborn into a realm of > impermanence (I had been vigorously noting for 3 days and nights and > it may have been just confusion and psychosis)." > Scott: What did it sound like? > A: "In order to think I had to type words into my computer journal, > read them and say them out aloud all at the same time. A: As for the sound, from memory what struck me was the silence when I wasn't thinking out aloud. As for the visual, I had been vigorously noting "seeing, seeing" which, after having transcribed books by Mahasi Sayadaw about insight that visual objects are breaking up, was a self-fulfilling prophecy making my mind into a "vipassana simulator". When I decided to stop meditating the noting kept ongoing. I later came up with the analogy of looking out the window of a moving train at the ground near the tracks. I later read somewhere that the noting is only supposed to be 5% of the experience. Thanks for listening. with metta / Antony. #64830 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Antaraaparinibbaayati: "attainer of Nibbaana in the interval" sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > It seems more common for him to note when he thinks the commentaries > have missed the boat; he does, however, seem to make full use of the > commentaries. This is why I favour his translations of suttas over > others. It was the strong opinion offered by Bh. Bodhi that caught my > attention. He doesn't often seem to opine as strenuously on such > central points and yet here I found such an opinion to be interesting. .... S: Possibly increasingly more so... Familiarity with the ancient commentaries, with the Abhidhamma, with Pali or with all doesn't mean there is necessarily acceptance of them. This is why we need to stress all the time that the Dhamma is not in the texts - it's not a question of how much one has read or in what language... It all comes down to the understanding of dhammas at this moment. It's only by understanding namas and rupas appearing now and the development of the deeper understanding of the rise and fall of these, of the succession of cittas and so on that all doubts about rebirth, antarabhava and so on will be eradicated. .... > > S: "First, on the 'literal' understanding of the term > 'antaraaparinibbaayi'..." > > All of what followed made sense, Sarah. Thanks. > > Sarah: "It's impossible for one citta not to follow another citta by > anantara (and samanantara) conditions. There cannot be any experience, > let alone any realization of nibbana without the arising of cittas." > > This is what came to mind for me. Anantara-paccaya, because it is one > of the ways things are, makes any "inter-citta" existence or > experience impossible. There is no gap between moments of > consciousness and there are no more aspects of consciousness taught, > seemingly, which could account for existence within such a gap were > there to be one. And it would have to be a gap that one postulates > between the last moment of conciousness of 'this life' and the first > moment of consciousness in the 'next life'. .... S: Yes and one would have to be postulating that something other than cittas and cetasikas experience nibbana or that nibbana just appears! .... > > Sarah: "Yes, the sutta distinguishes between the fetters 'that pertain > to this world', 'those that give rise to rebirth' and 'those that give > rise to becoming'. > > "The antaaraparinibbaayin [translated in the PTS edition as 'In him > who passes finally away in mid-term'(of deva-life)], the first two > sets of fetters (i.e those of 'this world' and those giving rise to > future rebirth) are eradicated, but the fetter of existence > (bhavasa.myojana) continues for the rest of that life." > > I'm going to try to learn more about bhavasa.myojana. ... S: Pls share - I'll be interested in what else you dig up. We could go through that AN sutta if it helps. .... > > S: "How are we doing here?" > > For me, very well, Sarah, thank you. I'm grateful for all the kind > and thoughtful discussion here. I consider my association here to be > very beneficial. ... S: Oh, likewise, Scott. You're very modest and I'm amazed at the speed and depth of your reading and reflection. Like I just said to Han & James, we all help each other along - learning to become crocodiles that can swim against the current of samsara in due course:-). Metta, Sarah ===== #64831 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 3:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some points on art sarahprocter... Hi Leo, --- Leo wrote: > Yes, I am in Hawaii and for me I feel better to meditate in natural > set like trees or park. I feel it is boring to meditate in some > strange places with some drunk next to you or some other kind of > sportsmen hitting the wall by rubber ball with the full force, > countless time. In that case your home is more meditative. So if you > do not like to sit at home and listen some noise, then you come to > conclusion that park is better, especially if it is not on weekend. > Otherwise even park has loud music and so on. > In Hawaii it is boring to seat at home, so park at the right time I > like the best. ... S: Thx for clarifying. Makes sense as I also like to be outdoors in the countryside or at the beach as much as possible. I believe you're also fortunate to have a great climate in Hawaii - like those who lived in Kuru and listened to the Satipatthana Sutta. It was said to be a condition for awareness for them. (Nowadays, it's on the outskirts of super-polluted and super-hot Delhi....) Of course, all these preferences we have for parks, countryside and quiet come down to attachment wouldn't you say? Metta, Sarah ====== #64832 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pannatti: speech and music scottduncan2 Dear Antony, Thanks for your reply: A: "As for the sound, from memory what struck me was the silence when I wasn't thinking out aloud." Cool. So it was the thoughts that were loud since they turned into speech. A: "As for the visual, I had been vigorously noting "seeing, seeing" which, after having transcribed books by Mahasi Sayadaw about insight that visual objects are breaking up, was a self-fulfilling prophecy making my mind into a "vipassana simulator". When I decided to stop meditating the noting kept ongoing. I later came up with the analogy of looking out the window of a moving train at the ground near the tracks." I have, from time to time, I guess when daydreaming, the fantasy of what it would look like to see ruupas arising and falling away. Its always a visual image and its like everything is dots and they appear and disappear and flow like tiny vanishing orbs like a moving flux of pixels or something. I like the image of the ground from a moving train. I've stared at that before. Mesmerising. Kind of compelling. The 'vipassana simulator' is great, not to downplay the alarming aspect of the incident. And I mean great as in better found in a Buddhist science-fiction novel. A: "I later read somewhere that the noting is only supposed to be 5% of the experience." Yeah and I was just reading Kh. Sujin's 'Mettaa' where she is saying that there is not necessarily a need to say the words at all while noting. Personally I've found this gets in the way - the saying of the words while noting. For me I can 'note' by just noting - no words - I don't need words because I know what it is I am aware of at the moment and don't need to tell myself. I don't think its a 'technique' if you know what I mean, this noting or paying attention to what arises now. Don't you aleady know what it is when it arises without having to say it? I mean one can't force knowing. You might have to tell me more about what Mahasi Sayadaw says though. With loving kindness, Scott. #64833 From: "matt roke" Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:35 am Subject: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life 103. mattroke Dear James, Howard, Nina and all, James: When everything is anatta, anatta, anatta, then the reader will develop a sense of helplessness and apathy toward the Buddha's teaching (as Howard has pointed out). --------------------------------------------------------------- M: We cannot eliminate anatta from the teaching and whether it is mentioned many times or a few times, most people will reject it and many will fear the concept because it means the loss of a self. It is not anatta that conditions helplessness or apathy towards the Buddha’s teaching, but rather attachment to a self and worldly things and lack of understanding about what is real. ==================================== James: I go so far as to say that you aren't even teaching the Buddha's teaching; you are teaching something else entirely. --------------------------------------------------------------- M: If we are not Sotapana or higher, isn’t it rather foolish to tell others that they are wrong? Thinking forms ‘views’, which we cling to as being ‘my views’ and we then take them to be ‘right’. Those views can then prevent one from comprehending what others are trying to say, even when they may not be wrong. ==================================== James: The reason I ask this question is because I feel that you place too much emphasis on anatta (more emphasis than should be placed). --------------------------------------------------------------- M: Being caught up in concept and arguing about what is right or wrong is not the same as knowing realities that make concepts and understanding what is right and wrong. When realities are not known, then concepts, including Dhamma concepts, are what distracts from knowing them. ==================================== James: Nina, now you are claiming that every single sutta is about anatta, even when not expressly stated. --------------------------------------------------------------- M: People find that different aspects of the teaching will clarify Dhamma for them. For Nina it is anatta, for others it may be anicca or dukkha, or some other facet of the teaching. If Nina wants to express her understanding of Dhamma by emphasizing anatta that is her prerogative, and I am sure there are others who find that works for them too. Just because you don’t favour it, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Maybe Nina is pointing out that every single sutta is about anatta or maybe she was saying that every single dhamma moment while reading those suttas is anatta, anatta, anatta. ==================================== James: What if I said that every sutta the Buddha gave was really about dukkha, even if not expressly stated? "Dukkha, dukkha, dukkha, everything is about dukkha…Wouldn't you say that I had an unhealthy obsession with dukkha?...There needs to be balance in what is presented. --------------------------------------------------------------- M: The Buddha said we should free ourselves from the bog before trying to free others. Being caught up in the concept of how ‘the Dhamma should be taught’ is not the same as knowing the true nature of dhammas. So, why not try to liberate ourselves before we decide what is the best way to liberate others? ==================================== James: I feel that you place too much emphasis on anatta…everything is anatta, anatta, anatta…I find this as proof of your obsession with anatta. --------------------------------------------------------------- M: When there is no true appreciation that moments of thinking and other dhammas are subject to arising and therefore to cessation, then it may be difficult to appreciate anatta, anatta, anatta. However, your obsessive aversion to anatta could be what prevents the understanding of this. ==================================== James: There needs to be balance in presentation of the Buddha's teaching or there is likely to be misinterpretation. --------------------------------------------------------------- M: The Buddha’s teaching is very profound and that is why he hesitated to teach Dhamma. No matter how you teach it, and even though we have the word of the Buddha to guide us, it is and will continue to be misinterpreted. For some people, Nina’s approach has helped introduce them to Dhamma and they have benefited from what she has written. Rather than spend your time having dosa towards her interpretation of Dhamma, why don’t you just share with others how you understanding Dhamma, which is also more likely to condition metta. ==================================== James: I don't believe the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma, while Nina does. Therefore, there will probably never be agreement on this issue --------------------------------------------------------------- M: If it were possible to prove that the Buddha did or did not teach the Abhidhamma then there would not be this difference of opinion. However, if Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha, then you are rejecting his teaching and the Dhamma and you may be influencing others to reject them also. And by doubting one third of the Tipitaka you may even lead others to dispute the validity of the Vinaya or even the Suttas. So one should be careful what they discard and influence others to discard, because if they are wrong in their evaluation it could be detrimental to Dhamma and to others’ understanding and that would have to be for that person’s great karmic misfortune. Would it not be better to embrace and advise others to embrace all of the Tipitaka, while keeping in mind the Buddha’s instruction on what should be believed? ==================================== James: I will have to read about anatta until I want to puke anatta. --------------------------------------------------------------- M: Attachment to your own view can do that; it conditions dosa puking towards other peoples’ opinions and a metta void. Matt #64834 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cuti citta and bhavanga citta upasaka_howard Hi, Jon & Plamen - In a message dated 10/29/06 11:28:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Plamen > > Plamen Gradinarov wrote: > >>What can you tell us about the > >>author? > >> > > > >Almost nothing, except what is given at > >http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratna/index.html > >and what is referred to in the Potter's Encyclopedia > >http://www.indology.net/biblio-7413.html > > > > Thanks for the links (I thought he may have been someone you were > familiar with, but apparently not!). > > >>A citta that it has no awareness of its object? Where does this > >>idea come from, and what does it mean exactly? Is it not a > >>self-contradiction? > > > >So far no one is immediately aware of the object of bhavanga-citta. > > OK, so you are referring to the fact that the object of bhavangaa-citta > is unknown to us. To my understanding, this does not mean there is a > citta with no awareness of its object, but only that the sense- or > mind-door process cittas subsequent to the bhavanga-citta do not > experience the bhavanga-citta or its object. > > It is the function of a citta to experience an object; so the idea of a > citta with an object that is not experienced by the citta would be > self-contradictory, as I see it. > > >It is believed that there is such an object and that it should > >probably be the same as in the wake states of mind, but to believe > >and to be aware of are quite diiferent mental modi. In the best case > >we can talk of a postapperception whose object is problematic or > >totally absent, like in the dreamless sleep. Or we can infer the > >existence of the bhavanga-citta-alambana, but never have a direct > >and distinct jnana when abiding in bhavanga. > > I think all we can do is to take the matter of bhavanga-citta as > something that is stated in the teachings but is not capable of direct > verification/of being disproved at our present level of developed > understanding (there are many things in the teachings that fall into > this category - no surprise really). > > Jon > > ========================= I don't get what is supposed to be the story with regard to the bhavanga-citta-object. When there is a series of consecutive visual mindstates of the same object, with only cetasikas arising and ceasing throughout, the object is seen. There is no mind-door processing of that visual object then, but that object is observed throughout, and it is subsequently known in other ways than via the eye door, including being recalled, characterized, and reacted to. Now, as I recall, there are said to be, between sense-door processes, bhavanga processes, some involving a string of bhavanga cittas that is brief, but others, such as during dreamless sleep, that are quite lengthy streams. A couple questions arise in my mind with regard to this matter: 1) Must not the common object of those cittas be observed? What is citta that doesn't know its object? 2) Is there no inherent upper limit to the length of a bhavanga stream? For sense-door processes, I believe the magic number is 17 (my favorite prime! ;-) If not, when a sense-door object comes-a-knockin' at the door, what is the means of the bhavanga cittas detecting its presence, "vibrating" and then ceding place to a sense-door citta? No bhavanga citta could take the arising sense-door object as its object, because it already has it own (ineffable) object. (Actually, this issue may not be unique to the bhavanga-citta topic, but to citta psychology more generally. How does any process, whether a sense-door process or bhavanga process, come to an end specifically due to the arising of a new sense-door object? Apparently, it cannot require an interactionf the arising object-to-be with the current citta, because that current citta already has its "own" object, thereby leaving no mechanism for interaction. Now, that lack of interaction/communication doesn't bother me, because I am quite comfortable with this-that conditionality, and I feel no compulsion for there to be a substantial handshake between "the arising object" and the current mindstate, but others might fell that need. (What *does* bother me is the idea of a not-yet-cognized object arising "on it's own" in a separate world of mind-independent phenomena. But that is my particular - some might say "peculiar" - phenomenalist problem, and is a side issue.) With metta, Howard #64835 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:45 am Subject: Re: Antaraaparinibbaayati: "attainer of Nibbaana in the interval" abhidhammika Dear Scott D, Sarah, Nina, Michael Kalyaano, Mike N, Robert K and all How are you? Scott quoted Bhikkhu Bodhi as writing: "...If we understand the term antaraaparinibbaayi literally, as it seems we should, it then means one who attains Nibbaana in the interval between two lives, perhaps while existing in a subtle body in the intermediate state...Though the Theravaadin proponents argue against this interpretation of antaraaparinibbaayi...,the evidence from the suttas leans strongly in its favour..." (Note 65, Bojjha.ngasa.myutta, Sa.myutta Nikaaya, pp. 1902-1903.)" The above statement of Bhikkhu Bodhi was unfortunately wrong because it failed to do justice to the Buddha's own definition of the term "antaraaparinibbaayi". The Buddha uses the term "antaraaparinibbaayi" as a technical term reserved for an Anaagaamii, a Non-returner. So this term does not permit us from interpreting outside the original Theravada meaning described and defined by the Buddha in the Pali Suttam Texts. Before I quote the Buddha's description of this technical term, I would like to make a brief comment on the Pali word "antara" whose meaning is merely 'between'. As its English equivalent can be used for any two things or two events or two qualities or two times or any two states, the word 'antara' can also be used. This means that the prefix 'antara' does not mean 'between two lives' as Bhikkhu Bodhi claimed to understand the term literally. Scott also wrote in reply to Sarah: "It seems more common for him to note when he thinks the commentaries have missed the boat; he does, however, seem to make full use of the commentaries. This is why I favour his translations of suttas over others." Scott, from your above statement, do you have Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of Samyuttanikaaya? I think Sarah has it. If Scott or Sarah has that translation, can you post a relevant passage of it here in reply to this post as I am going to provide the Pali quote from Samyuttanikkaya where the Buddha describes and defines the term 'antaraaparinibbaayi'. To make your copy chore easier, I will chose the passage from a very short Suttam only. :-) Here comes the Suttam quote. ----------------------------- 6. Dutiyaphalasuttam 536. ".. .Katame satta phalaa sattaanisamsaa? Di.t.theva dhamme pa.tikacca aññam aaraadheti, no ce di.t.theva dhamme pa.tikacca aññam aaraadheti, atha mara.nakaale aññam aaraadheti. No ce di.t.theva dhamme aññam aaraadheti, no ce mara.nakaale aññam aaraadheti, atha pañcannam orambhaagiyaanam samyojanaanam parikkhayaa antaraaparinibbaayii hoti,..." -------------------------------- The above Suttam can be found as Section 536, the Sixth Suttam under 7. Bodhipakkhiyavaggo, 4. Indriyasamyuttam, Mahavaggo, Samyuttanikaayo. With best wishes, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: Dear All, Bhikkhu Bodhi writes: "...If we understand the term antaraaparinibbaayi literally, as it seems we should, it then means one who attains Nibbaana in the interval between two lives, perhaps while existing in a subtle body in the intermediate state...Though the Theravaadin proponents argue against this interpretation of antaraaparinibbaayi...,the evidence from the suttas leans strongly in its favour..." (Note 65, Bojjha.ngasa.myutta, Sa.myutta Nikaaya, pp. 1902-1903.) This relates to the discussion of the cuti citta. I'll add the sutta references Bh. Bodhi refers to tomorrow. I wonder how anantara and samanantara conditions relate to this. Any comments? With loving kindness, Scott. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: I'll add the sutta references Bh. Bodhi refers to: "This interpretation, adopted by several non-Theravaada schools of early Buddhism, seems to be confirmed by the Purisagati Sutta (AN IV 70-74), in which the simile of the flaming chiip suggests that seven types (including the three kinds of antaaraparinibbayaati) are mutually exclusive and have been graded according to the sharpness of their faculties. Additional support comes from AN II 134, 25-29, which explains antaaraparinibbayaati as one who has abandoned the fetter of rebirth (upapattisa.myojana) without yet having abandoned existence (bhavasa.myojana)." Sa.mmyutta Nikaaya, Bojjha.ngasa.myutta Note 65, p. 1903. Scott. Sarah: "I think that B.Bodhi's comments to suggest that this is the correct 'literal' interpretation and that the 'evidence from the suttas leans strongly in its favour' miss the target here." Scott: It seems more common for him to note when he thinks the commentaries have missed the boat; he does, however, seem to make full use of the commentaries. This is why I favour his translations of suttas over others. It was the strong opinion offered by Bh. Bodhi that caught my attention. He doesn't often seem to opine as strenuously on such central points and yet here I found such an opinion to be interesting. #64836 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:49 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma in Daily Life 103. buddhatrue Hi Matt, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "matt roke" wrote: > > Dear James, Howard, Nina and all, > > James: When everything is anatta, anatta, anatta, then the reader will > develop a sense of helplessness and apathy toward the Buddha's teaching (as > Howard has pointed out). > --------------------------------------------------------------- > M: We cannot eliminate anatta from the teaching and whether it is mentioned > many times or a few times, most people will reject it and many will fear the > concept because it means the loss of a self. It is not anatta that > conditions helplessness or apathy towards the Buddha's teaching, but rather > attachment to a self and worldly things and lack of understanding about what > is real. I'm not sure who you are. You don't post here very often. But you don't seem to know me very well. You seem to have taken this post as an attack on Nina, and that isn't what is meant. I am simply presenting an alternative viewpoint- a calling for balance in presenting the dhamma. I don't have an aversion to anatta, I would just like for anatta to be presented on equal footing with impermanence and suffering. That is what the Buddha did so that I what I think dhamma teachers should do. It's my opinion- take it or leave it. But there is one thing you wrote which really cracks me up: "However, if Abhidhamma is the word of the Buddha, then you are rejecting his teaching and the Dhamma and you may be influencing others to reject them also. And by doubting one third of the Tipitaka you may even lead others to dispute the validity of the Vinaya or even the Suttas. So one should be careful what they discard and influence others to discard, because if they are wrong in their evaluation it could be detrimental to Dhamma and to others' understanding and that would have to be for that person's great karmic misfortune." According to the Christians, I am going to go to hell for being gay; now, according to the Theravada Buddhists, I am going to go to hell for rejecting the Abhidhamma. It's all nonsense!! I am not going to go to hell for either reason and I won't be threatened into silence!! The Buddha didn't teach the Abhidhamma- I would be willing to bet my life on it!! Metta, James #64837 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:31 am Subject: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James (Phil, Jon & all), > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Thanks for your explanation, but I still don't get it. I am having > > trouble with this metaphor of "roots"- it just doesn't seem to make > > much sense to me. Did the Buddha ever use this metaphor? > ... > S: Yes, there are many examples in Nyanaponika's Wheel 'the Roots of Good > & Evil' which Phil mentioned. For example: "There are three Roots of the > Unwholesome: greed, hatred and delusion; and there are three Roots of the > Wholesome: non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion." DN, 33, Sangiti Sutta. Thanks for the response. I will re-read 'The Roots of Good and Evil' and hopefully see where you are coming from. You gave me a copy of the book in Hong Kong, remember? :-) As soon as I am done, I will give a more detailed response and then respond to the others in this thread. Metta, James #64838 From: "nidive" Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:11 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nidive Hi Ken H, > Your "Dhamma guru" remark was incorrect and uncalled for. From my point of perception with reference to past interactions, it is correct. > But apart from that, no, I am not disappointed. You are not the > first person to reject the teaching of no control and you won't be > the last. :-) Neither are you the first person to embrace the unorthodox doctrine of "no control" and you won't be the last. > It seems to me that the suttas give certain statements as indicators > of wrong view. They include, "The self does not exist" "I do not > exist" "You do not exist," and, "'After death a Tathagata does not > exist." Those statements are worded in such a way as to presuppose a > form of self (I, you, a Tathagata-after-death), and then deny its > existence. In that way, they typify the annihilationist point of > view. > On the other hand, the statement "There is no self" does not > presuppose a self. I could be wrong, ... It's funny to see how you attempt to digest your own words and then later vomit everything out. You are an expert in talking nonsense, Ken H. > but I don't it was ever given by the Buddha as an example of > wrong view. I think he consistently used it himself. You must be dreaming again, Ken H. > According to the Abhidhamma, only the wisest of wise worldlings > could ever have direct insight (of any kind) into the nature of > paramattha dhammas. Direct insight into the anatta characteristic > is the most advanced form of satipatthana. It is practised only by > ariyans and by a tiny elite of worldlings who are on the brink of > Stream-entry. According to the Bible's Book of Revelation, only the most pure 144,000 Christians will be saved at the Second Coming of Christ. See, you are introducing unnecessary mysticism into the Buddha's Dhamma. This is not the Buddha's teaching. > As with the other sutta you quoted, this deals with a different > issue. It was spoken to someone who had not grasped the middle way > (of conditioned dhammas) and who was still trying to follow > conventional paths (in which humans, devas, Buddhas (etc) were seen > as ultimately real). I never knew that the Buddha engages in the practice of eel-wriggling and double standards. When questioned by a person following the conventional path, he says he doesn't declare that "the Tathagata doesn't exist". When question by a person following the ultimate path, he says otherwise. This is pure nonsense again, Ken H. You are putting words into the Buddha's mouth. And that's a weighty akusala kamma. > Only dhammas exist. Apart from the mere conditioned dhammas that > form the five khandhas, there never was a Tathagata. If you think > there was something more than the five khandhas before parinibbana, > then you will be wrong to think there was no Tathagata after it. > (Or that there was, or that there 'both was and wasn't,' or that > there 'neither was nor wasn't.') Do you think I envision anything more than the five aggregates before parinibbana? No, I don't. I repeat, no, I don't. I say again, no, I don't. Sorry to disappoint you again, Ken H. Regards, Swee Boon #64839 From: han tun Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa hantun1 Dear Sarah and James, Thank you very much for your very useful quotes. I wish to add only one thing. Under the heading of Panna as "Remover" of Defilements, the king asked: "But is not wise attention (yoniso-manasikara) the same as wisdom (panna)?" Venerable Naagasena replied: "No, Your Majesty! Attention (manasikara) is one thing, and wisdom (panna) another. Sheep and goats, oxen and buffaloes, camels and asses have attention (manasikara), but wisdom (panna) they have not." -------------------- Please note that the king asked one thing and Venerable Naagasena answered another thing. The king asked wise attention (yoniso-manasikara). Venerable Naagasena answered attention (manasikara). This is a big difference. The reader, if not careful, might think that the animals have yoniso-manasikara. They do not have yoniso-manasikara, they only have manasikara. Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Han (James & all), > > With regard to the different kinds and degrees of > wisdom, I was thinking > of some comments James has made and particularly the > following good > quotes. #64840 From: "nidive" Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:45 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nidive Hi Scott, > And, as shown previously,Thanissaro Bhikkhu renders it: > > "Very good, monks, I too, do not evision a clinging to a doctrine of > self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, > pain, grief, and despair." > > Bhikkhu Bodhi: > > "Good, Bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would > not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who > clings to it." > and I have therefore attempted to cut through the difficulty by > translating directly in accordance with the sense rather than in > conformity with the Pali idiom." (p. 1197) > > The two translators, in translating, put forward their own views, I > think. Bh. Bodhi emphasises that no doctrine of self can be free of > sorrow, etc. while Thanissaro Bhikkhu focuses on the clinging as the > cause of sorrow etc, leaving aside the doctrine of self. The > implications seem clear to me in each case. > Bh. Bodhi, I think, implicitly seems to agree that this statement > fits with a view that there is no self. Thanissaro Bh. does seem > to leave this ambiguous for some reason. I think Thanissaro's translation is the better one. Any doctrine of self by itself is not the cause of sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. It that were so, it would be fatalistic. It is only when the clinging to it comes into play, then there is sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. Thanissaro is correct to emphasize the clinging. If there is no clinging to a doctrine of self, then all viewpoint positions with regard to a self also ceases. This is also in line with the Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta. The perception of "Thanissaro Bh. does seem to leave this ambiguous for some reason." is just a speculation. He may have a secret agenda as Ken H says (I think it is honesty in translation on his part), but taken in the context of the Buddha's teachings, he is correct to translate it as such. A position of "no self" is not something that is declared by the Buddha. Regards, Swee Boon #64841 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Having trouble finding these suttas and their name and number... jonoabb Hi JC jcmendoza1000 wrote: > TO EVERYBODY: > -Sutta that says to honor devas and they would help us as a mother to > their child. > If there are suttas that tell us to honor brahmas similar to the one > above. > As regards brahmans, try the Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31), translation at this link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html especially the part towards the end beginning "And how, young householder, does a noble disciple cover the six quarters?". Ascetics and brahmans are give as the sixth of the 6 quarters to be ministered to. Jon #64842 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:50 pm Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 Dear Swee Boon, We may have to agree to disagree, since debates are not really something I enjoy, nor do I have much proficiency. SB: "A position of "no self" is not something that is declared by the Buddha." I'd like to know where you are coming from though. By "position", to what to do you refer? And when you use "self", to what do you refer? With loving kindness, Scott. #64843 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:40 pm Subject: Re: Antaraaparinibbaayati: "attainer of Nibbaana in the interval" scottduncan2 Dear Suan, I think I found what you were asking for: 6. Dutiyaphalasuttam 536. ".. .Katame satta phalaa sattaanisamsaa? Di.t.theva dhamme pa.tikacca a��am aaraadheti, no ce di.t.theva dhamme pa.tikacca a��am aaraadheti, atha mara.nakaale a��am aaraadheti. No ce di.t.theva dhamme a��am aaraadheti, no ce mara.nakaale a��am aaraadheti, atha pa�cannam orambhaagiyaanam samyojanaanam parikkhayaa antaraaparinibbaayii hoti,..." "...What are the seven fruits and benefits? One attains final knowledge early in this very life. If one does not attain final knowledge early in this very life, then one attains final knowledge at the time of death. If one does not attain final knowledge early in this very life, or at the time of death, then with the utter destruction of the five lower fetters one becomes an attainer of Nibbaana within the interval..." With loving kindness, Scott. #64844 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hallo Jon, Howard, Nina, all How to consider Dependent Origination ? Jon, if you don't mind I only answer a question of yours that has my interest now. >>> Jon: " I do not see how one can consider DO without also allowing for >>> the possibility of a round of rebirths." >> Joop: Oh, yes, I can, see for example my message #64617 to Nina. Jon: Your message #64617 to Nina is a very short one and doesn't seem to > address this issue. Perhaps you had some other message in mind? > [Message #64617 reads as follows: > "Now I think the second way of contemplating D.O. can better be given > the name "non-dualistic" We should practice both ways, the analytical > Nina described and the non-dual. Alternating>] Joop: isn't it wunderful, such a short message and such a rich content. A bit about the history of this statement, But first a question: why should it be impossible to consider DO without also allowing the possibility of a round of rebirths? Rebirths of who by the way? Nina's analytical way she described as: " We have to go deeper into the manifold conditions which are very intricate. It sounds simple: When there is this, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. But in order to understand this we have to know by way of which type of conditions (there are twentyfour classes) one link condiitons the next one. It is not as simple as it may seem." Then I said: there are two ways in understanding DO, we had to do both, this analytical and a 'synthetical'; other name I gave to this second way were 'mystical', 'non-dual' but I was not happy with these names. Howard reacted to my message about the two ways with: "Perhaps the term 'direct' or 'directly experiential' could be an alternative to 'non-dualistic'. All our knowing remains strongly dualistic, I believe, until sufficient progress is made. I think of the analytic approach as an "at-a-distance" one via intellect, and the other approach to be a direct one via attending to what arises in the moment and with ever-increasing degrees of developing mindfulness and insight. I agree that both are needed. BTW, as an aside, the Tibetan Madhyamikans make a great deal of the analytic approach as a tool (backed up by meditation - largely samatha I think). Their aim, especially as described by the Kagyu centrist school, is to use the mind as a deconstructive tool, step-by-step undoing the results of ignorance-based conceptualization." Howard is right, I think; only what I understand from my tibetan- buddhist friends is that what is called "meditation" in this tradition many times is in fact more "contemplation" as was done in roman catholic monastic life: deep thinking one idea, one short essay or talk etc., so not really samatha but also not 'normal' thinking: jumping from one thought to another, sometimes called discursive thinking. So I think contemplating in this way "When there is this, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. When this is not, neither is that. With the cessation of this, that ceases." is at least a help in decreasing ignorance I'm not hundred procent sure but to me this phrase is in essence the same (the essence of DO) as what the Ven. Assaji gave as exposition of Dhamma to Sariputta: "Whatever phenomena arise from cause: Their cause & their cessation." It was by this exposition that there arose to Sariputta the stainless Dhamma eye: "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." Mv i.23.5 Without analyses of 24 conditions, 11 links etc.: by deep understanding Metta Joop BTW Jon perhaps I answer your other question in a later stadium, now I'm not inspired to do so #64845 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:36 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma in Daily Life 103. jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Matt, > >.... > According to the Christians, I am going to go to hell for being gay; > now, according to the Theravada Buddhists, I am going to go to hell > for rejecting the Abhidhamma. It's all nonsense!! I am not going to > go to hell for either reason and I won't be threatened into > silence!! The Buddha didn't teach the Abhidhamma- I would be willing > to bet my life on it!! > > Metta, > James > Hallo James No need betting. Not just 'the hell' don't exist. Of course the Abhidhamma-texts are composed some centuries after the passing away of the Buddha. That's all no problem. The only question is if this texts (and the interpretations later of it by 'commmentaries') do have the same intentions as the Sutta's did have: awakening the hearer. I am not sure about the answer. I think it can be yes. But then the next question is: what does its awakening function better: the Suttas or the Abhidhamma? To me: for some years the Abhidhamma did, but now the Suttas (and some Sutras) do. Have you ever read www.santiforestmonastery.com/writings/ The%20Mystique%20of%20the%20Abhidhamma.pdf By Bhante Sujato. I quote the abstract: "This long essay offers a provocative reassessment of the religious function of the Abhidhamma, how it actually works in Buddhist communities, as well as substantial evaluations of several core Abhidhamma doctrines. It is, in addition, possibly the most humorous work ever written on Abhidhamma, although there's admittedly not a lot of competition." Metta Joop #64846 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Appamada - a loose end sarahprocter... Hi Andrew T, --- Andrew wrote: >....It's very interesting to contemplate > that some important concepts in Dhamma (including the subject of the > very last utterance of the Buddha) are composite terms - concepts > describing a range of co-arising realities (all of which need to be > understood lest, for example, unwholesome energy/viriya be mistaken for > wholesome diligence/appamada). .... S: I like the way you put this - yes many composite terms which were commonly used in everyday language, like pamaada (heedlessness) and appamaada(heedfulness), but which taken on special significance in the context of the Buddha's teachings. In a recent ADL installment, Nina quoted the following sutta which is called 'Pamaadavihaarisutta' and which uses the same terms pamaada vihaari for dwells heedless (or 'dwells negligently' in BB's transl) and appamaada vihaari for 'dweller in earnestness' (or 'dwells diligently' in B.Bodhi's transl): ***** N:> (IV, Saîåyatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Second Fifty, chapter V, § 97, Dwelling heedless) : At Såvatthí was the occasion (of this discourse).. . ``I will teach you, monks, of the one who dwells heedless, and of the one who dwells earnest. Do you listen to it. And how, monks, does one dwell heedless? In him, monks, who dwells with the faculty of sight uncontrolled, the heart is corrupted by objects cognizable by the eye. In him whose heart is corrupted there is no delight. Without delight there is no joy. Where joy is not, there is no calm. Without calm one dwells in sorrow. The sorrowful man's heart is not composed. When the heart is not composed, one has not clear ideas. Through not having clear ideas he is reckoned as one who dwells heedless. (And it is the same with regard to the faculties of taste, touch and mind.)