#65000 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 2:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn A Wheel is not a 'wheel' We have had several discussion about the question if 'Dependent Origination' is a chain as I state or a wheel (a round, a cycle) as popular buddhism thinks. But then I read again SN LVI.11 Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta (Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion), now translated and annotated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. A part of it: "… "Vision arose, insight arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before: 'This is the noble truth of stress'... "Vision arose, …. 'This is the noble truth of the origination of stress'... "Vision arose, …. 'This is the noble truth of the cessation of stress'... "Vision arose, …. 'This is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress'... 'This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress is to be developed'... 'This noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress has been developed.' [3] …" In this footnote 3 Thanissaro explains: "The discussion in the four paragraphs beginning with the phrase, "Vision arose...", takes two sets of variables -- the four noble truths and the three levels of knowledge appropriate to each -- and lists their twelve permutations. In ancient Indian philosophical and legal traditions, this sort of discussion is called a wheel. Thus, this passage is the Wheel of Dhamma from which the discourse takes its name." This is a eye-opener to me. I have nothing to do with ancient Indian philosophical and legal traditions. So when somebody in this ancient Indian philosophical tradition is calling DO a wheel, I'm free to say: not in my not-"ancient Indian philosophical tradition" but buddhistic way of thinking. I can give it any name, for example a logical sequence. Metta Joop #65001 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 3:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn Hallo Jon, all --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: >... > 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. Joop: Now I understand. Yes, another time ignorance arises again. > 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. > Joop: That makes the gap between us enormous! > > 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. > Joop: First you introduce here the concept 'hint', while talking about something with enormous energy, a sudden awakening. Second: how can Sariputta have done this analysis while 'the 24 condition' are developed centuries after his passing away? I think in stead of 'deep analysis' we can talk about the 'deep thought' of Sariputta. But Theravada doesn't like any more even the possibility of sudden awakenings, is my impression. > > 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. Joop: I know that, and I'm gratefull; I remember that I said something like 'nobody wants to talk with me about Buddhadasa, when you responded. But Buddhadasa is for me in the first place a spiritual Thai reformer who had to do with superstitous popular buddhism in his country, and his talks were aimed to change that superstutions (about which now even the Queen of Thailand has made a public remark) Perhaps it was not nice to say that your remarks were scholastic, let say now they are to technical #65002 From: "Andrew" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 3:09 pm Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu corvus121 Dear all in this thread Sorry for being so late off the mark. The point has been resolved but I just want to make a comment as this matter has been oft discussed on DSG. Swee Boon wrote in post #64806: > 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. [snip]> > 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. When I read the above, 2 definitions sprang to mind: "acinteyya" 'That which cannot or should not be thought', the unthinkable, incomprehensible, impenetrable, that which transcends the limits of thinking and over which therefore one should not ponder. These four unthinkables are: 1. the sphere of a Buddha (buddha-visaya) 2. of the meditative absorptions (jhana-visaya) 3. of karma-result (kamma-vipaka), and 4. brooding over the world (loka-cinta), especially over an absolute first beginning of it. {Nyanatiloka's dictionary} "avyakata" unexplained, undecided, not declared, indeterminate {PTS dictionary} Swee Boon's statements would appear to argue that atta/anatta is acinteyya and avyakata. He is not the only one to have made this assertion on DSG over the years. From memory, it appears to be popular among followers of Ven. Thanissaro. Of course, atta/anatta is not listed as one of the 4 unthinkables (and if it *is* unthinkable, why didn't the Buddha "openly declare" it so?). It appears to me incongruous (although not impossible) that the subject matter of the Buddha's second sermon after enlightenment (the Anattalakkhana Sutta) - after which all five disciples became arahants - was on an undeclared topic. I see that Scott has done some extensive research and provided many references that satisfy me that anatta was indeed "vyakata" (declared) by the Buddha. Swee Boon's comments appear to me to be incorrect but do resonate in the sense that anatta "cannot be proved with reason, like darkness cannot be seen by bringing in a light" (Ven. Dhammapala). But that's a different issue from "declared" and "undeclared". And IMHO anatta was declared by the Buddha. Best wishes Andrew PS typo of the year award goes to Sarah who addressed a post to "Hen H" - either our good Dhamma friend, Ken H, or a new member who holds controversial views on ornithology. ;-)) #65003 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 6:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 Dear Joop, This is said: "...But if we think of moha as boredom, it makes far more sense psychologically..." I think "arati" or aversion is meant to include boredom. For example, in describing "gladness" Buddhaghosa notes: "Gladness is characterized as gladdening (produced by others' success). Its function resides in being unenvious. It is manifested as the elimination of aversion (boredom). Its proximate cause is seeing beings' success. It succeeds when it makes aversion (boredom) subside, and it fails when it produces merriment." Visuddhimagga, 95. "Gladness has joy based on the home life as its near enemy...And aversion (boredom), which is dissimilar to the similar joy, is its far enemy..." Visuddhimagga, 100. With loving kindness, Scott. #65004 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 6:35 pm Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nidive Hi Andrew, > "acinteyya" 'That which cannot or should not be thought', the > unthinkable, incomprehensible, impenetrable, that which transcends > the limits of thinking and over which therefore one should not > ponder. These four unthinkables are: > 1. the sphere of a Buddha (buddha-visaya) > 2. of the meditative absorptions (jhana-visaya) > 3. of karma-result (kamma-vipaka), and > 4. brooding over the world (loka-cinta), especially over an absolute > first beginning of it. {Nyanatiloka's dictionary} > > "avyakata" unexplained, undecided, not declared, indeterminate {PTS > dictionary} > > Swee Boon's statements would appear to argue that atta/anatta is > acinteyya and avyakata. He is not the only one to have made this > assertion on DSG over the years. From memory, it appears to be > popular among followers of Ven. Thanissaro. Of course, atta/anatta > is not listed as one of the 4 unthinkables (and if it *is* > unthinkable, why didn't the Buddha "openly declare" it so?). The Buddha also said that whoever speculates about these imponderables would go mad & experience vexation. Yet there are people who delights in eternalism and there are others who embraces annihilationism. Do you think they are mad or do they experience vexation with regard to a self or no self? Well, I don't think so. If it were so, getting out of samsara would be so much easier. It is precisely because a position of "self" or "no self" is not an imponderable that one finds delight in doctrines of eternalism and annihilationism. It is precisely because a position of "self" or "no self" is a ponderable that one is entangled in the entanglements of samsara. I do not say that a position of "self" or "no self" is an imponderable. I do say that a position of "self" or "no self" is a ponderable, and anyone pondering on it is engaging in unskillful mental activities. > It appears to me incongruous (although not impossible) that the > subject matter of the Buddha's second sermon after enlightenment > (the Anattalakkhana Sutta) - after which all five disciples became > arahants - was on an undeclared topic. I see that Scott has done > some extensive research and provided many references that satisfy me > that anatta was indeed "vyakata" (declared) by the Buddha. Swee > Boon's comments appear to me to be incorrect but do resonate in the > sense that anatta "cannot be proved with reason, like darkness > cannot be seen by bringing in a light" (Ven. Dhammapala). But > that's a different issue from "declared" and "undeclared". > And IMHO anatta was declared by the Buddha. The doctrine of "not self" was declared by the Buddha. But the position of "no self" was not declared by the Buddha. Thoughts of whether there is a self or no self are distracting thoughts. They are unskillful mental qualities rooted in self- identification views and thus should be put aside. It is wiser and much skillful to see through direct insight the not-self characteristic of all things. Regards, Swee Boon #65005 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 6:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 Dear Joop... Sorry, that is Visuddhimagga, IX, 95 and 100. Scott. #65006 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 7:02 pm Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 Dear All, What worries me about... SB: "The doctrine of "not self" was declared by the Buddha. But the position of "no self" was not declared by the Buddha." ...is that I wonder if the inference is that there might be 'something' maybe that persists. I may be missing the point, however. With loving kindness, Scott. #65007 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 8:14 pm Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nidive Hi Scott, > What worries me about... > > SB: "The doctrine of "not self" was declared by the Buddha. But the > position of "no self" was not declared by the Buddha." > > ...is that I wonder if the inference is that there might be > 'something' maybe that persists. I may be missing the point, > however. As I said, any thought of there being a self or no self should be put aside. So your worry that "'something' maybe that persists" is unfounded. That thought should be put aside as well. A "hardening of view" with regard to a self or no self is not connected with the goal of nibbana. Regards, Swee Boon #65008 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat Nov 4, 2006 9:27 pm Subject: Bacteria not living: Insects and the Precept Against Killing rjkjp1 Dear James Thank you for the kind welcome. In ancient times people also believed that there were microscopic beings. In the Milindapanha King Milanda asks Venerable Nagesena, if it is true that when we boil water the reason for it splashing up is that the microscopic beings in it are writhing in pain. Ven. Nagasensa said this is not true. At this time we think we are more knowledgeable, and have science to tell us what is rupa, what is not. But it is not so easy. The Visuddhimagga talks about the egg and sperm (in pali of course) and how after they join consciousness has a base for arising. It is clear from the passage in the Vis. that sperm and egg are considered only as rupa, no mentality- they are not alive. Yet if you have seen pictures of sperm they look like little tadpole and move about exactly like small tadpole- they appear to be living. Bacteria and virus are smaller than sperm and much smaller than the egg. They do not move as much as sperm... So I don't see where there can be any basis to think they are alive. Take a tiny drop of bacteria culture, within that there would be hundreds of thousands of bacteria, or more. Is each one alive, is each bacteria making kamma? , or is it the whole drop is one living being, or ...It seems unlikely thus I am sure they are only rupa. But of course there are no direct references to bacteria and virus in the Pali. Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > 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 > #65009 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 1:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) jonoabb Hi James --- buddhatrue wrote: > 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. An observation about this passage from the Wheel booklet. As I read it, the explanation in the commentaries is limited to the first sentence of the paragraph quoted (the term 'root' has the sense of firm support, cause, condition and producer), while the metaphor of conveying nourishing sap is the author's own. Just to distinguish commentary from non-commentary. ... > 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. Glad you brought it up. It's always useful to be reminded of these things. Jon #65010 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 1:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Citta and bhavanga citta jonoabb Hi Plamen --- Plamen Gradinarov wrote: ... > 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*. Thanks for this detail. To my understanding, citta is chief in knowing/being conscious of the object, but it merely knows or is conscious of the object, whereas the accompanying mental factors each have other functions such as marking the object (sanna), being aware of the object (sati), etc. I have forgotten the original context of our discussion, so I can't add anything further at this stage ;-)) > 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 Thanks for sharing Jon #65011 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Having trouble finding these suttas and their name and number... jonoabb Hi JC --- JC Mendoza wrote: > You got it wrong I'm talking about brahmas not brahmans... In that case I have no more ideas ;-)). Please let us know if you find out the answer. Jon > 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. #65012 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 2:10 am Subject: external rupas. nilovg Hi Howard, I wonder whether I can clarify at least a few points. ----------- H: 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? -------------------------------------------- N: Here we are speaking in conventional terms, a situation. Each individual has different vipaakacittas experiencing different rupas through the bodysense. They impinge on the bodysense, they are outward rupas and impinge on the senses. But all of them fall away immediately, and then they are not anywhere, they have gone. Does it clarify when speaking of aayatanas, inner aayatanas and outward aayatanas? This is not only in the Abhidhamma, also in the suttas, take Kindred Sayings IV, it is called salaayatanavagga, all about aayatanas, and certainly not in figurative sense. For example: § 1-2: personal, ajjhatta: personal, interior as opposed to external, baahira. § 4-7: external, baahira. The senses and all cittas are interior aayatanas, the objects experienced by them are external aayatanas. I find the teaching of aayatanas helpful, it shows us the association of the inner and the outer aayatanas when objects are experienced. It shows conditions. > ----- > 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". ---------------------------------------- N: As I see it, rupa is the object of cittas in one mindstream and another rupa is the object of cittas in another mindstream, but that does not make the rupa internal. But I know that you see the experience and its content as one. You tend to see rupas that are experienced as internal because you see them as subjective, or am I mistaken? > --------- > ------- > 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. -------------------------------------------- N: A dhamma can condition another dhamma when prenascent, conascen or postnascent. > ----------- > 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 differs 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 the straightforward reading of the suttas. ------- N: There is a Suttanta method of explaining and an Abhidhamma method, nobody will deny this. But the teaching of the Tipitaka is one, there are no contradictions. There are many instances of Abhidhamma method in the suttas, take Kindred Sayings IV. --------- H: 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. ---------- N: Contact falls away immediately with the citta. It is impermanent. Together with each citta is feeling, by what contact is it conditioned? Is it not conditioned by the accompanying contact and by each accompanying cetasika? It seems strange that there is first contact which falls away and then afterwards feeling, with another citta and then conditioned by the contact that has fallen away? -------- H: 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. ------------------------------------------------- N: In this case one thinks and remembers later on the object that was experienced and reacts with akusala citta. Not all processes and all cittas are given in detail in the suttas. We have to look at the context each time. > ---------- Nina. #65013 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 2:13 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 571- Understanding/pa~n~naa (j) 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 we are absorbed in concepts and there is no mindfulness, we live as in a dream and we do not know what is really there: only ever-changing nåmas and rúpas. We read in the Middle Length Sayings (II, no. 54, Discourse to Potaliya) that the Buddha pointed out in different similes the dangers and disadvantages of sense pleasures. One of these similes is the following: * "And, householder, it is as if a man might see in a dream delightful parks, delightful woods, delightful stretches of level ground and delightful lakes; but on waking up could see nothing. Even so, householder, an ariyan disciple reflects thus: “Pleasures of the senses have been likened by the Lord to a dream, of much pain, of much tribulation, wherein is more peril.” And having seen this thus as it really is by means of perfect wisdom… the material things of the world are stopped entirely." * We cannot really see parks, woods and lakes, because what is experienced through the eyes is only the rúpa which is visible object. We can think of the concepts of parks, woods and lakes, and the thinking is conditioned by remembrance of past experiences. When we do not develop understanding of the reality which appears through one of the six doors and only pay attention to “wholes” such as gardens or houses, we believe that we can possess them. When there is mindfulness of one object at a time, such as visible object or hardness, we will understand that in the ultimate sense we cannot own anything. We cannot possess visible object, it can only be seen. We cannot take it with us; it arises just for a moment and then it falls away. We cannot possess hardness, it can be experienced through touch and then it falls away immediately. The development of insight will lead to detachment, it will lead to the eradication of the idea of a self who can exert control over things or events. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #65014 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 2:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Groundhog Day Reflections sarahprocter... Hi James & all, We were discussing samvegga (sense of urgency) a month ago! --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > > S: I think the important thing to remember is that samvegga is > > > referring > > > > to an understanding, a sense of urgency with wisdom, not to > any > > > unpleasant > > > > thoughts or feelings. > > > J:> > > I disagree with this statement. Samvegga, even though it > involves > > > wisdom, does include unpleasant feelings. > > .... > > S: When there's wisdom, surely there can't be any unpleasant > feelings at > > the same time? > > You ask this question because you see wisdom (panna) being of only > one type. There are many types of panna. .... S: Yes, many types (and degrees) of panna - all accompanied by pleasant or neutral feeling. (I've never suggested there is only one type of panna:-)). ... > a sense of urgency, are 8: > "birth, old age, disease, death, being 4; the suffering in the lower > states of existence being the 5th; further, the misery of the past > rooted in the cycle of rebirth, the misery of the future rooted in > the cycle of rebirth, the misery of the present rooted in the search > after food" (Vis.M. III.). > (Note the word "misery" repeated throughout. Misery is not a > pleasant feeling.) .... S: Don't you think it's possible to reflect on Dukkha, on the misery of samsara and so on with calm, with neutral or even pleasant feeling? When it's wise reflection with panna, there is calm. It cannot be unpleasant as I understand. ... S:> > See refs in Vism on samvegga: 111,95, 1V, 63 and X111, 35 .... > > Here's the first one. (The Pali is just added because I was > interested to > > check it): > > > > "In one of intelligent temperament[buddhicaritassa] there is > frequent > > occurrence of such states as readiness to be spoken to > [sovcassataa], > > possession of good friends[kalyaa.namittataa], knowledge of the > right > > amount in eating[bhojane matta~n~nutaa], mindfulness and full > > awareness[satisampaja~n~na.m], devotion to wakefulness > [jaagariyaanuyogo], > > a sense of urgency about things that should inspire a sense of > > urgency[sa'mvejaniiyesu .thaanesu sa'mvego sa'mviggassa], and > wisely > > directed endeavour[yoniso padhaanan ti evamaadayo]." > > This is an interesting quote but I don't see how it's related. .... S: It's related because it refers samvegga with awareness and understanding and right effort. There is no suggestion of 'the oppressive sense of shock, dismay...' or 'an anxious sense of urgency' as in the definition you gave. ... There are many references in the Theri-Theragatha to those who developed insight with a sense of urgency and became enlightened. None of them have any sense of misery or unhappy feeling with such insight as I read them. “The monk who knows the urgent need to keep the faculties restrained By fully understanding them will make an end of suffering” Sammohavinodani,Class. of Faculties,591 Thanks for your reflections and apology for this late reply. Metta, Sarah ======= #65015 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 2:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) jonoabb Hi Phil --- Phil wrote: > Hi Jon > ... > 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. In all these suttas what is being referred to is the development of kusala of one level or another. In my view any attempt by you or me to 'stamp out akusala like a man stamps out a burning grass fire' would most likely result in the replacing of one form of akusala with another. However, the development of kusala can begin at any moment (and begin again the next). > 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. Yes, to give us a better idea of how enormous the task is, and at the same time to strengthen our resolve and courage as regards the development of the path. > 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. The four right efforts, which you allude to here, are also references to kusala consciousnesses only. In the case of akusala that has already arisen, the relevant right effort is to avoid its continuation, so in that sense I think it's quite appropriate to say that nothing can be done about akusala that has already arisen. > 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. If we think that "I can do something about individual akusala situations, no matter how deep the accumulations are", there is likely to be an idea of forcing kusala to arise. If we think "There's nothing I can do" that's also likely not to be thinking with kusala. But if we have confidence in the development of kusala of all levels including insight, akusala situations will be 'dealt with' in the most kusala way possible. > 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. If I've read you correctly, I agree with what you say here ;-)) > 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. The only comment I've made on the thing about stressing sila is that there's no conflict between an interest in the development of sila and an interest in the development of other forms of kusala including insight. All kusala supports all other kusala, but in particular an interest in the development of insight is of great support to the development of sila, I believe. ... > 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 The Buddha praised the development of sila for everyone. > 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. Looking forward here, too. Jon #65016 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 3:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) jonoabb Hi Phil --- Phil wrote: ... > 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. But there are no sila implications in being a smoker ;-)), nor is smoking a hindrance to the development of other kinds of kusala. > 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. You don't say what exactly is the significance/importance of commonly arising sensual desire or hatred in particular. If it is seen as something to be 'dealt with' somehow, this would be neither sila nor satipatthana, as I understand those terms. > 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! Yes, it's the "I"s that have it ;-)), for all of us. Jon #65017 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 4:38 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 Dear Swee Boon, I think I see where you are coming from here: SB: "As I said, any thought of there being a self or no self should be put aside. So your worry that "'something' maybe that persists" is unfounded. That thought should be put aside as well. A "hardening of view" with regard to a self or no self is not connected with the goal of nibbana." Its alright, I'm not 'worried' worried; I was using 'worried' as a way of making a statement about a particular doctrinal implication regarding 'self' and the various distinctions being fabricated, that's all. You seem to be advocating a particular practical stance vis-a-vis objects of thought. We are at cross-purposes, which is why I don't like debates (not that this has become one). With loving kindness, Scott. #65018 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 5:02 am Subject: Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) philofillet Hi Jon > But there are no sila implications in being a smoker ;-)), nor is smoking > a hindrance to the development of other kinds of kusala. I was just rambling/free-associating. Didn't mean it literally. > > > 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. > > You don't say what exactly is the significance/importance of commonly > arising sensual desire or hatred in particular. If it is seen as > something to be 'dealt with' somehow, this would be neither sila nor > satipatthana, as I understand those terms. Please take a look at MN 19. It maes very clear the significance/importance of commonly arising sensual desire/hatred. "That on which a man thinks often, to that his mind will incline" - seomthing like that is in there. I am not content to have my mind incline in akusala directions. We can choose to take action towards the inclining of our mind in more wholesome directions. Yes, there are the underlying tendencies. I am not intending to eradicate them through the intentional methods encouraged by the Buddha to purify the conceptual content of our thinking in daily life. Different topic. And as you know, there are forms of mental deeds that are akusala kamma patha. I don't go creeping through life afraid of my thoughts, and I certainly don't beat myself up when thoughts run away on me into dark neghbourhoods, as they will, but there is more interest in heedfulness now. Heedulness (appamada) must by definition be there for us often and in an ongoing way. I never could see how appamada (I guess it's a blend of mental factors rather than one dhamma) could be appamada if it was something that we were aware of on rare occasions. Then it wouldn't be heedfulness. Heedfulness ain't that rare, by definition. Or it wouldn't be heedfulness. There is no doubt whatsover that the Buddha encouraged us to stamp out akusala proliferation (thoughts of ill-will, thoughts of sensual desire, thoughts of cruelty.) No doubt for me at least, none whatsoever. If you don't see that, that's fine - if you can read MN 19 and not relate to it, that means you don't have a tendency to the proliferations in question. That's cool. Different Dhamma for different folks with different leanings. :) Phil p.s I imagine the other post will just have me writing the same thing, so maybe I'll drop it and keep this post only. I imagine I'll be saying the same thing over and over for the next little while. :) #65019 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 5:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: K.Sujin says there can be control! philofillet Hi Nina > 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. I think so too. Much too many references to meditators doing this or that to have insight in the meditations books/talks I've been coming across lately. I think sati is there for the having, but not insight. I think satipatthana goes wrong for most people and will probably go wrong for me because of impatience. > > 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. Bare attention, maybe? Not "direct" awareness, maybe, but some kind of awareness. Of course the object has already fallen away, as it has when Acharan Sujin encourages us to be aware of the characteristics of "present" realities. They are gone - the nimitta remains. 