< ***** S: For the last lines, BB gives: "When the mind is not concentrated, phenomena do not become manifest.(dhammaa na paatubhaavaa). Because phenomena do not become manifest, one is reckoned as 'one who dwells negligently (pamaada vihaari)." BB also mentions that the commentary 'takes this to mean that states of serenity and insight (samatha-vipassanaa dhamma) do not become manifest.' **** N: >And how, monks, does one dwell earnest? In him, monks, who dwells with the faculty of sight controlled the heart is not corrupted by objects cognizable by the eye. In him whose heart is not corrupted delight is born. In one delighted joy is born. When one is joyful the body is calmed. He whose body is calmed feels at ease. Composed is the heart of him who is at ease. When the heart is composed one's ideas are clear. Through having clear ideas one is reckoned as one who dwells earnest. (And it is the same with regard to the faculty of taste, touch and mind) Thus, monks, is one a dweller in earnestness. ''< ***** S: You also asked about Abhidhamma references, I believe. In the Vibhanga, Analysis of Small Items, #846 (PTS transl), there is the following definition of pamaado (heedlessness) starts of: "Therein what is 'heedlessness (pamaado)'? Wrong bodily action or wrong verbal action or wrong mental action or the succumbing and repeated succumbing of consciousness to the five strands of sense pleasures ....." (S: and then there is more about being heedless in the development of good and bhavana.) Thanks for encouraging me to consider this topic further, Andrew. I've also been puzzled by these 'composite terms' from time to time, but appreciate more that the Buddha used terms and language in common usage and so their meanings can depend on the context. I also found in an Abhidhamma text the use of pamaado and appamaado in a very conventional sense to refer to a king's diligent and non-diligent ministers. Metta, Sarah ====== #64847 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:06 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 566- Understanding/pa~n~naa (e) 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;-) =============================================== Understanding(paññå)contd The understanding which realizes the true nature of realities can eradicate defilements and its development can only be taught by a Buddha. This kind of understanding does not arise automatically, it has to be developed. When one has listened to the Dhamma and reflected on it, there can first be intellectual understanding of realities. If there is mindfulness of nåma and rúpa when they appear in daily life direct understanding of realities can gradually be developed. Eventually the true nature of realities can be penetrated and defilements can be eradicated at the attainment of enlightenment(1). *** 1) Intellectual understanding is in Påli: pariyatti. The development of direct understanding or the “practice” is in Påli: patipatti. The penetration of the truth is in Påli: pativedha. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64848 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: not fond of foul sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, I hope you had a good weekend trip. --- upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > Comtemplation of "foulness" may be just the right medicine for > certain > people, but I suspect not so good for many folks, and, without proper > guidance sightly-to-extremely dangerous for most. For me, because I do > have a > "sensuous" nature, I find a brief thought or two in the direction of > "seeing through" > deceptive, superficial beauty to be occasionally salutory, but beyond > that I > would find the practice to be pretty much ineffectual (for myself) due > to what > I see as an "artificiality" to it. ... S: Yes, I also see the 'artificiality' aspect as being a hindrance rather than a help. It's one thing to find one is reflecting on 'foulness' from time to time during the day and quite another thing to deliberately set out to 'cultivate' it with an expectation of a particular result. ... >The "artificiality" aspect is even > stronger for me as regards intentional cultivation of metta, karuna, and > mudita, > which I am inclined to anyway, and perhaps *because* I am so inclined, > whereas > cultivation of upekkha seems less artificial to me, no doubt because I > am more in > need of that! LOL! ... S: LOL! I know what you mean with regard to being less inclined to upekkha too. I also agree with your comments here about the 'artificialit' aspect in developing the brahma viharas. I have a friend who used to tell me she'd go to a quiet temple in Thailand to sit quietly and develop metta, but then she'd find she was really annoyed when she left and faced the crowds and chaos in the city with 'real' people:-). She dedicided there was something wrong with such a practice. The time for development is when one is associating with people and has an opportunity to show kindness and sympathy and sympathetic joy - even here, of course. ... >One thing, BTW, that I am happy about is that I tend > towards easy and effective introspection, and I am rarely fooled with > regard to > "my" tendencies, both bad and good. .... S: I see there being a difference between wise reflection (introspection?) and dwelling on oneself, dwelling on one's tendencies, wishing to have more kusala or attempting to have such. I see the latter kind of dwelling as just feeding the lobha, becoming more and more ensnared by it. Strange as it might seem, I think that as the development of understanding increases of good and bad and any dhammas appearing, there is less and less tendency to dwell on 'my' tendencies or 'my' development. Just thinking out loud here, Howard... Always good to hear your comments. Metta, Sarah ====== #64849 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu upasaka_howard Hi, Joop (and Jon) - In a message dated 10/31/06 4:25:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > Then I said: there are two ways in understanding DO, we had to do > both, this analytical and a 'synthetical'; other name I gave to this > second way were 'mystical', 'non-dual' but I was not happy with these > names. > > Howard reacted to my message about the two ways with: > "Perhaps the term 'direct' or 'directly experiential' could be an > alternative to 'non-dualistic'. All our knowing remains strongly > dualistic, I believe, until sufficient progress is made. > I think of the analytic approach as an "at-a-distance" one via > intellect, and the other approach to be a direct one via attending to > what arises in the moment and with ever-increasing degrees of > developing mindfulness and > insight. I agree that both are needed. > BTW, as an aside, the Tibetan Madhyamikans make a great deal of the > analytic approach as a tool (backed up by meditation - largely > samatha I think). > Their aim, especially as described by the Kagyu centrist school, is > to use the mind as a deconstructive tool, step-by-step undoing the > results of ignorance-based conceptualization." > > Howard is right, I think; only what I understand from my tibetan- > buddhist friends is that what is called "meditation" in this > tradition many times is in fact more "contemplation" as was done in > roman catholic monastic life: deep thinking one idea, one short essay > or talk etc., so not really samatha but also not 'normal' thinking: > jumping from one thought to another, sometimes called discursive > thinking. > ======================= From my reading [I have no first-hand knowledge of the Tibetan traditions], they engage in both sorts of meditation, with cultivation of jhana mastery a definite part of the practice. With metta, Howard #64850 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:15 am Subject: Re: K.Sujin says there can be control! jonoabb Hi Swee Boon If I may chip in here ... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > I received my copy of Survey and ADL today. I started with Survey on > the chapter "The Natural Way of Development". On page 356, she quoted > the Lesser Discourse on the Simile of the Elephant's Footprint about > the control over the organ of sight. > > She says that this kind of restraint can be achieved through the > development of panna that understands the realities that appear as > they are. > > I think this suggests that she doesn't teach "absolute no control", > which I am very glad to know of. Actually, I don't think anyone has suggested that A. Sujin talks about 'absolute no control'. What has been mentioned here is the understanding that there is no control in the absolute sense ('no absolute control'). This refelects the conditioned (and not-self) nature of all dhammas; dhammas arise dependent on various conditions and cannot be made to arise or not arise in contradiction of those conditions. There are many references in the suttas to control, restraint, power, ability and the like, but none of them refer to an absolute level of these things, as I see it. Jon #64851 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:27 am Subject: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadas jonoabb Hi James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > > > Hi James (and Phil) > > > These two (roots of good and evil in behaviour, roots of cittas) are > > really one and the same. > > I will reply to this post after I get a reply to my post #64772. I > need to know how the metaphor of "roots" works with the Luminous Sutta > before I can respond to your points. Perhaps you would like to reply > to post #64772? I think I've been given a reprieve from replying to post #64772 ;-)), but let me add a comment or two anyway. There is no inconsistency as I see it between the sutta dealing with citta as luminous ('pabhassara') and the idea of mental factors that are unwholesome roots. As I understand it, these akusala mental factors are the 'incoming defilements' referred to in the passage: "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming defilements." Jon #64852 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:37 am Subject: Re: Cuti citta and bhavanga citta jonoabb Hi Plamen --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Plamen Gradinarov" wrote: > > Dear Jon, > > > It is the function of a citta to experience an object; so the idea > of a > > citta with an object that is not experienced by the citta would be > > self-contradictory, as I see it. > > I also see it in this way. It is a contradiction to claim that a > citta is aware of its object (alambanam cetati cittam) without being > aware of it. The only citta that is fully aware of its object as > such is the tadalambana-citta. All other cittas are only relinking, > adverting, instrumentally modifying and preparing the citta to be > aware (cetati) of its object - or to depart from its object. We are possibly on different tracks here. I am referring to citta *experiencing* its object, you to citta *being aware of* its object, which seems to mean something more than bare experience. So perhaps you are not really suggesting that bhavanga citta does not *expereince* an object. Grateful if you could explain the implications of a citta 'being aware of' its object. > > I think all we can do is to take the matter of bhavanga-citta as > > something that is stated in the teachings but is not capable of > direct > > verification/of being disproved at our present level of developed > > understanding (there are many things in the teachings that fall > into > > this category - no surprise really). > > Buddhist epistemologists and logicians believe that the two > established means of adequate knowledge are perception (pratyaksa) > and inference (anumana). Neither direct experience nor logic are > capable of ascertaining the "cittatva" of bhavanga-citta. I'd be interested to know the textual basis for any such view(s), and how panna fits into the picture. Jon #64853 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Bu... upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and James, and Swee Boon also) - In a message dated 10/31/06 8:38:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > > Hi James > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > > >Hi Jon, > > > >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > > wrote: > >> > >>Hi James (and Phil) > > > >>These two (roots of good and evil in behaviour, roots of cittas) are > >>really one and the same. > > > >I will reply to this post after I get a reply to my post #64772. I > >need to know how the metaphor of "roots" works with the Luminous Sutta > >before I can respond to your points. Perhaps you would like to reply > >to post #64772? > > > I think I've been given a reprieve from replying to post #64772 ;-)), > but let me add a comment or two anyway. > > There is no inconsistency as I see it between the sutta dealing with > citta as luminous ('pabhassara') and the idea of mental factors that > are unwholesome roots. As I understand it, these akusala mental > factors are the 'incoming defilements' referred to in the passage: > "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming > defilements." > > Jon > > ========================= Jon, I often voice my disagreement with you on various points, so I'll take this opportunity to agree with you on a matter. (I imagine James agrees as well, though I could be wrong of course.) I also agree wih you where you say the following in a recent post to Swee Boon: "What has been mentioned here is the understanding that there is no control in the absolute sense ('no absolute control'). This reflects the conditioned (and not-self) nature of all dhammas; dhammas arise dependent on various conditions and cannot be made to arise or not arise in contradiction of those conditions. There are many references in the suttas to control, restraint, power, ability and the like, but none of them refer to an absolute level of these things, as I see it." The full context here, as I understand it, is your pointing out that "Khun Sujin Ltd" neither asserts no-control in a complete sense nor control in a complete sense, and mainly does assert that there exists no controlling "self". With metta, Howard #64854 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 12:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: not fond of foul upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/31/06 6:33:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard &all, > > I hope you had a good weekend trip. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, it was lovely. :-) But now I have to pay food penance! LOL! --------------------------------------------- > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > > >Howard: > > Comtemplation of "foulness" may be just the right medicine for > >certain > >people, but I suspect not so good for many folks, and, without proper > >guidance sightly-to-extremely dangerous for most. For me, because I do > >have a > >"sensuous" nature, I find a brief thought or two in the direction of > >"seeing through" > >deceptive, superficial beauty to be occasionally salutory, but beyond > >that I > >would find the practice to be pretty much ineffectual (for myself) due > >to what > >I see as an "artificiality" to it. > ... > > S: Yes, I also see the 'artificiality' aspect as being a hindrance rather > than a help. It's one thing to find one is reflecting on 'foulness' from > time to time during the day and quite another thing to deliberately set > out to 'cultivate' it with an expectation of a particular result. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Well, any "practices" I engage in are done "for the long run", with the idea of gradual cultivation. Should there be immediate salutory effects, well, that's good, but if not, then not. --------------------------------------- > ... > > >The "artificiality" aspect is even > >stronger for me as regards intentional cultivation of metta, karuna, and > >mudita, > >which I am inclined to anyway, and perhaps *because* I am so inclined, > >whereas > >cultivation of upekkha seems less artificial to me, no doubt because I > >am more in > >need of that! LOL! > ... > S: LOL! I know what you mean with regard to being less inclined to upekkha > too. I also agree with your comments here about the 'artificialit' aspect > in developing the brahma viharas. I have a friend who used to tell me > she'd go to a quiet temple in Thailand to sit quietly and develop metta, > but then she'd find she was really annoyed when she left and faced the > crowds and chaos in the city with 'real' people:-). She dedicided there > was something wrong with such a practice. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Perhaps what was wrong was not the practice, but the intention of looking, not for cultivation, but for a "quick fix". ------------------------------------------- The time for development is when> > one is associating with people and has an opportunity to show kindness and > sympathy and sympathetic joy - even here, of course. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I personally find that the best time. However, perhaps for a person strongly lacking in these wholesome inclinations, additional background work as directly taught by the Buddha in for example the Karaniya Metta Sutta to be found at the ATI link http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/khp/khp.9.nyam.html is needed. ----------------------------------------------- > ... > >One thing, BTW, that I am happy about is that I tend > >towards easy and effective introspection, and I am rarely fooled with > >regard to > >"my" tendencies, both bad and good. > .... > S: I see there being a difference between wise reflection (introspection?) > and dwelling on oneself, dwelling on one's tendencies, wishing to have > more kusala or attempting to have such. I see the latter kind of dwelling > as just feeding the lobha, becoming more and more ensnared by it. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not talking about wishing. ------------------------------------------- > > Strange as it might seem, I think that as the development of understanding > increases of good and bad and any dhammas appearing, there is less and > less tendency to dwell on 'my' tendencies or 'my' development. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Understanding and insight is curative. It is purifying. (A "disinfectant", and, eventually, the uprooting sword.) ---------------------------------------------- > > Just thinking out loud here, Howard... > > Always good to hear your comments. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======================= With metta, Howard #64855 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 5:40 am Subject: Re: Antaraaparinibbaayati: "attainer of Nibbaana in the interval" abhidhammika Dear Scott Thank you for posting Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, which is passable, but could have been more accurate. I have been reading relevant Pali Suttams where the Buddha describes 'antaraaparinibbaayaaii'. I will write my findings when I have more spare time. What I can say now is that antaraaparinibbaayaaiis are the most advanced ones among the Anaagaamiis, the Non-returners. Also, the Pali Suttams are against Bhikkhu Bodhi's so-called literal interpretation and underestanding. By the way, have you ever watched Chinese Ghost Stories movies? Those ghosts are what Mahayanists and Taoists believe to be the between-beings (antarabhava) between this life and the next life. With regards, Suan www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: Dear Suan, I think I found what you were asking for: 6. Dutiyaphalasuttam 536. ".. .Katame satta phalaa sattaanisamsaa? Di.t.theva dhamme pa.tikacca a��am aaraadheti, no ce di.t.theva dhamme pa.tikacca a��am aaraadheti, atha mara.nakaale a��am aaraadheti. No ce di.t.theva dhamme a��am aaraadheti, no ce mara.nakaale a��am aaraadheti, atha pa�cannam orambhaagiyaanam samyojanaanam parikkhayaa antaraaparinibbaayii hoti,..." "...What are the seven fruits and benefits? One attains final knowledge early in this very life. If one does not attain final knowledge early in this very life, then one attains final knowledge at the time of death. If one does not attain final knowledge early in this very life, or at the time of death, then with the utter destruction of the five lower fetters one becomes an attainer of Nibbaana within the interval..." With loving kindness, Scott. #64856 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:41 am Subject: Re: Antaraaparinibbaayati: "attainer of Nibbaana in the interval" scottduncan2 Dear Suan, S: "Thank you for posting Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, which is passable, but could have been more accurate." I know you are busy but I would be interested, for the instruction in Pali, to know where this might have been more accurately rendered. S: "By the way, have you ever watched Chinese Ghost Stories movies? Those ghosts are what Mahayanists and Taoists believe to be the between-beings (antarabhava) between this life and the next life." No, I've not watched these movies. I have had experience with death and was tempted to interpret certain grief-related affective experiences and accompanying fantasies as being evidence for the presence of the departed one in the hours closely following her death. I think that the belief in between-beings and an in-between likely reflects clinging to self-view and results from the proliferation of thought following the experience of dosa. With loving kindness, Scott. #64857 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 3:02 am Subject: From Udana 2.1 (Two Translations, Each Good) upasaka_howard Hi, all - Sending this along as an encouragement and to show that realization of no self is not to be feared. Bodhi is the supreme happiness. With metta, Howard ______________________ Translation by John Ireland Blissful is detachment for one who is content, For one who has learned Dhamma and who sees; Blissful is non-affliction in the world, Restraint towards living creatures; Blissful is passionlessness in the world, The overcoming of sensual desires; But the abolition of the conceit "I am" — That is truly the supreme bliss. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu Blissful is solitude for one who's content, who has heard the Dhamma, who sees. Blissful is non-affliction with regard for the world, restraint for living beings. Blissful is dispassion with regard for the world, the overcoming of sensuality. But the subduing of the conceit "I am" — That is truly the ultimate bliss. #64858 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:39 am Subject: Re: K.Sujin says there can be control! nidive Hi Jon, > Actually, I don't think anyone has suggested that A. Sujin talks > about 'absolute no control'. What has been mentioned here is the > understanding that there is no control in the absolute sense ('no > absolute control'). This refelects the conditioned (and not-self) > nature of all dhammas; dhammas arise dependent on various conditions > and cannot be made to arise or not arise in contradiction of those > conditions. > There are many references in the suttas to control, restraint, > power, ability and the like, but none of them refer to an absolute > level of these things, as I see it. You have finally said something that makes sense on the control issue. "Absolute no control" is one extreme. "Absolute control" is another extreme. "No absolute control" is a negation of the extreme "absolute control". This negation should not be taken as the other extreme of "absolute no control". Regards, Swee Boon #64859 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 8:43 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nidive Hi Scott, > SB: "A position of "no self" is not something that is declared by > the Buddha." > > I'd like to know where you are coming from though. By "position", > to what to do you refer? And when you use "self", to what do you > refer? As per defined by the Buddha in the suttas. Regards, Swee Boon #64860 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:28 pm Subject: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) buddhatrue Hi Sarah, Phil, Jon, and all, Thank you for your patience while I did some more research. I believe that I have solved my confusion over the term "roots". Actually, this issue is addressed at the very beginning of `The Roots of Good and Evil': "The term `root' (mûla), the commentaries explain, has the sense of firm support, cause, condition and producer. The figurative character of the term suggests that the roots can also be taken as conveyors of the `nourishing sap' of the wholesome or unwholesome. They convey this sap to the mental factors and functions existing simultaneously with themselves, as well as to the wholesome or unwholesome actions in which they issue." This passage points out that the word "roots" can be seen as a simple noun AND as an extended metaphor. This in itself can be confusing, but I had some trouble understanding the metaphor aspect of the word because `root' suggests one thing feeding off of something else. However, as this term is used in the texts, root doesn't actually mean two things but actually one thing- the feeder and that which it feeds. So, in terms of the citta, the metaphor isn't problematical when seen in this light. Phil and Jon, don't worry- I wasn't for a second denying the existence of the defilements of greed, hatred, and delusion. I was just looking more deeply into a word that is so often used that it could be taken for granted. Metta, James #64861 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:30 pm Subject: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Bu... buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon (and James, and Swee Boon also) - > ========================= > Jon, I often voice my disagreement with you on various points, so I'll > take this opportunity to agree with you on a matter. (I imagine James agrees > as well, though I could be wrong of course.) You are not wrong, I do agree with Jon's post. :-) Metta, James #64862 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:05 pm Subject: No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) philofillet Hi James > I was > just looking more deeply into a word that is so often used that it > could be taken for granted. That's appreciated. Maybe you could turn your attention to "panna" next. I have a feeling that we tend to use it too liberally. Phil #64863 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 6:19 pm Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu ken_aitch Hi Swee Boon, I don't mind being called 'an expert in talking nonsense' 'a dreamer' or even 'someone who vomits his own words.' Maybe I brought those attacks on myself by backing you into a corner. :-) If we follow your advice - of not taking a position - we can avoid this sort of unpleasantness. I suggest we study the texts and discuss their meaning. We can say, "This is my understanding of the texts," and, "That is your understanding of the texts," (and "That is Thanissaro's understanding" etc) without taking a position. ------------- <. . .> KH: > > According to the Abhidhamma, only the wisest of wise worldlings > could ever have direct insight (of any kind) into the nature of > paramattha dhammas. Direct insight into the anatta characteristic > is the most advanced form of satipatthana. It is practised only by > ariyans and by a tiny elite of worldlings who are on the brink of > Stream-entry. SB: > According to the Bible's Book of Revelation, only the most pure 144,000 Christians will be saved at the Second Coming of Christ. ------------- I don't know much about the Bible, but if that is what it says then that is what I, as a Bible-student, would want to discuss and understand. If one of my fellow Bible-students claimed to know "from personal contact with God" that the Book of Revelations was anathema, what would I to do then? It is the same with Tipitaka-study. The Abhidhamma-pitaka says that only ariyan disciples and extremely well advanced worldling disciples can have direct insight into the tilakkhana. That is something I want to discuss and understand. If you say you have personal meditation experiences that contradict and take precedence over the Abhidhamma then what am I to do? Am I to stop quoting it? ------------------------------------ SB: > See, you are introducing unnecessary mysticism into the Buddha's Dhamma. This is not the Buddha's teaching. ------------------------------------- What exactly are you saying here? Are you saying the Abhidhamma is a work of mysticism that was fraudulently added to the original texts? Or are you saying I have introduced mysticism by misrepresenting the Abhidhamma? The latter we can discuss, but the former would make discussion difficult. ------------------- <. . .> SB: > I never knew that the Buddha engages in the practice of eel-wriggling and double standards. When questioned by a person following the conventional path, he says he doesn't declare that "the Tathagata doesn't exist". When question by a person following the ultimate path, he says otherwise. This is pure nonsense again, Ken H. You are putting words into the Buddha's mouth. And that's a weighty akusala kamma. -------------------- That might have been a fair criticism had I not made perfectly clear that I was trying to understand the suttas. I said, " It seems to me that the suttas give certain statements as indicators of wrong view. They include, "The self does not exist"" So, you see, I was giving my current understanding. (It "seemed to me" that was what the suttas were saying.) I was not ruling out other possible interpretations. Later, I actually added "I could be wrong but I don't think "There is no self" was ever given by the Buddha as an example of wrong view. I think he consistently used it himself." So, again, I was expressing my understanding; I was not accusing the Buddha of eel-wriggling. ---------------------- <. . .> SB: > Do you think I envision anything more than the five aggregates before parinibbana? No, I don't. ----------------------- Nor do I. The Buddha said all conditioned dhammas and the one unconditioned dhamma were anatta. In ultimate reality only those dhammas exist. Therefore, there is no self in ultimate reality. At the same time, however, the Buddha described the view, "The self does not exist," as a wrong view. Why? According to my tentative understanding, it was because the wording of that view presupposed a self. You, on the other hand, say it was because the Buddha did not take a position. All we can do is to study the given texts and decide which interpretation (if either) they favour. There is no need to be attached to one interpretation and intolerant of the other. Ken H #64864 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release sarahprocter... Hi Swee Boon & all, --- nidive wrote: > I thought the expression "delineate a delineation of X" can also be > used to express the co-arising/co-dependence of citta and cetasikas. ... S: Yes and I think the passage that you pointed to in MN18 starting with eye, form, consciousness and then it being possible to 'delineate' or point to the contact, also (according to a commentary note BB adds)"is intended to show the entire round of existence (va.t.ta) by way of the twelves sense bases (ayatanas).... .... > > Something that can be "delineated" is something which is "dependently > come into being". ... S: I'm not sure it doesn't just mean to express or make clear rather than having a particular meaning of its own? For example, I believe you also referred to the same phrase in DN15, Mahanidana Sutta: (Walshe transl): "In what ways, Ananda, do people explain the nature of the self?...etc" .... > Therefore, if for example X is contact, then "a delineation of > contact" means that contact is something that is "dependently come > into being". ..... S: Or it just means a pointing to or explanation of contact which wouldn't be possible if there were no contact.... .... > > Then what does the "delineate" that comes before "a delineation of X" > mean? I think it means "cognize". Citta is what that cognizes and it > is also something that is "dependently come into being" .... S: Maybe it just means 'points to' or 'describes' (with wisdom) the characteristic of X..... ... > > Therefore, the expression "it is possible that one will delineate a > delineation of X" is a succinct way of describing the co-arising/co- > dependence nature of samsara. > > And the expression "it is impossible that one will delineate a > delineation of X" is a succinct way of describing the non co-arising/ > non co-dependence nature of nibbana. .... S: Well, yes, I almost agree:-). If it weren't for the co-arising/co-dependence of factors, it would be impossible to point to or delineate them. But, because they are realities/ because they arise in such a way, it is possible to express such detail about them... Apologies for the delay in responding to some of your posts addressed to me, Swee Boon. I always have to consider and look at the texts in question first and tend to put this off.... Thanks again for your helpful posts and discussion on this topic. Metta, Sarah ======= #64865 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 12:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Renewed Understanding of MN 148 Chachakka Sutta sarahprocter... Hi Swee Boon & all, We were discussing the ayatanas here... I remember Jon replied, but I'd like to also add a few comments as you kindly addressed us both: --- nidive wrote: Jon quoted from B.Bodhi's note in CMA: > > << << << > > The twelve sense bases offer another perspective on the whole. From > > this perspective the totality of concrete entities is viewed by way > > of the doors and objects of consciousness. .... S: I would like to stress that the ayatanas are referring to the 'meeting' of various dhammas. From the commentary itself: "Places of dwelling, distribution, meeting, and production are also commonly called 'spheres'. Therefore, they are also spheres, since they are the dwelling places of eye-consciousness and the rest, with their various doors and objects; since they are the place of distribution for those things that occur by their being distributed; since they are the place for the meeting of those things meeting by way of door and object; and since they are the place for the production of those things arising there. Now these are twelve: the six internal spheres, which are the doors, and the six external spheres, which are their objects...." .... >>Bases (1)-(5) are > > identical with the five kinds of sensitive material phenomena and > > bases (7)-(11) with the five kinds of objective material phenomena. > > The mind base at (6), however, has a wider range than the mind door. > > It is identified with the aggregate of consciousness in its > > totality, comprising all eighty-nine types of citta. The mental- > > object base does not completely coincide with mental object > > (dhammarammana), but includes only those entities not found among > > the other bases. Thus it excludes the first five objective bases, > > the five types of sensitive matter, and citta, which is identical > > with the mind base. It also excludes concepts (pannatti), since > > the notion of base (ayatana) extends only to ultimate realities, > > i.e. things existing by way of intrinsic nature (sabhava), and > > does not extend to things that owe their existence to conceptual > > construction. The mental-object base comprises the fifty-two mental > > factors, the sixteen kinds of subtle matter, and Nibbana. > > >> >> >> .... SB:> After reading this passage, the idea struck me that the internal > intellect medium is not to be understood as cittas or cetasikas, but > rather as just old kamma. .... S: The internal ayatanas are to be understood as referring to all kinds of consciousness and the sense bases such as eye-base and ear-base. Now, some kinds of consciousness, such as seeing and hearing, do refer to vipaka cittas or 'old kamma' as Jon discussed. Also, the sense-bases are also produced by 'old kamma' as you indicate. .... SB:> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.145.than.html > > "Now what, monks, is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, > fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The > tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, > fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > And it is from these six old kamma that makes possible the arising of > new kamma. How so? > > Example: > > Internal Intellect + External Idea -> Consciousness .... S: For a moment of seeing consciousness to arise, there has to be the 'meeting' of: a) internal ayatana of eye-base, external ayatana of visible object, internal ayatana of seeing consciousness (manayatana) and external ayatana of mental factors (dhammayatana) at the same moment. ... > > Internal Intellect && External Idea && Consciousness == Contact > > Contact -> Feeling > > Feeling -> Craving that makes for further becoming (ie. new kamma) > > The last part of { feeling -> craving } is expanded upon in The Ball > of Honey sutta. ... S: Yes, all true. I think you are discussing two different topics of a)ayatanas and b)old and new kamma, so it's a little complicated. You gave some good sutta quotes for b). ... > SB:> Oh, by the way, I still maintain that the external dhamma-ayatana > consists of ideas. .... S: I think we have to disagree here. See 'ayatanas' or 'Sabba sutta' in U.P. The external dhamma-ayatana only includes cetasikas, subtle rupas (and nibbana in context). Ayatana does not mean the same as arammana. Ideas can be objects of thinking, but ayatanas refers to the 'coming together' or 'meeting' of paramattha dhammas. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding in this area. .... J:> > The mental-object base comprises the fifty-two mental factors, > > the sixteen kinds of subtle matter, and Nibbana. > > The external dhamma-ayatana cannot comprise the fifty-two cetasikas > since these are factors (contact, feeling, perception, thinking) that > appear after the meeting of the intellect (old kamma), idea and > intellect consciousness. .... S: The cetasikas arise with the consciousness. There cannot be the arising of any citta without the 'meeting' or association with various cetasikas. .... > > As for the sixteen kinds of subtle matter, the Buddha never spoke > about them in the suttas as far as I know. .... S: He may not have referred to them as 'subtle matter', but they are referred to. For example, I'm sure you can find references to masculinity, femininity, life-force, space, nutritive essence and others. .... > And lastly, it can't include nibbana since nibbana is not said to > arise and fall away (I think Bhikkhu Bodhi (is he the one who wrote > CMA?) is way off here from the Buddha, sad to say). .... S: Nibbana is not always included in dhamma-ayatana. It depends on the context. Apologies for this delay and any overlap with Jon's response. Metta, Sarah ====== #64866 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 12:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Alcohol? sarahprocter... Hi Matheesha & all, You posted this while we were away, but I read the other good replies. I just wished to add a comment or two: --- matheesha wrote: > It seems clear from the 5th precept that one should not consume > alcohol. However different people interpret it differently. Some > would say that the 5th precept talks of not doing akusala after > drinking alcohol, rather than just the matter of drinking a certain > type of fluid. .... S: As I understand, there is nothing inherently akusala about the drinking of alcohol itself. Unlike the breaking of the other precepts, in itself it is not akusala kamma-patha. BUT, the drinking of alcohol is addictive and may lead to the breaking of the other precepts. There are many examples in the texts of this and I think we all know this is true. Unless there is awareness at the time, it is a condition for negligence. .... > > People practice precepts to different degrees. Some might not kill, > others wont eat meat as well. I am in an unusual situation in that a > little bit of alcohol (in low percentages and volumes!) might > actually benefit and perhaps even help my practice on the long run > in a rather complex manner, as you can imagine. But the downside as > I see it, is the possible infringement of the 5th precept. > > Like to know 'how you take your alcohol'. .... S: My take it that you are probably deluding yourself! A little bit of alcohol leads to another little bit and another. It doesn't help your practice in the long run at all. The downside is not so much the 'infringement' as the addictive harm and accumulation for such... People give lots of excuses, including supposed health benefits, but I think they are all excuses....:-)). See more under 'Drinking' in 'Useful Posts'. Metta, Sarah ======== #64867 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 12:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Rob's forum on jhaana, no 13. sarahprocter... Hi Matheesha & all, (On the Susima Sutta) --- matheesha wrote: > >R: Kindred Sayings II, Kindred Sayings on Cause, Nidana vagga, II, > 119: > > Susima: we read that Susima the wanderer was persuaded by his > > followers to join the Order so that he could learn the Dhamma and > > teach his followers. They wanted then to preach the Dhamma to the > > laity in order to receive honour and gain. Susima was ordained by > > Ananda and heard that many monks had attained arahatship. Susima > > asked them whether they had attained supranatural powers, rupa- > jhana > > or arupa-jhana and they answered that they had not.When Susima > asked > > them "How is that", they answered: > > > > "We have been freed by insight, friend Susima." <...> M: > a different view on the matter: > > Translator's note: This discourse is sometimes cited as proof that a > meditator can attain Awakening (final gnosis) without having > practiced the jhanas, but a close reading shows that it does not > support this assertion at all. <....