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. Yes, no trying to do this when I meditate. There is a coming back to the breath, but even after a few days it's not trying any more, it becomes a habit - it happens, or it doesn't. Usually it doesn't. Usually there is mental proliferation, or sleepiness. Conditions at work. > > 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. Ph: I have misplaced the satipattha sutta commentary that Sarah kindly sent me - it will reappear from amidst the pile of books in my closet. In the meantime, I have heard Bhikkhi Bodhi talk on it. He suggests there is a sytem to it. I tend to be less suspicious of him than other people who are famous for being meditation teachers, who I think have personal agendas. BB is a bit more of an academic so I tend to think what he says is based more on an objective interpretation of the texts. On the other hand, U Silananda, the Burmese teacher I like, is a meditation teacher in the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition so I don't think he's objective, though still good to listen to, with an Abhidhamma perspective. My point is, I guess, that I will have to do more listening, reading and reflecting before I can agree with you for sure that there isn't an order to the four applications. I have to study what other people say about it as well. > > Also the hindrancesare included, but it is difficult to be aware of > akusala dhamma before the difference between nama and rupa is > realized. I'm not so sure about this anymore Nina. Impossible to begin to eradicate akusala before the difference between nama and rupa is realized, but not necessarily difficult to know when akusala is in the air - some forms of it, anyways. It's "my" lobha, "my" dosa, Acharn would say. So? It's still harmful, and can be turned away from. And I won't let worry-about-whether-self-is-involved stop me from doing so. However, if one tries to suppress distractions, these will > always come back. Only vipassana developed to lokuttara pa~n~naa can > eradicate them. I think their power can be reduced. I have a story that would support my point but it is a bit too confessional even for me so I will leave it. > 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. Ph: Actually, I mentionned the above because it is something I remembered hearing. I don't use it personally, not at this time. Perhaps I will someday, who knows. As you say, it's a conditioned dhamma. For now, I find reflecting on the teaching in MN 19 is all I need to keep my thoughts on a more wholesome track. (And where the thoughts go, the body and speech follow.) Thanks for your feedback, Nina. :) Phil #65020 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/5/06 5:12:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > I wonder whether I can clarify at least a few points. > ----------- > H: > 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? > -------------------------------------------- > N: Here we are speaking in conventional terms, a situation. Each > individual has different vipaakacittas experiencing different rupas > through the bodysense. They impinge on the bodysense, they are > outward rupas and impinge on the senses. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: I understand that in the commonsense picture of "people in the world", the "heats" experienced by two people walking outside on a hot day are not exactly the same item. But, given that we allow the notion of objective heat rupas "out in the world," we could easily imagine that they are two heat rupas of *exactly* the same temperature, so that while they are not literally one and the same (inasmuch as they aren't occurring in exactly thesame place!), they are perfectly equivalent, and should reasonably be identified as "the same heat". Now whether or not those alleged objective, external conditions are a reality or not, the experiences that the two people are having are definitely NOT the same. One of them is experiencing a 95-degree heat that is pleasant, and the other is experiencing a 95-degree heat that is unpleasant. The internal sensations (rupas) are not only not literally identical, but also not even equivalent. It is these "felt heats", one pleasant and one not, that are experienced rupas. Any other heat rupas, if real, are not known. When I speak of "internal rupa" I mean a 5-sense-door sensation in a namarupic stream, and when I speak of an "external rupa" I speak of a phenomenon outside of any namarupic stream. External rupas in that sense are, by definition, unknowable. One may hypothesize their existence, but never confirm it. --------------------------------------------------- But all of them fall away > > immediately, and then they are not anywhere, they have gone. > Does it clarify when speaking of aayatanas, inner aayatanas and > outward aayatanas? This is not only in the Abhidhamma, also in the > suttas, take Kindred Sayings IV, it is called salaayatanavagga, all > about aayatanas, and certainly not in figurative sense. > For example: § 1-2: personal, ajjhatta: personal, interior as opposed > to external, baahira. > § 4-7: external, baahira. > The senses and all cittas are interior aayatanas, the objects > experienced by them are external aayatanas. > > aayatanas helpful, it shows us the association of the inner and the > outer aayatanas when objects are experienced. It shows conditions. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I have no problem with that breakdown. It simply isn't what I am dealing with. -------------------------------------------- > > >----- > >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". > ---------------------------------------- > N: As I see it, rupa is the object of cittas in one mindstream and > another rupa is the object of cittas in another mindstream, but that > does not make the rupa internal. > But I know that you see the experience and its content as one. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: I do not see experiencing and the object content of experience as one. I see them as completely and irrevocably interdependent. ----------------------------------------- You > > tend to see rupas that are experienced as internal because you see > them as subjective, or am I mistaken? ----------------------------------------- Howard: I see them as content of consciousness and as not existing independently of that relationship. Throwing in the word 'subjective' doesn't clarify the matter. ------------------------------------------ > >--------- > > >------- > >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. > -------------------------------------------- > N: A dhamma can condition another dhamma when prenascent, conascen or > postnascent. > >----------- > >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 > differs 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 the straightforward reading of the suttas. > ------- > N: There is a Suttanta method of explaining and an Abhidhamma method, > nobody will deny this. But the teaching of the Tipitaka is one, there > are no contradictions. There are many instances of Abhidhamma method > in the suttas, take Kindred Sayings IV. > --------- > > H: 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. > ---------- > N: Contact falls away immediately with the citta. It is impermanent. > Together with each citta is feeling, by what contact is it > conditioned? Is it not conditioned by the accompanying contact and by > each accompanying cetasika? It seems strange that there is first > contact which falls away and then afterwards feeling, with another > citta and then conditioned by the contact that has fallen away? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: It doesn't see strange to me. --------------------------------------------- > -------- > > H: 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. > ------------------------------------------------- > N: In this case one thinks and remembers later on the object that was > experienced and reacts with akusala citta. Not all processes and all > cittas are given in detail in the suttas. We have to look at the > context each time. ----------------------------------------- Howard: I understand that you believe that the Abhidhamma never is contrary to the suttas. But I think that ths matter of simultaneity in Abhidhamma and temporal sequencing in the suttas is a genuine distinction. I don't think it is just a matter of difference in detail. ------------------------------------------- > >---------- > Nina. > > ======================== With metta, Howard #65021 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 12:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Phil) - In a message dated 11/5/06 5:56:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@... writes: > Hi Phil > > --- Phil wrote: > > > Hi Jon > > > ... > > 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. > > In all these suttas what is being referred to is the development of kusala > of one level or another. In my view any attempt by you or me to 'stamp > out akusala like a man stamps out a burning grass fire' would most likely > result in the replacing of one form of akusala with another. > =========================== Yes, silly Buddha! If only he had had the benefit of DSG membership! ;-) With metta, Howard #65022 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 1:15 am Subject: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi again, Nina - Something got messed up in the last post I sent you, and at the most important point! Part of what I wrote went missing, and my words were not separated off from yours. I copy below the problematic part, and below thatII try to improve it. What appeared in my post was the following: ________________________ But all of them fall away > > immediately, and then they are not anywhere, they have gone. > Does it clarify when speaking of aayatanas, inner aayatanas and > outward aayatanas? This is not only in the Abhidhamma, also in the > suttas, take Kindred Sayings IV, it is called salaayatanavagga, all > about aayatanas, and certainly not in figurative sense. > For example: § 1-2: personal, ajjhatta: personal, interior as opposed > to external, baahira. > § 4-7: external, baahira. > The senses and all cittas are interior aayatanas, the objects > experienced by them are external aayatanas. > on my hand, for example, or the sound I hear, or the sight I see) "external" if it is wished, and I have no problem with it. But so called body door rupas that exist "out there" not as sensations but as things-in-themselves are merely hypothesized. It is *such* that I call "external". That is my usage. That is what I am referring to. Such phenomena may well exist. There simply is no way of knowing, and that being the case, I adopt Occam's parsimonious razor. Nina, where are unseen visual objects? Where are the unseen sights? Where are such rupas? Please seriously consider that question! I think that contemplating it may give you and some others here an insight into what I am talking about. I cannot emphasize this particular point too strongly. If you ignore all the rest of this post of mine, and just consider this one point, you will be dealing with the heartwood of this post. --------------------------------------------- But what it should be is a bit closer to the following: (Quoting you, Nina) > But all of them fall away > immediately, and then they are not anywhere, they have gone. > Does it clarify when speaking of aayatanas, inner aayatanas and > outward aayatanas? This is not only in the Abhidhamma, also in the > suttas, take Kindred Sayings IV, it is called salaayatanavagga, all > about aayatanas, and certainly not in figurative sense. > For example: § 1-2: personal, ajjhatta: personal, interior as opposed > to external, baahira. > § 4-7: external, baahira. > The senses and all cittas are interior aayatanas, the objects > experienced by them are external aayatanas. -------------------------------------- Howard: One may call the itch on my hand, for example, or the sound I hear, or the sight I see) "external" if it is wished, and I have no problem with it. But so called body door rupas that exist "out there" not as sensations but as things-in-themselves are merely hypothesized. It is *such* that I call "external". That is my usage. That is what I am referring to. Such phenomena may well exist. There simply is no way of knowing, and that being the case, I adopt Occam's parsimonious razor. Nina, where are unseen visual objects? Where are the unseen sights? Where are such rupas? Please seriously consider that question! I think that contemplating it may give you and some others here an insight into what I am talking about. I cannot emphasize this particular point too strongly. If you ignore all the rest of this post of mine, and just consider this one point, you will be dealing with the heartwood of this post. With metta, Howard #65023 From: "nidive" Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 7:19 am Subject: Re: external rupas. nidive Hi Howard, > I understand that in the commonsense picture of "people in the > world", the "heats" experienced by two people walking outside on a > hot day are not exactly the same item. But, given that we allow the > notion of objective heat rupas "out in the world," we could easily > imagine that they are two heat rupas of *exactly* the same > temperature, so that while they are not literally one and > the same (inasmuch as they aren't occurring in exactly thesame > place!), they are perfectly equivalent, and should reasonably be > identified as "the same heat". Now whether or not those alleged > objective, external conditions are a reality or not, the experiences > that the two people are having are definitely NOT the same. One of > them is experiencing a 95-degree heat that is pleasant, and > the other is experiencing a 95-degree heat that is unpleasant. The > internal sensations (rupas) are not only not literally identical, > but also not even equivalent. It is these "felt heats", one pleasant > and one not, that are experienced rupas. Any other heat rupas, if > real, are not known. When I speak of "internal rupa" I mean a > 5-sense-door sensation in a namarupic stream, and when I speak > of an "external rupa" I speak of a phenomenon outside of any > namarupic stream. External rupas in that sense are, by definition, > unknowable. One may hypothesize their existence, but never confirm > it. My understanding is that there are no "internal rupa", only "external rupa" or rather just "rupa". Rupas do not have an "intrinsic feeling" of pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. How a rupa is to be felt depends on the state of the sense organ at the time of contact. The Buddha said that the six sense organs are to be seen as old kamma. So I think it is the result of past kamma that determines how a rupa is to be felt. But whatever mental feeling (associated with lobha, dosa and moha) that follows the bodily feeling is another matter altogether. Regards, Swee Boon #65024 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 7:55 am Subject: Re: Groundhog Day Reflections buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James & all, > > We were discussing samvegga (sense of urgency) a month ago! James: Yeah, I thought this subject was long dead! :-)) > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > > > S: I think the important thing to remember is that samvegga is > > > > referring > > > > > to an understanding, a sense of urgency with wisdom, not to > > any > > > > unpleasant > > > > > thoughts or feelings. > > > > > J:> > > I disagree with this statement. Samvegga, even though it > > involves > > > > wisdom, does include unpleasant feelings. > > > .... > > > S: When there's wisdom, surely there can't be any unpleasant > > feelings at > > > the same time? > > > > You ask this question because you see wisdom (panna) being of only > > one type. There are many types of panna. > .... > S: Yes, many types (and degrees) of panna - all accompanied by pleasant or > neutral feeling. (I've never suggested there is only one type of > panna:-)). > ... > > a sense of urgency, are 8: > > "birth, old age, disease, death, being 4; the suffering in the lower > > states of existence being the 5th; further, the misery of the past > > rooted in the cycle of rebirth, the misery of the future rooted in > > the cycle of rebirth, the misery of the present rooted in the search > > after food" (Vis.M. III.). > > (Note the word "misery" repeated throughout. Misery is not a > > pleasant feeling.) > .... > S: Don't you think it's possible to reflect on Dukkha, on the misery of > samsara and so on with