> .... S: Lots more on this one under 'Susima Sutta' in U.P. too, just in case you didn't see the section:-)). Btw, I tried without success to click on your 'intelligence' link. Like Nina, I'd like to encourage you to give a quick summary so that a) we know whether we're interested to go to more trouble to find the material/audio and b) for the sake of discussion with you:-). Missing your comments.... Metta, Sarah p.s Again, thank you for your comments on metta-cetovimutti in #62321 and other posts. As you said, vimutti doesn't always refer to nibbana, but ceto-vimutti always refers to the development of samadhi (with or without insight). ========= #64868 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 12:42 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 567- Understanding/pa~n~naa (f) 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;-) =============================================== Understanding(paññå)contd Seeing realities as they are is the goal of the Buddha’s teachings. Understanding should know what is real in the ultimate sense and what is not real. So long as there is wrong view we cannot see things as they are. People, animals and houses are not real in the ultimate sense, they are only objects of thought. Nåma and rúpa are real in the ultimate sense, they have their own characteristics which can be directly experienced when they appear one at a time, through one of the six doors. We can verify the truth of the Buddha’s teachings in being mindful of realities and developing understanding of them. Then we will be able to find out whether realities are permanent or impermanent, whether there is a person or self who can control realities or not. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64869 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 1:16 am Subject: Re: Citta and bhavanga citta pgradinarov Dear Jon, > We are possibly on different tracks here. I am referring to citta > *experiencing* its object, you to citta *being aware of* its object, > which seems to mean something more than bare experience. Experience is anubhava, while the function of citta is cetana - consciousness, understanding, awareness, intelligence, wisdom. If we take the verb cit, its meaning is (1) to perceive, notice, observe, and (2) to know, understand, be aware of, be consious of. Anubhava, being direct experience, coincides with pratyaksa (paccakkha) and excludes anumana (inference) which is the second mode of operation of citta. So the definition of citta as what experiences its object is as defective as the definition of citta as what infers its object. Both definitions are too narrow, as citta is what experiences AND what infers (logically understands) its object, both functions being implicit in *alambanam cetati cittam*. Experiencing without understanding is probably worse than understanding without experiencing. On the other hand, experiencing without understanding (being aware of) the object is the function of perception (sanna). While bhavanga citta is part of vinnana kkhandha. > > Buddhist epistemologists and logicians believe that the two > > established means of adequate knowledge are perception (pratyaksa) > > and inference (anumana). > > I'd be interested to know the textual basis for any such view(s) Please refer to Nyaya-bindu, Pramana-varttika, or any other work in Buddhist logic http://nalanda.ratnavali.com/torrents-details.php?id=26 > and how panna fits into the picture. If you mean samadhi-prajna, it is the ability to immediately experience the object of meditation based on preceding logical operations (vitarka and vicara) to clear up the phenomenological field of the advanced Yogi. Kindest regards, Plamen #64870 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 1:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa sarahprocter... Dear Han (& James), --- han tun wrote: > Dear Sarah and James, > > Thank you very much for your very useful quotes. > > I wish to add only one thing. > > Under the heading of Panna as "Remover" of > Defilements, the king asked: > "But is not wise attention (yoniso-manasikara) the > same as wisdom (panna)?" > > Venerable Naagasena replied: > "No, Your Majesty! Attention (manasikara) is one > thing, and wisdom (panna) another. Sheep and goats, > oxen and buffaloes, camels and asses have attention > (manasikara), but wisdom (panna) they have not." > > -------------------- > > Please note that the king asked one thing and > Venerable Naagasena answered another thing. .... S: Yes, I noticed this. It's interesting.... I just tried to find it in another translation, but was unsuccessful. If anyone has the reference, pls let me know. .... > The king asked wise attention (yoniso-manasikara). > Venerable Naagasena answered attention (manasikara). > This is a big difference. The reader, if not careful, > might think that the animals have yoniso-manasikara. > They do not have yoniso-manasikara, they only have > manasikara. .... S: Generally speaking, I'd agree. I believe there can also be wise attention when kusala arises without panna....but as you say, it seems to be referring to common, ordinary manasikara which arises with every citta for everyone, including all animals. Btw, I meant to particularly comment on the good answer you gave to Qu viii in the Cetasikas 'virati' section, #64112. You wrote: >Question (viii) Why is fewness of wishes one of the proximate causes of abstinence from wrong conduct? Answer: Fewness of wishes, contentment, being satisfied with little (appicchataa) is the opposite of greed (lobha). Lobha is one of the three very powerful akusala muula cetasikas which can condition wrong conduct by hetu-paccaya. Therefore, if there is less lobha or more appicchataa it is more likely that a person will abstain from wrong conduct. A Burmese Sayadaw once said that “the one whose wishes are most fulfilled is the one who has fewest wishes.” Thus, the appicchataa, like saddhaa, hiri, and ottappa, is one of the proximate causes of abstinence from wrong conduct.< ***** S: I like the Burmese saying and the definition of 'satisfied with little (appicchataa) very much. May we all learn to be 'satisfied with little':-) Metta, Sarah ======= #64871 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 1:54 am Subject: Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) philofillet Hi Jon > Let's face it, concern about one's general level of sila and how it > compares with others' is most likely to be motivated by expectations > about ourselves and desire for progress along the path. Yes, tat's true. But there are countless suttas in which one is encouraged to - among other similes - stamp out akusala proliferation like a man stamps out a fire burning in dry grass. Nothing ambiguous about that. Another one I like is the one in which one is encouraged to reflect that for such a long time the mind has been soiled by thinking in certain ways. I used to think that these reflections on how long akusala has been accumulated were to condition patience - there is nothing that can be done about it in short order, so relax and appreciate the rare moments of abstention - but I'm not so sure now. The sea of tears we have cried? That can condition samvega. We would like > things (in this case, our accumulated tendencies) to be other than they > are. But kusala cittas and akusala cittas arise by their own conditions > and there's nothing we can do about what has arisen already. This "the akusala has already risen" thing doesn't work for me anymore. It goes against the grain of the Buddha's teaching of avoiding evil, which is quite unambiguous and refers to akusala that situations rather than insight into individual cittas, which is the realm of people of advanced understanding, I think. I am feeling much more mundane and conventional in my approach to the Dhamma these. Maybe. Maybe not. Will be fun to see. I agree that the accumulated tendencies will still be there, for a long, long time - but progress can be made in a more mundane way. It reminds me of that hokey anecdote about the man who sees a guy throwing beached starfish back into the sea. There are tons of them and he tells the guy "there's no way you can save them all" and the guy replies "I can save this one" I can do something about individual akusala situations, no matter how deep the accumulations are. This will not make the accumulations deeper, though you'll say that it will deepen wrong view that will obscur the vision needed to get at the accumulations. In your other post you said, if I recall, that wrong view is the most dangerous thing. I think the kind of wrong view that is dangerous is not believing that deeds have results, etc. I don't believe that self clinging to desiring less akusala kamma patha is that kind of dangerous wrong view, though of course it has to be eradicated before sotapanna. Am I saying "use self to get rid of self?" - you'll say I am. But I think it's more like "not worrying about whether self is involved in avoiding transgression" - not the same thing, I think. I also thought this - a person of a very tidy ethical disposition telling a person who is prone to evil deeds (as defined by the Buddha) that sila should not be stressed by the beginner is like a rich person telling a poor person that money doesn't matter, or something like that. You*are* a person of tidy ethical disposition, Jon, I can feel quite sure of that. I don't feel any kind of displeasure from comparing myself, or envy. I just think we *can* take stock of where people are at after spending time with them - I think the Buddha said something like that in AN - we get to know people. I have never seen the slightest hint of irritation in your posts in the three years or whatever I've been reading them. Now you could be a raging madman away from the screen, and of course you lose your temper and shout at Sarah sometimes. But I still wonder if you are in a position to be telling someone like me that Sila should not be stressed if there is clinging-to-self involved It's an interesting topic and I look forward to discussing it with you more. I've found a way not to stay on the 'net too much (Naomi put a password!) so I will be able to continue discussing. I'll get to Sarah's post next time. Phil #64872 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 3:20 am Subject: Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) philofillet Hi again Jon Usually I don't worry about my typos but below there is one that screws up the meaning > This "the akusala has already risen" thing doesn't work for me > anymore. It goes against the grain of the Buddha's teaching of > avoiding evil, which is quite unambiguous and refers to akusala that > situations rather than insight into individual cittas, which is the > realm of people of advanced understanding, I think. I am feeling > much more mundane and conventional in my approach to the Dhamma > these. Maybe. Maybe not. Will be fun to see. > When I say "akusala situations" I don't quite mean that - I lack a better word. It is not understanding or awareness of individual cittas that rise and fall in a split second. It is when there is an arisen inclination, or leaning towards, or flavour of akusala in the air, or something. Trangression comes creeping into the room and offers me a cigarette. This can happen in a second, or a minute, or an hour. But it's not about one citta, so I guess it is not paramattha but a lot of thinking and not wanting to do something. That's ok. That's what I want and need for now. I heard a Burmese teacher - U Silapandaha or something like that, he's very good - define "present" sensual desire or hatred as something that is arising often, or something like that. I think that makes more sense to me these days than present as in catching a glimpse of the nimitta of a paramattha dhamma that has just fallen away. No, not more sense. What Acharn Sujin says makes deep, deep sense. But for this fellow at this point it is not the teaching that I sense that I need. Oops, multiple "I"s at work! I will be back with Acharn Sujin, I sense that too. She has deep, deep understanding,that is for sure. Phil #64873 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 2:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa hantun1 Dear Sarah (and James), > > Han: Please note that the king asked one thing and Venerable Naagasena answered another thing. > Sarah: Yes, I noticed this. It's interesting. I just tried to find it in another translation, but was unsuccessful. If anyone has the reference, pls let me know. Han: It is not the mistake in translation. I have the Pali text of Milindapanha. In the Pali text itself, the king asked: “nanu bhante yoniso manasikaaro yeva pa~n~naati?” Venerable Naagasena replied: “na hi mahaaraaja a~n~no manasikaaro a~n~naa pa~n~naa” The king asked the difference between yoniso manasikaara and pa~n~naa. Venerable Naagasena replied the difference between manasikaara and pa~n~naa. ------------------------------ > Sarah: Generally speaking, I'd agree. I believe there can also be wise attention when kusala arises without panna....but as you say, it seems to be referring to common, ordinary manasikara which arises with every citta for everyone, including all animals. Han: I did not know that wise attention can arise without panna. I always associate wise attention with panna. It is a new thing for me to learn. ------------------------------- > Sarah: I like the Burmese saying and the definition of 'satisfied with little (appicchataa) very much. May we all learn to be 'satisfied with little':-) Han: I am glad you like it. With metta and respect, Han #64874 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 4:31 am Subject: Re: Antaraaparinibbaayati: "attainer of Nibbaana in the interval" abhidhammika Dear Scott, Michael Kalyaano, Nina, Sarah, Mike N, Robert K, Jon How are you? Scott wrote: "I would be interested, for the instruction in Pali, to know where this might have been more accurately rendered." The Buddha was teaching the psychology of awakening and how it can happen in stages in these groups of Suttams. In so doing, he uses relevant technical terms. It is the responsiblity of translators to do justice to these technical terms when they translate these Suttams. In the Dutiyaphala Suttam, the Buddha uses the Pali word "aññam (from aññaaa)" as a technical term. The term "aññaa" has two meanings, one being "knowing or knowledge", the other being "the state of Arahatta". Bhikkhu Bodhi has translated the Pali line "Di.t.theva dhamme pa.tikacca aññam aaraadheti," as "One attains final knowledge early in this very life." As you see, he was translating the term "aññaa" as 'final knowledge'. Scott, please remember that your original post in this thread was about Bhikkhu Bodhi's insistence on literal translation of Pali terms, the example being the term "Antaraaparinibbaayii". So, if we were to translate the term "aññaa" literally, we have two choices. 1. One attains knowledge early in this very life. 2. One attains the state of Arahatta early in this very life. As you see, the Choice One is too vague because the term "knowledge or knowing" is too general and is not a technical term. So, we are left with the Choice Two which is the required translation because the term "aññaa" was properly and literally translated as "the state of Arahatta" and as a technical term as the Buddha intended in the context of the Psychology of Awakening in their Stages. Now, the question is why did Bhikkhu Bodhi abandon his insistence on literal translation in translating the term "aññaa"? And, why did he fail to do justice to this important technical term? Scott, you are a Doctor, a psychiatrist. I will let you figure out what might have been transpiring in the mind of Bhikkhu Bodhi when he was translating those technical terms in those Suttams. Of course, if you needed my help in this analysis, let me know. :-) Scott also wrote: "No, I've not watched these movies. I have had experience with death and was tempted to interpret certain grief-related affective experiences and accompanying fantasies as being evidence for the presence of the departed one in the hours closely following her death. I think that the belief in between-beings and an in-between likely reflects clinging to self-view and results from the proliferation of thought following the experience of dosa." Thank you for your kind description of your personal experience with death. With regards, Suan www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: Dear Suan, S: "Thank you for posting Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, which is passable, but could have been more accurate." I know you are busy but I would be interested, for the instruction in Pali, to know where this might have been more accurately rendered. S: "By the way, have you ever watched Chinese Ghost Stories movies? Those ghosts are what Mahayanists and Taoists believe to be the between-beings (antarabhava) between this life and the next life." No, I've not watched these movies. I have had experience with death and was tempted to interpret certain grief-related affective experiences and accompanying fantasies as being evidence for the presence of the departed one in the hours closely following her death. I think that the belief in between-beings and an in-between likely reflects clinging to self-view and results from the proliferation of thought following the experience of dosa. With loving kindness, Scott. #64875 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 4:02 am Subject: To appreciate how short life is: help pls antony272b2 Dear Howard, Christine and Group, > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) > > With metta, > Howard > I found these suttas on the brevity of life: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.070.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.06.than.html Bhikkhu Nanamoli in Wheel 52 (soon to be published on BPS website): "nothing arisen can reveal any permanence at all, however brief" Christine's signature: "The trouble is that you think you have time" So maybe the Buddha was not exaggerating but highlighting the difference in perspective from commonsense (we have time) and how an enlightened one sees the world. Any help appreciated. Thanks / Antony. #64876 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 3:15 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Mind - Is this it? sarahprocter... Hi Charles D, > Is the following it (Mind from a Theravadan prospective, and converted > to > plain and simple English)? > ... I think it's a good idea to try and understand terms and definitions about realities in one's own words as you do. However, what you wrote didn't seem to resemble what I understand from the 'Theravadan perspective'. It seemed to me that you were combining many different dhammas/experiences/namas & rupas together and calling them Mind. To really understand more about the 'Theravadan perspective', I suggest you take a look at 'Mind' and 'Citta' in 'Useful Posts'. Sometimes 'mano' is translated as 'mind' and this is synonymous with citta. All dhammas are divided into citta (consciousness), cetasikas (mental factors) and rupa (physical phenomena). It's important to clearly understand the distinction between them. Of course, others may have different ideas... Metta, Sarah --- Charles DaCosta wrote: > Is the following it (Mind from a Theravadan prospective, and converted > to > plain and simple English)? > > > > The Mind appears to be the space/ground/place where thought arises and > fades > away. At its most basic level, thought appears to be sensory input > (including bodily sensations), memories, feelings/evaluations, > formulations/systematizations/linking/concoctions, and a degree of > awareness. <....> #64877 From: JC Mendoza Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 1:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Having trouble finding these suttas and their name and number... jcmendoza1000 You got it wrong I'm talking about brahmas not brahmans... Jonothan Abbott wrote: Hi JC jcmendoza1000 wrote: > TO EVERYBODY: > -Sutta that says to honor devas and they would help us as a mother to > their child. > If there are suttas that tell us to honor brahmas similar to the one > above. > As regards brahmans, try the Sigalovada Sutta (DN 31), translation at this link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.31.0.nara.html especially the part towards the end beginning "And how, young householder, does a noble disciple cover the six quarters?". Ascetics and brahmans are give as the sixth of the 6 quarters to be ministered to. Jon #64878 From: JC Mendoza Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 1:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Having trouble finding these suttas and their name and number... jcmendoza1000 Thanks. I'm just interested about the religion and the wisdom and lessons it brings to us. sarah abbott wrote: Hi JC, --- jcmendoza1000 wrote: > -Sutta that says for one who can tell a direct lie there is no evil he > won't do. ... S: I can help with his one: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-vaca/ "For the person who transgresses in one thing, I tell you, there is no evil deed that is not to be done. Which one thing? This: telling a deliberate lie." The person who lies, who transgress in this one thing, transcending concern for the world beyond: there's no evil he might not do." — Iti 25 ******** --- jcmendoza1000 wrote: > TO EVERYBODY: > -Sutta that says to honor devas and they would help us as a mother to > their child. > If there are suttas that tell us to honor brahmas similar to the one > above. .... S: I think we're encouraged to honour and show metta to all as in the 'Metta Sutta': "Thus, as a mother with her life Might guard her son, her only child, Would he maintain unboundedly His thought for every living being His thought of love for all the owrld He would maintain unboundely, Above, below, and all around, Unchecked, no malice with or foe." (Nanamoli transl, Khuddhakapatha, no 9) ***** S: I', not sure if this is the one you're thinking of here. Others may have more ideas. <...> #64879 From: "nidive" Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 6:35 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nidive Hi Ken H, > According to my tentative understanding, it was because the wording > of that view presupposed a self. You, on the other hand, say it was > because the Buddha did not take a position. All right you win, Ken H. The statement "A self does not exist." presupposes a self. The statement "There is no self." doesn't presuppose a self. If this is not nonsense, then what is it? Anyway you win. I don't care. I have better things to do. Regards Swee Boon #64880 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 3:03 am Subject: Insects and the Precept Against Killing upasaka_howard Hi all - This is a practical question. Our basement has been "occupied" ;-) by a growing number of cave crickets. They are truly ugly insects (LOL!), spider-like in appearance, some growing to rather "good" size (!), that jump quite high - and typically right at you (!), and that will destroy fabric if they can get at it. They also reproduce very rapidly. I've been waging an ongoing contest with them, catching individual ones and removing them from the house. I've put a doorsweep on the door from the kitchen down to the basement, which so far has blocked their advance to the main floor, but, as I say, their numbers are growing. At this point, it is clear that my one-by-one eviction procedure is doomed to failure, and all that I read makes it clear that this cannot be a winning strategy. Unless I can learn immediately of a successful (and rapid) means to get them to evacuate the house, or perhaps to sterilize them to prevent further progeny, I will have to use poison to kill them, something I have avoided so far - for quite a while, and the prospect of which disturbs me greatly. Does anyone have any knowledge in this area? Since this is not directly a Dhamma topic, and since I've posted it to more than one list, I would suggest that any replies be sent directly to me, offlist, for otherwise this post of mine would be a bit of an abuse of list practice. Of course, the general moral issue of refraining from killing and the question of the legitimacy of limiting that refraining under various circumstances, is a valid topic for discussion on any Buddhist list at any time. With metta, Howard #64881 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 3:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - This post of yours has me smiling broadly, Phil. I'm so pleased that you are getting what I consider to be a balanced perspective on the Buddha's teaching, and I'm so happy that you see the importance of sila to the Dhamma. It's good for everyone else, and it calms our own mind. Wonderful, Phil! Sadhu x 3!! With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/1/06 5:00:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, luxalot7@... writes: > > Hi Jon > > >Let's face it, concern about one's general level of sila and how > it > >compares with others' is most likely to be motivated by > expectations > >about ourselves and desire for progress along the path. > > Yes, tat's true. But there are countless suttas in which one is > encouraged to - among other similes - stamp out akusala > proliferation like a man stamps out a fire burning in dry grass. > Nothing ambiguous about that. > > #64882 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 4:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To appreciate how short life is: help pls upasaka_howard Hi, Antony (and Chris & all) - In a message dated 11/1/06 7:39:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, antony272b@... writes: > Dear Howard, Christine and Group, > > >/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: > A star at dawn, > a bubble in a stream, > a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, > a flickering lamp, > a phantom, > and a dream./ > (From the Diamond Sutra) > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > > > I found these suttas on the brevity of life: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.070.than.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.06.than.html > > Bhikkhu Nanamoli in Wheel 52 (soon to be published on BPS website): > "nothing arisen can reveal any permanence at all, however brief" > > Christine's signature: > "The trouble is that you think you have time" > > So maybe the Buddha was not exaggerating but highlighting the > difference in perspective from commonsense (we have time) and how an > enlightened one sees the world. > > Any help appreciated. > > Thanks / Antony. > ========================= Well, the commonsense idea that "We have time" implies "no urgency". But that is really off the mark, because auspicious realms of birth, especially as a human, are not easy to come by, and even with an auspicious realm of experience, good conditions or opportunity for practice may not be present. Also, whenever there is no practice, we are likely to solidify if not magnify our defilements, sinking us ever more deeply into suffering and imprisonment. So there is indeed an urgency. As for impermanence, it IS far more radical than the everyday macroscopic impermanence that we come to see in such things as aging and decay. Not only do we at a certain point in our life look back in amazement, wondering where it "all went", but if we can train ourselves to see clearly what happens right now "in the small", we can come to see that sense-door phenomena flash by unimaginably quickly, gone almost the instant they appear. And the radical impermanence of phenomena is only one aspect of their shadow-like nature. If one adds to that fleeting nature of dhammas their utterly impersonal and utterly contingent status, being nothing in-and-of-themselves, there is displayed a scenario of nothing whatsoever that is graspable, and nothing whatsoever that can possibly be a true source of satisfaction, and the clear seeing of this can lead to a dis-enchant-ment and relinquishment that is the doorway to freedom and true satisfaction. With metta, Howard #64883 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 11:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa nilovg Dear Han, it may be a matter of translation of yoniso: this can be translated as right. Thus, right or proper attention. This refers to kusala without pa~n~naa and to kusala with pa~n~naa. Yoni: womb, origin, matrix. Yoniso: down to its origin or foundation, properly, rightly, thoroughly, wisely, according to PED. If we translate yoniso manaasikaara only as wise attention, it may not include kusala without pa~n~naa, but the latter is included. Perhaps this is the reason for Nagasena's answer. Nina. Op 30-okt-2006, om 15:33 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > the king asked: > "But is not wise attention (yoniso-manasikara) the > same as wisdom (panna)?" > > Venerable Naagasena replied: > "No, Your Majesty! Attention (manasikara) is one > thing, and wisdom (panna) another. Sheep and goats, > oxen and buffaloes, camels and asses have attention > (manasikara), but wisdom (panna) they have not." #64884 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Insects and the Precept Against Killing nilovg Hi Howard, this is a dhamma topic. It helps to see such matters as kamma and vipaaka, also worldly matters. You told us, when speaking about someone's loss of possessions as vipaaka, that you also see the other side, thus, the mundane side. But in this matter no good comes from killing. The result may be that next week your house will be full of cockroaches worse than these crickets. But on the other hand so long as one is not a sotaapanna one has conditions to kill. It teaches us that we still have to go a long, long way. The sotaapanna will not kill, absolutely not. Christine is very good at finding practical solutions, so if you can, good. Nina. Op 1-nov-2006, om 17:03 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Unless I can learn > immediately of a successful (and rapid) means to get them to > evacuate the > house, or perhaps to sterilize them to prevent further progeny, I > will have to use > poison to kill them, something I have avoided so far - for quite a > while, and > the prospect of which disturbs me greatly. Does anyone have any > knowledge in > this area? > Since this is not directly a Dhamma topic, #64885 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 2:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind explanation. What I have pointed out was that the king asked the difference between yoniso manasikaara and pa~n~naa and Venerable Naagasena replied the difference between manasikaara and pa~n~naa. As you said, it may be a matter of translation of yoniso. But if the king asked about yoniso manasikaara why not Venerable Naagasena replied about yoniso manasikaara? Perhaps, the reason for Venerable Naagasena’s reply may be as reasoned by you. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > it may be a matter of translation of yoniso: this > can be translated > as right. Thus, right or proper attention. This > refers to kusala > without pa~n~naa and to kusala with pa~n~naa. > Yoni: womb, origin, matrix. Yoniso: down to its > origin or foundation, > properly, rightly, thoroughly, wisely, according to > PED. > If we translate yoniso manaasikaara only as wise > attention, it may > not include kusala without pa~n~naa, but the latter > is included. > Perhaps this is the reason for Nagasena's answer. > Nina. #64886 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 3:45 pm Subject: Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) philofillet Hi Howard Thanks for your encouragement. I think it is the "harmful to others" aspect of MN 19 that really triggered this. Nothing new to me, but it had been a bit...dormant or something. Have to make it clear, though, that I am not saying that Acharn Sujin doesn't value sila, of course. I posted extracts from her "Deeds of Merit" a couple of years ago. It just feels to me these days that the way she presents sila in the recorded Dhamma talks is a bit too indirect, taking a bit too much for granted - probably because she is talking to people she has known for some time and feels that they need not have sila stressed so explicitly, thanks to their wholesome inclinations. Something like that? Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Phil - > > This post of yours has me smiling broadly, Phil. I'm so pleased that > you are getting what I consider to be a balanced perspective on the Buddha's > teaching, and I'm so happy that you see the importance of sila to the Dhamma. > It's good for everyone else, and it calms our own mind. Wonderful, Phil! Sadhu x > 3!! > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 11/1/06 5:00:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, > luxalot7@... writes: > > > > > Hi Jon > > > > >Let's face it, concern about one's general level of sila and how > > it > > >compares with others' is most likely to be motivated by > > expectations > > >about ourselves and desire for progress along the path. > > > > Yes, tat's true. But there are countless suttas in which one is > > encouraged to - among other similes - stamp out akusala > > proliferation like a man stamps out a fire burning in dry grass. > > Nothing ambiguous about that. > > > > #64887 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 4:14 pm Subject: Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing buddhatrue Hi Nina and Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Howard, > this is a dhamma topic. It helps to see such matters as kamma and > vipaaka, also worldly matters. You told us, when speaking about > someone's loss of possessions as vipaaka, that you also see the other > side, thus, the mundane side. But in this matter no good comes from > killing. The result may be that next week your house will be full of > cockroaches worse than these crickets. > But on the other hand so long as one is not a sotaapanna one has > conditions to kill. It teaches us that we still have to go a long, > long way. The sotaapanna will not kill, absolutely not. > Christine is very good at finding practical solutions, so if you can, > good. > Nina. Nina, I really find this post of yours preposterous and superstitious. Especially when you write, "The result may be that next week your house will be full of cockroaches worse than these crickets." That is absurd! Are you now a fortune-teller? ;-)) (and I'm not impressed with the "may be"; that's a coward's clause). Howard, whenever we wash our bodies we kill thousands and millions of living microbes. There is no way to avoid killing absolutely nothing- I find that to be an extreme view impossible to follow. Actually, the Jains in the Buddha's time attempted such a thing with extreme austerities and the Buddha rejected those practices. You are a householder and you have a responsibility for your house. Just as you kill the bacteria on your body when you wash it, you may have to kill those crickets in the basement to clean your house. You have tried everything else; you take no pleasure in the killing, so I don't see a great deal of akusala kamma-vipaka coming your way if you do it. And if a sotapanna would never dare kill anything, then he/she would have to live as a Jain in the forest, never moving and never washing the body. Metta, James #64888 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 4:19 pm Subject: Re: Deeds of Merit, Chapter One (Generosity) philofillet Hi all I just mentionned Acharn Sujin's "Deeds of Merit" to Howard. If the moderators don't mind, I think I will repost, and add comments to the ones I wrote two years ago. Interesting (for me at least) to see if there is a change in how I see things. Others will want to just read the Acharn Sujin parts ("S") and skip my rambling.s > Chapter 1 Generosity > > S. : Each time we give something away we should know whether, as a > consequence, few kusala cittas and many akusala cittas arise, or > whether there are more kusala cittas arising than akusala cittas [1. > If there are more akusala cittas arising than kusala cittas while we > give something away, I think that it would be better to give > something else which can be a condition for the arising of more > kusala cittas than akusala cittas. > People who do not have any understanding of cause and result in life > may make a great effort to give, or, on the contrary, they may have > no inclination to give at all. If they are ignorant of cause and > result and if they have no understanding of the kusala cittas or > akusala cittas which arise after the giving, they will either be > overdoing generosity or, on the other hand, be negligent. In both > cases there will be sorrow afterwards. > > > (ph: As for akusala and kusala related to giving, I have not > thought eneough about it. I am not one who gives a lot in the > material sense. I talk about giving my full presence when teaching. > That is a significant gift I believe- and one which most people do > not give when listening to others I sense. But I want to continue to > think more about the material aspect of dana. For example, I wanted > to give a gift to the Dhamma Foundation because I am reading so many > of Nina?fs books for free. And I could, but it would involve a but of > a tussle with the Finance Minister who lives in my house. :) So I am > just having that intention for now. In a small way the fact that I > still have that intention is a sign that I am thinking about dana.) > Ph: Oops! Still haven't sent that gift. I have a bit of a struggle with material dana (ie money) to Dhamma groups, temples etc because I tend to think they already have enough financial support from people who are wealthier than me. I still tend to think of dana in terms of the energy and care I put into teaching, which is significant, believe me. Will have to keep reflecting on this one. Phil p.s and it's not true that the finance minister would object. That was just an excuse! :) #64889 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 5:10 pm Subject: Re: Deeds of Merit, Chapter One (Generosity) philofillet Hi again Thinking some more about this. > > S. : Each time we give something away we should know whether, as > a > > consequence, few kusala cittas and many akusala cittas arise, or > > whether there are more kusala cittas arising than akusala cittas This doesn't sound like the sort of thing Acharn Sujin would say in the recorded talks - there is usually a discouragement of one's attempts to try to assess how much kusala there is, how much akusala - but I think it demonstrates that right understanding operates at different levels. I think there are times we can think and say "there is akusala, there is kusala" based on a superficial analysis, and benefit from that assessment, as Acharn Sujin is saying here. We can dilute the power of the defilements through this kind of thinking, and diluting the power of the defilements is wonderful. At other times we can benefit from appreciating that before there can be a true understanding of whether there is kusala or akusala at any moment, there must be a real understanding that dhammas are anatta, and in the long run, even a few moments of this latter understanding will benefit us more. It is this kind of understandig, and only this kind of understanding, that can eradicate the defilements rather than dilute them. This is the message I get from Acharn Sujin in the recorded talks. So thinking about kusala can be helpful at times, even if it is not accompanied by penetrative understanding, and *knowing* kusala in more ultimate terms is more profoundly helpful at much rarer times. Phil #64890 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 5:49 pm Subject: No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) buddhatrue Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi James > > > > > I was > > just looking more deeply into a word that is so often used that it > > could be taken for granted. > > That's appreciated. Maybe you could turn your attention to "panna" > next. I have a feeling that we tend to use it too liberally. > > Phil > Glad you appreciated it. I have addressed the subject of "panna" before in this group; in several posts as a matter of fact. "Panna", as a term used in this group, is often ambiguous and meaningless. When I did some research into the Pali definition of the word panna, I couldn't really find a specific definition of that word as a stand alone. I found that "panna" is used as a suffix to many other words to create different types of wisdom. There are three main kinds of panna: Cinta-maya-panna (knowledge based on thinking); Suta-maya-panna (knowledge based on learning); and Bhavana-maya-panna (knowledge based on mental development). "Panna" as a general term could best be defined as any type of insight into the three characteristics of conditioned existence: impermanency, suffering, and non-self. There is an extensive exposition on panna in the Vism. When I get to that section in my studies, I will post some about it. Metta, James #64891 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 7:51 pm Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 Dear Swee Boon, Not to be provocative, just in compliance with: SB: "As per defined by the Buddha in the suttas." As in, for instance: "It is impossible, O monks, and it cannot be that a person possessed of right view should regard anything as a self. But it is possible for an uninstructed worldling to regard something as a self." AN I,xv,3. Or: "Whether Tathaagatas arise in the world or not, it still remains a fact, a firm and necessary condition of existence, that all formations are impermanent...that all formations are subject to suffering...that all things are non-self. A Tathaagata fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having fully awakened to it and penetrated it, he announces it, teaches it, makes it known, presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains it: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are subject to suffering, that all things are non-self." AN III, 134. Or: "Monks, there are these four distortions of perception, four distortions of thought and four distortions of views. What four? To hold that in the impermanent there is permanence: this is a distortion of perception, thought, and views. To hold that in suffering there is happiness: this is a distortion of perception, thought, and views. To hold that in non-self there is a self: this is a distortion of perception, thought, and views. To hold that in the foul there is beauty: this is a distortion of perception, thought, and views. These, monks, are the four distortions of perceptions, thoughts, and views. Monks, what are the four non-distortions of perception, thought, and views. What four? To hold that in the impermanent there is impermanence...that in suffering there is suffering...that in non-self there is no self... that in the foul there is foulness - these are the four non-distortions of perception, thought, and views." AN IV, 49 Or: "When a monk sees six advantages, it should be enough for him to establish the perception of non-self in all things without exception. What six? "I shall be aloof from all the world. Notions of 'I' will vanish in me. Notions of 'mine' will vanish in me. I shall be endowed with uncommon knowledge. I shall clearly understand causes and the phenomena arisen from causes." AN VI, 104. Or: "...Then, Meghiya, when the monk is firmly grounded in these five things, he should cultivate four other things: he should cultivate the meditation on the foulness (of the body) for abandoning lust; he should cultivate loving-kindness for abandoning ill-will; he should cultivate mindfulness of breathing for cutting off distracting thoughts; he should cultivate the perception of impermanence for eliminating the conceit 'I am'. In one who perceives impermanence, the perception of non-self becomes firmly established; and one who perceives non-self achieves the elimination of the conceit 'I am' and attains Nibbaana in this very life." AN IX, 3. I want to be clear that I won't debate. I don't think this ought to be "win or lose." I don't think that learning should be for the purpose of debating. If these do not address your points, then you can clarify or not. If others feel these are missing the point, please set me straight. With loving kindness, Scott. #64892 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 3:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 11/1/06 6:55:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, luxalot7@... writes: > Hi Howard > > Thanks for your encouragement. I think it is the "harmful to > others" aspect of MN 19 that really triggered this. Nothing new to > me, but it had been a bit...dormant or something. > > Have to make it clear, though, that I am not saying that Acharn > Sujin doesn't value sila, of course. I posted extracts from > her "Deeds of Merit" a couple of years ago. It just feels to me > these days that the way she presents sila in the recorded Dhamma > talks is a bit too indirect, taking a bit too much for granted - > probably because she is talking to people she has known for some > time and feels that they need not have sila stressed so explicitly, > thanks to their wholesome inclinations. Something like that? > > Phil > ========================= I'm sure also that she is a good person who values sila. But she is not the issue, as far as I'm concerned. I'm very happy for you that you believe that sila can be cultivated and that the Buddha urged efforts to do so. I am especially pleased that you choose to look and see and decide what is what for yourself. Be a lamp/refuge unto yourself, the Buddha said. That doesn't mean that anything goes or that no one should be consulted, but I believe it does mean that no one else should decide for you - no one. With metta, Howard #64893 From: connie Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 8:56 pm Subject: not fond of foul nichiconn dear sick at heart, asubha everywhere. dukkha. all that en-tales. << the excellence assoc'd w/the cakkavatti, disregarding (same) w/out even deeming it straw, performed his renunciation and became awoken to Perfect Self-Enlightenment - therefore, hence too is he the Bhagavaa, since he vominted (vami) (these items of) fortune (bhage) such as lustre and so on. >> Udaana Cy. p46. lustre. glitter. not of the (Gem enabling) dis-abusing ourselves of absurdity... sorry, carried away in my poetic highness. the glimmer of vision. rupa/nama dilemna. distinguishment. most of the time anyway, whether you care for goblins & ken / ilk otherwise.... whoooo cares? for anyone? who can know another's aggregates fully? Romancing the Stone, etc. Fair warning. You court disaster. Thought you were the jester, did you, puddin' head? Personally, I'm a knot head. Rapped it hard enough the other day that the poor zebra print bandana wrap really did look worse for the wear. But yeah, just another reminder of one object at a time. Arises the big bang! Don't even know it's dark til light flashes. Holy cow, have I just been blown out of Nina's oven? 