calm, with neutral or even pleasant feeling? When > it's wise reflection with panna, there is calm. It cannot be unpleasant as > I understand. James: Okay, now I am home and I have the Vism. in front of me. Sarah, I feel that you have misquoted the Vism. here because you don't quote the full text. There is an important part of this passage that you leave out. Allow me to quote the entire passage (I will bold some important text which I will refer to later): "How does he encourage the mind on an occasion when it should be encouraged? When his mind is listless owing to sluggishness in the exercise of understanding or to failure to attain the bliss of peace, then he should STIMULATE it by reviewing the eight grounds for a sense of urgency. These are the four, namely, birth, ageing, sickness, and death, with the suffering of the States of Loss as the fifth, and also the suffering in the past rooted in the round [of rebirths], the suffering in the future rooted in the round [of rebirths], and the suffering in the present rooted in the search for nutriment. And he CREATES CONFIDENCE by recollecting the special qualities of the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha. This is how he encourages the mind on an occasion when it should be encouraged." As this text states, the mind is STIMULATED by reflecting on the dukkha of life. There is none of the calm that you suggest is present. It isn't until after the mind is stimulated that it is then calmed down ["CREATES CONFIDENCE"] by reflecting on the triple gem. Reflecting on dukkha stimulates the mind because it is a negative and disturbing thing. However, the mind is calmed by reflecting on the power of the triple gem. The mind cannot be calmed by reflecting on dukkha alone. Sarah, I think that this adequately addresses this issue in my mind. When you quote and examine the full text you will understand the meaning more. > There are many references in the Theri-Theragatha to those who developed > insight with a sense of urgency and became enlightened. None of them have > any sense of misery or unhappy feeling with such insight as I read them. James: The unhappy feeling doesn't come with insight; I never claimed that. I claimed that reflecting on dukkha alone will create a sense of misery and unhappiness. That only makes sense- dukkha is misery and unhappiness. How could someone reflect on misery and unhappiness and be happy and calm about it? That doesn't make sense. However, there is happiness and calm when one relects on the triple gem. > > "The monk who knows the urgent need > to keep the faculties restrained > By fully understanding them > will make an end of suffering" Sammohavinodani,Class. of Faculties,591 > > Thanks for your reflections and apology for this late reply. James: No problem. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > Metta, James #65025 From: "Sebastien Billard" Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 9:22 am Subject: Kindred Sayings (III, suffering) and french translation of Chapt 2 sbillard2000 Hi Nina, Sarah and all, Thanks for those indications, I have not yet fully identified the sutta, but I released the french translation of the second chapter anyway, I will add it later. It can be downloaded here : Concerning sutta exerpts, I used the sutta names and nikaya instead of the reference to "kindred sayings", because I thinks it is more easy for french speaking audience (We don't have a lot of canonocal litterature translated in french and most books in french use the name of suttas). But perhaps I should use full reference ? Don't hesitate if you have any suggestion or correction. Sébastien Billard :: http://s.billard.free.fr/ >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. #65026 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 10:42 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 112. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Threes, chapter VII, §62, Terror, V and VI): Monks, these three terrors part mother and son. What three? A mother cannot bear to see her son grow old. She says, ``I am growing old. Let not my son grow old.'' The son likewise cannot bear to see his mother grow old. He says, ``I am growing old. Let not my mother grow old.'' And it is the same with regard to getting sick and dying. These are the three terrors that part mother and son. But, monks, there is a way, there is a practice that leads to the abandoning, to the overpassing of these three terrors that part mother and son, a way which joins mother and son. What is that way, what is that practice which so leads? It is just this Eightfold Way, to wit: Right view, right thinking, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the way, that is the practice... The eightfold Path eventually leads to the end of birth, old age, sickness and death. If one is not an arahat, there will be a paìisandhi-citta succeeding the cuti-citta. Before the cuti-citta arises, there are only five javana-cittas instead of seven, because the javana process is weaker due to the nearness of death (Vis. chapter XVII, 143). These are the last javana-cittas of that lifespan. If akusala kamma produces the rebirth of the next life there will be an unhappy rebirth. In that case the last javana-cittas are akusala cittas and they experience an unpleasant object. If kusala kamma produces the rebirth there will be a happy rebirth. In that case the last javana-cittas are kusala cittas and they experience a pleasant object. These javana-cittas experience an object through one of the sense-doors or through the mind-door. Past kamma or an attribute of past kamma may present itself to the mind of the dying person, or he may foresee his future destiny (Vis. XVII, 136-146). The tadårammaùa-citta which has as function to register the object may or may not follow. Then the cuti-citta arises, the last citta of this present life. The cuti-citta is succeeded by the paìisandhi-citta of the following life and this citta experiences the same object as the last javana-cittas arising before the cuti-citta of the previous life. Whatever that object may have been, the paìisandhi-citta of the new life and also all bhavanga-cittas arising in the course of that new life and finally the cuti-citta of that life experience that object. ****** Nina. #65027 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 10:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] external rupas. nilovg Hi Howard, thanks, I shall think about this matter. It is no good answering posts hastily, Nina. Op 5-nov-2006, om 14:49 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Nina, where are unseen visual objects? Where are the unseen sights? > Where are such rupas? Please seriously consider that question! I > think that > contemplating it may give you and some others here an insight into > what I am > talking about. I cannot emphasize this particular point too > strongly. If you ignore > all the rest of this post of mine, and just consider this one > point, you will > be dealing with the heartwood of this post. #65028 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 11:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: external rupas. nilovg Dear Swee Boon, that is what I think as well and you formulated this very well. Meanwhile I shall still think over Howard's point. Nina. Op 5-nov-2006, om 16:19 heeft nidive het volgende geschreven: > How a rupa is to be felt depends on the state of the sense organ at > the time of contact. The Buddha said that the six sense organs are to > be seen as old kamma. So I think it is the result of past kamma that > determines how a rupa is to be felt. > > But whatever mental feeling (associated with lobha, dosa and moha) > that follows the bodily feeling is another matter altogether. #65029 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 11:36 am Subject: K.Sujin says there can be control! nilovg Dear Swee Boon and Phil, Swee Boon, it is very kind of you to give your input. S: 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. -------- N: What about us, poor beginners? All this is very advanced. But you said: Mindfulness is not about a single moment. It is a sustained effort. Therefore, effort, mindfulness and concentration go hand in hand as a threesome. ------- N: I would say, all the paramis have to sustain us, and these include energy or effort, also sincerity or truthfulness, patience. ------- S: 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. -------- N: I htink it is not a matter of thinking about these factors, but they develop along with right view of the eightfold Path. But I cannot say much about this since I do not really know what sammaasati and sammaditthi are. -------- Phil says:I think satipatthana goes wrong for most people and will probably go wrong for me because of impatience. ------- N: That is a good one to remember! Our impatience as to wanting to be sure about what sammasati and sammaaditthi are! ---------- Ph: quotes N: We are only learning, there is usually considering and not direct awareness. Bare attention, maybe? Not "direct" awareness, maybe, but some kind of awareness. Of course the object has already fallen away, as it has when Acharan Sujin encourages us to be aware of the characteristics of "present" realities. They are gone - the nimitta remains. ------- N: Bare attention seems a loaded term. Not so clear what people mean. Rob K has a better expression: thinking in the present moment. We are groping in the dark, aren't we? But the beginning cannot be clear. -------- Ph: I have misplaced the satipattha sutta commentary that Sarah kindly sent me. ------- N: Here is the link: ----------- Ph: quotes N: Also the hindrances are included, but it is difficult to be aware of > akusala dhamma before the difference between nama and rupa is > realized. I'm not so sure about this anymore Nina. Impossible to begin to eradicate akusala before the difference between nama and rupa is realized, but not necessarily difficult to know when akusala is in the air - some forms of it, anyways. It's "my" lobha, "my" dosa, Acharn would say. So? It's still harmful, and can be turned away from. And I won't let worry-about-whether-self-is-involved stop me from doing so. --------- N: Yes, there can be a beginning. I read in Kh Sujin's Perfections, Truthfulness: < Truthfulness is the dhamma that enhances the arising and development of all kusala, because truthfulness is sincerity with regard to the eradication of defilements. When kusala does not arise and we realize that we are not sincere in the development of kusala, this can be a condition for its arising. When akusala arises we should be truthful so that sati sampajañña can be aware of the characteristic of akusala. In this way there are conditions for the abandoning of akusala and the development of kusala. > And again (this may speak to your heart, Phil): < As we read in the Commentary: “He should be capable of enduring everything whether desirable or undesirable.” When we are infatuated with something, we may realize that this is not ordinary attachment, but a stronger degree of lobha. We may be absorbed in the object of attachment, but when sati-sampajañña arises we can realize that we should endure everything, whether desirable or undesirable. If we very gradually learn to be patient, we shall know what the characteristic of true patience is. We can accumulate patience in all situations, no matter whether we experience objects through the bodysense or hear someone else’s speech. We can learn to be patient and not complain about cold, heat or difficult situations in life. Then we shall understand what patience is. > It is helpful for me to discuss with you, Swee Boon and Phil, Nina. #65030 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 11:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Groundhog Day Reflections nilovg Hi James, thank you, I appreciate your reminder. One additional remark, even when reflecting on birth, old age, etc. one can be calm, because it is so true. I think that when you understand what is true it can go along with calm. You can have confidence in the truth of dukkha and even rejoice. Nina. p 5-nov-2006, om 16:55 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > As this text states, the mind is STIMULATED by reflecting on the > dukkha of life. There is none of the calm that you suggest is > present. It isn't until after the mind is stimulated that it is then > calmed down ["CREATES CONFIDENCE"] by reflecting on the triple gem. #65031 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kindred Sayings (III, suffering) and french translation of Chapt 2 nilovg Dear Sebastien, please do what is best for the French audience, with appreciation, Nina. Op 5-nov-2006, om 18:22 heeft Sebastien Billard het volgende geschreven: > Concerning sutta exerpts, I used the sutta names and nikaya instead > of the > reference to "kindred sayings", because I thinks it is more easy > for french > speaking audience (We don't have a lot of canonocal litterature > translated > in french and most books in french use the name of suttas). But > perhaps I > should use full reference ? #65032 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 6:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Dear Nina - In a message dated 11/5/06 2:10:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > thanks, I shall think about this matter. It is no good answering > posts hastily, > Nina. ========================= Thank you, Nina! That is a wonderful attitude that I very much appreciate! :-) With metta, Howard > Op 5-nov-2006, om 14:49 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > >Nina, where are unseen visual objects? Where are the unseen sights? > >Where are such rupas? Please seriously consider that question! I > >think that > >contemplating it may give you and some others here an insight into > >what I am > >talking about. I cannot emphasize this particular point too > >strongly. If you ignore > >all the rest of this post of mine, and just consider this one > >point, you will > >be dealing with the heartwood of this post. > > #65033 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 7:02 am Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/5/2006 7:33:50 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: One may call the itch on my hand, for example, or the sound I hear, or the sight I see) "external" if it is wished, and I have no problem with it. But so called body door rupas that exist "out there" not as sensations but as things-in-themselves are merely hypothesized. It is *such* that I call "external". That is my usage. That is what I am referring to. Such phenomena may well exist. There simply is no way of knowing, and that being the case, I adopt Occam's parsimonious razor. Nina, where are unseen visual objects? Where are the unseen sights? Where are such rupas? Please seriously consider that question! I think that contemplating it may give you and some others here an insight into what I am talking about. I cannot emphasize this particular point too strongly. If you ignore all the rest of this post of mine, and just consider this one point, you will be dealing with the heartwood of this post. With metta, Howard Hi Howard If I understand you; I agree with you in a very strict technical sense that the external phenomena that are not being experience are hypothetical. However, being that there is a lifelong consistency in the way the "external" just happens to "be there" in a consistent manner when ever we pay attention to external phenomena, it seems pragmatic and practical to "assume" that it maintains its qualities even when we are not aware of it. In a very strict theoretical sense, one may prefer not to make that assumption. But I don't see it as being a very productive point in terms of "Path Ferrying." Furthermore, the Suttas are replete with the Buddha speaking of external phenomena!...external phenomena that he was not experiencing at that time. It seems that the Buddha was comfortable with considering the "hypothetical external phenomena" as being an actual thing. Taken to the extreme, I don't see how you could drive a car not knowing if the road in front of you would still be there every time you looked at the rear view mirror. TG #65034 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 8:57 am Subject: The Fruit of Study and Practice: the Delight of Dhamma upasaka_howard Thig 3.2 Uttama Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu PTS: vv. 42-44 Source: Transcribed from a file provided by the translator. Copyright © 1997 Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight edition © 1997 For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted, and redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish, however, that any such republication and redistribution be made available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that translations and other derivative works be clearly marked as such. Four times, five, I ran amok from my dwelling, having gained no peace of awareness, my thoughts out of control. So I went to a trustworthy nun. She taught me the Dhamma: aggregates, sense spheres, & elements. Hearing the Dhamma, I did as she said. For seven days I sat in one spot, absorbed in rapture & bliss. On the eighth, I stretched out my legs, having burst the mass of darkness. #65035 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 8:55 am Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/5/06 3:07:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > If I understand you; I agree with you in a very strict technical sense that > > the external phenomena that are not being experience are hypothetical. > However, being that there is a lifelong consistency in the way the > "external" just > happens to "be there" in a consistent manner when ever we pay attention to > external phenomena, it seems pragmatic and practical to "assume" that it > maintains its qualities even when we are not aware of it. --------------------------------------- Howard: I understand that perspective and have often considered and contemplated it. But all that I conclude is that this intersubjective realm of experience hangs together in a well ordered fashion that makes indeed a marvelous magic show, created, I believe, by the kamma of a multitude of interacting mindstreams. I certainly do not deny the order and lawfulness of experience, of kamma, and of intersubjective experience. What is, is a wonder - whether external or not. In any case, I do not find the well-orderedness of experience forcing me to accept the world of conventional objects as a reality nor do I find myself countenancing unseen visual objects. ---------------------------------------- > > In a very strict theoretical sense, one may prefer not to make that > assumption. But I don't see it as being a very productive point in terms > of "Path > Ferrying." > --------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with that. Walking the path is a matter of cultivation of calm, clarity, mindfulness, and insight, and, most of all, of relinquishment - including the relinquishing of fixed, tenacious views. --------------------------------------- Furthermore, the Suttas are replete with the Buddha speaking of > > external phenomena!...external phenomena that he was not experiencing at > that > time. It seems that the Buddha was comfortable with considering the > "hypothetical external phenomena" as being an actual thing. ---------------------------------------- Howard: That's uncertain. I also speak of external things all the time. The Buddha also spoke of "himself" and of "others" all the time. --------------------------------------- > > Taken to the extreme, I don't see how you could drive a car not knowing if > the road in front of you would still be there every time you looked at the > rear > view mirror. ---------------------------------------- Howard: The regularity and lawfulness of experience is clear. I would be blind or absurdly obstinate to deny it. ----------------------------------------- > > TG > ===================== With metta, Howard #65036 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 9:12 am Subject: A Beautiful and Inspiring Prose-Poem from the Therigatha upasaka_howard Thig 6.4 The Verses of Final Knowledge of Bhikkhuni Sujata Translated from the Pali by Hellmuth Hecker and Sister Khema PTS: vv. 133-138 Source: From Buddhist Women at the Time of The Buddha (WH 292/293), by Hellmuth Hecker, translated from the German by Sister Khema (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1982). Copyright © 1982 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. Copyright © 1982 Buddhist Publication Society. Access to Insight edition © 1998 For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted, and redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish, however, that any such republication and redistribution be made available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that translations and other derivative works be clearly marked as such. With subtle veils adorned, Garlands and sandal-wood bedecked, Covered all over with ornaments, Surrounded by my servants, Taking with us food and drink, Eatables of many kinds, Setting off from the house, To the forest grove we took it all. Having enjoyed and sported there, We turned our feet to home But on the way I saw and entered Near Saketa, a monastery. Seeing the Light of the World I drew near, bowed down to Him; Out of compassion the Seeing One Then taught me Dhamma there. Hearing the words of the Great Sage, I penetrated Truth: The Dhamma passionless, I touched the Dhamma of Deathlessness. When the True Dhamma had been known, I went forth to the homeless life; The three True Knowledges are attained, Not empty the Buddha's Teaching! Revised: Sunday 2006-06-18 #65037 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] To appreciate how short life is: help pls antony272b2 Dear Howard and all, Thanks for your reply. I have been assuming that life being short is bad news. But I've been able to turn this around in my meditation: - Patience ("cheer up, it'll be over soon") - Motivation ("here's a great opportunity to come back to the meditation object") - samvega (urgency) is "not the urgency to worry about the future but the urgency for happiness in the practice." with metta / Antony. #65038 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 10:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] To appreciate how short life is: help pls upasaka_howard Hi, Antony - In a message dated 11/5/06 5:58:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, antony272b@... writes: > Dear Howard and all, > > Thanks for your reply. > > I have been assuming that life being short is bad news. > But I've been able to turn this around in my meditation: > - Patience ("cheer up, it'll be over soon") ---------------------------------------- Howard: Er, you might want to reconsider whether "cheer up, it'll be over soon" with regard to life expresses patience. (Unless, of course, you wern't referring to life here, but to a momentary unpleasantness.) ---------------------------------------- > - Motivation ("here's a great opportunity to come back to the > meditation object") > - samvega (urgency) is "not the urgency to worry about the future but > the urgency for happiness in the practice." > > with metta / Antony. > > ========================== Also, I suppose that while considering useful thoughts pertaining to urgency, an oldie but goodie to keep in mind is "There's no time like the present!" :-) With metta, Howard #65039 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 4:08 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,111 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga). Ch. XVII 111. So although this ignorance has entirely understandable fruit for its result and is reprehensible in its individual essence, yet it should be understood as a condition, opposed or unopposed and like or unlike as the case may be, as to presence, function, and individual essence, for all these formations of merit, etc. And its state as a condition has already been given in the way beginning, 'For when unknowing--in other words, ignorance--of suffering, etc., is unabandoned in a man, owing firstly to his unknowing about suffering and about the past, etc., then he believes the suffering of the round of rebirths to be pleasant and he embarks upon the three kinds of formations, which are the cause of that very suffering' (par.62). ********************** 111. iti aya.m avijjaa vipaakavasena ekantaani.t.thaphalaa, sabhaavavasena ca saavajjaapi samaanaa sabbesampi etesa.m pu~n~naabhisa"nkhaaraadiina.m yathaanuruupa.m .thaanakiccasabhaavaviruddhaaviruddhapaccayavasena, sadisaasadisapaccayavasena ca paccayo hotiiti veditabbaa. so cassaa paccayabhaavo ``yassa hi dukkhaadiisu avijjaasa"nkhaata.m a~n~naa.na.m appahiina.m hoti, so dukkhe taava pubbantaadiisu ca a~n~naa.nena sa.msaaradukkha.m sukhasa~n~naaya gahetvaa tassa hetubhuute tividhepi sa"nkhaare aarabhatii´´ tiaadinaa nayena vutto eva. #65040 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 4:50 pm Subject: Re: some points on art ken_aitch Hi Connie, ------------------- C: > hope the eardrum's not too pegged up! *for the sake of* others' well-being ;) ---------------------- There are still traces of the original article, thanks Connie. Not that my eventual pegging out will be a great loss to the world. :-) --------------------------- C: > "I am refraining"etc... no. see #5 Patali ch UdCy, begining with 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? ---------------------------- Thanks for all your good work. It seems the Dhamma might not directly answer my questions, in which case I should put them aside and study the real thing. There will be less self that way. :-) ---------------------------------- <. . .> C: > 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. >> ---------------------------------- Hey, good quote! I wonder if that meaning of "livelihood" can be applied to the Path Factor. Ken H #65041 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 More thoughts on: "...But if we think of moha as boredom, it makes far more sense psychologically..." Oxford Dictionary - 'bored': "Feeling weary and impatient because one is unoccupied or has no interest in one's current activity." Web Definition - 'boredom': "A chosen state of mind brought on by laziness and the firm belief that others are in charge of the so supposedly afflicted person's own entertainment." I think the above conventional definitions would tend to disconfirm the assertion that boredom is an experience rooted in moha. I think that the state is more likely to be rooted in dosa. There is the clear implication that a relational aspect is present, and this is borne out psychologically. States related to moha seem to me to be states related to absence of knowledge. In Vibha"nga, under 'the three bad roots'(909): "Therein what is hatred (dosa). 'He has done me harm', thus vexation arises; 'He is doing me harm', thus vexation arises; 'He will do me harm', thus vexation arises...or vexation arises unreasonably. That which is similar, vexation of consciousness, resentment, repulsion, hostility, irritation, exasperation, incensement, hatred, antipathy, abhorence, mental disorder, detestation, anger, being angry, state of being angry, hatred, being hateful, state of being hateful, disorder, disorderly, antagonism, hostility, ferocity, abruptness, absence of delight of consciousness. This is called hatred." This seems to cover 'boredom' as an experience. A further survey of Vibha"nga, for terms which seem to me to relate to our modern term 'boredom', which I am considering to be consciousness rooted in dosa: "857. Therein what is called 'apathy'(tandhi)? That which is apathy, being apathetic, mental lethargy, idleness, being idle, state of being idle. This is called apathy." "891. ...Therein what is 'grudging'(upanaaha)? First there is anger, later grudging; that which is similar, grudging, being grudging, state of being grudging, maintaining, maintenance, continuous maintenance, continuity, successive binding together, strengthening of anger. This is called grudging." "542. ...Therein what is 'illwill'(byaapaada)? That which is vexation of consciousness, resentment, repulsion, hostility, irritation, exasperation, incensement, hatred, antipathy, abhorrence, mental disorder, detestation, anger, being angry, state of being angry, hatred, being hateful, state of being hateful, disorder, being disorderly, state of being disorderly, antagonism, hostility, ferocity, abruptness, absence of delight in consciousness. This is called illwill." "903. Therein what is 'impatience'(akkhanti)? That which is impatience, being impatient, absence of forebearance, ferocity, abruptness, absence of delight of consciousness. This is called impatience." "856. Therein what is 'tedium'(arati)? Tedium, having tedium, displeasure, being displeased, dissatisfaction, dread of remote abodes or certain higher good states. This is called tedium." "552. ...Therein what is 'distraction'(uddhacca)? That which is distraction of consciousness, disquietude, mental wavering, turmoil of consciousness. This is called distraction." "546. ...Therein what is 'torpor'(middha)? That which is the indisposition of the body (of the mental aggregates), unwieldiness, shrouding, enveloping, barricading within, torpor, sleeping, drowsiness, being asleep, state of being asleep. This is called torpor." "860. Therein what is 'mental sluggishness'(liinatta)? That which is indisposition of consciousness, unwieldiness, drooping, sagging, sluggishness, being sluggish, state of being sluggish, sloth, being slothful, state of consciousness being slothful. This is called mental sluggishness." "847. Therein what is '(mental) rigidity'(thambha)? That which is rigidity, being rigid, state of being rigid, hardness, harshness, inflexibility of consciousness, non-pliancy. This is called (mental) rigidity." Just a few mental states which seem like boredom and my own way of disagreeing with the statement above that moha is boredom. It doesn't make more sense psychologically, in my opinion. Someone who knows something come now and correct this... With loving kindness, Scott. #65042 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 4:09 pm Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/5/2006 3:07:43 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Furthermore, the Suttas are replete with the Buddha speaking of > > external phenomena!...external phenomena that he was not experiencing at > that > time. It seems that the Buddha was comfortable with considering the > "hypothetical external phenomena" as being an actual thing. ---------------------------------------- Howard: That's uncertain. I also speak of external things all the time. The Buddha also spoke of "himself" and of "others" all the time. Hi Howard For example, the Buddha spoke about mountains, rivers, cities, and all sorts of objects in his analogies...even to the point of an expanding and contracting universe. For the most part I think its just the Buddha speaking about common sense things in common sense ways to point out impermanence, suffering, and no-self. At times the Buddha would speak more deeply about the effervescent quality of phenomena pointing out, in effect, its lack of substantiality or "hollowness." However, I never picked up a trace of him suggesting that external phenomena do not exist except at times of contact/feeling. This type of interpretation though interesting, I think may be outside the bounds of his teaching. I think this interpretation "itself" would be a hypothetical interpretation upon the Buddha's teaching. I can concede that a purist truth investigator may not be comfortable making statements about that which is "out of sight." But overcoming Dukkha may well garner power by realizing that all things near and dear will disintegrate and vanish. Even if those things are not being directly experienced other than in the imagination; or by means of principles of impermanence...also mental imagery. TG #65043 From: JC Mendoza Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 9:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 112. jcmendoza1000 Hi what is "Gradual Sayings" in the original Pali? I'd like to read the whole sayings in those texts you wrote and can you tell me where I can find them? Thanks. Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear friends, We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Threes, chapter VII, §62, Terror, V and VI): Monks, these three terrors part mother and son. What three? A mother cannot bear to see her son grow old. She says, ``I am growing old. Let not my son grow old.'' The son likewise cannot bear to see his mother grow old. He says, ``I am growing old. Let not my mother grow old.'' And it is the same with regard to getting sick and dying. These are the three terrors that part mother and son. But, monks, there is a way, there is a practice that leads to the abandoning, to the overpassing of these three terrors that part mother and son, a way which joins mother and son. What is that way, what is that practice which so leads? It is just this Eightfold Way, to wit: Right view, right thinking, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the way, that is the practice... The eightfold Path eventually leads to the end of birth, old age, sickness and death. If one is not an arahat, there will be a paìisandhi-citta succeeding the cuti-citta. Before the cuti-citta arises, there are only five javana-cittas instead of seven, because the javana process is weaker due to the nearness of death (Vis. chapter XVII, 143). These are the last javana-cittas of that lifespan. If akusala kamma produces the rebirth of the next life there will be an unhappy rebirth. In that case the last javana-cittas are akusala cittas and they experience an unpleasant object. If kusala kamma produces the rebirth there will be a happy rebirth. In that case the last javana-cittas are kusala cittas and they experience a pleasant object. These javana-cittas experience an object through one of the sense-doors or through the mind-door. Past kamma or an attribute of past kamma may present itself to the mind of the dying person, or he may foresee his future destiny (Vis. XVII, 136-146). The tadårammaùa-citta which has as function to register the object may or may not follow. Then the cuti-citta arises, the last citta of this present life. The cuti-citta is succeeded by the paìisandhi-citta of the following life and this citta experiences the same object as the last javana-cittas arising before the cuti-citta of the previous life. Whatever that object may have been, the paìisandhi-citta of the new life and also all bhavanga-cittas arising in the course of that new life and finally the cuti-citta of that life experience that object. ****** Nina. <...> #65044 From: "Andrew" Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 9:39 pm Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu corvus121 Dear Swee Boon Thanks for elaborating on these matters. You wrote: > I do not say that a position of "self" or "no self" is an > imponderable. I do say that a position of "self" or "no self" is a > ponderable, and anyone pondering on it is engaging in unskillful > mental activities. I don't understand why these mental activities *have* to be unskilful. I have a vague recollection of one sutta where the Buddha advises lay merchants to ponder anatta from time to time. It seems to me that this can be or can involve kusala (although I certainly accept that it is often akusala). You also wrote: > The doctrine of "not self" was declared by the Buddha. But the > position of "no self" was not declared by the Buddha. > > Thoughts of whether there is a self or no self are distracting > thoughts. They are unskillful mental qualities rooted in self- > identification views and thus should be put aside. It is wiser and > much skillful to see through direct insight the not-self > characteristic of all things. As to doctrines declared and not declared, the first point I want to make is that made by Professor Hiriyanna (Outlines of Indian Philosophy): "There may be no metaphysical *aim* in what he [the Buddha] taught; there certainly is a metaphysical *view* underlying it." I find this to be very true and it seems to me that the Buddha's underlying (and declared) view was "no self" but he was careful in how he taught it, taking into account the listener's abilities (whether it would tip them into eternalism or annihilationism). These "good teaching technique" considerations, however, should not be magnified into a statement that no view was declared or can be discerned underlying the Dhamma. I suppose I'm saying that "not self" was just a way of teaching "no self" to some students. Do you see any merit in this summary? With what you say above, do you believe that the level of intellectually grasping anatta should be avoided and one should go directly to "direct insight" of anatta? I see an intellectual understanding (that avoids the extremes of eternalism and annihilationism) as a natural precursor to more consistent arising of direct insight. What do you think? Best wishes Andrew #65045 From: connie Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 9:58 pm Subject: Re: gaha.na, gaha.ni nichiconn ....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. Shocking, superdad! modified ejection seats to drop 'em into the trunk? picnics in the deserts: <<... The female layfollower, filled with shock upon hearing this, rejected the object held dear saying "Surely not, Lord", and then, in informing the Teacher that her heart had now turned away from that remorse, said: "Enough of so many children and grand-children for me, Lord!" ... mental torment for the fool as he is internally consumed ... verbal babbling given rise to by the bubbling up of grief ... owing to, by turning into a condition, some thing held dear ... by way of "This belongs to me; it is by means of this that I acquire, will acquire, this (thing) called happiness" in the world of formations ... where any objective field anywhere is concerned ... the one wishing on his own account for ... nibbaana ... should not give rise to, that held dear, any state in which things are held dear ... anywhere ... where any dhamma, such as a sight-object and so on is concerned, where even any dhamma associated with samatha or vipassanaa is concerned. >>(Masefield, ch 8, #8.) " with a single flavour and intent " in the proper (re)telling {oh yeah, i've gotta take down the yard-witch here and (inevitably) hang wreaths where i live; humbug. should fix this front door so it latches. "oh, bother". neglect(ing to arise for goodness sake)} << the explanation of the abstentions from killing-breathing-things, etc., can also be known by origination, feeling, root, action, and fruit ... as to object, the opportunity-for-negligence-due-to-liquor-wine-and-besotting-drink had for its object determinations consisting of one or other among the bases beginning with [visible-] form [base], so too untimely eating ... two-fold origination, namely, by body and by body-cum-cognizance, so too has untimely-eating here. >> (Illustrator) ...Consumed the old, the new no more gives being, From cognizance lust faded for new being, The germ consumed, they have no more zeal for growth, And steadfast, they go out, as did this lamp: ... (jewel, minor rdgs) driven, bonkers #65046 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 10:45 pm Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu rjkjp1 Dear Andrew and Swee Boon These quotes from the Visuddhimagga may eb pertinet to your interesting discussion. "There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena alone flow on, no other view than this right." Visuddhimagga XIX19 QUOTE "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" XVIII24 QUOTE "The mental and material (nama rupa) are really here But here is no human being to be found, for it is void and merely fashioned like a doll" XVII31 Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Dear Swee Boon > > Thanks for elaborating on these matters. You wrote: > > > I do not say that a position of "self" or "no self" is an > > imponderable. I do say that a position of "self" or "no self" is a > > ponderable, and anyone pondering on it is engaging in unskillful > > mental activities. > > I don't understand why these mental activities *have* to be > unskilful. I have a vague recollection of one sutta where the Buddha > advises lay merchants to ponder anatta from time to time. It seems > to me that this can be or can involve kusala (although I certainly > accept that it is often akusala). > > You also wrote: > > > The doctrine of "not self" was declared by the Buddha. But the > > position of "no self" was not declared by the Buddha. > > > > Thoughts of whether there is a self or no self are distracting > > thoughts. They are unskillful mental qualities rooted in self- > > identification views and thus should be put aside. It is wiser and > > much skillful to see through direct insight the not-self > > characteristic of all things. > > As to doctrines declared and not declared, the first point I want to > make is that made by Professor Hiriyanna (Outlines of Indian > Philosophy): > "There may be no metaphysical *aim* in what he [the Buddha] taught; > there certainly is a metaphysical *view* underlying it." > I find this to be very true and it seems to me that the Buddha's > underlying (and declared) view was "no self" but he was careful in > how he taught it, taking into account the listener's abilities > (whether it would tip them into eternalism or annihilationism). > These "good teaching technique" considerations, however, should not > be magnified into a statement that no view was declared or can be > discerned underlying the Dhamma. I suppose I'm saying that "not > self" was just a way of teaching "no self" to some students. Do you > see any merit in this summary? > > With what you say above, do you believe that the level of > intellectually grasping anatta should be avoided and one should go > directly to "direct insight" of anatta? I see an intellectual > understanding (that avoids the extremes of eternalism and > annihilationism) as a natural precursor to more consistent arising of > direct insight. What do you think? > > Best wishes > Andrew > #65047 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 12:47 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 572- Understanding/pa~n~naa (k) 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 we learn that seeing only sees visible object we may have doubts about the characteristic of seeing. It seems that there is all the time paying attention to the shape and form of things or noticing the dimensions of things. This is thinking, not seeing, the experience of what appears through eyes. If there were no thinking one could not observe shape and form or dimensions of things. But such moments of thinking are conditioned by seeing, by the experience of what appears through the eyes. There are also moments of just seeing, moments that we are not paying attention to details or focusing on a “thing”. It is the same when we read a book. It seems that there are only moments of paying attention to the shape of the letters and their meaning, but there must also in between be moments of experiencing visible object, otherwise we could not read. Before we studied the Dhamma we never considered what seeing is, but if we learn to be mindful of one reality at a time understanding will know realities as they are. There is time and again thinking of concepts and then the reality of thinking can be object of mindfulness so that it will be known as non-self. Gradually we can learn to be mindful of seeing, visible object, hearing, sound and all the other realities which appear through six doors in our daily life. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #65048 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 12:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 112. nilovg Dear JC, anguttara Nikaya, and I use the PTS edition. This text is annotated as : I, 178, or as III, 7, § 63. Can you find it? Nina. Op 6-nov-2006, om 6:06 heeft JC Mendoza het volgende geschreven: > what is "Gradual Sayings" in the original Pali? I'd like to read > the whole sayings in those texts you wrote and can you tell me > where I can find them? #65049 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 2:06 am Subject: Re: Cetasikas' study corner 571- Understanding/pa~n~naa (j) hantun1 Dear Sarah and Nina, The text: When we do not develop understanding of the reality which appears through one of the six doors and only pay attention to “wholes” such as gardens or houses, we believe that we can possess them. When there is mindfulness of one object at a time, such as visible object or hardness, we will understand that in the ultimate sense we cannot own anything. We cannot possess visible object, it can only be seen. We cannot take it with us; it arises just for a moment and then it falls away. We cannot possess hardness, it can be experienced through touch and then it falls away immediately. The development of insight will lead to detachment, it will lead to the eradication of the idea of a self who can exert control over things or events. ------------------------------ Han: Suppose I see my house. But I cannot possess visible object. That means I cannot possess my house. With the development of insight that will lead to detachment, and that will lead to the eradication of the idea of a self who owns anything, it may be correct that I cannot possess my house. It is true that the study of Buddha’s Teachings, including Abhidhamma, is for development of insight leading to detachment, but before we can reach that stage, the study of Abhidhamma should also be applicable to daily life (Abhidhamma in daily life). So in “daily life,” it will be difficult for me to see my house and to realize that I do not possess my house. Respectfully, Han #65050 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 2:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > More thoughts on: > >..... > Someone who knows something come now and correct this... > > With loving kindness, > > Scott. > Hallo Scott, all S: " I think the above conventional definitions would tend to disconfirm the assertion that boredom is an experience rooted in moha. I think that the state is more likely to be rooted in dosa. There is the clear implication that a relational aspect is present, and this is borne out psychologically. States related to moha seem to me to be states related to absence of knowledge." This is rather convincing to me. To to criticise you but for my own thinking I have two points: - Loba, moha and dosa can be seen as three dimensions. A mental state can be mainly rooted in one of the three does not mean is gets the score 100% in one dimension and 