'Return to your senses'. ... "the first truth is vile because it is the 'haunt of many dangers' " ( ? ) hutvaa abhaava.t.thena that which having come into being, ceases to be and is never to be gone to / approached / gained / pursued / captured as a permanent state... behold, the hand, i feel for you but let's not have seizures. connie didn't delete. slightly less hairy- & not scab-headed now and still! the neck is better than i'm used to :) and my young friend sends a msg so i will know his seizurehead is not fighting with his brain now. and maara squeezes the heart. hold on, love. peace, connie #64894 From: connie Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 8:56 pm Subject: Alcohol? nichiconn too drunk too rmembr, here's our fifth, to be 'shared equally between lay followers and novices as invariable virtuous practices': << I undertake the training precept of abstention from any opportunity for negligence due to liquor, wine, and besotting drink. Suraamerayamajjappamaada.t.thaanaa verama.nii-sikkhaapada'm samaadiyaamai. >> this is an abstention < 'from what is looked on askance (blamable) by nature' since killing breathing things, etc., are always originated by unprofitable cognizance > it might still be argued that it's alright to inhale but not swallow: Illustrator: << Any opportunity for negligence due to liquor, wine and besotting drink: here as to 'liquor', there are five kinds of liquor: flour liquor, cake liquor, rice liquor, that containing yeast, and that mixed with condiments. Also, 'wine' is of five kinds: flower wine, fruit wine, sugar wine, honey wine, and that mixed with condiments (Vin.iv,110). Both these are 'besotting' (majja) in the sense of causing intoxication (madaniiya); or alternatively, whatever else there is that causes intoxication, by drinking which one becomes mad (matta) and negligent (pamatta) is called 'besotting'. The 'opportunity for negligence' (pamaada.t.thaana) is the choice by which one drinks, swallows. That is so called since it is the cause for the [subsequent] vanity (madness) and negligence (mada-ppamaada); consequently, what should be understood as the 'opportunity for negligence' is the choice in swallowing the liquor, wine or besotting drink, as intent to swallow, which occurs in the body door >>. still, whether it's excess to moderation or some other style, there's no dwelling in the middle; once it's in your nose, it's moving on. sugarandspice, gingerbreadman. be as stupid as you like. don't seek approval or support for it, just believe in reckless ruin, intoxicantly driven. if there be purity in alcohol, show me your proof: "Bhikkhus, there are these four stains because of which the sun and moon do not glow, do not shine, are not radiant. What four? Rain clouds... snow clouds... smoke and dust... an eclipse. In the same way, there are these four stains because of which contemplatives and priests do not glow, do not shine, are not radiant. What four? Drinking alcoholic beverages... indulging in sexual intercourse... accepting gold and silver... obtaining requisites through a wrong mode of livelihood." (A.IV.50) just hospital grade white lightning desire, man, cheers, connie #64895 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 4:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 11/1/06 7:17:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Howard, whenever we wash our bodies we kill thousands and millions of > living microbes. There is no way to avoid killing absolutely nothing- > I find that to be an extreme view impossible to follow. Actually, > the Jains in the Buddha's time attempted such a thing with extreme > austerities and the Buddha rejected those practices. > > You are a householder and you have a responsibility for your house. > Just as you kill the bacteria on your body when you wash it, you may > have to kill those crickets in the basement to clean your house. You > have tried everything else; you take no pleasure in the killing, so I > don't see a great deal of akusala kamma-vipaka coming your way if you > do it. > > And if a sotapanna would never dare kill anything, then he/she would > have to live as a Jain in the forest, never moving and never washing > the body. > > Metta, > James > ========================= Thank you, James. This is very kind of you. Because the number of crickets is steadily on the rise, it seems that I likely will have to kill them and probably soon, unless we eventually move out of the house - a highly unlikely choice. I'm trying to delay using poison, and meanwhile removing as many as I can catch before that time comes so as to kill as few as possible. (They are difficult to catch. If only they knew that being caught would be beneficial for them!) As for my feelings in the matter, I'm not concerned with unhappy results that may come to me as a result. It simply breaks my heart to kill them. Again, James, thank you for your kindness. I understand that your motive is at least in part to comfort me about this, and I appreciate it very much. And your post *does* comfort me. With metta, Howard #64896 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Nov 1, 2006 10:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu lbidd2 Hi Scott. Buddha: "These, monks, are the four distortions of perceptions, thoughts, and views. Monks, what are the four non-distortions of perception, thought, and views." L: Following Ledi Sayadaw's "Manual of Insight" perception, thought (citta), and views has to do with identity, cause and effect (paticcasamuppada), and destiny (kamma). Three levels of insight and delusion. http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html I didn't catch the point you were making but this was something I hadn't seen before. There is a similarity (and some differences) to the three ways of knowing (perception, consciousness, and understanding [panna]) found at Vism.XIV,3: "3. In what sense is it understanding? It is understanding (pa~n~naa) in the sense of act of understanding (pajaanana). What is this act of understanding? It is knowing (jaanana) in a particular mode separate from the modes of perceiving (sa~njaanana) and cognizing (vijaanana). For though the state of knowing (jaanana-bhaava) is equally present in perception (sa~n~naa), in consciousness (vi~n~naa.na), and in understanding (pa~n~naa), nevertheless perception is only the mere perceiving of an object as, say, 'blue' or 'yellow'; it cannot bring about the penetration of its characteristics as impermanent, painful, and not-self. Consciousness knows the object as blue or yellow, and it brings about the penetration of its characteristics, but it cannot bring about, by endeavouring, the manifestation of the [supramundane] path. Understanding knows the object in the way already stated, it brings about the penetration of the characteristics and it brings about, by endeavouring, the manifestation of the path." L: Also non-distortion of perception and thought (citta) as per Ledi Sayadaw looks very similar to the Purification of View and Purification by Overcoming Doubt, aka Vism.XIV and XVII. Perhaps non-distortion of view corresponds to the insight knowledges (Purification by Knowledge and Vision of the Way). Larry #64897 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 12:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) nilovg Hi Phil (and Howard), I am glad you repost extracts from Deeds of Merit. There are so many aspects to kusala and it is good to consider these again and again. It is good to also read her Perfections and then you will see that there is much about siila. quote from the Perfections: < The streamwinner who has realized the four noble Truths and attained the first stage of enlightenment, has eradicated the defilements in accordance with that stage of enlightenment. He observes the five precepts perfectly, he cannot transgress them anymore. If one is not a streamwinner which precepts can one observe? Even before we are a streamwinner, we should not transgress the precepts. The coarse defilements can be subdued and worn away until paññå will be developed to the degree of a perfection and is able to realize the four noble Truths. The perfection of síla is an excellent quality, a supporting condition for reaching the further shore, namely the eradication of defilements.> It depends on the degree of pa~n~naa to what extent the precepts can be kept. We commit akusala because of ignorance, ignorance of the nature of akusala citta which is ugly, ignorance of the danger of accumulating more akusala. A moment of akusala citta falls away but it is accumulated so that the inclination to akusala can condition the arising of akusala citta again. Through the development of understanding of the dhamma appearing now ignorance will wear away. Understanding can see more and more the benefit of kusala citta with saddhaa, confidence in kusala, the citta which is pure. When one has metta for all living beings, this in itself is a condition for observing the precepts. Quote from the Perfections: Phil, you remember that I find the aspect of having respect for someone else can also help in not committing coarse siila. We had some discussion about this. Microbes: these are not 'breathing things'. Paa.na: breath of life, living being. Paa.naatipaata: destruction of life. The monk leads a life of non-violence, he is not supposed to kill. The Buddha did not tell him not to take a bath lest he kill microbes. In the Vinaya we read about the duty of the monks to clean their dwellings, to remove cobwebs. They may step on an ant but, the question is always: did they have the intention to kill? We should admire the monk's life, but we are laypeople and thus we have to overcome difficult situations, like Howard now. Everyone has to decide for himself. The Asean way is usually not to do anything, since problems solve themselves. There is something in it, one leaves things to conditions. Soon it is Uposathaday, and one can be reminded of one's good intention not to kill. At the same time we know that we are not sotaapannas. ****** Nina. Op 2-nov-2006, om 0:45 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > I posted extracts from > her "Deeds of Merit" a couple of years ago. It just feels to me > these days that the way she presents sila in the recorded Dhamma > talks is a bit too indirect, taking a bit too much for granted #64898 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 1:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Insects and the Precept Against Killing sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, --- upasaka@... wrote: > This is a practical question. Our basement has been "occupied" > ;-) by > a growing number of cave crickets. They are truly ugly insects (LOL!), > spider-like in appearance, some growing to rather "good" size (!), that > jump quite > high - and typically right at you (!), and that will destroy fabric if > they can > get at it. They also reproduce very rapidly. .... S: I just googled to look at one and to quickly become an expert, lol! Of course, when they're not in one's own home, they're rather charming and cute....and harmless:-). I know you'd feel a lot, lot happier to find a solution that doesn't involve any harm and we know that often such alternatives cost time and money. Jon & I spent quite some time just last week emptying a heavy cabinet, cleaning it ou, moving it and rescuing a very large pregnant looking cockroach who'd decided it was the perfect place to nest. I found out that "(Cave)/Camel back crickets appear throughout most of the United States. They will move into areas around the home taking up residence under porches and sheds. They love moisture and darkness. Such areas produce fungus and mold - both of which can feed this species of cricket. In addition to mold and fungus, camel back crickets will feed on fabric." ..... S: Everyone has their own ideas and methods of dealing with such issues which is fine, but I'd be inclined to deal with these aspects which attract the crickets, whilst removing as many of the crickets as possible at the same time. With this in mind, if you have electricity in your basement, consider putting in: a) A Dehumidifier. We all have these in our homes here in super-humid Hong Kong. The Japanese brands which have an auto-regulator feature are the best, to keep a certain degree of dryness in the air. They are very inexpensive to run - you'll need to empty the bucket of water once or twice a day. This would be my first choice. In addition, perhaps: b) A very low level bar heater - here we used to use them in our closets to prevent mould. No risk of fire. Dehumidifiers have pretty well replaced them. c)A very dim light. I'm thinking of the kind that can be plugged into the wall and which are sometimes used to deter burglars. d)Remove any fungus and mould - treat any damp walls etc after the area has dried out. e)Remove any fabric, carpeting etc - anything which they are attracted to. ..... S: If possible, develop some friendly ways of working with the crickets, so that you can all live in peace:-). It's a lot easier to 'rescue' insects and find solutions when one isn't feeling upset or agitated by them, I find. Let us know how it goes and what other suggestions you receive/follow up on. Metta, Sarah ======== #64899 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 1:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma sarahprocter... Hi Howard, (Larry & all), --- upasaka@... wrote: H:> > >I'll admit that they are not paramattha dhammas. Normally, we say > > >something has to be either a paramattha dhamma or a concept, and so > > >there is bound to be confusion over 'characteristics of paramattha > > >dhammas.' Characteristics are not classified as paramattha dhammas > > >because they do not have their own sabhava. They are sabhava. > > .... > > S: Yes, you're right when you say they are 'characteristics of > paramattha > > dhammas'. > > > ======================= > Sarah, it seems to me that you want to eat your cake and have it > too. > Conditioned dhammas do not last. That is a fact. Likewise, that all > conditioned dhammas are dukkha and that all dhammas are anatta are > facts. But according > to Khun Sujin, Nina, Sarah, and Jon, LTD., there are no categories but > paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti. .... S: Generally speaking this is correct and certainly what we say to newcomers here:-). .... >...You are inventing a new reality category of > 'characteristics of paramattha dhammas'. .... S: I don't take any credit for this - it's what the Buddha taught. .... >Next we will need > 'characteristics of > characteristics of paramattha dhammas'', and so on, without end. > The tilakhhana are three facts/truths about dhammas. ... S: Facts, truths or characteristics (lakkhana) to be precise. .... >They are not > phenomena themselves, and reifying them is even worse that reifying > paramattha > dhammas. ... S: I don't see how the pointing to such characteristics (as facts or truths) is 'reifying'. What is being pointed to are not concepts. ... >Nagarjuna (uh,oh - scary name! LOL!) once said something along > the lines > that people who cannot see the emptiness of phenomena are far from the > truth, > but those who reify emptiness itself are "hopeless"! While I take his > "hopeless" as intentional hyperbole on his part, I agree with the thrust > of his > comment. .... S: I'd be glad if you'd review an old message of mine: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27999 in response to Nagarjunian ideas in an informative article Larry gave a link to at the time. Let me know if there's anything you disagree with. Here are a couple of paragraphs from it: >(2) In XI, 104, there is the following, with the capitalization for emphasis being mine: ... They are states (dhamma) owing to bearing (dharana) for the length of the moment appropriate to them. They are impermanent in the sense of [liability to] destruction; they are painful in the sense of [causing] terror; THEY ARE NOT SELF IN THE SENSE OF HAVING NO CORE [OF PERMANENCE AND SO ON]. ... (Howard’s caps). ***** 2. There is a clear distinction between concepts (pannatti) and realities (paramattha dhammas). In the Tipitaka, paramattha dhammas which can be directly known and which have characteristics are clearly differentiated from pannatti (concepts). Indeed this is the ‘essence’ of the Teachings,without which a path would not be possible.*< ... S: Nothing 'hopeless' or 'reified' in the appreciation of the characteristics of paramattha dhammas as opposed to concepts. I think there's more to some of these points to discuss.... Larry might like to add his ideas on this one too:-)). Metta, Sarah ====== #64900 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 1:30 am Subject: Re: Cuti citta and bhavanga citta jonoabb Hi Howard I'm not sure I've quite understood your questions, so let me say a few general things about bhavanga citta. It might be thought that bhavanga citta is a citta that arises whenever there is no sense- or mind-door experience going on, as a sort of filler in between. However, the picture we get from the texts is a somewhat different one. Bhavanga citta is the citta that arises continuously throughout life except when its arising is interrupted by a sense- or mind-door process. The Vism says (XIV, 114): "As long as there is no other kind of arising of consciousness to interrupt the continuity, they go on occurring endlessly … like the current of a river." According to the Patisambhidamagga (478, cited at Vism XIV, 114, n.45), it is from this "occurring endlessly" that the name 'bhavanga' comes: << ... because of its occurring as the state of an anga ("limb" or "practice") of the rebirth-process becoming (uppatti-bhava)>> It is a vipaka citta (result of kamma), and to this extent it is similar to the citta which (merely) experiences visible object, sound, etc in this life. However, the bhavanga citta is the result of the kamma that conditioned the rebirth in the present lifetime, and its object is the object that appeared to the mind just before death in the previous life, that object being determined by the kamma that was to condition the imminent rebirth. So its object is not an object experienced through any of the sense-doors during this lifetime. Coming now to the 2 specific questions you raise: 1) Must not the common object of those [bhavanga] cittas be observed? What is citta that doesn't know its object? A. A citta does not 'observe' its own object, it simply experiences that object. The bhavanga citta and its object are unknown to us because they do not become the object of subsequent cittas that might 'observe' or 'know' them. 2) Is there no inherent upper limit to the length of a bhavanga stream? A. For the reason explained earlier, there is no limit to the length of the bhavanga stream. Howard, I hope this goes some way to answering you queries. I'm sure Nina (and others) could add more (and correct any mistakes). Please feel free to come back on anything in your message that I've not covered. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Hi, Jon & Plamen - ... I don't get what is supposed to be the story with regard to the bhavanga-citta-object. When there is a series of consecutive visual mindstates of the same object, with only cetasikas arising and ceasing throughout, the object is seen. There is no mind-door processing of that visual object then, but that object is observed throughout, and it is subsequently known in other ways than via the eye door, including being recalled, characterized, and reacted to. Now, as I recall, there are said to be, between sense-door processes, bhavanga processes, some involving a string of bhavanga cittas that is brief, but others, such as during dreamless sleep, that are quite lengthy streams. A couple questions arise in my mind with regard to this matter: 1) Must not the common object of those cittas be observed? What is citta that doesn't know its object? 2) Is there no inherent upper limit to the length of a bhavanga stream? For sense-door processes, I believe the magic number is 17 (my favorite prime! ;-) If not, when a sense-door object comes-a- knockin' at the door, what is the means of the bhavanga cittas detecting its presence, "vibrating" and then ceding place to a sense- door citta? No bhavanga citta could take the arising sense-door object as its object, because it already has it own (ineffable) object. (Actually, this issue may not be unique to the bhavanga- citta topic, but to citta psychology more generally. How does any process, whether a sense-door process or bhavanga process, come to an end specifically due to the arising of a new sense-door object? Apparently, it cannot require an interactionf the arising object-to- be with the current citta, because that current citta already has its "own" object, thereby leaving no mechanism for interaction. Now, that lack of interaction/communication doesn't bother me, because I am quite comfortable with this-that conditionality, and I feel no compulsion for there to be a substantial handshake between "the arising object" and the current mindstate, but others might fell that need. (What *does* bother me is the idea of a not-yet-cognized object arising "on it's own" in a separate world of mind-independent phenomena. But that is my particular - some might say "peculiar" - phenomenalist problem, and is a side issue.) With metta, Howard #64901 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 1:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some points on art sarahprocter... Hi KenH (Phil & all), --- ken_aitch wrote: > S: > K.Sujin was stressing the importance of understanding elements > rather than studying 'people' or 'Me': > ------------------ > KH> The two are mutually exclusive, aren't they? We might like to think > that Dhamma study gives us the ability to analyse other people and > ourselves, but it probably doesn't. .... S: probably the opposite. Last February in Bkk, Nina referred to the frustration people find when hearing the Dhamma and K.Sujin responded by saying that instead of understanding dhammas just to have a better understanding, we're thinking of 'ourselves', our frustrations and so on. She suggested just understanding that there are only the dhammas continuously arising all the time. Otherwise there is always so much clinging when we're always thinking of ourselves in anyway, even with regard to understanding of the Dhamma. I liked this quote too: "The more one is concerned about oneself, the more lobha enjoys it." ... > I watch the TV show, "The Sopranos," religiously. (It is the best > drama to come out of America.) These truly sick, insatiable, homicidal > mafia-monsters display generosity love and courage in ways that are > indistinguishable from the way ordinary people display them. And yet > it can't be the real thing can it? Or maybe it can, sometimes. .... S: Why not? Changing caritas (characters) all the time. Like the sutta we've discussed about the good and bad thieves. Some may be kind and considerate and others quite ruthless whilst following their 'profession'. No mafia-monsters, no thieves, no people -- just ever-changing namas and rupas:-)) .... >They > were all born human with varying degrees of health, beauty and > intelligence, and so they must have some good kamma behind them. They > must have some good accumulations too. ... S: Yes. .... > > -------------------------------- > S: > KS: "We are learning to understand the elements - studying the > element of citta, the element of cetasika, the element of rupa. So > there's no question about 'how' and 'I' and 'me' at all. > -------------------------------- > > Delete, delete, . . .! I had written a great screed wondering what > might be meant by the word "how" in this context. Looking ahead to the > next sentence would have saved me the trouble: > > ------------------------------------------- > S: > KS: > "We do not have any authority > to do anything at all - just developing the understanding (of them) as > they are, not as 'I' want it to be, not 'why can't it be like this'." > ------------------------------------------- > > In other words - not "how" I want it to be. .... S: Right. Now 'how' I want to be or 'how' do I do it at all. (Next time, just hold off on that delete button and let us see the 'great screed' anyway:-). .... > > ------------------------------------------------------ > S: > "It's like any subject, but this is the subject of elements. > Because they are elements, they are not self - that's the way to study > dhamma and see dhamma is dhamma. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Got it! .... S: I'm just reposting it because I like to read it again:-). .... > > ----------------- > <. . .> > S: > KS: "it depends what they'd like to hear - the Self or the > elements." > ----------------- > > This reminds me of an opinion I held, years ago, until you put the > kybosh on it. I had the impression that the Buddha taught that *all* > thoughts of self were akusala (arose in akusala cittas). You pointed > to examples such as, "I will rescue this drowning person," or, "I will > read a Dhamma book (etc), " in which thoughts of self might be > perfectly proper. I am still not totally convinced. Maybe we can get > back to it later if you still have the patience. :-) .... S: Please do. Did the Buddha never refer to or think of the Buddha? ... > As I was saying, it was Phil's latest post that reminded me of this > one. Phil couldn't agree with Jon that accumulations stayed the > same (or not measurably different) throughout the course of a > lifetime. But they do, of course; adze handles are not made of butter! > :-) .... S: Yes, I think we go about our days much as we've always done. Perhaps it depends.....3 mins before I have to rush off to Tai chi, so no time to think more about it... ... > I think the present lifetime can be seen as a simile for a paramattha > dhamma. It can be understood (in the light of the Dhamma), but it > can't be controlled or made into something it isn't. > > We have to sympathise with Phil for wanting to add saccharin to the > Dhamma - to make it more palatable to newcomers. But that is not the > way. Whether we see it properly or not, the Dhamma is perfectly sweet > as it is. .... S: Yes, I feel that way too....But maybe, just accumulations again at this time...?? But I'll leave it to you, Phil and others perhaps... Metta, Sarah ======= #64902 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 1:07 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 568- Understanding/pa~n~naa (g) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Understanding(paññå)contd Each reality has its own specific characteristic by which it can be distinguished from another reality (distinctive mark or visesa lakkhaùa). Seeing, hearing, hardness or sound have each their own characteristic. However, there are also three general characteristics common to all conditioned realities (samañña lakkhaùa) and these are: impermanence, dukkha or unsatisfactoriness, and anattå, non-self. When understanding has been developed it can eventually know realities as impermanent, dukkha and anattå. There cannot, in the beginning, be clear understanding of the true nature of realities. Understanding develops gradually in different stages. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64903 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 3:03 am Subject: cuticitta and bhavangacitta nilovg Hi Howard, ------------- H: Now, as I recall, there are said to be, between sense-door processes, bhavanga processes, some involving a string of bhavanga cittas that is brief, but others, such as during dreamless sleep, that are quite lengthy streams. A couple questions arise in my mind with regard to this matter: 1) Must not the common object of those cittas be observed? What is citta that doesn't know its object? ------- N: Each citta knows its own object. This does not mean that another citta arising later on in a mind-door process knows the object of bhavangacitta. This is not possible. That object is of a nature different from colour or sound, or seeing. It is very special, the same or similar as you prefer, as the object of the last javanacittas of the preceding life. --------- H: 2) Is there no inherent upper limit to the length of a bhavanga stream? For sense-door processes, I believe the magic number is 17 (my favorite prime! ;-) ------- N: There is no limited amount of bhavangacittas. When it is time for kamma to produce vipaaka in the form of seeing, hearing etc. the stream of bhavangacittas come to an end. Kamma produces vipaaka at the right time. We are born in the human plane not to have bhavangacittas continuously but to receive sense impressions. --------- H: If not, when a sense-door object comes-a-knockin' at the door, what is the means of the bhavanga cittas detecting its presence, "vibrating" and then ceding place to a sense-door citta? No bhavanga citta could take the arising sense-door object as its object, because it already has it own (ineffable) object. ------ N: The vibrating is a figurative way of explaining that a sense-door process does not begin immediately. Several similes are used in the Atthasalini, such as a man alseep under a manogotree and a mango falling down, touching his head. He slowly wakes up. -------- H: (Actually, this issue may not be unique to the bhavanga-citta topic, but to citta psychology more generally. )How does any process, whether a sense-door process or bhavanga process, come to an end specifically due to the arising of a new sense-door object? ------- N: We speak of a sense-door process and a mind-door process because cittas arise according to a fixed order that cannot be changed. Bhavangacittas come in between, but they do not arise in a process. They do not perform functions within a process. Their only function is keeping the continuity in the life of an individual. As said, when it is time for kamma to produce seeing etc. the stream of bhavangacittas come to an end. ---------- H: Apparently, it cannot require an interactionf the arising object-to-be with the current citta, because that current citta already has its "own" object, thereby leaving no mechanism for interaction. Now, that lack of interaction/communication doesn't bother me,... (snipped) What *does* bother me is the idea of a not-yet-cognized object arising "on it's own" in a separate world of mind-independent phenomena. But that is my particular - some might say "peculiar" - phenomenalist problem, and is a side issue.) ------ N: The arising of a sense object that will be cognized by cittas in a sense-process bothers you? But to be more precise, it is a ruupa that has impinged on a sense organ, and it is not yet object. It is not yet cognized, but it will be cognized and then strictly speaking it is object. Under conditions we have learnt that a sense-object which is ruupa and a senseorgan have to arise before the citta they condition since rupa is weak at its arising moment. It cannot immediately function as object and as sense organ. There is nothing strange about it that a rupa arises and is not yet object but will be object. **** Nina. #64904 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 4:41 am Subject: Abhiddhamma Kills Paranoia: (Was : Insects and the Precept Against Killing abhidhammika Dear Howard, Nina, Sarah, Chris F, Scott D, Michael Kalyaano, Mike N, Bob K How are you? I used to overreact to the visiting flies to my place. As I do not kill, I tried to remove them, guess what, by spraying them with pure water to dampen their wings, and then one by one. But, more than a year ago, my knowledge and practice of abhidhamma suddenly overwhelm this paranoia. My respect for these visiting flies grows. Howard, do you remember the time when you first posted the news of little Sophi, your grand-daughter? That morning, when I was having my fruit breakfast, a young fly visited me. I welcomed it and fed it with a piece of banana. It rested on the piece of banana for a long time and then flied away. I and the young fly had breakfast together. The right approach to Theravada teachings can help us develop the genuine deep respect for fellow sentient beings. The right approach to Abhidhamma helps us realize that the mind of a fly is equally significant as our own minds. With deep respect, Suan www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Hi all - This is a practical question. Our basement has been "occupied" ;-) by a growing number of cave crickets. They are truly ugly insects (LOL!), spider-like in appearance, some growing to rather "good" size (!), that jump quite high - and typically right at you (!), and that will destroy fabric if they can get at it. They also reproduce very rapidly. I've been waging an ongoing contest with them, catching individual ones and removing them from the house. I've put a doorsweep on the door from the kitchen down to the basement, which so far has blocked their advance to the main floor, but, as I say, their numbers are growing. At this point, it is clear that my one-by-one eviction procedure is doomed to failure, and all that I read makes it clear that this cannot be a winning strategy. Unless I can learn immediately of a successful (and rapid) means to get them to evacuate the house, or perhaps to sterilize them to prevent further progeny, I will have to use poison to kill them, something I have avoided so far - for quite a while, and the prospect of which disturbs me greatly. Does anyone have any knowledge in this area? Since this is not directly a Dhamma topic, and since I've posted it to more than one list, I would suggest that any replies be sent directly to me, offlist, for otherwise this post of mine would be a bit of an abuse of list practice. Of course, the general moral issue of refraining from killing and the question of the legitimacy of limiting that refraining under various circumstances, is a valid topic for discussion on any Buddhist list at any time. With metta, Howard #64905 From: Daniel Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 12:46 am Subject: Self - not negating too much sbhtkk Hi all, Most people here say that there is no such a "self" that does not change, that is controling, that does not depend on the aggregates. But do you think that there is something that one CAN say about the combinations of nama-rupas? If Bill Clinton (no specific reason for selecting him) would be killed at childhood, then we would not be able to see Bill Clinton that we see now on TV. Bill Clinton at the age of 5 has such a relatinoship only to Bill-Clinton-that-we-can-see-now and to me, neither to anyone else on the group and to no one else. How would you describe this fact? Besides merelty asking for your opinion, I have read the distinction amongst many types of phenomena http://www.berzinarchives.com/sutra/sutra_level_5/2_truths_vaibhashika_sautranti\ ka.html " .... Non-static phenomena are divided into 1. forms of physical phenomena (gzugs), 2. ways of being aware of something (shes-pa), 3. nonstatic phenomena that are neither - for example, time, impermanence, motion, habits, and persons. Such phenomena are nonstatic abstractions. In technical language, they are "nonconcomitant affecting variables" (ldan-min 'du-byed, nonassociated compositional factors). .... Sautrantika differentiates between substantially existent phenomena (rdzas-su grub-pa) and substantially knowable phenomena (rdzas-yod). Substantially existent phenomena are those that have the ability to perform functions. Only nonstatic phenomena, as both objective entities and deepest true phenomena, are substantially existent, since only they have the ability to produce effects. Static phenomena, as both metaphysical entities and superficial true phenomena, lack substantial existence. Substantially knowable phenomena, on the other hand, are those phenomena that a cognition can cognize without having to give rise to a cognitive appearance of anything else. In other words, the cognitions of them assume or take on mental aspects that resemble only them. Forms of physical phenomena and ways of being aware of something fall into this category. The cognitions that cognize them do so by giving rise to cognitive appearances merely of them and of nothing else. We can see or think of a hand, for example, without our nonconceptual visual cognition or conceptual mental cognition of it giving rise to the appearance of anything other than the hand. Static phenomena and nonstatic abstractions are not substantially knowable. Both are imputed on a basis for imputation and are only imputedly knowable (btags-yod). Imputedly knowable phenomena are those phenomena that a cognition can cognize only by giving rise to a cognitive appearance of something else - namely, their bases for imputation. We cannot see or think of the movement of a hand, for example, without our cognition also giving rise to a cognitive appearance of the hand that is moving. .... " Daniel #64906 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 4:52 am Subject: Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <> Howard, whenever we wash our bodies we kill thousands and millions of > living microbes. _________ Dear James Just a quick post to point out that there is no indication in Theravada texts that bacteria , virus or microbe are living beings. They are merely types of rupa, like plants. Insects however are living beings. Robert #64907 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 5:09 am Subject: Re: cuticitta and bhavangacitta pgradinarov Dear Nina, > N: Each citta knows its own object. This does not mean that another > citta arising later on in a mind-door process knows the object of > bhavangacitta. This is not possible. That object is of a nature > different from colour or sound, or seeing. It is very special, the > same or similar as you prefer, as the object of the last javanacittas > of the preceding life. There are no eternal objects. What is the use of denying the transmigrating soul and postulating the existence of transmigrating objects possessing the nature of noumena? There is something fundamentally wrong in the very idea of bhavanga citta as experiencing the same object with the cuti citta, that contradicts the main pathos of buddhasasana. Or probably we are not wise enough to grasp its profound meaning - provided bhavanga citta is not a mere commentarial invention to (unseccussfully) compete with the Mahayana concept of alayavijnana as santana. Kindest regards, Plamen #64908 From: s.billard@... Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 5:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing sbillard2000 Hi, Are there indications that micro-organisms are not living beings ? Is there in suttas or in Abbhidhamma a definition or criteria of what is a living being ? (apart a nama and rupa combination) Sébastien http://s.billard.free.fr > Just a quick post to point out that there is no indication in > Theravada texts that bacteria , virus or microbe are living beings. > They are merely types of rupa, like plants. > Insects however are living beings. > Robert #64909 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 5:10 am Subject: Re: not fond of foul scottduncan2 Dear connie, Ouch. c: "asubha everywhere. dukkha. all that en-tales." No entrails hopefully but if so, only to be foully contemplated. c: "the excellence assoc'd w/the cakkavatti, disregarding (same) w/out even deeming it straw, performed his renunciation and became awoken to Perfect Self-Enlightenment - therefore, hence too is he the Bhagavaa, since he vomited (vami) (these items of) fortune (bhage) such as lustre and so on. Udaana Cy. p46." disregarding excellence with excellent disregard the fortunate treasure is lustrous emesis c: "lustre. glitter. not of the (Gem enabling) dis-abusing ourselves of absurdity... sorry, carried away in my poetic highness. the glimmer of vision. rupa/nama dilemna. distinguishment." No way. I thought I dreamt it, spelled by only the mad gods but lo: "dilemna" the archetypal form and spelled so again after these many years of shameful correction and doubt. Perhaps only a typo and yet... Could it be so? Maana. c: "most of the time anyway, whether you care for goblins & ken / ilk otherwise.... whoooo cares? for anyone? who can know another's aggregates fully?" Yeah. Love is a many-splendoured thing but is it real? Mettaa maybe and for whom? I can only stare at all the mirrors. c: "Romancing the Stone, etc. Fair warning. You court disaster. Thought you were the jester, did you, puddin' head? Personally, I'm a knot head. Rapped it hard enough the other day that the poor zebra print bandana wrap really did look worse for the wear. But yeah, just another reminder of one object at a time. Arises the big bang! Don't even know it's dark til light flashes. Holy cow, have I just been blown out of Nina's oven? 'Return to your senses'." Birds flying around? Are you feeling better? Concussive-connie. Induced by a blow there arose a process of bhavanga vibrated only later by knocking at the sense doors and then even then knowing... c: "... 'the first truth is vile because it is the 'haunt of many dangers' ( ? )" Fair enough for foul. c: "hutvaa abhaava.t.thena that which having come into being, ceases to be and is never to be gone to / approached / gained / pursued / captured as a permanent state... behold, the hand, i feel for you but let's not have seizures." Gaha.na? Naama-gaha.na? Out, damned spot. Out I say. Take a look at these hands they're passing in between us take a look at these hands... c: "connie didn't delete." Good. Always a temptation. Maana concretises, the pudding going stiff, the porridge all congealed but pliant and supple supervene c: "slightly less hairy- & not scab-headed now and still! the neck is better than i'm used to :) and my young friend sends a msg so i will know his seizurehead is not fighting with his brain now. and maara squeezes the heart. hold on, love." Hope you are feeling better hard head. With loving kindness, Scott. #64910 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 5:22 am Subject: Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing buddhatrue Hi Robert K., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <> Howard, > whenever we wash our bodies we kill thousands and millions of > > living microbes. > _________ > Dear James > Just a quick post to point out that there is no indication in > Theravada texts that bacteria , virus or microbe are living beings. > They are merely types of rupa, like plants. > Insects however are living beings. > Robert > Gosh, I am just so amazed at how my posts seem to bring people out of the woodwork. ;-)) Hope you stick around; your absence seems to make a lot of people stressed out. Anyway, about your point- it is a very interesting point. However, just because the texts don't mention anything about microbes and bacteria being living beings, that doesn't mean they aren't. It could just be that because they are too small for the eye to observe, they were not specifically discussed 2,500 years ago. After all, the dhamma is not a science lesson :-). If plants do or do not have sentience is a debateable issue. Personally, I think that plants are at a stage between rupa and nama- not quite sentient but not quite simple elements either. As far as what the text say, I really don't know. You would have to quote the relevant passages to me, if you feel so inclined. Again, it was good to see you back. I hope that you will post again so that I can have a worthy opponent to debate. ;-)) Metta, James #64911 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 5:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 Dear Larry, Thanks, I'll check the reference. L: "I didn't catch the point you were making but this was something I hadn't seen before. There is a similarity (and some differences) to the three ways of knowing (perception, consciousness, and understanding [panna])..." I was trying to look into the suttas for teachings on anatta, as per request. May I reply more fully after reading the stuff you suggest? With loving kindness, Scott. #64912 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 1:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Insects and the Precept Against Killing upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 11/2/06 4:17:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard &all, > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > > This is a practical question. Our basement has been "occupied" > >;-) by > >a growing number of cave crickets. They are truly ugly insects (LOL!), > >spider-like in appearance, some growing to rather "good" size (!), that > >jump quite > >high - and typically right at you (!), and that will destroy fabric if > >they can > >get at it. They also reproduce very rapidly. > .... > S: I just googled to look at one and to quickly become an expert, lol! Of > course, when they're not in one's own home, they're rather charming and > cute....and harmless:-). ---------------------------------------- Howard: During the ongoing (for months) process of capturing & removing them, one by one, they haeve become "familiar", and I even find some fondness for them. However, they are far from "charming" in person, and were they to get into our living quarters - getting into our bed for example, the "charm" factor would diminish very quickly! ;-) ------------------------------------------ > > I know you'd feel a lot, lot happier to find a solution that doesn't > involve any harm and we know that often such alternatives cost time and > money. Jon &I spent quite some time just last week emptying a heavy > cabinet, cleaning it ou, moving it and rescuing a very large pregnant > looking cockroach who'd decided it was the perfect place to nest. > > I found out that "(Cave)/Camel back crickets appear throughout most of the > United States. They will move into areas around the > home taking up residence under porches and sheds. > They love moisture and darkness. Such areas produce > fungus and mold - both of which can feed this species > of cricket. In addition to mold and fungus, camel > back crickets will feed on fabric." > ..... > S: Everyone has their own ideas and methods of dealing with such issues > which is fine, but I'd be inclined to deal with these aspects which > attract the crickets, whilst removing as many of the crickets as possible > at the same time. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Yes - I'm starting on that, and delaying a more extreme measure. ----------------------------------------- > > With this in mind, if you have electricity in your basement, consider > putting in: > > a) A Dehumidifier. We all have these in our homes here in super-humid Hong > Kong. The Japanese brands which have an auto-regulator feature are the > best, to keep a certain degree of dryness in the air. They are very > inexpensive to run - you'll need to empty the bucket of water once or > twice a day. This would be my first choice. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, because the oil burner is in the basement, it is warm down there and not damp. Now that we are into colder weather, the heat is on, and that should make our house less hospitable to (what, before knowing they were cave crickets, I had called) "jumpers". --------------------------------------------- > > In addition, perhaps: > > b) A very low level bar heater - here we used to use them in our closets > to prevent mould. No risk of fire. Dehumidifiers have pretty well replaced > them. > > c)A very dim light. I'm thinking of the kind that can be plugged into the > wall and which are sometimes used to deter burglars. --------------------------------------- Howard: They *do* like the dark. Actually, I'm thinking of putting some high-watt bulbs in down there, and keeping the lights on round the clock for a few days - even for a week - in hopes of chasing them back out. If that works, then I'll try to arrange for sealing up openings around the house, blocking their entry points. Then I'll put a few low-level nightlights in. If the foregoing doesn't work, well, then I'll have to see. ------------------------------------- > > d)Remove any fungus and mould - treat any damp walls etc after the area > has dried out. > > e)Remove any fabric, carpeting etc - anything which they are attracted to. > ..... > S: If possible, develop some friendly ways of working with the crickets, > so that you can all live in peace:-). It's a lot easier to 'rescue' > insects and find solutions when one isn't feeling upset or agitated by > them, I find. > > Let us know how it goes and what other suggestions you receive/follow up > on. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===================== Thanks very much, Sarah. My main "tool" is simply waiting and delaying. I'm hoping that the season change may solve the problem for me. With metta, Howard #64913 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 2:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 11/2/06 4:36:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > S: Nothing 'hopeless' or 'reified' in the appreciation of the > characteristics of paramattha dhammas as opposed to concepts. > ===================== I believe that "the all" is exactly what the Buddha said it was, and that amounts to what the Abhidhammikas call "paramattha dhammas". And paramattha dhammas don't "have" characteristics. Each one of them is a simple, singular quality of its own, "bearing its own characteristic" in the sense of being nothing but a quality (as, for example, hardness and warmth are "qualities"). An alleged category of existents that are properties of dhammas is a mere mental creation, IMO. Realities, as Khun Sujin is wont to call them, are just the paramattha dhammas, and they are exactly what they are,, and "everything else about them" is mere mental imputation. There are no "things" that are characteristics, at least not of paramattha dhammas. We can make statements about paramattha dhammas, some of which are true, and we think of that as pertaining to characteristics that the dhammas "have". But they are just true statements about the dhammas. For example, we may say that dhammas don't last. That's true. But there is no "thing" that is non-lasting or impermanence. That is concept only. Our confusion comes about due to thinking about "characteristics" of pa~n~natti. For example, conventionally, my desktop is hard. And "the hardness is a quality of the desktop" is how a concept-bound reificationist might put it. But, in reality, there is no desktop, and hardness is a dhamma. With metta, Howard #64914 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 2:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cuti citta and bhavanga citta upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - I thank you for this detailed reply. I don't dismiss the idea of bhavanga cittas. Though I don't see the "need" for them, they might well nonmetheless be realities. I jsu am quite unclear about the concept and am looking to understand it better. In a message dated 11/2/06 4:39:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard > > I'm not sure I've quite understood your questions, so let me say a > few general things about bhavanga citta. > > It might be thought that bhavanga citta is a citta that arises > whenever there is no sense- or mind-door experience going on, as a > sort of filler in between. > > However, the picture we get from the texts is a somewhat different > one. Bhavanga citta is the citta that arises continuously > throughout life except when its arising is interrupted by a sense- > or mind-door process. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Well, the objectively these are equivalent, but the connotation is quite different, I agree. ------------------------------------------ > > The Vism says (XIV, 114): "As long as there is no other kind of > arising of consciousness to interrupt the continuity, they go on > occurring endlessly … like the current of a river." > > According to the Patisambhidamagga (478, cited at Vism XIV, 114, > n.45), it is from this "occurring endlessly" that the > name 'bhavanga' comes: > <<... because of its occurring as the state of an anga ("limb" > or "practice") of the rebirth-process becoming (uppatti-bhava)>> > > It is a vipaka citta (result of kamma), and to this extent it is > similar to the citta which (merely) experiences visible object, > sound, etc in this life. However, the bhavanga citta is the result > of the kamma that conditioned the rebirth in the present lifetime, > and its object is the object that appeared to the mind just before > death in the previous life, that object being determined by the > kamma that was to condition the imminent rebirth. So its object is > not an object experienced through any of the sense-doors during this > lifetime. -------------------------------------- Howard: When you say that "its object is the object that appeared to the mind just before death in the previous life," this suggests to me that it is a mind-door object. But the claim tnhat had been made was that it is not known through *any* sense door! (That, as I see it, would place it outside "the all"!) --------------------------------------- > > Coming now to the 2 specific questions you raise: > 1) Must not the common object of those [bhavanga] cittas be > observed? What is citta that doesn't know its object? > > A. A citta does not 'observe' its own object, it simply experiences > that object. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: By 'observe' I don't mean anything other than "experience". ------------------------------------------ The bhavanga citta and its object are unknown to us > > because they do not become the object of subsequent cittas that > might 'observe' or 'know' them. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I understand what you mean by this. Only bhavanga cittas are the experincing of it, and they are all the same sort of experiencing, with no changes in cetasikas in follow-up states having the same object. Follow-up states have different objects that have been adverted to. ------------------------------------------- > > 2) Is there no inherent upper limit to the length of a bhavanga > stream? > > A. For the reason explained earlier, there is no limit to the length > of the bhavanga stream. > > Howard, I hope this goes some way to answering you queries. I'm > sure Nina (and others) could add more (and correct any mistakes). > Please feel free to come back on anything in your message that I've > not covered. > > Jon > ======================= Thanks, Jon. This has provided some clarification. With metta, Howard #64915 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 2:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cuticitta and bhavangacitta upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/2/06 6:05:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > ------------- > H: Now, as I recall, there are said to be, between sense-door processes, > bhavanga processes, some involving a string of bhavanga cittas that > is brief, > but others, such as during dreamless sleep, that are quite lengthy > streams. A > couple questions arise in my mind with regard to this matter: > 1) Must not the common object of those cittas be observed? What is > citta that doesn't know its object? > ------- > N: Each citta knows its own object. This does not mean that another > citta arising later on in a mind-door process knows the object of > bhavangacitta. This is not possible. > -------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks. Yes, Jon made this point as well, and I understand it. -------------------------------------- That object is of a nature > > different from colour or sound, or seeing. It is very special, the > same or similar as you prefer, as the object of the last javanacittas > of the preceding life. --------------------------------------- Howard: HOW special? Is it not a mind-door object? ---------------------------------------- > --------- > > H: 2) Is there no inherent upper limit to the length of a bhavanga > stream? > For sense-door processes, I believe the magic number is 17 (my favorite > prime! ;-) > ------- > N: There is no limited amount of bhavangacittas. When it is time for > kamma to produce vipaaka in the form of seeing, hearing etc. the > stream of bhavangacittas come to an end. Kamma produces vipaaka at > the right time. We are born in the human plane not to have > bhavangacittas continuously but to receive sense impressions. --------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, good. Pure conditionality, no handshake-interaction required. ----------------------------------------- > --------- > H: > If not, when a sense-door object comes-a-knockin' at the door, what is > the means of the bhavanga cittas detecting its presence, "vibrating" > and then > ceding place to a sense-door citta? No bhavanga citta could take the > arising > sense-door object as its object, because it already has it own > (ineffable) > object. > ------ > N: The vibrating is a figurative way of explaining that a sense-door > process does not begin immediately. Several similes are used in the > Atthasalini, such as a man alseep under a manogotree and a mango > falling down, touching his head. He slowly wakes up. --------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, such similes and even the name "vibrating bhavanga citta" do appeal to me. --------------------------------------- > -------- > H: (Actually, this issue may not be unique to the bhavanga-citta > topic, but to > citta psychology more generally. )How does any process, whether a > sense-door > process or bhavanga process, come to an end specifically due to the > arising of > a new sense-door object? > ------- > N: We speak of a sense-door process and a mind-door process because > cittas arise according to a fixed order that cannot be changed. > Bhavangacittas come in between, but they do not arise in a process. > They do not perform functions within a process. Their only function > is keeping the continuity in the life of an individual. > As said, when it is time for kamma to produce seeing etc. the stream > of bhavangacittas come to an end. --------------------------------------- Howard: Again, good - a matter of conditionality. BTW, it is a situation such as this that should make clear to some on DSG that conditionality need NOT be contigious [one mindtate to the next], but can be, and frequently is, temporally "at a distance", even a great distance. ---------------------------------------- > ---------- > H: Apparently, it cannot require an interactionf the > arising object-to-be with the current citta, because that current > citta already > has its "own" object, thereby leaving no mechanism for interaction. > Now, that > lack of interaction/communication doesn't bother me,... (snipped) > What *does* bother me is the idea of a > not-yet-cognized object arising "on it's own" in a separate world of > mind-independent phenomena. But that is my particular - some might > say "peculiar" - > phenomenalist problem, and is a side issue.) > ------ > N: The arising of a sense object that will be cognized by cittas in a > sense-process bothers you? But to be more precise, it is a ruupa that > has impinged on a sense organ, and it is not yet object. It is not > yet cognized, but it will be cognized and then strictly speaking it > is object. > Under conditions we have learnt that a sense-object which is ruupa > and a senseorgan have to arise before the citta they condition since > rupa is weak at its arising moment. It cannot immediately function as > object and as sense organ. > There is nothing strange about it that a rupa arises and is not yet > object but will be object. > **** > Nina. > ====================== With metta, Howard #64916 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 2:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhiddhamma Kills Paranoia: (Was : Insects and the Precept Against ... upasaka_howard Hi, Suan (and all) - A sweet post, Suan. Thank you! :-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/2/06 7:43:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, suanluzaw@... writes: > > Dear Howard, Nina, Sarah, Chris F, Scott D, Michael Kalyaano, Mike > N, Bob K > > How are you? > > I used to overreact to the visiting flies to my place. As I do not > kill, I tried to remove them, guess what, by spraying them with pure > water to dampen their wings, and then one by one. > > But, more than a year ago, my knowledge and practice of abhidhamma > suddenly overwhelm this paranoia. My respect for these visiting > flies grows. > > Howard, do you remember the time when you first posted the news of > little Sophi, your grand-daughter? That morning, when I was having > my fruit breakfast, a young fly visited me. I welcomed it and fed it > with a piece of banana. It rested on the piece of banana for a long > time and then flied away. I and the young fly had breakfast together. > > The right approach to Theravada teachings can help us develop the > genuine deep respect for fellow sentient beings. The right approach > to Abhidhamma helps us realize that the mind of a fly is equally > significant as our own minds. > > With deep respect, > > Suan #64917 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 7:45 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 109. nilovg Dear friends, The tadaaramma.na-citta experiences an object not only through the five sense-doors but also through the mind-door. In the sense-door process tadaaramma.na-citta can arise only when the object has not fallen away yet. If tadaaramma.na-cittas arise in a sense-door process they can also arise in the succeeding mind-door process. The tadaaramma.na-citta is a vipåkacitta which can experience an object through six doors. For example, when visible object contacts the eyesense and the process runs its full course, the tadaaramma.na- cittas arising in that process experience the object through the eye- door. The tadaaramma.na-cittas of the mind-door process which succeeds the eye-door process experience that object through the mind- door. When the object which contacts the sense-door is unpleasant, all the vipåkacittas in that process and thus also the tadaaramma.na- cittas, if they arise, are akusala vipåka. The tadaaramma.na-cittas of the succeeding mind-door process are also akusala vipåka. When the object which contacts the sense-door is pleasant, all vipåkacittas of that process, including the tadaaramma.na-cittas, are kusala vipåka. It is the same with the tadaaramma.na-cittas of the subsequent mind- door process. ****** Nina. #64918 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 7:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhiddhamma Kills Paranoia: (Was : Insects and the Precept Against ... nilovg Dear Suan, thank you for your post. I learnt this in Kh Sujin's house long ago, when first coming to the Dhamma. I had the idea: flies are dirty. There was some sugar on the flour and Kh Sujin said: let them nash. It was the first time I heard this approach. Later on when I was listening to the morning radio, to Kh Sujin's program, during breakfast in the garden, a snake kept company and I was not afraid. One's approach can change. But there is no guarantee what I shall do when in danger of life. Nina. Op 2-nov-2006, om 16:44 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > That morning, when I was having > > my fruit breakfast, a young fly visited me. I welcomed it and fed it > > with a piece of banana. It rested on the piece of banana for a long > > time and then flied away. I and the young fly had breakfast > together. #64919 From: "nidive" Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 8:38 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nidive Hi Scott, My understanding is that the Buddha teaches "no self" by means of "not self". He never declared a position of "no self". If he were to do so, he would be seen as teaching annihilationism. The Buddha teaches the doctrine of "not self" as the method to the ending of dukkha. He didn't teach the doctrine of "not self" as a philosophical or ontological position, which is a distraction from the path to nibbana. > "It is impossible, O monks, and it cannot be that a person possessed > of right view should regard anything as a self. But it is possible > for an uninstructed worldling to regard something as a self." AN I, > xv,3. My understanding is that "anything" here refers to the five aggregates. And one should not regard any of the five aggregates as self. This is not a declaration of a position of "no self". > "Whether Tathaagatas arise in the world or not, it still remains a > fact, a firm and necessary condition of existence, that all > formations are impermanent...that all formations are subject to > suffering...that all things are non-self. > A Tathaagata fully awakens to this fact and penetrates it. Having > fully awakened to it and penetrated it, he announces it, teaches it, > makes it known, presents it, discloses it, analyses it and explains > it: that all formations are impermanent, that all formations are > subject to suffering, that all things are non-self." AN III, 134. Again, my understanding is that "all things" (as contrasted with all formations) here refers to the five aggregates as well as nibbana. And one should not regard any of the five aggregates or nibbana as self. This is also not a declaration of a position of "no self". > Monks, what are the four non-distortions of perception, thought, and > views. What four? > > To hold that in the impermanent there is impermanence...that in > suffering there is suffering...that in non-self there is no self... > that in the foul there is foulness - these are the four > non-distortions of perception, thought, and views." AN IV, 49 I would prefer Thanissaro's translation. ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.than.html "There are these four non-perversions of perception, non-perversions of mind, non-perversions of view. Which four? 'Inconstant' with regard to the inconstant is a non-perversion of perception, a non-perversion of mind, a non-perversion of view. 'Stressful' with regard to the stressful... 'Not-self' with regard to not-self... 'Unattractive' with regard to the unattractive is a non-perversion of perception, a non- perversion of mind, a non-perversion of view. These are the four non- perversions of perception, non-perversions of mind, non-perversions of view." ------------------------------------------------------------------- "'Not-self' with regard to not-self" is a better translation than "that in non-self there is no self". The latter would cause thought proliferations to arise in one who misunderstands the Dhamma. All sorts of thought proliferation arising from the position of "no self" would arise. For example, if there is no self, then what's the point of being enlightened? If there is nobody who gets enlightened, just what is the purpose of enlightenment? You can imagine yourself getting inextricably out of such thought proliferations. So, just stay tuned to "not self" with regard to the "not self" characteristic of all things. You prevent unskillful mental qualities with regard to "no self" from arising in this way. > "When a monk sees six advantages, it should be enough for him to > establish the perception of non-self in all things without > exception. What six? > "I shall be aloof from all the world. Notions of 'I' will vanish in > me. Notions of 'mine' will vanish in me. I shall be endowed with > uncommon knowledge. I shall clearly understand causes and the > phenomena arisen from causes." AN VI, 104. I see this as a practice of the doctrine of "not self" that will eventually bring the practitioner to the break through of the Dhamma, seeing for himself that there actually is "no self". When he sees this "no self" personally for himself through the break through of the Dhamma, "no self" for him is no longer a position to hold onto or a belief/theory to be believed/taken in. This is the crucial difference. > "...Then, Meghiya, when the monk is firmly grounded in these five > things, he should cultivate four other things: he should cultivate > the meditation on the foulness (of the body) for abandoning lust; he > should cultivate loving-kindness for abandoning ill-will; he should > cultivate mindfulness of breathing for cutting off distracting > thoughts; he should cultivate the perception of impermanence for > eliminating the conceit 'I am'. In one who perceives impermanence, > the perception of non-self becomes firmly established; and one who > perceives non-self achieves the elimination of the conceit 'I am' > and attains Nibbaana in this very life." AN IX, 3. As I see it, the Buddha is teaching the doctrine of "not self" here that will finally enable us to see directly for ourselves there is really "no self". Regards, Swee Boon #64920 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 10:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing nilovg Dear Sebastien, In the Co to the Minor Readings, Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning, Ch 2, Training Prcepts, the expression is used of breathing things, Pali: Paa.na. This seems a criterion. It says that the life faculty is cut off. Sometimes we are unable to know whether something is a plant or a living being, such as what is found in the sea. It does not matter. When one knows that it is a living being that one is going to kill, there is the akusala cetanaa, unwholesome intention. Nina. Op 2-nov-2006, om 14:04 heeft s.billard@... het volgende geschreven: > Is there in suttas or in Abbhidhamma a definition or criteria of > what is a > living being ? (apart a nama and rupa combination) #64921 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 11:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. cetasikas, compassion, sympathetic joy nilovg Dear Scott, The PED gives as example perfect confidence in the Triple Gem. For the sotaapanna it is a bala, power, it cannot be shaken anymore. We hear the expression the Enlightened One, but do we really know what this means? The sotaapanna knows, he came to know what was unknown before. What is more, for us, confidence is still my confidence, whereas for the sotaapanna it is dhamma, a conditioned dhamma. It accompanies each kusala citta and thus, it arises again and again together with the kusala citta. But also the sotaapanna has akusala cittas, and these are without saddhaa. However, he has no conditions to go off the Path, he knows akusala citta as dhamma. With unshakable confidence he will go on developing pa~n~naa so that eventually arahatship is reached. Nina. Op 29-okt-2006, om 1:13 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > Okay so perfect confidence is like turbo-saddhaa because it is > accompanied by pa~n~na. This would mean, would it, that such a > complex would only arise from time to time, or given appropriate > conditions, arise again and again in sequence? When, for example, it > is said that the sotaapanna has 'perfect confidence,' does this mean > that this arises again and again, or that it was a one-time > constituent of the magga-citta that heralded the event of stream- > entry? #64922 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 11:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Deeds of Merit, Chapter One (Generosity) nilovg Hi Phil, There is another way of spending money (if you have it) for kusala. That is your trip to Bgk. You would benefit in having live discussions, you have the opportunity to ask questions to Kh Sujin personally even just you and her. Then your money is well spent. It is not just for yourself. When you develop more understanding it is also to the benefit of others. Nina. Op 2-nov-2006, om 1:19 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > Oops! Still haven't sent that gift. I have a bit of a struggle > with material dana (ie money) to Dhamma groups, temples etc because > I tend to think they already have enough financial support from > people who are wealthier than me. #64923 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 11:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: K.Sujin says there can be control! nilovg Dear Swee Boon, I want to ask you something, but this is not for the sake of debating. I feel like Scott about debating. I find the four applications of mindfulness a good subject for discussion. Others could also join in. How do you see meditation on the four foundations of mindfulness? Only one foundation or all four? In what way? Nina. Op 29-okt-2006, om 2:40 heeft nidive het volgende geschreven: > It is possible to practise meditation on the four foundations of > mindfulness without letting that self creep in. When that idea of self > creeps in, just note that as a distraction of the mind that has come > into being due to ignorance. Keep doing this repeatedly and that idea > of self will subside. That idea of self can be overcome. It may be > difficult initially, but the effort pays off. #64924 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 11:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cuticitta. nilovg Dear Jon, Yes. You gave the answer to Howard: If we consider what this object can be: kamma, a sign of kamma, a sign of destiny, or any object that was experienced through the senses by the last javanacittas of the previous life. But in the case of bhavangacitta it is not experienced through a doorway. Take the first bhavangacitta of a newborn being. The object is not conditioned by citta, not by heat or nutrition. It can only be conditioned by kamma. More about this in Topics of Abhidhamma, p. 106, 107, and p. 203, 204. Nina. Op 30-okt-2006, om 5:29 heeft Jonothan Abbott het volgende geschreven: > Is the object of the patisandhi citta also > conditioned by kamma? #64925 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 4:35 pm Subject: Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) philofillet Hi Nina > I am glad you repost extracts from Deeds of Merit. There are so many > aspects to kusala and it is good to consider these again and again. > It is good to also read her Perfections and then you will see that > there is much about siila. Yes, listening to Lodewijk read the Perfections which I still at times is different from hearing Acharan Sujin talk with a group. Different format, different context, of course. So I can listen to Lodewijk reading if there is a need or desire for more forceful and explicit guidance re sila. And if that desire is lobha, that is ok, I feel now. >It depends on the degree of pa~n~naa to what extent the precepts can be kept. I think it also depends on an ordinary (?) kind of sati, at times. When we remember a Dhamma teaching (B.Bodhi mentions that that is the first though not the most important meaning of sati mentionned in the commentary to satipatthana sutta) that remembering can be a condition for us not to break a precept. But for *really* keeping the precepts, in a way that they are kept for good, that is all about panna, surely. Actually, I hardly ever think about the precepts. It seems akusala kamma patha is more to the point. The only precept I think about sometimes is alcohol, since that is the only one not included in the 10 unwholesome deeds. We commit akusala because of ignorance, ignorance of the > nature of akusala citta which is ugly, ignorance of the danger of > accumulating more akusala. A moment of akusala citta falls away but > it is accumulated so that the inclination to akusala can condition > the arising of akusala citta again. Through the development of > understanding of the dhamma appearing now ignorance will wear away. > Understanding can see more and more the benefit of kusala citta with > saddhaa, confidence in kusala, the citta which is pure. When one has > metta for all living beings, this in itself is a condition for > observing the precepts. Absolutely, understanding is the key. But I think that as understanding is being developed - ever so gradually, it cannot be rushed or it is not real understanding - there can be support from thinking wholesomely, remembering wholesomely, even if it is not accompanied by understanding. "In a sutta, the Buddha said don't do this, so I will not do it!" There is not understanding there, but being guided in this way by the Buddha is still good for us. The key is that we do not let ourselves be satisfied with this shallow appreciation of Dhamma, do not walk away with a couple of leaves and think that we are anywhere near the heartwood! Thank you always for your kind support, Nina. I am always amazed that I found such a good friend through the internet! Phil p.s re Bangkok, unfortunately it is not only money, but the time my company allows me to take off work. Those extra days-off will have to be used for our annual trip to Canada - alas. I work for a company that is like the McDonald's of English conversation schools. If I study Japanese harder, perhaps I can gain more independence someday! But now all I am interested in is Dhamma again... #64926 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 4:52 pm Subject: No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) philofillet Hi James (and Nina) Thanks for the research, James. > There are three main kinds of panna: Cinta-maya-panna (knowledge > based on thinking); Suta-maya-panna (knowledge based on learning); > and Bhavana-maya-panna (knowledge based on mental > development). Nina, what is the relationship between these and the three rounds of understanding the 4 noble truths. I forget the Pali now. "Sacchinana" and the other two. Sacchinana is like getting a firm intellectual understanding, or something. "Panna" as a general term could best be defined as any > type of insight into the three characteristics of conditioned > existence: impermanency, suffering, and non-self. Hmm. I would have thought panna could apply to understanding dhammas in other aspects than the three characteristics - perhaps understanding the other aspects or characteristics of any dhamma (for example, their function, or chracteristic, or manifestation, or proximate cause) with a shallower degree of panna before we can understand the three characteristics with a deeper degree of panna. Just thinking out loud. > There is an extensive exposition on panna in the Vism. When I get to > that section in my studies, I will post some about it. Thanks. I will look at the Vism too. Phil #64927 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 5:14 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,110 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 110. It is established in the world that when states have a condition, it may be opposed or unopposed to them as to presence, individual essence, function, and so on. For a preceding consciousness is a condition, opposed as to presence, for the succeeding consciousness; and the preceding training is a condition likewise for the plying of crafts, etc., which take place subsequently. Kamma is a condition, opposed as to individual essence, for materiality; and so are milk, etc., for curds,and so on. Light is a condition, opposed as to function, for eye-consciousness; and so are molasses, etc., for intoxicants, and so on. But eye-cum-visible-data, etc., are respectively a condition, unopposed as to presence, for eye-consciousness, and so on. And the first impulsion, and those that follow, are a condition, unopposed as to individual essence and function, for the impulsions that follow them. And just as conditions operate as opposed and unopposed, so also they operate as like and unlike. Materiality--for example, temperature and nutriment--is a condition for materiality: the like for the like. And so are paddy seeds, etc., for paddy crops, and so on. The material is a condition for the immaterial, and so is the immaterial for the material: the unlike for the like. And so are ox hair and ram's hair, horns, curd, and sesamum flour, etc., respectively for dabba grass, reeds, bhuuti.naka grass,and so on.19 And those states for which they are opposed and unopposed, like and unlike, conditions are not the 'results' of these states as well. --------------------------- Note 19. Avi--'a goat or sheep': not in P.T.S. Dict. 