0% in the other two, I think. So is it not possible 'being bored' get (for example) a 50-40-10 score? - Being bored is partly also: having no goal in life, or how that is said in english: no end, no object, no aim, no purpose. And why one has no goal etc? Forgot it ! And is forgetting not absence of knowledge? Metta Joop #65051 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 3:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasikas' study corner 571- Understanding/pa~n~naa (j) nilovg Dear Han, We think of our house, that is thinking, different from seeing. Nobody can prevent himself from thinking of the conventional world, and we need to live also with conventional realities, I wholeheartedly agree. But it is very beneficial to begin studying with awareness different namas and rupas, such as seeing and visible object. That does not interfere with your daily life. This can be done walking about, looking at your house, making it more beautiful. And then we can learn that thinking is a dhamma, different from seeing. Remembering that this is your house is different from seeing. This is a beginning of understanding, but the eightfold Path is such a long way that it is advisable to begin now, not delaying it. It is the way to eventually realize that there is no possessor, it leads to detachment. That means less dukkha. But we can enjoy our possessions, there is no need to force ourselves not to, that would be impossible. Also attachment is real and it can be known as nama. Is there anything in the development of understanding that you feel hinders daily life? This is an important point. Nina. Op 6-nov-2006, om 11:06 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > So in “daily life,” it will be difficult for me to see > my house and to realize that I do not possess my > house. #65052 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 4:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasikas' study corner 571- Understanding/pa~n~naa (j) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your explanation. You said: We think of our house, that is thinking, different from seeing. Remembering that this is your house is different from seeing. Next, you said that: But we can enjoy our possessions, there is no need to force ourselves not to, that would be impossible. I cannot understand the above statements. But please never mind. I do not think I will ever understand. No, there is nothing that hinders me or worries me in my daily life. I am fine. I am sorry I raised this issue. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #65053 From: s.billard@... Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 4:17 am Subject: Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? sbillard2000 Hi all, Someone one a french theravadin forum raised an observation about how I transleted a passsage of ADL chapter 2, I would like to have the input of Nina and french readers : The original version : "Bodily feeling is feeling which has bodysense, the rúpa which has the capacity to receive bodily impressions, as condition; the feeling itself is nâma, but it has rûpa (bodysense) as condition. When an object contacts the bodysense, the feeling is either painful or pleasant; there is no indifferent bodily feeling" My translation : "Les sensations corporelles sont les sensations qui ont les organes des sens pour condition. Ces sensations en elle-même sont nama, mais elle ont rupa (les organes des sens) pour condition. Quand un objet rentre en contact avec un organe des sens, la sensation est soit agréable, soit désagréable : il ne peut y avoir de sensation corporelle neutre" Is my translation correct in your opinion ? (BTW Nina, how do you work with diacritic characters ? Do you type them by hand ? Or do you have some tricks ?) Sébastien Billard http://s.billard.free.fr #65054 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Nov 5, 2006 11:32 pm Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/6/06 12:10:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > For example, the Buddha spoke about mountains, rivers, cities, and all > sorts > of objects in his analogies...even to the point of an expanding and > contracting universe. For the most part I think its just the Buddha > speaking about > common sense things in common sense ways to point out impermanence, > suffering, > and no-self. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Oh, of course he did! As do I and all the people who nonetheless believe that conventional objects are merely imputed upon what is actually experirnced. The Buddha spoke meaningfully and usefully about all these conventional objects while at the same time detailing what in fact is "the all". ------------------------------------------ > > At times the Buddha would speak more deeply about the effervescent quality > of phenomena pointing out, in effect, its lack of substantiality or > "hollowness." > > However, I never picked up a trace of him suggesting that external > phenomena > do not exist except at times of contact/feeling. This type of > interpretation though interesting, I think may be outside the bounds of his > teaching. I > think this interpretation "itself" would be a hypothetical interpretation > upon > the Buddha's teaching. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I interpret the Bahiya Sutta as saying to not go beyond the mere elements of experience, themselves, and not to external phenomena that are an allged basis for such sensations. There the Buddha said the following: "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." [Here, by 'sensed' the Buddha is said to have meant "tasted, smelled, or felt through body sense". And by "sensing" here, my understanding is that he didn't mean tasting or smelling or feeling a bubbling hot, pungent and fragrant stew or some such conventional object, but sensing a gustatory, olfactory, or tactile sensation.] --------------------------------------------- > > I can concede that a purist truth investigator may not be comfortable > making > statements about that which is "out of sight." But overcoming Dukkha may > well garner power by realizing that all things near and dear will > disintegrate > and vanish. Even if those things are not being directly experienced other > than in the imagination; or by means of principles of impermanence...also > mental imagery. > > TG > ========================== With metta, Howard #65055 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 5:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu scottduncan2 Dear Joop, Thanks for your reply. These are good points to consider. I don't really know, but I've taken the chance to study a bit. J: "Loba, moha and dosa can be seen as three dimensions. A mental state can be mainly rooted in one of the three does not mean is gets the score 100% in one dimension and 0% in the other two, I think. So is it not possible 'being bored' get (for example) a 50-40-10 score?" What is the way in which the term 'mental state' is used? I think this refers to one moment of consciousness. And one moment of consciousness is variegated and variously caused. One might also use the term 'state', I suppose, to refer to a conventionally considered 'mood state', which I would consider to be different (in the sense of being conventional usage) although related. Pa.t.thaana, on Root Condition: "The roots are related to the states which are associated with roots, and the matter produced thereby, by root condition." Object Condition: "(vii) All states are related to mind-consciousness element and its associated states by object condition. (viii) Taking any state as object, these states, consciousness and mental factors arise; those (former) states are related to those (latter) states by object condition." Proximity Condition: "(viii) Preceding faulty states are related to subsequent faulty states by proximity condition." Contiguity Condition: "(viii) Preceding faulty states are related to subsequent faulty states by contiguity condition." Strong-Dependence Condition: "(iv) Preceding faulty states are related to subsequent faulty states by strong-dependence condition." Repetition Condition: "(ii) Preceding faulty states are related to subsequent faulty states by repetition condition." Absence [/Disappearance] Condition[s]: "States, consciousness, and mental factors, which have just ceased in contiguity, are related to the present states, consciousness, and mental factors, by absence/disappearance condition[s]." Abhidhammattha Sangaha (CMA): "In six ways mind is condition for mind: Consciousness and mental factors that immediately cease are a condition for present consciousness and mental factors by way of proximity, contiguity, absence and disappearance. Preceding javanas are a condition for subsequent javanas by way of repetition. Conascent consciousness and mental factors are a condition for one another by way of association." p. 305. I'm not sure but I think these conditions would contribute to the eventual experience of a 'mood state' such as boredom. The root, in this case, would be dosa, the persistence by the above stated conditions. A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas: "...six cetasikas are hetu: lobha, dosa, moha, alobha, adosa, and pa~n~na; the cetasikas that are themselves hetu are sahetuka, accompanying other hetus, except moha, which accompanies moho-muula-citta. Moha is in that case ahetuka...Dosa-muula-citta is accompanied by the hetus of moha and dosa; it is also dvi-hetuka." (p. 207) So, perhaps some combination of moha and dosa then, according to the statement of 'dimensions' above. J: "- Being bored is partly also: having no goal in life, or how that is said in english: no end, no object, no aim, no purpose. And why one has no goal etc? Forgot it ! And is forgetting not absence of knowledge?" Perhaps, although this goes to being precise about defining boredom, which is difficult I think. What do you think? With loving kindness, Scott. #65056 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 5:21 am Subject: Re: gaha.na, gaha.ni scottduncan2 Dear connie, Thanks! Great stuff here: c: "Shocking, superdad! modified ejection seats to drop 'em into the trunk?" Oh yeah. Brilliant. Wait till I get the tool kit... And: c: "Enough of so many children and grand-children for me, Lord!" ... mental torment for the fool as he is internally consumed ... verbal babbling given rise to by the bubbling up of grief ... owing to, by turning into a condition, some thing held dear ... by way of "This belongs to me; it is by means of this that I acquire, will acquire, this (thing) called happiness" in the world of formations ... where any objective field anywhere is concerned ... the one wishing on his own account for ... nibbaana ... should not give rise to, that held dear, any state in which things are held dear ... anywhere ... where any dhamma, such as a sight-object and so on is concerned, where even any dhamma associated with samatha or vipassanaa is concerned..." I dig this. Thanks. I'm a fool internally consumed and no mistake. c: "{oh yeah, i've gotta take down the yard-witch here and (inevitably) hang wreaths where i live; humbug." Our three jack-o-lanterns, now frozen solid, must be shattered or will arise from the snow in April as truly frightening. With loving kindness, Scott. #65057 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 6:12 am Subject: Re: gaha.na, gaha.ni scottduncan2 Also: "...It is related that a certain boy, without listening to his mother's word, went to a forest. The mother, being unable to prevent him, cursed him, saying, 'May a wild she-buffalo chase thee!' And accordingly a she-buffalo appeared in the forest. The boy made the asseveration of truth, 'May what my mother said happen not; what she thought in her mind, may that happen!' The buffalo stood as if transfixed. Thus though her vocal effort was mortally wounding, yet her speech was not really harsh, because of her tender heart. For though parents sometimes say thus to their children: 'May thieves cut you up into pieces!'[True, I say it all the time] yet they do not wish even a lotus leaf to fall on them..." Atthasaalinii, pp. 132-133. Scott. #65058 From: "nidive" Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 6:35 am Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nidive Hi Andrew, > I suppose I'm saying that "not self" was just a way of teaching > "no self" to some students. Do you see any merit in this summary? Yes, I do see merit in it. It is my opinion (as I have often expressed) that the Buddha teaches "no self" by way of "not self" to all students without exception. Without seeing directly for oneself the not-self characteristic of conditioned dhammas, it is impossible to achieve any break through to the Dhamma. Believing in "no self" (what I call fastening onto a position of "no self") doesn't get anyone anywhere on the path to nibbana. It is just a belief, which is what the Buddha avoided teaching. > With what you say above, do you believe that the level of > intellectually grasping anatta should be avoided and one should go > directly to "direct insight" of anatta? I see an intellectual > understanding (that avoids the extremes of eternalism and > annihilationism) as a natural precursor to more consistent arising > of direct insight. What do you think? Intellectual understanding in terms of "not self" is advantageous and is definitely a natural precursor to more consistent arising of direct insight. This is definitely what I encourage. But I don't think intellectual understanding in terms of "no self" is advantageous. How do you know that you are not falling subtlely into a subtle form of eternalism or annihilationism? How can you be sure you are not falling into a bottomless pit and not knowing it yourself? As an example, I see Ken H's view of "absolute no control" as a subtle form of annihilationism, but obviously he finds absolute delight in it. Also, when one gets stuck into an intellectual position/belief that there is no self, it makes insight meditation so much more difficult because there is so much more expectation. One becomes so much more sensitive to thoughts of self when it arises and becomes frustrated because they think their insight meditation has gone awfully wrong. Their disappointment in insight meditation becomes so much stronger that they eventually give up entirely on it. Which is why I say: Don't worry about "no self", worry instead about "not self". Regards, Swee Boon #65059 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 7:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fruit of Study and Practice: the Delight of Dhamma nilovg Hi Howard, Could you give me the link to these works, please? I like to quote from them but have to type. Khandhas, aayaatanas, elements (dhaatus), this is Abhidhamma. Nina Op 5-nov-2006, om 22:57 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > She taught me the Dhamma: > aggregates, sense spheres, & elements. > Hearing the Dhamma, > I did as she said. #65060 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasikas' study corner 571- Understanding/pa~n~naa (j) nilovg Dear Han, then we should discuss more, it is important. We do not need to force ourselves to think: this is not my house, I only see visible object. It is not a matter of thinking, but a matter of natural development stemming from listening and discussing. It can happen spontaneously, just for a moment. Not interfering with our activities in daily life. Only at a later stage we can realize that what seems so solid are ruupas that do not last. The house can fall to pieces and then it is clear that it has decayed, but also what we call a house is