'As to "Ox hair and ram's hair, etc.", and the rest: ox hair and ram's hair [are conditions for the unlike] dubbaa (dabba) grass--a ram (avi) should be understood as a red sheep (e.lakaa); horn is for reeds (sara); curds, sesamum flour and molasses are for bhuuti.naka grass; moss is for the ta.n.duleyyaka plant; a she donkey is for a mule; and so on in this way as included by the word "etc." ' (Pm. 601). Except for the last mentioned, it seems problematical why these things, if rightly interpreted, should be conditions for the things mentioned. ********************* 110. dhammaana.m hi .thaanasabhaavakiccaadiviruddho caaviruddho ca paccayo loke siddho. purimacitta.m hi aparacittassa .thaanaviruddho paccayo, purimasippaadisikkhaa ca pacchaa pavattamaanaana.m sippaadikiriyaana.m. kamma.m ruupassa sabhaavaviruddho paccayo, khiiraadiini ca dadhiaadiina.m. aaloko cakkhuvi~n~naa.nassa kiccaviruddho, gu.laadayo ca aasavaadiina.m. cakkhuruupaadayo pana cakkhuvi~n~naa.naadiina.m .thaanaaviruddhaa paccayaa. purimajavanaadayo pacchimajavanaadiina.m sabhaavaaviruddhaa kiccaaviruddhaa ca. yathaa ca viruddhaaviruddhaa paccayaa siddhaa, eva.m sadisaasadisaapi. sadisameva hi utuaahaarasa"nkhaata.m ruupa.m ruupassa paccayo, saalibiijaadiini ca saaliphalaadiina.m. asadisampi ruupa.m aruupassa, aruupa~nca ruupassa paccayo hoti, golomaaviloma-visaa.na-dadhitilapi.t.thaadiini ca dubbaa-sarabhuuti.nakaadiina.m. yesa~nca dhammaana.m te viruddhaaviruddhasadisaasadisapaccayaa, na te dhammaa tesa.m dhammaana.m vipaakaa eva. #64928 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 5:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma lbidd2 Hi Sarah and Howard, S: "I think there's more to some of these points to discuss.... Larry might like to add his ideas on this one too:-))." L: The best I can make out, Howard is accusing Sarah of saying earth element and hardness are two different dhammas. Swee Boon brought up the point that usually in the suttas whatever is empty is empty of something else, not empty of itself. This would apply to the "coreless" as well. 'Empty of self' simply means 'this isn't me and nothing can be found that is me'. That seems pretty straight forward and easy to understand. Larry #64929 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 6:33 pm Subject: Re: some points on art philofillet Hi Ken and all > Phil couldn't agree with Jon that accumulations stayed the > > same (or not measurably different) throughout the course of a > > lifetime. But they do, of course; adze handles are not made of butter! > > :-) This is a good line, Ken, and a very good reminder. I do appreciate how deep the accumulations are. But changes happen on the surface that are significant for the people involved, even when it is understood that these changes will be undone by the deeper accumulations inevitably having their way. For example, think of the violent prisoners who learned meditation and came to deal with violent tendencies much more effectively. Will their violent accumulations lead them to violent transgression at some point in the future? Yes, in this lifetime, or lifetimes to come. Surely. Absolutely. That cannot be undone intentionally. But, on the other hand, if a few months or years of effort (through clumsy, modern-style meditation) to see the way their mind churns up anger helps to dramatically reduce the incidents of violence in their lives - and in the lives of those around them - as it very often does, according to the evidence - it is a good thing. You cannot remove the reduction in violence from the lives of these people, you cannot remove the brightening that has happened in the darkness of those lives. Nobody can. Not even when the darkness arises again and has its way. The brightness has been there, and it will have its way too. When there is the eventual arising of violence conditioned by their accumulations, there will also be more understanding - in some cases - of where the violence comes from and how deep the roots lie. I don't think we should underestimate the intellgence of meditators, their ability to see the limits of how far - not very far - crude, methodical modern-style meditation can go towards eradicating defilements - especially since I am now one of the crude, methodical meditators again! :) And I don't think following the flow of mind states intentionally need necessarily interfere with developing deeper understanding. Personally, I find less self-endeavour involved in sitting and watching things come and go (and falling asleep, or whatever, and not worrying about whatever comes or doesn't) than I do in bearing down hard on a sutta, trying to understanding the implications of it. But I'm well aware this shift in my perspective could be all about akusala greed, fear, lack of faith, lack of patience and so on. It *could* be - I can't say at this point and neither can you since you can't see into my cittas any better than I can, which is basically not at all! Phil p.s I am too lazy a discusser to get involved in one of the Ken H debates, so I will leave the last word to you! :) #64930 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 1:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 11/2/06 8:58:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Sarah and Howard, > > S: "I think there's more to some of these points to discuss.... Larry > might > like to add his ideas on this one too:-))." > > L: The best I can make out, Howard is accusing Sarah of saying earth > element and hardness are two different dhammas. ======================== Really!?. :-) Must've been something I posted in a past life! LOL! With metta, Howard #64931 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 7:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma lbidd2 Hi Howard, This is what I was referring to when I said, "The best I can make out, Howard is accusing Sarah of saying earth element and hardness are two different dhammas." H: "I believe that "the all" is exactly what the Buddha said it was, and that amounts to what the Abhidhammikas call "paramattha dhammas". And paramattha dhammas don't "have" characteristics. Each one of them is a simple, singular quality of its own, "bearing its own characteristic" in the sense of being nothing but a quality (as, for example, hardness and warmth are "qualities"). An alleged category of existents that are properties of dhammas is a mere mental creation, IMO." L: I thought you were saying Sarah was promoting "an alleged category of existents that are properties of dhammas". If not, then what are you disagreeing about? Larry #64932 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 7:40 pm Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 Dear Swee Boon, Thanks for clarifying your position. SB: "...As I see it, the Buddha is teaching the doctrine of 'not self' here that will finally enable us to see directly for ourselves there is really 'no self'." We agree, if you are saying, above, what I think you are saying: The Buddha did indeed teach anatta. With loving kindness, Scott. #64933 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 10:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Insects and the Precept Against Killing sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > During the ongoing (for months) process of capturing & removing > them, > one by one, they haeve become "familiar", and I even find some fondness > for > them. However, they are far from "charming" in person, and were they to > get into > our living quarters - getting into our bed for example, the "charm" > factor > would diminish very quickly! ;-) .... S: Yes, not the best of bed-fellows:-)It's one thing inviting a fly to share one's muesli and banana and rather another to invite a 'jumper' to share one's bed, lol! .... > > S: Everyone has their own ideas and methods of dealing with such > issues > > which is fine, but I'd be inclined to deal with these aspects which > > attract the crickets, whilst removing as many of the crickets as > possible > > at the same time. > > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes - I'm starting on that, and delaying a more extreme measure. > ----------------------------------------- .... S: If it's dry (and warm) already, just a low-level fan in addition to the light might be an idea. With the dehumidifier idea, I was also thinking of the continuous fan circulating the air.... .... > ===================== > Thanks very much, Sarah. My main "tool" is simply waiting and > delaying. I'm hoping that the season change may solve the problem for > me. .... S: Yes, it may well.... Metta, Sarah ======= #64934 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 10:52 pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 569- Understanding/pa~n~naa (h) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Understanding(paññå)contd Each reality has its own specific characteristic by which it can Direct understanding of realities is, as we have seen, different from thinking about them. Direct understanding can only be developed by being mindful of the nåma or rúpa appearing at the present moment. When there is mindfulness of one reality at a time understanding can investigate its characteristic and in that way it can gradually develop. When, for example, hardness appears there can be mindfulness of its characteristic and there is at that moment no thinking of a thing which is hard or of the place on our body where hardness impinges. If we think of the place of its impingement, such as a hand or a leg, there is an idea of “my body” to which we tend to cling. By being aware of one reality at a time we will learn that in the ultimate sense the body as a “whole” does not exist, that there are only different elements which arise and then fall away. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64935 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 2, 2006 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Larry), At a quick look, I don't think there's anything I disagree with in your message, Howard. Let me go through it more slowly - --- upasaka@... wrote: > I believe that "the all" is exactly what the Buddha said it was, > and > that amounts to what the Abhidhammikas call "paramattha dhammas". And > paramattha dhammas don't "have" characteristics. Each one of them is a > simple, singular > quality of its own, "bearing its own characteristic" in the sense of > being > nothing but a quality (as, for example, hardness and warmth are > "qualities"). ... S: Well yes, I agree that each dhamma has or is a specific quality. They also have qualities in common, such as the quality of being pathavi, the quality of being a rupa, the quality of impermanence and so on. When we read about the characteristics of dhammas or dhammas having/bearing their own characteristics, it's simply pointing to the quality/qualities of those dhammas. This is why such characteristics cannot be said to be concepts - they are integral apsects/qualities of the paramattha dhammas. .... >An > alleged category of existents that are properties of dhammas is a mere > mental > creation, IMO. Realities, as Khun Sujin is wont to call them, are just > the > paramattha dhammas, and they are exactly what they are,, and "everything > else > about them" is mere mental imputation. .... S: Whether we say the impermanence of hardness is an integral quality of the hardness, the hardness itself, or a characteristic/property of the hardness doesn't affect the hardness. It does depend on the understanding what is meant, I agree. Like all the discussions about sabhava and so on. ..... > There are no "things" that are characteristics, at least not of > paramattha dhammas. ... S: I don't think anyone has suggested this and it isn't what is meant by the lakkhana we read in the texts. .... >We can make statements about paramattha dhammas, > some of which > are true, and we think of that as pertaining to characteristics that the > > dhammas "have". But they are just true statements about the dhammas. For > example, we > may say that dhammas don't last. That's true. But there is no "thing" > that is > non-lasting or impermanence. That is concept only. ... S: Exactly - well put. Again, I think everyone agrees here. ... > Our confusion comes about due to thinking about "characteristics" > of > pa~n~natti. For example, conventionally, my desktop is hard. And "the > hardness > is a quality of the desktop" is how a concept-bound reificationist might > put > it. But, in reality, there is no desktop, and hardness is a dhamma. ... S: Exactly so and we're on the same page here. Things/concepts/selves/atta don't have characteristics except in a conventional sense. That was easy. Thx for clarifying, Howard. Larry, as you said, difficult to make an issue over any disagreement here:-). Like a firework that fizzled out before take-off, lol. Metta, Sarah ========= #64936 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 12:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: some points on art ken_aitch Hi Sarah (and Connie), I am not sure if theorising (about the Dhamma) is a wholesome pursuit. It is different from mere consideration in that it involves trying to fill in gaps in one's knowledge. Ideally, gaps should be filled in by study or by asking a Dhamma-friend - not by theorising. (That's my theory, anyway.) :-) Some questions, however, are not suited to internet discussion. Whenever they occur I think, "I must make a note of that and ask Sarah and Jon next time they are out this way." But I don't make a note of it, and when you are out this way I forget. Either that, or I contract a contagious disease and have to stay at home. :-) ---------------- <. . .> KH: > > This reminds me of an opinion I held, years ago, until you put the > kybosh on it. I had the impression that the Buddha taught that *all* > thoughts of self were akusala (arose in akusala cittas). You pointed > to examples such as, "I will rescue this drowning person," or, "I will > read a Dhamma book (etc), in which thoughts of self might be > perfectly proper. I am still not totally convinced. Maybe we can get > back to it later if you still have the patience. :-) .... S: Please do. Did the Buddha never refer to or think of the Buddha? ------------------ OK, thanks, but It's complicated! (It needs to be discussed in real time.) So I will set it out in note form: 1) As we know, all kusala consciousness contains alobha-cetasika. When alobha has a sentient being as its object it is called metta. But we also know that metta cannot take oneself as its object. So how can there be kusala citta with oneself as object? (I know there is an answer, but I'm making the point anyway.) 2) When we have kusala thoughts that seem to involve self (e.g., I am being generous: I am refraining from evil deeds: I am developing insight) is self the object of citta? Or is the object a more general concept (that only partly involves self)? 3) Why would anyone have a thought of self? I suppose it would be out of concern (attachment) for one's personal affairs, comfort and well-being. In other words, it would be akusala. But maybe kusala consciousness can have self as object if that self is a monk. A monk is a symbol of everything good. "Householder," on the other hand, does not have the same connotation: it symbolises a worldling (or, at best, an ariyan learner). According to my theory (flawed though I am sure it is), a worldling can think of self, but only by way of wrong view, attachment or conceit. So too can a Sotapanna, but only by way of attachment or conceit, and an Anagami, only by conceit. Where does this leave the Arahant? He can't have any of those akusala thoughts, and so (according to my theory) he can't think of self at all. That means he will starve or fail to get out of the way of an ox-cart or die in one of countless other, normally avoidable, ways. That is, of course, unless he becomes a monk (which we know he does). That is because (again, according to my theory) concepts of self (as a monk) would be perfectly compatible with wholesome thought, speech and action. 4) In amongst my theorising, the meaning of "livelihood" repeatedly crops up. I have asked about it and seen it discussed on DSG many times but never to my complete satisfaction. I am not saying I have found a flaw in the Dhamma - far from it - I just think livelihood has more meaning than we give it credit for. If I am a baker, for example, then in my case the NEP would be . . right speech, right action, right bread-making, . . (!) That can't be right. To be more precise, it would be 'right virati in the course of bread making,' but you know what I mean: there has to be more to it than that. To cut a long story short, I am wondering if thoughts of self can be kusala only when they involve right livelihood. That is, only when they arise in the course of keeping oneself alive *for the sake of* studying, considering and following the NEP. Ken H PS: What a coincidence! Connie and I have hit our heads at the same time. My scabs have just come off too! :-) Free-falling down the face of a wave, I met my surfboard going the other way. Whack! Cuts to the ear and scalp (lots of blood) and a perforated eardrum! I have to keep out of the surf for two weeks (expires Tuesday morning). KH #64937 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 2:24 am Subject: Bumps in samsara - was: Re: some points on art sarahprocter... Hi Hen H & Connie, (I'll read and get back to the main part of your post later) --- ken_aitch wrote: > PS: What a coincidence! Connie and I have hit our heads at the same > time. My scabs have just come off too! :-) Free-falling down the face > of a wave, I met my surfboard going the other way. Whack! Cuts to the > ear and scalp (lots of blood) and a perforated eardrum! I have to > keep out of the surf for two weeks (expires Tuesday morning). ... S: Oh dear! commiserations to you both:-< I'm beginning to find out that it's not just we beginner surfers that are accident prone....I'd vaguely thought that once I got over the big learning hump, my board would stay well out of the way. Not so! Do hope you make a good recovery and your eardrum is OK. I got a bill the other day for the ambulance which came to the rescue when I had my little board encounter down your way. When there's lots of gushing blood, you have no idea where the hospital is and someone calls for an ambulance, one isn't in much of a position to argue. The bill is the equivalent of a flight to Bangkok, so if that's not a wake-up call, I don't know what is. (Actually, I'm hoping to claim it on my insurance, but we'll see....). I suppose they couldn't fix you up with staples as they did mine, Ken H, as you had an eardrum problem too? For Connie and to make this relevant to asubha (foulness), I'll just mention (to help your recovery!) that a bloated, dead cat was being washed up with the surf and rest of the rubbish the other day on our little beach... I was torn between ignoring it and running into the waves, vs helping the beach-cleaner deal with it. In the end, I just stood gawping, uttering a few Cantonese platitudes in sympathy, as he picked it up with quite some difficulty and put it into a large bag with other assorted plastic bags, condoms and the rest.... Just assorted rupas after all, but I didn't fancy running into it on my board. A bit like crickets in bed - such are the long stories about 'things' and possible scenarios...and 'me, me, me':-). I didn't quite catch how you got your bump, Connie, but wish you both a quick recovery. As usual, I enjoyed your post and Scott's very witty reply:-). Thanks also for the alcoholic supporting data which made lots of good sense. [Meanwhile, speaking of the woes of samsara bumps, Jon's computer had a major crash a few days ago. As a warning to others, it had fully up-to-date Norton and something else anti-virus software, but when he turned it on -- nothing at all. Everything needs to be reinstalled and the loss of data for the last couple of months or so has been a real concern, especially a considerable amount of audio editing work (at least 80 hours' worth). He'd been waiting for a large, extra hard-drive for back-ups. Anyway, we've just been told by some expert that he's been able to save the data, so we're hopeful we'll get it back with data soon.] Meanwhile life carries on as usual - seeing, hearing, liking, disliking, bhavanga citta-ing and so on. Metta, Sarah ======= #64938 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Cetasikas' study corner 569- Understanding/pa~n~naa (h) hantun1 Dear Nina and Sarah, The text: When, for example, hardness appears there can be mindfulness of its characteristic and there is at that moment no thinking of a thing which is hard or of the place on our body where hardness impinges. If we think of the place of its impingement, such as a hand or a leg, there is an idea of “my body” to which we tend to cling. Han: This is very interesting. Supposing I have pain in the abdomen, the first think the surgeon will ask me is “where do you feel the pain?” I will then have to tell him the exact place on my abdomen where I feel the pain. If not, he may not get the correct diagnosis. Or I may have sciatic pain in my legs. If I cannot tell the surgeon the exact place on my body where the pain is, and the nature of the pain, he may not get the correct diagnosis. So, how do we reconcile this practical situation and the dhamma understanding of not “my body?” Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > When, for example, hardness appears there can be > mindfulness of its > characteristic and there is at that moment no > thinking of a thing which is > hard or of the place on our body where hardness > impinges. If we think of > the place of its impingement, such as a hand or a > leg, there is an idea of > “my body” to which we tend to cling. #64939 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma ken_aitch Hi Sarah and Howard, Woops! I have a confession to make: ------------ H: > > For > example, we > may say that dhammas don't last. That's true. But there is no "thing" > that is > non-lasting or impermanence. That is concept only. ... S: Exactly - well put. Again, I think everyone agrees here. ------------- I don't agree. Or at least I didn't until now. I have often argued (loud and long) that anicca was a reality. I meant that in the sense that it was an "actual" directly observable "thing." Perhaps I have been too literal. When panna knows a conditioned dhamma as having the characteristic, anicca, what is the object of citta and panna at that moment? If the object is the entire conditioned dhamma - and not just the characteristic - then I can see where I have been going wrong. That would mean that panna experiences the dhamma, but understands its anicca-ness. I have been thinking it both experiences, and understands, anicca. But the other way would make sense. I am willing to be converted. :-) Ken H #64940 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 3:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release sarahprocter... Dear Swee Boon & Scott, I had put this discussion on 'su~n~nataa cetovimutti' aside until I got around to checking where it was from. I see now from SB's earlier message that it's from MN43, Mahavadella Sutta, the same section that came up with Matheesha on 'ceto-vimutta'. --- Scott Duncan wrote: > SB: "I found an interesting passage regarding the emptiness > awareness-release. > "And what is the emptiness awareness-release? There is the case where > a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or > into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of > anything pertaining to self.'5 This is called the emptiness awareness- > release." > Scott:> The pali: > > Katamaa caavuso su~n~nataa cetovimutti? > > Idhaavuso bhikkhu ara~n~nagato va rakkhamuulagato vaa > su~n~naagaaragato vaa iti pa.tisa~ncikkhati: > su~n~namida.m attena vaa attaniyena vaati. > > Aya.m vuccataavuso su~n~nataa cetovimutti. > > SB: "I think the above passage is proof that the Buddha teaches only > that dhammas are empty of self." > Scott: > I think the above passage is about "cetovimutti" of a certain form; I > don't really know much about this. I think it might be about the > fruition of the arahat or about one of the immaterial spheres of > jhaana, if one goes by Nyanatiloka. I don't know. ... Sarah: I think that we can be sure that whenever the reference is to su~n~nataa, that it's to the development of insight, the development of understanding of dhammas as anatta. When there's reference is to cetovimutti, it is to the development of samadtha and I think it context this is referring to the development of insight, following the attainment of jhanas. It is mundane insight here referred to in contrast to the following section, I believe. The next section refers to the signless awareness-release (animitta cetovimutti). Nibbana is the animitta dhamma, so it is the experience of nibbana subsequent to jhana attainment referred to, I believe. OK, this is one of those posts where I'm thinking out loud and checking refs as I go: I see now that B.Bodhi adds these commentary notes to his translation: "MA: The 'signless deliverance of mind (animitta cetovimutti) is the attainment of fruition; the 'signs' are objects such as forms, etc; the 'signless element' is Nibbana, in which all signs of conditioned things are absent." "MA identifies this su~n~natta cetovimutti with insight into the voidness of selfhood in persons and things." "As above, the signless deliverance of mind is identified by MA with the attainment of fruition. Of the four deliverances of mind mentioned in #30, this one alone is supramundane. The first three - the brahmavihaaras, the third immaterial attainment, and insight into the voidness of formations - all pertain to the mundane level." ***** Apologies for joining in the thread so late! Metta, Sarah ======= #64941 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 3:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa sarahprocter... Dear Han (Nina, James & all), I've found the passage now: In I.B. Horner's transl, it comes under 'The Distinguishing Marks', 1st Division, vii. --- han tun wrote: > What I have pointed out was that the king asked the > difference between yoniso manasikaara and pa~n~naa and > Venerable Naagasena replied the difference between > manasikaara and pa~n~naa. > As you said, it may be a matter of translation of > yoniso. > But if the king asked about yoniso manasikaara why not > Venerable Naagasena replied about yoniso manasikaara? ... S: Looking at the whole passage, I understand manasikaara here as just being an abbreviated form of yoniso manasikaara. After clearly stating that it's 'yoniso' being referred to, he doesn't repeat it each time. Later it says "Examination (uuhana) is the distinguishing mark of consideration (manasikaara), sire, cutting off is the distinguishing mark of wisdom (pa~n~naa)." This is followed by the simile of a barley-reaper who grasps the barley in the left hand and a sickle in the right to cut it with. In the same way, the dhamma student takes 'hold of the mind with consideration (manasikaara), cut off the defilements with wisdom (pa~n~naa). So, it's only 'good' manasikaara that is being referred to, I believe. The point is that pa~n~naa in particular, as well as other good states are necessary to develop insight and cut the defilements. It's an interesting passage. Let me know if you have any other ideas. Metta, Sarah ======== #64942 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 3:52 am Subject: Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing philofillet Hi Howard Heard a couple of Bhikkhu Bodhi MN talks that made me think of this post. One was on the MN Sutta about the "dog ascetic" - forget the number right now. It is the one about bright deeds bringing bright results (destinations?) dark bringing dark, and dark and bright bringing dark and bright. It's hard to understand how one kamma can be both wholesome and unwholesome - obviously it can't, so strictly speaking the sutta doesn't make sense when it comes to patisandhi citta. But Bhikkhu Bodhi gives the example of a parent killing a mosquito taht is after his or her child, and suggests that the kammic impact would thereby be softened - you could check out that dog ascetic sutta yourself to reflect on your dilemma. Also, in his talk on the MN sutta in which the Buddha tells Rahula to reflect on the implications of deeds before, during and after them, Bhikkhu Bodhi points out that in the suttanta one rarely (never?) finds the morally ambiguous situations that we face in real life, and he often wonders why. Obviously you're facing one now. Hope it doesn't bring you much hardship. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi all - > > This is a practical question. Our basement has been "occupied" ;-) by > a growing number of cave crickets. #64943 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 4:04 am Subject: Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for checking. This is helpful: S: "'...The first three - the brahmavihaaras, the third immaterial attainment, and insight into the voidness of formations - all pertain to the mundane level'." Here, then, we are looking again at degrees of insight. With loving kindness, Scott, #64944 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 4:25 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 Dear Larry, Thanks for the link. A very interesting read and in need or being re-read, actually. L: "Following Ledi Sayadaw's "Manual of Insight" perception, thought (citta), and views has to do with identity, cause and effect (paticcasamuppada), and destiny (kamma). Three levels of insight and delusion. http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html " L: "Vism.XIV,3:..." I also appreciated this. I'd read the passage a few times and it is quite clarifying. I don't have much else to say about it except that it does seem to bear on the discussion. With loving kindness, Scott. #64945 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 4:35 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 569- Understanding/pa~n~naa (h) sarahprocter... [Correction re-post of this installment.] Dear Friends, 'Cetasikas' by Nina van Gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ Questions, comments and different views welcome;-) =============================================== Understanding(paññå)contd Direct understanding of realities is, as we have seen, different from thinking about them. Direct understanding can only be developed by being mindful of the nåma or rúpa appearing at the present moment. When there is mindfulness of one reality at a time understanding can investigate its characteristic and in that way it can gradually develop. When, for example, hardness appears there can be mindfulness of its characteristic and there is at that moment no thinking of a thing which is hard or of the place on our body where hardness impinges. If we think of the place of its impingement, such as a hand or a leg, there is an idea of “my body” to which we tend to cling. By being aware of one reality at a time we will learn that in the ultimate sense the body as a “whole” does not exist, that there are only different elements which arise and then fall away. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64946 From: s.billard@... Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 4:59 am Subject: Kindred Sayings (III, Khandha-vagga, Last Fifty, §104, Suffering) sbillard2000 Hi all, Still working on my french translation of ADL, I would like to know what is the sutta name of Kindred Sayings (III, Khandha-vagga, Last Fifty, §104, Suffering) at the end of chapter 2 ? I should be here, but I can't identify which sutta it is : http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#khandha Thanks :) Sébastien http://s.billard.free.fr #64947 From: "nidive" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 5:41 am Subject: Re: K.Sujin says there can be control! nidive Hi Nina, > I want to ask you something, but this is not for the sake of > debating. I feel like Scott about debating. I find the four > applications of mindfulness a good subject for discussion. > Others could also join in. How do you see meditation on the four > foundations of mindfulness? Only one foundation or all four? In what > way? All four foundations must be practiced. I am not sure what you meant when you say "In what way?". Regards, Swee Boon #64948 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 6:02 am Subject: having or being a characteristic? nilovg Hi Howard, I read what you said about having a characteristic and being a characteristic and your concern about reification in the case of the first. I am thinking about this. My eye fell on Sarah's Cetasikas quote: Mindfulness of *its* characteristic. I wonder whether this is only a matter of language. Perhaps you think of Nagarjuna's use of characteristic and I looked it up in the book transl by Garfield, p. 150. I think the Commentaries use it in a different sense: more as a description of a dhamma, they describe it from different aspects so that one can penetrate its true nature. The Commentaries always mention of each dhamma: its characteristic, its function (I know that you are not inclined to the idea of function), its manifestation and its proximate cause. I myself find this helpful for having more understanding of different realities. Definitions and names are not enough and when there is direct awareness there is no reification. This is the aim of all these definitions. Gradually one learns that realities do not last, no reification. When arising and falling away are clearly seen there is no idea of it exists. See the same Nagarjuna book, p. 223. As an example I give saddhaa, confidence, Vis. Ch XIV, 140. I shorten the quote. We also find the distinction visesa lakkhana and sama~n~na lakkhana. The first being the difference in characteristics of dhammas (hardness is different from feeling) and the second, the general characteristics, of impermanence etc. These refer to direct experience, not to thinking. I find it helpful to follow the method of the commentators, and I do not fear reification, on the contrary. These are just some thoughts and you do not need to answer. Nina. #64949 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 6:09 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 110 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga 110. Intro: In this section it is further explained that ignorance which is very reprehensable, can be a condition for kusala. Kusala is not the result, vipaaka, of ignorance, but there are other ways by which one dhamma can condition another dhamma. The conditioning dhamma may be opposed and dissimilar in several ways to the conditioned dhamma or it may be unopposed and similar. The Vis. illustrates this with examples of ultimate dhammas and also with examples dealing with conventional realities. --------- Text Vis.: It is established in the world that when states have a condition, it may be opposed or unopposed to them as to presence, individual essence, function, and so on. For a preceding consciousness is a condition, opposed as to presence, for the succeeding consciousness; --------- N: The Tiika mentions that the preceding consciousness conditions the arising of the succeeding consciousness by way of proximity- condition, anantara-paccaya. Since the preceding citta has fallen away it is not present to the succeeding citta it conditions. The Tiika states that it is the same for the bhavanga-citta and the javana-citta which condition the arising of the succeeding one by proximity-condition, thus, while they are absent. The preceding citta must have fallen away so that the succeeding citta can arise, since there can be only one citta at a time. ---------- Text Vis.: and the preceding training is a condition likewise for the plying of crafts, etc., which take place subsequently. ------ N: This is an example of conventional realities taken from daily life. When one trains oneself it is a condition for skill. The Tiika explains that the meaning here is not the condition of proximity, as is the case for the preceding consciousness that conditions the succeeding consciousness. -------- Text Vis.: Kamma is a condition, opposed as to individual essence, for materiality; ---------- N: Kamma is intention or volition, thus it is nama. The Tiika explains that naama and ruupa are opposed as to characteristic; naama experiences an object (is with object) whereas ruupa does not experience an object (is without object). --------- Text Vis.: and so are milk, etc., for curds,and so on. Light is a condition, opposed as to function, for eye-consciousness; -------- N: Milk is sweet and curd has a sour taste, the Tiika adds. This example is given in order to illustrate that something that conditions something else can be opposed in nature. The Tiika adds that light does not know anything whereas consciousness knows, in this case eye-consciousness. Light is a condition for seeing. When a room is pitchdark one cannot perceive different objects. ------------- Text Vis.: and so are molasses, etc., for intoxicants, and so on. ------- N: Evenso the honey that is not intoxicating is, when ingredients that ferment are added, a condition for intoxicants. ----------- Text Vis.: But eye-cum-visible-data, etc., are respectively a condition, unopposed as to presence, for eye-consciousness, and so on. ------- N: A sense-object that is ruupa and also a sense-organ have to arise before the relevant sense-cognition because ruupa is weak at its arising moment and it cannot be a condition for naama. But since ruupa lasts longer than naama these ruupas are still present when the relevant sense-cognition arises. ---------- Text Vis.: And the first impulsion, and those that follow, are a condition, unopposed as to individual essence and function, for the impulsions that follow them. -------- N: The javanacittas that arise in succession have the same characteristic, they are of the same type of citta, and they perform the same function, the function of javana. In that sense they are unopposed. But, as we have seen, they are opposed as to presence, since the preceding javanacitta conditions the succeeding one by way of absence. -------- Text Vis.: And just as conditions operate as opposed and unopposed, so also they operate as like and unlike. Materiality--for example, temperature and nutriment--is a condition for materiality: the like for the like. And so are paddy seeds, etc., for paddy crops, and so on. -------- N: The ruupas that are heat and nutrition condition for example ruupas of the body. This is an example of ruupa conditioning ruupa. Paddyseeds develop to become paddycrops, they cannot become something else, and here the text uses an example in conventional sense. --------- Text Vis.: The material is a condition for the immaterial, and so is the immaterial for the material: the unlike for the like. _______ N: Ruupa conditions naama and naama conditions ruupa.They are dissimilar in nature. -------- Text Vis.: And so are ox hair and ram's hair, horns, curd, and sesamum flour, etc., respectively for dabba grass, reeds, bhuuti.naka grass,and so on. --------------------------- Note 19, taken from the Tiika: . 'As to "Ox hair and ram's hair, etc.", and the rest: ox hair and ram's hair [are conditions for the unlike] dubbaa (dabba) grass--a ram (avi) should be understood as a red sheep (e.lakaa); horn is for reeds (sara); curds, sesamum flour and molasses are for bhuuti.naka grass; moss is for the ta.n.duleyyaka plant; a she donkey is for a mule; and so on in this way as included by the word "etc." ' (Pm. 601). ------- N: Pe Maung Tin adds in his translation that cow's hair, goat's hair, render service to the grasses which grow where the hairs and so on are gathered together. Several of these examples which were relevant at that time have no meaning to us today. But the point that is made is that there are many ways in which something that is different in nature can condition something else. This is demonstrated with examples taken from the ways ultimate dhammas condition one another and also with examples taken from life in conventional sense. ------------ Text Vis.: And those states for which they are opposed and unopposed, like and unlike conditions are not the 'results' of these states as well. ----------- N: The Tiika explains that it is not so that ignorance does not bring an unpleasant result, vipaaka, and that formations of merit and of the imperturbable do not bring pleasant results. But as it is said, ‘It is established in the world that when states have a condition, it may be opposed or unopposed to them’, it may be similar or dissimilar. Kamma that produces vipaaka is not the only condition. There are many ways in which one dhamma conditions another dhamma. Pe Maung Tin adds: ‘ Thus this ignorance, though it may have a decidedly undesirable fruit as a result and blameworthy in intrinsic nature, should be understood as a cause, so far as possible, of all these preparations for merit and so on, opposed or unopposed, like or unlike, as to existence [presence], function, intrinsic nature.’ ***** Conclusion: The Visuddhimagga repeats that ignorance also conditions kusala. This is a great exhortation to develop right understanding no matter whatever type of citta arises, kusala citta or akusala citta. Meritorious deeds done without the development of understanding will not lead to the eradication of defilements. One is bound to cling to an idea of self who performs kusala or who will have a happy rebirth. All passages about ignorance being a condition for kusala show the danger of ignorance. Ignorance conditions wrong view of self and it conceals the danger of being in the cycle of birth and death. Only right understanding of the dhammas appearing at this moment can eventually eradicate ignorance. ********* Nina. #64950 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 6:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa hantun1 Dear Sarah, The one I was referring to is Mahaa-vagga, (vii) Yoniso-manasikaara panha. The one you mentioned (about barley reaper) is Mahaa-vagga, (viii) Manasikaara-lakkhana-panha. Two different panhas. In Yoniso-manasikaara panha, if Venerable Naagasena used “manasikaara” as an “abbreviated form of yoniso manasikaara” after clearly stating that it's 'yoniso' being referred to, and not repeating it each time, then the implication is the animals have “manasikaara” which is an “abbreviated form of yoniso-manasikaara.” Is that correct? Kindly see my above question in the light of the following statement. Venerable Naagasena: "No, Your Majesty! Attention (manasikara) is one thing, and wisdom (panna) another. Sheep and goats, oxen and buffaloes, camels and asses have attention (manasikara), but wisdom (panna) they have not." Respectfully, Han #64951 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 6:24 am Subject: Pain, practical situation and the ultimate sense. nilovg Dear Han, very good you bring this up. ----------- This is very interesting. Supposing I have pain in the abdomen, the first think the surgeon will ask me is “where do you feel the pain?” ...(snipped). If I cannot tell the surgeon the exact place on my body where the pain is, and the nature of the pain, he may not get the correct diagnosis. So, how do we reconcile this practical situation and the dhamma understanding of not “my body?” -------- N: Also the Buddha had a surgeon, Jiivaka. The monks had to be treated for illness. Of course we should not neglect medical care. We have to live in the practical situation, but there can and should be development of paramattha dhammas in order to have detachment. The two can go together. When there is no hope that the medical treatment will help, we badly need the wisdom that penetrates the true nature of the ruupas of the body, so that there will be less clinging. Han, what are your thoughts about this? I find it helpful to discuss with you. Nina. #64952 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 6:52 am Subject: Re: K.Sujin says there can be control! philofillet Hi Nina (and Swee Boon) How do you see meditation on the four > > foundations of mindfulness? Only one foundation or all four? In what > > way? > > All four foundations must be practiced. > > I am not sure what you meant when you say "In what way?". I think I know what you meant by "in what way?" Nina. This is random, but I just heard U Silananda (who I am very keen on these days) - say that, for example, when one understands "this is pleasant feeling, this is unpleasant feeling" one is contemplating in the feelings foundation, but if one understands "this is feeling" (as opposed to something else) one is contemplating in the dhammas foundation. I am just starting to learn about this sort of thing. It's very interesting. Phil #64953 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 7:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pain, practical situation and the ultimate sense. hantun1 Dear Nina, I am very grateful for your comments. I will tell you what I had done in such a situation. I suffered from periodic attacks of intestinal obstruction with severe pain, due to paralysis of small intestines for about five years. During those painful attacks I contemplated that it was not Han Tun who was suffering. It was pathavi-ruupa (i.e. small intestine) that was at fault; and vayo dhaatu was pushing through, distending further the damaged intestinal walls, which caused pain. And the pain was experienced by vedanaa cetasika not by Han Tun. The ruupa and vedanaa cetasika were performing their functions and there was nothing I could do about it. When I contemplated in that way, the pain did not go away, but I could bear the pain. My body was hurt, but my mind was not much affected. I was taking away the factor of “I” from the vedanaa and pain. What I was doing was exactly what you have said: “there can and should be development of paramattha dhammas in order to have detachment.” That was exactly what I did and it helped. I don’t know how much it helped in spiritual development, but it helped a great deal in “pain management” (<:) Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Also the Buddha had a surgeon, Jiivaka. The monks > had to be > treated for illness. Of course we should not neglect > medical care. We > have to live in the practical situation, but there > can and should be > development of paramattha dhammas in order to have > detachment. The > two can go together. > #64954 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 7:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: K.Sujin says there can be control! nilovg Dear Swee Boon and Phil, My question is how? Only in sitting? But we read under mindfulness of the body: no matter how the body is placed, thus, in whatever posture. Some people believe that they have to concentrate on bodily phenomena, but I think that it is not a matter of concentration nor of selecting one of the four applications. But I have to add: it can be one's natural inclination to be aware mor often of feelings or of rupas of the body. It is good that Phil also joins: All four foundations must be practiced. > > I am not sure what you meant when you say "In what way?". #64955 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 3:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 11/2/06 10:47:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > L: I thought you were saying Sarah was promoting "an alleged category of > existents that are properties of dhammas". If not, then what are you > disagreeing about? > ====================== Yes, that is exactly what I was taking exception to - that there is a "characteristics" ontological category that is a third category in addition to the categories of paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti. But that has no bearing on distinguishing earth element from hardness, which I do not. I wasn't commenting on such a matter at all. With metta, Howard #64956 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 3:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Larry) - In a message dated 11/3/06 2:14:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard (& Larry), > > At a quick look, I don't think there's anything I disagree with in your > message, Howard. ====================== I've read your full post, and, yes, I think except possibly for some minor elements of emphasis and formulation, we are indeed "on the same page"! :-) With metta, Howard #64957 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 4:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 11/3/06 6:56:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, luxalot7@... writes: > Hi Howard > > Heard a couple of Bhikkhu Bodhi MN talks that made me think of this > post. > > One was on the MN Sutta about the "dog ascetic" - forget the number > right now. It is the one about bright deeds bringing bright results > (destinations?) dark bringing dark, and dark and bright bringing dark > and bright. It's hard to understand how one kamma can be both wholesome > and unwholesome - obviously it can't, so strictly speaking the sutta > doesn't make sense when it comes to patisandhi citta. -------------------------------------------- Howard: You're referring to MN 57. My guess is that the "kamma" the Buddha speaks of here is conventional, volitional action. Such action is actually a complex. It is an amalgam consisting of many mental activities including many instances of cetana, and it involves a multitude of mindstates, some kusala and some akusala. As for patisandhi citta, that should not be considered the sole condition determining the nature of "one's next life" unless one believes that all conditioning must be contiguous. I do not believe that but also countenance "conditionng at a distance". -------------------------------------------- > > But Bhikkhu Bodhi gives the example of a parent killing a mosquito > taht is after his or her child, and suggests that the kammic impact > would thereby be softened - you could check out that dog ascetic sutta > yourself to reflect on your dilemma. > > Also, in his talk on the MN sutta in which the Buddha tells Rahula to > reflect on the implications of deeds before, during and after them, > Bhikkhu Bodhi points out that in the suttanta one rarely (never?) finds > the morally ambiguous situations that we face in real life, and he > often wonders why. Obviously you're facing one now. Hope it doesn't > bring you much hardship. -------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you, Phil! I'm hopeful. I've been leaving on the lights in the basement, 24-7, the last couple days, and also keeping the house warm, and none of the crickets have been seen. Of course it's possible that they are hiding out somewhere in the basement, but on the other hand perhaps many have exited. In any case, after a week of not seeing them, we're going to clean the basement out [it's become very much of a dumping ground for old boxes and things], removing unwanted items, organizing the rest, and sanitizing the place. If the crickets seem to be gone, we'll then try to arrange to have entry points sealed up. (On the other hand, if they are still there, it'll be much easier to find them after the basement area is clear, and then we'll try more effective methods to trap them for removal.) ---------------------------------------------- > > > > Phil > ======================= With metta, Howard #64958 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 4:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] having or being a characteristic? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Sarah) - In a message dated 11/3/06 9:09:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > I read what you said about having a characteristic and being a > characteristic and your concern about reification in the case of the > first. > I am thinking about this. My eye fell on Sarah's Cetasikas quote: > > characteristic and there is at that moment no thinking of a thing > which is > hard or of the place on our body where hardness impinges. If we think of > the place of its impingement, such as a hand or a leg, there is an > idea of > “my bodyâ€? to which we tend to cling. > > > Mindfulness of *its* characteristic. I wonder whether this is only a > matter of language. > ---------------------------- Howard: I suspect so. --------------------------- Perhaps you think of Nagarjuna's use of > > characteristic and I looked it up in the book transl by Garfield, p. > 150. I think the Commentaries use it in a different sense: more as a > description of a dhamma, they describe it from different aspects so > that one can penetrate its true nature. ------------------------------ Howard: Yes, description. That sounds right to me. -------------------------------- > The Commentaries always mention of each dhamma: its characteristic, > its function (I know that you are not inclined to the idea of > function), its manifestation and its proximate cause. ------------------------------- Howard: Alternative, complementary perspectives. Differing descriptions to aid understanding. But the dhamma itself is just what it is, to be seen directly when that is possible. ------------------------------- > I myself find this helpful for having more understanding of different > realities. Definitions and names are not enough and when there is > direct awareness there is no reification. This is the aim of all > these definitions. > -------------------------------- Howard: We seem to agree on this. -------------------------------- Gradually one learns that realities do not last, > > no reification. When arising and falling away are clearly seen there > is no idea of it exists. See the same Nagarjuna book, p. 223. > As an example I give saddhaa, confidence, Vis. Ch XIV, 140. I shorten > the quote. > > is trusting. > Its function is to clarify, like a water-clearing gem, or its > function is to > enter into, like the setting out across a flood (cf. Sn. 184). > > As to the function of entering into, like the setting out across a > flood, the Expositor explains this as the characteristic of > "aspiring", by means of a simile. A crowd standing on both banks of > a great river full of crocodiles, monsters, sharks and ogres, is > afraid to cross over. A hero crosses the river and repels the > dangerous animals with his sword, and leads the crowd in crossing over. > The Tiika explains that entering into (pakkhandana.m) is entering > into the object because of decision. Because of confidence one is > decisive as to the performing of kusala. > > Text Vis.: It is manifested as non-fogginess, > or it is manifested as decision. > Its proximate cause is something to have faith in. > > N: The Tiika explains: the Triple Gem, kamma and its fruit are > objects of confidence. > As understanding develops, confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and > the Sangha grows. When one develops right understanding and reaches > stages of insight, there is direct understanding of kamma and vipaaka > and one becomes firmly convinced of the truth that kamma brings its > appropriate result. > > Text Vis: or its proximate cause is the things beginning with hearing > the Good Dhamma (saddhamma) that constitute the factors of stream- > entry.> > > We also find the distinction visesa lakkhana and sama~n~na lakkhana. > The first being the difference in characteristics of dhammas > (hardness is different from feeling) and the second, the general > characteristics, of impermanence etc. These refer to direct > experience, not to thinking. > I find it helpful to follow the method of the commentators, and I do > not fear reification, on the contrary. > These are just some thoughts and you do not need to answer. > Nina. > > > > > > ======================= With metta, Howard #64959 From: "Plamen Gradinarov" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 11:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] having or being a characteristic? pgradinarov Dear Howard (and Nina), Dharma being a characteristic (this is what the word dharma means in the context of dharma-dharmi-bheda), how can it have whatever characteristics without turning into dharmin?! And we are explicitly told that the only characteristic of a dharma is to be the bearer of itself - which bearer eventually turns to be empty, hence the only characteristic of any dharma is to be empty. Describing the dharmas as such and such does not make them real substrates of their descriptions or real functor (subject, actor) of their functions. When we say, the tadalambana-citta knows its object as such, we shall not be tempted to reify the said citta into a substantial consiousness that is the subject of knowing, etc. The "citta knows" is just an empty expression which we tend to subconsiously reify by creating the image of acting minisubstancial instances of citta. Because acts (karmas) are not dharmas. Vijnanas are cognitive facts (dharmas) rather than cognitive acts (karmas), not to mention actors. Substrates, substance, subject, actor, etc., are mere names without paramartha realities behind them, they are avidyamana prajnapti. Kindest regards, Plamen #64960 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 10:55 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 110. nilovg Dear friends, The function of tadaaramma.na can be performed by eleven different types of vipåkacitta: by three ahetuka vipåkacittas (unaccompanied by hetus, roots) and by eight sahetuka vipåkacittas (accompanied by sobhana hetus, beautiful roots). If the tadaaramma.na-citta is ahetuka, the function of tadaaramma.na is performed by the ahetuka vipåkacitta which is classified as santiira.na-citta. As we have seen (in chapter 9), there are three kinds of santiira.na-citta: one type is akusala vipåka accompanied by upekkhå (indifferent feeling), one type is kusala vipåka, accompanied by upekkhå, and one type is kusala vipåka, accompanied by somanassa (pleasant feeling). As stated before (in chapter 11), santiira.na- citta can perform more than one function at different occasions. santiira.na-citta performs the function of santiira.na (investigating the object) when it arises in a sense-door process and succeeds sampaìicchana-citta. Apart from the function of investigating the object, santiira.na-citta can also perform the functions of pa.tisandhi (rebirth), bhavanga and cuti (dying). In those cases santiira.na-citta does not arise within a process of cittas. Moreover, santiira.na-citta can perform the function of tadaaramma.na. Apart from the three ahetuka vipåkacittas which can perform the function of tadaaramma.na, there are eight sahetuka vipåkacittas or mahå-vipåkacittas which can perform the function of tadaaramma.na. ***** Nina. #64961 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] having or being a characteristic? upasaka_howard Hi, Plamen (and Nina) - Thanks for the reply, Plamen. I find what you write here agreeable. We seem to see this matter in much the same way. With metta, Howard In a message dated 11/3/06 2:09:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, pgradinarov@... writes: > Dear Howard (and Nina), > > Dharma being a characteristic (this is what the word dharma means in > the context of dharma-dharmi-bheda), how can it have whatever > characteristics without turning into dharmin?! And we are explicitly > told that the only characteristic of a dharma is to be the bearer of > itself - which bearer eventually turns to be empty, hence the only > characteristic of any dharma is to be empty. > > Describing the dharmas as such and such does not make them real > substrates of their descriptions or real functor (subject, actor) of > their functions. When we say, the tadalambana-citta knows its object > as such, we shall not be tempted to reify the said citta into a > substantial consiousness that is the subject of knowing, etc. > The "citta knows" is just an empty expression which we tend to > subconsiously reify by creating the image of acting minisubstancial > instances of citta. Because acts (karmas) are not dharmas. Vijnanas > are cognitive facts (dharmas) rather than cognitive acts (karmas), > not to mention actors. Substrates, substance, subject, actor, etc., > are mere names without paramartha realities behind them, they are > avidyamana prajnapti. > > Kindest regards, > #64962 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 11:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pain, practical situation and the ultimate sense. nilovg Dear Han, Thank you for your post and the sharing your own experiences. Here we see that the Dhamma can help even when we cannot yet directly understand nama and rupa by insight. We can also learn that it is so impredictable what appears from moment to moment. We cannot cause the arising of any dhammas, they are already there because of their own conditions. I heard this on tape, but I find it difficult to really apply this. To see that whatever appears is dhamma. To really understand this. We know in theory that there is citta, that citta sees, and that seeing can only arise when there are the right conditions. But we still have an idea: I see. But, as Kh Sujin said, we cannot make something difficult into something easy. Nina. Op 3-nov-2006, om 16:41 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > When I contemplated in that way, the pain did not go > away, but I could bear the pain. My body was hurt, but > my mind was not much affected. I was taking away the > factor of “I” from the vedanaa and pain. > > What I was doing was exactly what you have said: > “there can and should be development of paramattha > dhammas in order to have detachment.” > That was exactly what I did and it helped. #64963 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 11:39 am Subject: cuticitta and bhavangacitta nilovg Hi Howard and Plamen, H: quotes:N: Each citta knows its own object. This does not mean that another > citta arising later on in a mind-door process knows the object of > bhavangacitta. This is not possible... That object is of a nature > > different from colour or sound, or seeing. It is very special, the > same or similar as you prefer, as the object of the last javanacittas > of the preceding life. --------------------------------------- Howard: HOW special? Is it not a mind-door object? ---------------------------------------- N: It is not a mind-door object, it does not arise in a process and it does not experience an object impinging on one of the six doors. That is why it is not like all the objects we experience right now, then colour, then sound, etc. It is conditioned by kamma. It is similar to the object experienced by the last javanacittas in the previous life. At that time the object was experienced through one of the six doors: for example, kamma one did during that life, a symbol or sign of kamma (like a robe one had given or a Buddha image), a sign of destiny, or any object that was experienced through the senses such as sound heard when the monks were chanting or the smell of incense. That same or similar object is experienced again and again and again by the rebirth-consciousness and all bhavangacittas throughout the next life. Plamen wondered about this, how can this object be lasting or eternal? It is not. The bhavangacittas arise and fall away and do not arise all the time. They do not arise when process cittas are arising. Kamma produces all these bhavangacittas and the object they experience is also conditioned by kamma. > --------- H quotes: > N: We speak of a sense-door process and a mind-door process because > cittas arise according to a fixed order that cannot be changed. > Bhavangacittas come in between, but they do not arise in a process. > They do not perform functions within a process. Their only function > is keeping the continuity in the life of an individual. > As said, when it is time for kamma to produce seeing etc. the stream > of bhavangacittas come to an end. --------------------------------------- Howard: Again, good - a matter of conditionality. BTW, it is a situation such as this that should make clear to some on DSG that conditionality need NOT be contiguous [one mindstate to the next], but can be, and frequently is, temporally "at a distance", even a great distance. ---------------------------------------- N: That is true. Proximity-condition is only one among the many types of conditions. Natural strong dependence-condition can be at great distance, for instance something one learnt in one's youth can condition one's skill today. Kamma that conditions vipaaka can be at an immeasurable distance, even of innumerable lifespans. ***** Nina. #64964 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 11:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mind - What is it? nilovg Dear Charles D, Let us say: there are only cittas arising and falling away, succeeding one another, that arise in processes and also cittas that do not arise in processes, namely the rebirth-consciousness, the bhavangacitta and the dying-consciousness. When in swoon, there are still cittas, bhavangacittas. I think you want to know this? Nina. Op 29-okt-2006, om 11:57 heeft Charles DaCosta het volgende geschreven: > there is no Mind only mental > processes that arise and fall away (both processes we are conscious > of and > those we are not conscious of). #64965 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 12:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kindred Sayings (III, Khandha-vagga, Last Fifty, §104, Suffering) nilovg Dear Sebastien, the title in my PTS edition gives suffering, or dukkha. It is XXII, 104, but Ven. Thanissaro omits a few suttas in his collection, I checked the link you gave. He has not all suttas complete. Nina. Op 3-nov-2006, om 13:59 heeft s.billard@... het volgende geschreven: > Still working on my french translation of ADL, I would like to know > what is the > sutta name of Kindred Sayings (III, Khandha-vagga, Last Fifty, > §104, Suffering) > at the end of chapter 2 ? #64966 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 2:13 pm Subject: Re: some points on art ken_aitch Hi Phil, ---------------- <. . .> Ph: > I do appreciate how deep the accumulations are. But changes happen on the surface that are significant for the people involved, even when it is understood that these changes will be undone by the deeper accumulations inevitably having their way. For example, think of the violent prisoners who learned meditation and came to deal with violent tendencies much more effectively. Will their violent accumulations lead them to violent transgression at some point in the future? Yes, in this lifetime, or lifetimes to come. Surely. ----------------- Yes, the overall scheme of things is like a ferris-wheel, isn't it? Going up we are being good for a while: going down we are being bad for a while. Round and round we go, aeon after aeon. -------------------- <. . .> Ph: > You cannot remove the reduction in violence from the lives of these people, you cannot remove the brightening that has happened in the darkness of those lives. Nobody can. Not even when the darkness arises again and has its way. The brightness has been there, and it will have its way too. -------------------- That's very well put, and I think I see what you mean. But it's still the wheel isn't it? There is no getting off the wheel in this way. ----------------------------------- Ph: > When there is the eventual arising of violence conditioned by their accumulations, there will also be more understanding - in some cases - of where the violence comes from and how deep the roots lie. I don't think we should underestimate the intellgence of meditators, their ability to see the limits of how far - not very far - crude, methodical modern-style meditation can go towards eradicating defilements - especially since I am now one of the crude, methodical meditators again! :) ------------------------------------- In all of samsara there are really only conditioned dhammas - no people going around and around, or anything like that. So where is the problem? No one is getting hurt - there is no one there to get hurt! The only problem is ignorance (of dhammas) and the illusion that there are people (ourselves and others) getting hurt. -------------------------------------------------- Ph: > And I don't think following the flow of mind states intentionally need necessarily interfere with developing deeper understanding. --------------------------------------------------- It will if we believe it is what the Buddha taught. DSG has been talking a lot about flies lately. At my house in summer they get in the skylights and tap against the glass until they die of dehydration. I can't reach them. I look up and tell them (metaphorically of course), "That is not the way out! Come down here and fly out the door!" But they think I am a fool: "Of course it is the way out," they say, "Always fly towards the light - there can't be any other way!" If we believe the Buddha taught the same sort of thing as everyone else, we deny ourselves the only possible avenue of escape. ------------------------------------ <. . .> Ph: > p.s I am too lazy a discusser to get involved in one of the Ken H debates, --------------------- They have been getting some bad press lately. :-) But what can I do? As you said about Jon: he has hardly put a foot wrong on DSG (unlike me) - never said a word in anger - and yet when he has come under criticism, boy has he copped it! Far worse than I ever have! Ken H #64967 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 3:26 pm Subject: Re: K.Sujin says there can be control! philofillet Hi Nina > But, Phil, what else when you know that such or such is pleasant > feeling or unpleasant feeling? > I mean, how does this affect you? I'm just beginning to apply the four foundations (or applications, as B. Bodhi now prefers to translate it - he says this stresses the subject aspect of mindfulness more or something like that) so I can't add much yet, but I really appreciate being able to explore it with you and others as I get started. One thing I like in the way B. Bodhi talks about MN 10 is that he stresses that the first part of the foundations is kind of preparatory - there is no concern about insight for the beginning, just a bare awareness, which is also in the Mahasi Sayadaw beginner's exericises I am trying out. This is good for me to know because when I meditated before I was much too serious, trying to have insight, trying to have important experiences, which through me off. Now there is just a kind of common sense observing what comes and goes, which is in my case usually sleepiness. I do find that this sort of thing in the morning conditions being a little bit more aware a little bit more often of where my thoughts are going during daily life, a little bit more heedfulness, which is good. As four which foundations to apply when, that hasn't become a concern for me yet - and I hope it doesn't! (The only other thing I can think off the top of my head is that B. Bodhi points out that for those who are really dogged by sensual lust, intenteionally applying the foulness of the body meditation could be helpful. I see it all as developing habits of the mind, habits that are beyond our direct control but can be shaped and strengthened by the Buddha's instructions, which I am obviously seeing as more explicit than I did before - for the time being at least. Who knows what will come? :) Perhaps we could start a thread devoted to this topic if others are interested. Phil p.s as for feeling, there is intellectual reflection on the way feeling triggers craving - U Silananda calls this "inferential vipassana" rather than "direct vipassana" I guess because we are just thinking about the way things work. If there is pain, one can observe the pain and find that it usually fades away, and that can help us to reflect in a shallow way on impermanence, I guess, maybe. All thinking, yes - no delusions, yet, about having the insight of rising and falling away of dhammas. I find Mahasi Sayadaw's book is a bit suspect because it suggests that the meditator can move on to that fairly quickly after applying oneself to the basic exerices for some kind. I hope I can avoid such expectations, but the mind works in very hungry, greedy ways! > Op 3-nov-2006, om 14:41 heeft nidive het volgende geschreven: > > > All four foundations must be practiced. > > > > I am not sure what you meant when you say "In what way?". > #64968 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 3:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pain, practical situation and the ultimate sense. hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your further explanation. And, I like what Khun Sujin said: “we cannot make something difficult into something easy.” How very true. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: Here we see that the Dhamma can help even when we cannot yet directly understand nama and rupa by insight. We cannot cause the arising of any dhammas, they are already there because of their own conditions. But, as Kh Sujin said, we cannot make something difficult into something easy. #64969 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 3:29 pm Subject: Re: some points on art philofillet Hi Ken > <. . .> > Ph: > p.s I am too lazy a discusser to get involved in one of the Ken > H debates, > --------------------- > > They have been getting some bad press lately. :-) But what can I do? > As you said about Jon: he has hardly put a foot wrong on DSG (unlike > me) - never said a word in anger - and yet when he has come under > criticism, boy has he copped it! Far worse than I ever have. I thought after I posted this yesterday it was unfair. I am always avoided debates, and it seems that you are often at the heart of them, because you are quite uncompromising. It would be very beneficial for me to keep discussing with you, especally now when my way of approaching Dhamma has been undergoing such a dramatic shift. You'll help me a lot. I'll get back to your post later - gott run. Phil #64970 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 3:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing philofillet Hi Howard >>> Howard: Thank you, Phil! I'm hopeful. I've been leaving on the lights in the basement, 24-7, the last couple days, and also keeping the house warm, and none of the crickets have been seen. I forgot to mention this yesterday - it'll be beneficial for everyone so I'll post it here rahter than offlist. Naomi's an aromatherapist, and we used "lemon eucalyptus" essential oil (burned in a diffuser with a timer) to keep them away this year and it was incredibly effective. They just plain hate it! I asked her now and she says black pepper, cedarwood, clove (for cockroaches) are well known for helping with insects. She says check out an aromatherapy shop. It really was amazingly effective for skeeters this year. phil #64971 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 3:59 pm Subject: Re: some points on art philofillet Hi again > especally now when my > way of approaching Dhamma has been undergoing such a dramatic shift. > You'll help me a lot. > > I'll get back to your post later - gott run. > Actually, I was thinking about this last night. It appears, conventionally, that by beginning to meditate again it is a dramatic shift, but I don't think so. It's made me appreciate anatta all the more, that conditions can be so unpredictable. A month ago, I saw things so differnetly. And the meditation itself - there is nothing better way than trying to keep my mind on the breath to be reminded how little control there is over the way the mind runs along. I'm afraid that might change if I ever get "good" at meditating! :) But for now it is just more reminding about anatta. Whether there is self at work in trying to meditate or not doesn't change anatta. Phil #64972 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 4:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma lbidd2 Hi all, For the sake of not having rock solid views there is a way of understanding a paramattha dhamma and its characteristic as two dhammas. In the case of earth element and hardness we could say earth element is a reality external to the body door and hardness is the experience of it as body consciousness. Just a possibility; I'm not trying to sell it. Larry #64973 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 11:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Insects and the Precept Against Killing upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 11/3/06 6:49:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, luxalot7@... writes: > I forgot to mention this yesterday - it'll be beneficial for > everyone so I'll post it here rahter than offlist. Naomi's an > aromatherapist, and we used "lemon eucalyptus" essential oil (burned > in a diffuser with a timer) to keep them away this year and it was > incredibly effective. They just plain hate it! I asked her now and > she says black pepper, cedarwood, clove (for cockroaches) are well > known for helping with insects. She says check out an aromatherapy > shop. It really was amazingly effective for skeeters this year. > ====================== Hey, thank you! I haven't a clue where to find such a shop, but I sure will look! With metta, Howard #64974 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 1:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and also Jon and Sarah) - In a message dated 11/3/06 7:21:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi all, > > For the sake of not having rock solid views there is a way of > understanding a paramattha dhamma and its characteristic as two dhammas. > In the case of earth element and hardness we could say earth element is > a reality external to the body door and hardness is the experience of it > as body consciousness. Just a possibility; I'm not trying to sell it. > > Larry > ==================== It's a nice idea, one that I think may well appeal to Jon, in fact. I have written to him before that his perspective presupposes "external rupas" and "internal rupas" (or sensations), but I'm not sure that I made myself clear to him. I, myself, don't believe in "external rupas", for they are never experienced - only sensations are. BTW, now I understand what you were driving at with regard to my post to Sarah. (It wasn't what I was going for, though, in that post.) With metta, Howard #64975 From: connie Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 9:59 pm Subject: some points on art nichiconn hey, KenH, hope the eardrum's not too pegged up! *for the sake of* others' well-being ;) "I am refraining"etc... no. see #5 Patali ch UdCy, begining with p1033 Masefield: <<...[407] For the one practising control (sa.myamato): for the one practising control (sa.myamantassa, alternative grammatical form) through the control that is morality, meaning for the one stood firm in restraint... >> yi! there are some long sentences in the english; i can hardly wait to stare blindly at the Text. is it in stone anywhere? roman text? no matter, i can always just beat my head against it. but "the control that is morality"; 'the dukkha of/belonging to the cycle/these seen conditions'. how does thought of self arise? how is it recognised? unknown: << there does not exist an unity (ekatta) or a substance, or an atta/ aatman or a jiiva, which is expressed in twenty different ego-views (sakkaayadi.t.thi) [E.g. M. I. 300; M. III. 17-8; S. III. 102; Dhs. 182. Cf. M. III. 188, 227; S. III. 3, 16, 96]. Being or existence is devoid of substance, but composed of a variety of conditioned factors [M. I. 70]. The so-called self/ soul/ I is "nothing but conditioned processes" [M. I. 191: Pa.ticcasamuppannaa kho panime yadiyaa pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhaa], and "in such a mass of conditioned processes there is no being is found" [S. I. 135: "In the mass of conditioned processes there is no being is found" suddhasasankhaarapu~njo yaa, nayidha sattuupalabbhati] >> more Ud-a: << In this Teaching, every thing, with the exception of nibbaana, having an own nature is discovered to be one having its livelihood contingent upon conditions, not one (whose livelihood is) irrespective of conditions. >> peace, connie #64976 From: connie Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 9:59 pm Subject: buMps in saMsara nichiconn hey sarah, "get a doggy bag" I hollered when we pulled the pool cover back from over that big old been dead awhile dog! woof-wow! "memories, are so beautiful and yet..." exhale only now; fue-mi-gates! clench teeth and get all wrapped up each in our own bag(s). thanx for sharing, con-dumb #64977 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Nov 3, 2006 11:15 pm Subject: Bumps in samsara - was: Re: some points on art ken_aitch Hi Sarah, Thanks for your concern, but it's nothing to worry about. I would rather have my bump on the head than your ambulance bill. ----------------- S: > I suppose they couldn't fix you up with staples as they did mine, Ken H, as you had an eardrum problem too? ------------------ No, they would have given one of the exterior cuts a stitch had I come in on the day it happened instead of the following day. But they said staples were only for the really tough customers. Please don't worry about getting back to the rest of my nonsense. Keep it at the bottom of the pile. (I remember, BTW, writing 'alobha' instead of 'adosa' for metta. I always make that mistake!) :-) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Hen H & Connie, > > (I'll read and get back to the main part of your post later) > > #64978 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 1:30 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 570- Understanding/pa~n~naa (i) 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;-) =============================================== Understanding(paññå)contd For the development of direct understanding of realities it is not enough to know only the specific characteristics of realities, the characteristics by which they are distinguished from one another. Understanding has to be developed stage by stage, so that it will be able to penetrate the three general characteristics of conditioned realities: the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and non-self. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #64979 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 2:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Emptiness Awareness-Release sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thanks for checking. This is helpful: > > S: "'...The first three - the brahmavihaaras, the third immaterial > attainment, and insight into the voidness of formations - > all pertain to the mundane level'." > > Here, then, we are looking again at degrees of insight. .... Sarah: Yes, it always comes back to the gradual path. Of course, such degrees of insight are very advanced stages of that path:-). ***** I couldn't find your original post, but around the end of June you quoted from the Cula Sunnata Sutta, MN121 and gave a few translations, inc.: "And there is just this non-emptiness, that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent ont his very body with life as condition." You also gave the Pali: 'atthi cevida.m asu~n~nata.m yadida.m imameva kaaya.m paticca salaayatanika.m jivitapaccayeti" .... It's a difficult sutta and I was also waiting for some expertise to come to the rescue:-). BB gives this translation if it helps: "There is present only this non-voidness, namely, that connected with the six bases that are dependent on this body and conditioned by life." It continues to refer to "his genuine, undistorted pure descent into voidness, supreme and unsurpassed." As the comy note BB gives says, "this is the arahant's fruition attainment of voidness". ..... Sarah: At the beginning of the sutta, the Buddha referred to abiding in su~n~nataphala samapatti/niroddha samapatti and here I believe these lines are referring to niroddha samapatti too. This is only possible for anagamis or arahants who pass through all jhanas first, then niroddha for however long 'set', followed by anagami or arahatta phala on rising from niroddha samapatti. All namas are 'suspended', but the faculties and jivitindriya (life-force) do not stop as life has not come to an end. See: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/n_r/nirodha_samaapatti.htm .... Let me know how this sounds if you have time. Metta, Sarah ======= #64980 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 2:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kindred Sayings (III, Khandha-vagga, Last Fifty, §104, Suffering) sarahprocter... Dear Sebastien (& Nina), --- s.billard@... wrote: > Still working on my french translation of ADL, I would like to know what > is the > sutta name of Kindred Sayings (III, Khandha-vagga, Last Fifty, §104, > Suffering) > at the end of chapter 2 ? .... S: If it helps, the reference in B.Bodhi's translation is to: 'The Connected Discourses of Buddha', 111, Khandhavagga, (Khandhasamyutta), Final Fifty, 22:104 (2),'Suffering': "At Saavatthi. "Bhikkhus, I will teach you suffering, the origin of suffering, the cessation of suffering, and the way leading to the cessation of suffering.......etc" Metta, Sarah p.s If you don't have the BB translation and it's any help to have it typed out in full, let me know. ===== #64981 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 3:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: K.Sujin says there can be control! nilovg Hi Phil, ------------ Ph: One thing I like in the way B. Bodhi talks about MN 10 is that he stresses that the first part of the foundations is kind of preparatory - there is no concern about insight for the beginning, just a bare awareness, which is also in the Mahasi Sayadaw beginner's exericises I am trying out. -------- N: I think we should have no concern for insight all along, all the way. Such concern would be clinging. It does not matter whether hardness presents itself, or aversion, or seeing, these are all dhammas that are objects for 'study with awareness'. We are only learning, there is usually considering and not direct awareness. What I find helpful is that we cannot interfere, the dhammas already arise because of their own conditions. We cannot cause their arising, they are already there. If we would try to concentrate on particular dhammas of our own choice, it gives us a false illusion that we can take hold of this or that dhamma. It removes us further away from the truth. When we listen more, consider more and have more understanding of namas and rupas there are conditions for awareness of them without having to try to fix our attention on them. -------- Ph: I do find that this sort of thing in the morning conditions being a little bit more aware a little bit more often of where my thoughts are going during daily life, a little bit more heedfulness, which is good. As for which foundations to apply when, that hasn't become a concern for me yet - and I hope it doesn't! ------- N: You have to find out for yourself what is helpful for you personally. It is good you do not see a certain order of the four applications, because there isn't. It is for teaching purpose that the Buddha taught these four applications, to show us that everything is included, that everything is dhamma. Also the hindrancesare included, but it is difficult to be aware of akusala dhamma before the difference between nama and rupa is realized. However, if one tries to suppress distractions, these will always come back. Only vipassana developed to lokuttara pa~n~naa can eradicate them. We can begin to see them as conditioned dhammas. Some people try to concentrate on the four applications because they want longer periods of awareness. This will not work, I think it is counterproductive. Kh Sujin reminds us to let sati arise because of its own conditions, not interfering. She said: seeing arises, it is already there, we did not cause its arising, and it is the same for sati. Even a short moment is beneficial, it is accumulated so that it can arise again. Perhaps people become disheartened by lack of sati. --------- Ph: (The only other thing I can think off the top of my head is that B. Bodhi points out that for those who are really dogged by sensual lust, intenteionally applying the foulness of the body meditation could be helpful. I see it all as developing habits of the mind, habits that are beyond our direct control but can be shaped and strengthened by the Buddha's instructions, which I am obviously seeing as more explicit than I did before - for the time being at least. Who knows what will come? :) -------- N: Who knows what will come? I reflect more on the impredictability of dhammas that arise. Nobody knows. There are conditions for you to reflect on the foulness of the body. Also that reflection is a conditioned dhamma. Nina. #64982 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 12:12 am Subject: An Argument Pertaining to "External Rupas" and "Internal Rupas" upasaka_howard Hi, all - The following line of reasoning has occurred to me which I thought I would pass on for your inspection: Premiss #1: Being (non-perversely) felt as pleasant or unpleasant or neutral is intrinsic to a rupa. When one person or animal experiences a rupa as pleasant and another experiences "it" as unpleasant, they are actually experiencing *different* rupas. That is - how a rupa feels is NOT "in the eye of the beholder", but is objective, intrinsic to the rupa itself. [I think this is a principle of Abhidhamma. If I am in error, then this line of reasoning immediately falls apart.] Premiss #2: Some people and some animals may feel particular rupas (temperatures, for example) as pleasant, even delightful, whereas others may feel "those exact rupas" as unpleasant, even intolerably so. [This is an observational premiss.] Premiss #3: Vedana operating on an object results from contact with that very object. [I think this is basic Dhamma, though I stand to be corrected.] Premiss #4: Contact with an object is dependent on consciousness of that very object. [I think this also is basic Dhamma.] Reasoning from these premisses: From premisses #1 and #2, follows Conclusion #1 that the rupas that are felt are the internal rupas, i.e. 5-sense-door sensations. From conclusion #1 together with premiss #3, there follows Conclusion #2 that contact with rupas is only with internal rupas, i.e. 5-sense-door sensations. From conclusion #2 together with premiss #4, there follows the final Conclusion #3 that consciousness of rupas is only of internal rupas, i.e., 5-sense-door sensations. Obviously, there are multiple points of possible error in this argument: Each of the 4 premisses could be untrue, and there could be errors in the several steps of the reasoning from these premisses. I would be interested in seeing where it is thought that errors lie. With metta, Howard #64983 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 12:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Argument Pertaining to "External Rupas" and "Internal Rupas" upasaka_howard Hi again, all - In a message dated 11/4/06 8:13:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > Premiss #1: Being (non-perversely) felt as pleasant or unpleasant or > neutral is intrinsic to a rupa. When one person or animal experiences a rupa > as > pleasant and another experiences "it" as unpleasant, they are actually > experiencing *different* rupas. That is - how a rupa feels is NOT "in the > eye of the > beholder", but is objective, intrinsic to the rupa itself. [I think this is > a > principle of Abhidhamma. If I am in error, then this line of reasoning > immediately falls apart.] > ======================== While my conclusions may still be facts, I think that Premiss #1 may be false. It may be that the nature of a rupa as, for example, "to be felt as pleasant" (when contacted via body door or mind door), is merely one of several conditions which, together, determine how that rupa will be felt. If that is so, then the first premiss is indeed false, and the argument falls apart. With metta, Howard #64984 From: connie Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 6:04 am Subject: Alcohol? nichiconn Hey, Support Group sorry if i'm requoting, but for the case of the fifth precept, if we aren't willing to swallow one thing, then, when conditions are right: << The fruits of abstention from the opportunity-for-negligence-due-to-liquor-wine-and-besotting-drink are such things as swift recognition of past, future and present tasks to be done, constant establishment of mindfulness, freedom from madness, possession of knowledge, non-procrastination, non-stupidity, non-drivellingness, non-intoxication, non-negligence, non-confusion, non-timourousness, non-presumption, unenviousness, truthfulness, freedom from malicious and harsh speech and from gossip, freedom from dullness both night and day, gratitude, gratefulness, unavariciousness, liberality, virtuousness, rectitude, unangriness, possession of conscience, possession of shame, rectitude of view, great understanding, wisdom, learnedness, skill in [distinguishing] good from harm, and so on. >> Illustrator ii 46 peace, connie #64985 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 6:25 am Subject: [dsg] Re: K.Sujin says there can be control! nidive Hi Nina, > My question is how? Only in sitting? But we read under mindfulness > of the body: no matter how the body is placed, thus, in whatever > posture. Some people believe that they have to concentrate on bodily > phenomena, but I think that it is not a matter of concentration nor > of selecting one of the four applications. But I have to add: it can > be one's natural inclination to be aware mor often of feelings or of > rupas of the body. Not only when sitting. We should *ideally* be mindful at all moments, whether eating, drinking, standing, walking, turning. We should also be mindful of whatever that we feel, perceives, thinks about or is conscious of. We should be mindful of whatever bodily, verbal and mental actions that we perform and after performing we should reflect on them. If one is mindful at all moments, one remembers things from even long long ago. It is impossible to be mindful at all moments without the assistance of concentration. Mindfulness is not about a single moment. It is a sustained effort. Therefore, effort, mindfulness and concentration go hand in hand as a threesome. Yet, it is not effort, mindfulness and concentration that effects the cutting through. It the path factor of view associated with the investigation of dhammas that effects the cutting through. What does one investigate? One should investigate the cause of phenomena (how a phenomenon comes to be) and the cessation of phenomena (how a phenomenon comes not to be). In short, one should investigate both the forward and reverse orders of Dependent Origination. Yet, even though it is the path factor of view associated with the investigation of dhammas that effects the cutting through, it cannot effect the cutting through without the assistance of effort, mindfulness and concentration. Therefore, in my opinion, when one practices the four applications of mindfulness, one is not merely practicing mindfulness, but also other path factors as well. Only by doing so can one be said to bring the four applications of mindfulness to culmination. Regards, Swee Boon #64986 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 7:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma lbidd2 Hi Howard and all, Others can answer as well as I your argument concerning external realities but I have a comment regarding the holding of views. Whichever Buddhist view one holds is meant to penetrate the bonds of clinging. This *should* include clinging to that view itself. To test this one could analyze that view in the same way one would analyze a rupa or feeling. For example, I could ask, "what difference does it make to 'me and my view' if contrary views are not external?" Or I could ask, "what difference does it make to 'me and my view' if this view is split between internal and external with no ground to stand on?" Either way, if I perform this analysis correctly I should end up with less than I started with. Larry #64987 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 7:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jonoabb Hi Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: ... > Jon, if you don't mind I only answer a question of yours that has > my interest now. Fine with me. If my questions/comments about Bhikkhu Buddhadasa or Stephen Batchelor don't have your interest, please don't feel under any obligation to reply. ... > But first a question: why should it be impossible to consider DO > without also allowing the possibility of a round of rebirths? I'm probably repeating myself here, but the reason is that according to the 'reverse order' of DO it is only with the complete cessation of ignorance (the first link/factor) that existence, birth and aging- and-death (the final 3 links/factors) also cease. So unless ignorance has been completely eradicated there will be conditions for further becoming at the end of the present lifetime. > Rebirths of who by the way? The term 'round of rebirths' is a common translation of the Pali term 'samsara'. In terms of paramattha dhammas there is no 'who' to be reborn. ... > So I think contemplating in this way > "When there is this, that is. > With the arising of this, that arises. > When this is not, neither is that. > With the cessation of this, that ceases." > is at least a help in decreasing ignorance It depends what you mean by ignorance. If you mean ignorance of the way things really are then I'd say the only thing that helps in decreasing that is the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas. Contemplating on the 'this, that' formula would not be the development of such insight. > I'm not hundred procent sure but to me this phrase is in essence > the same (the essence of DO) as what the Ven. Assaji gave as > exposition of Dhamma to Sariputta: > "Whatever phenomena arise from cause: Their cause & their > cessation." > It was by this exposition that there arose to Sariputta the > stainless Dhamma eye: > "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." > Mv i.23.5 > > Without analyses of 24 conditions, 11 links etc.: by deep > understanding To my understanding, the opposite would be the case, that Ven Sariputta had accumulated such a deep analysis of the 24 conditions and all links of DO that he needed only the merest of hints for that knowledge to be recalled afresh in his final lifetime. > BTW Jon perhaps I answer your other question in a later stadium, > now I'm not inspired to do so No problem, Joop. I was just responding to your request for more discussion on the subject of this thread. Jon #64988 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 7:52 am Subject: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Bu... jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon (and James, and Swee Boon also) - > > In a message dated 10/31/06 8:38:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, > jonabbott@... writes: ... > > I think I've been given a reprieve from replying to post #64772 ;-)), > > but let me add a comment or two anyway. > > > > There is no inconsistency as I see it between the sutta dealing with > > citta as luminous ('pabhassara') and the idea of mental factors that > > are unwholesome roots. As I understand it, these akusala mental > > factors are the 'incoming defilements' referred to in the passage: > > "Luminous, monks, is the mind. And it is defiled by incoming > > defilements." > > > > Jon > > > > > ========================= > Jon, I often voice my disagreement with you on various points, so I'll > take this opportunity to agree with you on a matter. Thanks, Howard. Some members may think we agree on nothing, but of course that's far from how it is ;-)) > I also agree wih you where you say the following in a recent post to > Swee Boon: "What has been mentioned here is the understanding that there is no > control in the absolute sense ('no absolute control'). This reflects the > conditioned (and not-self) nature of all dhammas; dhammas arise dependent on > various conditions and cannot be made to arise or not arise in contradiction of > those conditions. There are many references in the suttas to control, restraint, > power, ability and the like, but none of them refer to an absolute level of > these things, as I see it." > The full context here, as I understand it, is your pointing out that > "Khun Sujin Ltd" neither asserts no-control in a complete sense nor control in > a complete sense, and mainly does assert that there exists no controlling > "self". Thinking about this further, I'd say it depends somewhat on the context in which the 'control' comment is made. In terms of the conventional world and conventional speech, there is no such thing as complete control, but on the other hand it would be pointless to argue that there is no control at all. In terms of paramattha dhammas, however, the picture is different, because the very concept of 'control' of dhammas implies someone or some thing that is or may be controlling. But if we just think in terms of dhammas, then I think it can be said that dhammas are not subject to control, that is, they arise by conditions and that's about all that can be said. Hope I haven't muddied the waters now ;-)) Jon #64989 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 7:58 am Subject: Re: K.Sujin says there can be control! jonoabb Hi Swee Boon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > Actually, I don't think anyone has suggested that A. Sujin talks > > about 'absolute no control'. What has been mentioned here is the > > understanding that there is no control in the absolute sense ('no > > absolute control'). This refelects the conditioned (and not- > > self)nature of all dhammas; dhammas arise dependent on various conditions > > and cannot be made to arise or not arise in contradiction of > > those conditions. > > There are many references in the suttas to control, restraint, > > power, ability and the like, but none of them refer to an > > absolute level of these things, as I see it. > > You have finally said something that makes sense on the control > issue. I don't think I've said anything that I or others haven't said before. Perhaps you are reading things in a different light ;-)) > "Absolute no control" is one extreme. "Absolute control" is > another extreme. > > "No absolute control" is a negation of the extreme "absolute > control". > > This negation should not be taken as the other extreme > of "absolute no control". I just posted to Howard on this same subject. I think my comments there could be summarised by saying: in the absolute sense, no control. Hoping I'm still making sense to you ;-)) Jon #64990 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 8:16 am Subject: Re: An Argument Pertaining to "External Rupas" and "Internal Rupas" jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > The following line of reasoning has occurred to me which I thought I > would pass on for your inspection: > ... Hallo Howard, all I don't know your distinguishment internal versus external rupas is correct. All we experience are 'experienced rupas', for example experienced heath, with our skin. Based on this experiences and in dialogue with other human beings we formulate a model, a theory about this experience. For example, one of this kind of experiences we call 'hardness'. Sometimes we substitute our theory by a better one: the theory that a object has a sabhava to fall to the Earth is substituted by Galileo with a theory about gravity between two objects (no sabhavas needed anymore). In daily life the old theory is good enough. All we do is formulate a theory based on experiences. If external rupas 'really' exist, we simply cannot know. Perhaps the whole universe is just one vibrating string travelling forwards and backwards in time, giving the impression of all kinds of particles and other rupas. Who cares? So, your Conclusion #1 and #3 are correct, after 'internal rupas' is substituted by 'experienced rupas'. About Conclusion #2 I'm not sure, do we really need it? Especially I'm not happy with the expression 'contact with rupas'. Contact with an experience? Metta Joop #64991 From: connie Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 8:14 am Subject: gaha.na, gaha.ni nichiconn dear scott, dilemna, for sure. i think. i don't see it any other way. two ells? what's with these guys and that "noel"? ah, no n. gotcha. i think. but the passing hand/lobha, 'like a thief in the dark'. (ir)regardless, the baby left: mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmew43eeeee443 Hi Howard and all, > > Others can answer as well as I your argument concerning external realities > but I have a > comment regarding the holding of views. Whichever Buddhist view one holds is > meant to > penetrate the bonds of clinging. This *should* include clinging to that view > itself. To test this > one could analyze that view in the same way one would analyze a rupa or > feeling. For > example, I could ask, "what difference does it make to 'me and my view' if > contrary views are > not external?" Or I could ask, "what difference does it make to 'me and my > view' if this view is > split between internal and external with no ground to stand on?" Either way, > if I perform this > analysis correctly I should end up with less than I started with. > > Larry > > ========================= I love your last sentence "Either way, if I perform this analysis correctly I should end up with less than I started with."! :-) With metta, Howard #64993 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 3:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Bu... upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 11/4/06 10:58:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > In terms of paramattha dhammas, however, the picture is different, > because the very concept of 'control' of dhammas implies someone or > some thing that is or may be controlling. But if we just think in > terms of dhammas, then I think it can be said that dhammas are not > subject to control, that is, they arise by conditions and that's > about all that can be said. > > Hope I haven't muddied the waters now ;-)) > > Jon > ========================== No, you haven't. It is literally false that there is a self to do anything, and if 'control' implies a controller to someone (to you, in particular), then it is proper that that person should deny control. When *I* speak of control, I merely mean the arising of dhammas as the result of conditions among which occurrences of cetana are prominent, and which, together, constitute what is conventionally called an act of volition. In fact, it's all a matter of impersonal conditions that have effect. I may *speak* of "someone controlling something," but that is just a manner of speaking, and I understand what the actual facts of the matter are. And these facts aren't just theory. They can be seen directly by looking at what actually occurs. The more we look, the more and better we can see. With metta, Howard #64994 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 4:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: An Argument Pertaining to "External Rupas" and "Internal Rupas" upasaka_howard Hi, Joop - In a message dated 11/4/06 11:20:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > About Conclusion #2 I'm not sure, do we really need it? Especially > I'm not happy with the expression 'contact with rupas'. Contact with > an experience? > ======================== A basic act of cognition of a rupa, or "rupic contact", is a tripartite one. The three aspects are 1) the sensation that is the rupa, 2) the consciousness that is a mental operation, and 3) the [activation of or arising of] a sense door or medium or channel which is, in every case other than mind door, what I call a "locational rupa". The three co-occur, with no one of them ever occurring without the others. It is the co-occurence of the three - their "coming together" - that is the "contact". Are you claiming that phassa is a pseudo-operation? Not really anything at all? As for Premiss #2, that is a quite conventionally formulated premiss, but I do think it is important. If one being finds heat pleasant and another finds it unpleasant, then, on the basis of Premiss #1, they cannot be feeling the same rupa. But if the heat that is felt is a specific external rupa, then it IS the same rupa! That is why I conclude that in fact it cannot be *external* heat that they feel, but two different internal rupas, one for each mindstream. With metta, Howard #64995 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 10:40 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life 111. nilovg Dear friends, All the time cittas arise and fall away, performing different functions. The last function of citta in life is the function of cuti (dying). When we say in conventional language that a person has died, the cuti-citta (dying-consciousness), which is the last citta of that life, has fallen away. The cuti-citta is succeeded by the paìisandhi- citta (rebirth-consciousness) of the following life. Death is unavoidable. Everybody, no matter whether he is in one of the unhappy planes, in the human plane or in one of the heavenly planes, has to have cuti-citta. We read in the teachings about birth, old age, sickness and death. Old age is mentioned immediately after birth, before sickness is mentioned. The reason is that as soon as we are born, we are already ageing, we are already on our way to death. We read in the Sutta-Nipåta (The Group of Discourses, chapter III, §8, The Barb, vs. 574-587, Khuddaka Nikåya): The life of mortals here cannot be predicted by any sign, and (its duration) is uncertain. (It is) difficult and brief, and it is combined with misery. For there is no means whereby those born do not die. Even (for one) arriving at old age there is death, for of such a nature are living creatures. Just as for ripe fruit there is constantly fear of falling, so for mortals who are born there is constantly fear of death. Just as vessels made of clay by a potter all have breaking as their end, so is the life of mortals. Young and old, those who are foolish and those who are wise, all go into the power of death, all have death as their end. When they are overcome by death, going from here to the next world, the father does not protect the son, nor the relatives the (other) relatives. See, while the relatives are actually looking on, (and) wailing much, each one of the mortals is led away like a cow to be slaughtered. Thus the world is smitten by death and old age. Therefore wise men do not grieve, knowing the way of the world. Whose path you do not know, whether come or gone, not seeing both ends you lament (him) uselessly. If lamenting (and) harming himself a deluded person should pluck out any advantage (from his action), a wise man would do that too. For not by weeping and grief does one obtain peace of mind. His misery arises all the more, his body is harmed. He becomes thin and discoloured, harming himself by himself. The departed ones do not fare well thereby. Lamentation is useless. Not abandoning grief a person goes all the more to misery. Bewailing the dead man he goes under the influence of grief... If one is not wise, one grieves, but for those who develop the eightfold Path, there will be less sorrow. For him who has attained the stage of the arahat, there will be cuti-citta, but it will not be succeeded by paìisandhi-citta. Then there is an end to birth, old age, sickness and death. ****** Nina. #64996 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 11:23 am Subject: external rupas nilovg Hi Howard, Before going into your premises, we read in many suttas about the five khandhas that the khandhas are internal or external, subtle and gross, near and far etc. See for rupakkhandha, Vis. XIV, 73. Rupas are internal and external, according to these suttas. You said that external ruupas that are not experienced are not realities. We discussed the bhavangacitta, and a rupa that comes knocking at a door. It is not experienced by the bhavangacitta and not yet by a sense-door process citta. But it will be. When it knocks it is not experienced. I do not know whether that helps? -------- H: Premiss #1: Being (non-perversely) felt as pleasant or unpleasant or neutral is intrinsic to a rupa. ------ N: A sense-object experienced by vipaakacitta such as seeing or body- consciousness is either desirable or undesirable, not neutral. We had a long discussion in the past. Kamma produces kusala vipaaka or akusala vipaaka. There is no neutrality here, not in the object. -------- H: When one person or animal experiences a rupa as pleasant and another experiences "it" as unpleasant, they are actually experiencing *different* rupas. That is - how a rupa feels is NOT "in the eye of the beholder", but is objective, intrinsic to the rupa itself. [I think this is a principle of Abhidhamma. If I am in error, then this line of reasoning immediately falls apart.] ------- N: Two beings do not experience the same object, even though we may say so in conventional sense. You are right. Kamma and vipaaka is for an individual, not collective. ------- H: Premiss #2: Some people and some animals may feel particular rupas (temperatures, for example) as pleasant, even delightful, whereas others may feel "those exact rupas" as unpleasant, even intolerably so. [This is an observational premiss.] ----- N: It all depends on kamma that produces vipaaka. There is another matter: bodysense is produced by kamma, and this is a condition that for some people the airco is too cold, for others not cool enough. But this is an example in conventional sense. --------- H: Premiss #3: Vedana operating on an object results from contact with that very object. [I think this is basic Dhamma, though I stand to be corrected.] ------- N: Phassa, contact, accompanies each citta, and so does feeling. Phassa contacts the object so that citta can experience it and vedanaa can feel its flavour. ----------- H: Premiss #4: Contact with an object is dependent on consciousness of that very object. [I think this also is basic Dhamma.] ---------- N: I would put it differently: contact assists the citta so that it can cognize an object. But it is also in this way: citta depends on cetasikas and cetasikas depend on citta, mutually. Phassa could not arise without citta. Citta is the chief. ---------- H: Reasoning from these premisses: From premisses #1 and #2, follows Conclusion #1 that the rupas that are felt are the internal rupas, i.e. 5-sense-door sensations. From conclusion #1 together with premiss #3, there follows Conclusion #2 that contact with rupas is only with internal rupas, i.e. 5-sense-door sensations. From conclusion #2 together with premiss #4, there follows the final Conclusion #3 that consciousness of rupas is only of internal rupas, i.e., 5-sense-door sensations. -------- N: I do not exclude external rupas but I feel no urge to debate about premises. I do not like to point out errors, I am not a teacher. I merely try to reflect on the Abhidhamma and I like to share what I learnt. Nina. #64997 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 12:15 pm Subject: Re: gaha.na, gaha.ni scottduncan2 Dear connie, This seriously induces seizures: c: "...running low on metta for sure when that crreeepings on. mirror incidents!" Mettaa, running low on: So I decide I must cultivate this. What happens but the more I notice the less I notice! Of mettaa that is. The sheer weight of akusala. Two kids in the back, close quarters, morning drive to school and work, new snow on the roads and no one remembers how to drive so slow slow. Loving kindness, Dad, kids are just made that way (the constant bickering - you know). The proximate cause of dosa being "grounds for annoyance" there is suddenly plenty of grounds due to backseat violence and then Dad blows his mettaa-cool proving that assertion. And you can feel it coming too, man. Sigh. Scott. #64998 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 7:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] external rupas upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/4/06 2:29:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > Before going into your premises, we read in many suttas about the > five khandhas that the khandhas are internal or external, subtle and > gross, near and far etc. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I know, Nina. That may well be conventional speech. Rupas inside the body are "internal" and rupas outseide the body (like the hardness of my desk) are "external" in at least some contexts. --------------------------------------------- > See for rupakkhandha, Vis. XIV, 73. Rupas > are internal and external, according to these suttas. > You said that external ruupas that are not experienced are not > realities. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I wouldn't put it that way. That sentence by its form presupposes external rupas. What I mean by the term 'external rupa' is a rupa that exists independently of being experienced, as opposed to the content of experirnce such as felt hardness. What I would say is that if there *are* external rupas in that sense, they are not known. Might they exist? Well, sure. But I have no way of knowing, nor does anyone else. ------------------------------------------- > We discussed the bhavangacitta, and a rupa that comes knocking at a > door. It is not experienced by the bhavangacitta and not yet by a > sense-door process citta. But it will be. When it knocks it is not > experienced. I do not know whether that helps? -------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't believe in dhammas that are not experienced by any sense door at all. --------------------------------------------- > -------- > H: Premiss #1: Being (non-perversely) felt as pleasant or unpleasant or > neutral is intrinsic to a rupa. > ------ > N: A sense-object experienced by vipaakacitta such as seeing or body- > consciousness is either desirable or undesirable, not neutral. We had > a long discussion in the past. Kamma produces kusala vipaaka or > akusala vipaaka. There is no neutrality here, not in the object. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I know. If a "desirable" rupa can be experienced as unpleasant, then my first premiss is false. If, however, it cannot be experienced as unpleasant, then perhaps that premiss is basically correct. --------------------------------------- > -------- > > H: When one person or animal experiences a rupa as > pleasant and another experiences "it" as unpleasant, they are actually > experiencing *different* rupas. That is - how a rupa feels is NOT "in > the eye of the > beholder", but is objective, intrinsic to the rupa itself. [I think > this is a > principle of Abhidhamma. If I am in error, then this line of reasoning > immediately falls apart.] > ------- > N: Two beings do not experience the same object, even though we may > say so in conventional sense. You are right. Kamma and vipaaka is for > an individual, not collective. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. So, suppose it is ninety-five degrees outside, and I find that pleasant but my friend finds it unpleasant. Let's assume also that my frined and I both have the same bodily temperature at that time as measured by a thermometer. What are the two different rupas we are feeling, one pleasant and the other unpleasant? What are they exactly? Where are they exactly? -------------------------------------------- > > ------- > H: Premiss #2: Some people and some animals may feel particular rupas > (temperatures, for example) as pleasant, even delightful, whereas > others may feel > "those exact rupas" as unpleasant, even intolerably so. [This is an > observational premiss.] > ----- > N: It all depends on kamma that produces vipaaka. There is another > matter: bodysense is produced by kamma, and this is a condition that > for some people the airco is too cold, for others not cool enough. > But this is an example in conventional sense. -------------------------------------- Howard: Again, where are the two rupas? Is it that one heat rupa is object in one mindsteam and the other object in the other mindstream, that is exactly what I mean by the rupas being "internal". ---------------------------------------- > --------- > > H: Premiss #3: Vedana operating on an object results from contact with > that very object. [I think this is basic Dhamma, though I stand to be > corrected.] > ------- > N: Phassa, contact, accompanies each citta, and so does feeling. > Phassa contacts the object so that citta can experience it and > vedanaa can feel its flavour. -------------------------------------------- Howard: In D.O., I believe that vedana has phassa as requisite condition. -------------------------------------------- > ----------- > H: Premiss #4: Contact with an object is dependent on consciousness of > that very object. [I think this also is basic Dhamma.] > ---------- > N: I would put it differently: contact assists the citta so that it > can cognize an object. But it is also in this way: citta depends on > cetasikas and cetasikas depend on citta, mutually. Phassa could not > arise without citta. Citta is the chief. ---------------------------------------- Howard: This matter, and the last, are instances, I believe, of how Abhidhamma differes from the suttas. Where there is temporal succession & dependency in the suttas, there is simultaneity in Abhidhamma. Of course, many folks will take the Abhidhamma reading as primary, and then back-apply it to the suttas, changing ther straightforward reading of the suttas. From the Honeyball sutta there is the following: "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye." To me there is a temporal sequence indicated here, a temporal conditioning, with contact preceding and requisite to feeling, feeling preceding and requisite to perceiving, and so on. ------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > H: Reasoning from these premisses: From premisses #1 and #2, follows > Conclusion #1 that the rupas that are felt are the internal rupas, i.e. > 5-sense-door sensations. From conclusion #1 together with premiss #3, > there follows > Conclusion #2 that contact with rupas is only with internal rupas, i.e. > 5-sense-door sensations. From conclusion #2 together with premiss #4, > there follows the > final Conclusion #3 that consciousness of rupas is only of internal > rupas, > i.e., 5-sense-door sensations. > -------- > N: I do not exclude external rupas but I feel no urge to debate about > premises. I do not like to point out errors, I am not a teacher. I > merely try to reflect on the Abhidhamma and I like to share what I > learnt. ---------------------------------------- Howard: That is good, Nina. That is what I am doing also, though I think of myself as reflecting on the Dhamma, not the Abhidhamma. ---------------------------------------- > Nina. > ===================== With metta, Howard #64999 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 2:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn Hallo all A blog of Stephen on boredom Joop I'm always interested in states of mind about which Buddhism either seems to ignore or has nothing much to say. Perhaps the best example of this is "fear," a term that is absent from all the long lists of mental factors found in the Abhidhamma. This is odd, given that it is such a common element of human experience and is mentioned repeatedly by the Buddha in the suttas. But where is there an in-depth Buddhist analysis or theory of fear? I have yet to find one. The same is true for "boredom," another ubiquitous mental state that does not seem to be mentioned in the texts. It is sometimes said that boredom is a "modern" phenomena, presumably on the grounds that people tied to daily agricultural toil and constant material insecurity don't have the time to get bored. I don't buy that at all. What about all those Buddhist monks and nuns over the past two and a half thousand years, who neither worked nor were materially insecure, and who spent much of their time just watching their breath? Are we to believe that boredom was never an issue in such a context? My sense is that "boredom" is "moha," in Pali, usually translated as "delusion" or "stupidity." It is one of the three root poisons of the mind, the other two of the triad being greed (lobha) and hatred (dosa). In classical Buddhist theory, greed is the habitual response to pleasure, while hatred is the habitual response to pain. Both are forms of craving (tanha): greed being the craving to have what we want, hatred the craving to get rid of what we don't want. Craving itself is rooted in ignorance (avijja), i.e. our primary confusion around who we are and what the world is. Mindful awareness (sati- sampajanna) is that which enables us to see these processes of reactivity at work so as not to be conditioned by them in our thoughts, words and deeds. Accounts such as this tend to reduce our relation to the world to either one of wanting something or of not wanting something. Typically, moha, the third "poison," is not mentioned. But just as greed is our reaction to pleasure and hatred our reaction to pain, moha is understood as our reaction to neither-pleasure-nor-pain. It is what we experience when nothing triggers our appetites or fears. To translate this as "delusion" or "stupidity" has never struck me as particularly helpful. For one thing, it immediately blurs the distinction between moha and ignorance (avijja). But if we think of moha as boredom, it makes far more sense psychologically: for this is how we commonly react when nothing much is happening. We get bored, listless, sunk in a kind of mental fog. In terms of the five hindrances, it is what gives rise to lethargy and restlessness. The way we deal with this in meditation is to cultivate interest in what appears to be without interest. Rather than settling in to the mental fog (and more often than not confusing such dullness with equanimity), we probe the blandness of the experience with clarity and attention until it starts revealing itself as shifting, changing, unreliable, not self, contingent and very weird indeed.