decaying each moment, although we do not notice it. The same with the body, it is not as solid as we would believe. My point is that there is no conflict between the world in conventional sense and the world of paramattha dhammas. Do not hesitate to continue our conversation. Nina. Op 6-nov-2006, om 13:03 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Next, you said that: > But we can enjoy our possessions, there is no need to > force ourselves not to, that would be impossible. > > I cannot understand the above statements. > But please never mind. > I do not think I will ever understand. #65061 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 7:55 am Subject: Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? nilovg Dear Sebastien, I think your translation is good. Perhaps the person who objects does not agree with the contents of Abhidhamma. He writes about his own ideas of vipassana on your forum. He has his own interpretation of dukkha being always in the body and changing postures. But this is not my subject now. He does not like agréable, and wants to replace it by supportable, which is strange to me. In English one could say: desirable or agreeable, or pleasant. I just use the Abhidhamma terms: in Pali: i.t.tha and ani.t.tha: desirable and undesirable. Instead of les organes des sens I would find another word, denoting just of the body. We do not speak here of the other senses. Not in plural. L'organ de sens corporel? Avec l'organe de sens corporel... instead of: avec un organe des sens.. It is all over the body. But doe snot include eyesense etc. as your writer rightly states. Thus, here we do not speak of the other senseorgans. ------------ "Bodily feeling is feeling which has bodysense, the rúpa which has the capacity to receive bodily impressions, as condition; the feeling itself is nâma, but it has rûpa (bodysense) as condition. When an object contacts the bodysense, the feeling is either painful or pleasant; there is no indifferent bodily feeling" My translation : "Les sensations corporelles sont les sensations qui ont les organes des sens pour condition. Ces sensations en elle-même sont nama, mais elle ont rupa (les organes des sens) pour condition. Quand un objet rentre en contact avec un organe des sens, la sensation est soit agréable, soit désagréable : il ne peut y avoir de sensation corporelle neutre" --------- (BTW Nina, how do you work with diacritic characters ? Do you type them by hand ? Or do you have some tricks ?) --------- N: For my Pali I use PCharter. When I want to type French I was shown some ways with the Alternative key. I see that it comes over on the Email. é and ê, as a test. Nina. #65062 From: "nidive" Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 7:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: external rupas. nidive Hi Nina, > > How a rupa is to be felt depends on the state of the sense organ > > at the time of contact. The Buddha said that the six sense organs > > are to be seen as old kamma. So I think it is the result of past > > kamma that determines how a rupa is to be felt. > > But whatever mental feeling (associated with lobha, dosa and moha) > > that follows the bodily feeling is another matter altogether. > Nina: that is what I think as well and you formulated this very > well. It is also interesting to note that the Buddha speaks of injurious and uninjurious contacts. We know that the Buddha taught that the meeting of internal sense organ, external sense object and the sense consciousness is contact. Now, how a contact comes to be injurious or uninjurious is what we want to know. I think the "culprit" here is actually the internal sense organ. (The culprit can't be the external sense object, since it is not under the 'jurisdiction' of kamma. Also, it fails to explain why some people experience an external sense object as pleasant and some as unpleasant.) Since the internal sense organ is said to be old kamma, then it is logical to postulate that depending on the result of past kamma, the meeting of internal sense organ, external sense object and the sense consciousness will be either an injurious or uninjurious contact. And depending on the type of contact, there arises the corresponding type of feeling. See the sutta on the four types of kamma: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html#diversity Regards, Swee Boon #65063 From: s.billard@... Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 8:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? sbillard2000 Thanks Nina, perhaps could you give me the pali term you translated in english as "bodily feeling" and "bodysense" ? I could then look in the dictionnary of pali terms you sent me and in my french version of the Visuddhimagga that explain also some pali terms. Sébastien http://s.billard.free.fr > Instead of les organes des sens I would find another word, denoting > just of the body. We do not speak here of the other senses. Not in > plural. L'organ de sens corporel? > Avec l'organe de sens corporel... instead of: avec un > organe des sens.. > It is all over the body. But doe snot include eyesense etc. as your > writer rightly states. > Thus, here we do not speak of the other senseorgans. > ------------ > "Bodily feeling is feeling which has bodysense, the rúpa which has > the capacity to receive bodily impressions, as condition; the feeling > itself is nâma, but it has rûpa (bodysense) as condition. When an > object contacts the bodysense, the feeling is either painful or > pleasant; there is no indifferent bodily feeling" > > My translation : > > "Les sensations corporelles sont les sensations qui ont les organes > des sens > pour condition. Ces sensations en elle-même sont nama, mais elle ont > rupa (les > organes des sens) pour condition. Quand un objet rentre en contact > avec un > organe des sens, la sensation est soit agréable, soit désagréable : > il ne peut y > avoir de sensation corporelle neutre" #65064 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 4:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fruit of Study and Practice: the Delight of Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/6/06 10:38:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > Could you give me the link to these works, please? I like to quote > from them but have to type. Khandhas, aayaatanas, elements (dhaatus), > this is Abhidhamma. > Nina > Op 5-nov-2006, om 22:57 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > >She taught me the Dhamma: > > aggregates, sense spheres, &elements. > >Hearing the Dhamma, > > I did as she said. > > > > ========================= Sure! It's on ATI. The exact link is the follwing: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/index.html With metta, Howard #65065 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 5:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fruit of Study and Practice: the Delight of Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi again, Nina - In a message dated 11/6/06 10:38:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Khandhas, aayaatanas, elements (dhaatus), > this is Abhidhamma. > ======================= This is terminology used throughout the suttas, especially in the Samyutta Nikaya, with the Buddha consistently pointing to the aniccata, dukkhata, and anattata of the dhammas in these categories. Why say "this is Abhidhamma"? It is Dhamma, plain and simple. Does the Abhidhamma Pitaka deal with anything other than Dhamma? Is there any Buddhadhamma that is "lesser" Dhamma? I am uneasy with treating Abhidhamma as something different from and higher than Dhamma. Of course that is not stated outright, but it seems implied to me. With metta, Howard #65066 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 10:48 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 113. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Sixes, chapter VI, §2, Phagguna) that the Buddha visited the venerable Phagguna who was very ill. Phagguna had attained the second stage of enlightenment (the stage of the sakadågåmí, once-returner); he was not yet completely freed from the ``five lower fetters''. We read in the sutta that the Buddha said to Phagguna: ``I hope, Phagguna, you're bearing up, keeping going; that your aches and pains grow less, not more; that there are signs of their growing less, not more?'' ``Lord, I can neither bear up nor keep going; my aches and pains grow grievously more, not less; and there are signs of their growing more, not less. Lord, the violent ache that racks my head is just as though some lusty fellow chopped at it with a sharp-edged sword; lord, I can neither bear up nor keep going; my pains grow more, not less...'' So the Exalted One instructed him, roused him, gladdened him and comforted him with Dhamma-talk, then rose from his seat and departed. Now not long after the Exalted One's departure, the venerable Phagguna died; and at the time of his death his faculties were completely purified. Then went the venerable Ånanda to the Exalted One, saluted him, and sat down at one side. So seated, he said: ``Lord, not long after the Exalted One left, the venerable Phagguna died; and at that time his faculties were completely purified.'' ``But why, Ånanda, should not the faculties of the monk Phagguna have been completely purified? The monk's mind, Ånanda, had not been wholly freed from the five lower fetters; but, when he heard that Dhamma teaching, his mind was wholly freed. There are these six advantages, Ånanda, in hearing Dhamma in time, in testing its goodness in time. What six? Consider, Ånanda, the monk whose mind is not wholly freed from the five lower fetters, but, when dying, is able to see the Tathågata: the Tathågata teaches him Dhamma, lovely in the beginning, lovely in the middle, lovely in the end, its goodness, its significance; and makes known the brahman-life 1), wholly fulfilled, perfectly pure. When he has heard that Dhamma teaching, his mind is wholly freed from the five lower fetters 2). This, Ånanda, is the first advantage in hearing Dhamma in time. Or... though not just able to see the Tathågata, sees his disciple, who teaches him Dhamma... and makes known the brahman-life... Then is his mind wholly freed from the five lower fetters. This, Ånanda, is the second advantage... Or... though not able to see the Tathågata or his disciple, continues to reflect in mind on Dhamma, as heard, as learnt, ponders on it, pores over it. Then is his mind wholly freed from the five lower fetters. This, Ånanda, is the third advantage in testing its goodness in time...'' The same is said with regard to the monk who has attained the third stage of enlightenment (the stage of the anågåmí), and who, after hearing Dhamma in time and testing its goodness in time, can attain the stage of the arahat. ******** Summary of functions (kicca) of citta: 1. Pa.tisandhi (rebirth) 2. Bhavanga (life-continuum) 3. Åvajjana (adverting, through the sense-doors and through the mind-door) 4. Seeing 5. Hearing 6. Smelling 7. Tasting 8. Experiencing tangible object through the bodysense 9. Sampa.ticchana (receiving) 10. Santíra.na (investigating) 11. Votthapana (determining) 12. Javana (impulsion, or ``running through the object'') 13. Tadåramma.na (or tadålambana, registering) 14. Cuti (dying) --------------- Footnotes: 1. In Påli: brahma-cariya: pure or holy life. This term is not only used for the monk’s life, but also with regard to all those who develop the eightfold Path which leads to the eradication of all defilements. 2.Those who have attained the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the anågåmí, non-returner, are completely free from the five “lower fetters”. ***** Nina. #65067 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 11:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fruit of Study and Practice: the Delight of Dhamma nilovg Hi Howard, well this is a thread in itself. There were many posts: the Dhamma Vinaya includes the Abhidhamma. Suan and Sarah gave many explanations. See also Rob K's forum now on Abhidhamma, worth while reading! See in the suttas: Sutta, Geyya, etc, the teachings classified as 'angas' which include Abhidhamma. Many suttas deal with the khandhas, etc. and these are certainly not conventional terms, but paramattha dhammas. It shows: Abhidhamma is also in the suttas. Abhidhamma is Dhamma. If you like you could read up in Rob's forum and we can discuss it. He has a lot under Abhidhamma. Thank you for the link to Therigatha. Nina. Op 6-nov-2006, om 19:27 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > This is terminology used throughout the suttas, especially in the > Samyutta Nikaya, with the Buddha consistently pointing to the > aniccata, dukkhata, > and anattata of the dhammas in these categories. Why say "this is > Abhidhamma"? > It is Dhamma, plain and simple. Does the Abhidhamma Pitaka deal > with anything > other than Dhamma? Is there any Buddhadhamma that is "lesser" Dhamma? > I am uneasy with treating Abhidhamma as something different from and > higher than Dhamma. Of course that is not stated outright, but it > seems implied > to me. #65068 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 11:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? nilovg Dear Sebastien, > bodily feeling, these are dukkha vedanaa and sukha vedanaa. `(it is dukkha in another sense than the truth of dukkha, that is why the confusion came with your writer). > bodysense: kaya pasada ruupa. For each of the five sensedoors the term pasada ruupa is used: cakkhu pasada rupa for the eyesense, etc.) What may be helpful: A Manual of Abhidhamma, Naarada . It is the Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Is it in French? Nina. Op 6-nov-2006, om 17:33 heeft s.billard@... het volgende geschreven: > perhaps could you give me the pali term you translated in english > as "bodily feeling" and "bodysense" #65069 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 11:16 am Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. nilovg Hi Howard, this is what I mean: Abhidhamma is in the sutta. It is the teaching of what is real in the ultimate sense, and you rendered this just now. Nina. Op 6-nov-2006, om 13:32 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I interpret the Bahiya Sutta as saying to not go beyond the mere > elements of experience, themselves, and not to external phenomena > that are an > allged basis for such sensation ..... (snipped) [Here, by 'sensed' > the Buddha is said to have meant "tasted, > smelled, or felt through body sense". And by "sensing" here, my > understanding > is that he didn't mean tasting or smelling or feeling a bubbling > hot, pungent > and fragrant stew or some such conventional object, but sensing a > gustatory, > olfactory, or tactile sensation.] #65070 From: han tun Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 11:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cetasikas' study corner 571- Understanding/pa~n~naa (j) hantun1 Dear Nina, I admire and respect your patience with me. I understand and appreciate everything that you wrote in this post except one sentence. Nina: “My point is that there is no conflict between the world in conventional sense and the world of paramattha dhammas.” For a worldling (puthujjana) like me there is a conflict in this specific case (may not be in a general sense). I know that I cannot take away my house with me when I die, but while I am still living my house is my house, whether I “see” it or I “think” about it. I cannot let someone else come and occupy my house against my wish. “Only at a later stage”, yes, only at a later stage, when my understanding (panna) becomes very much advanced I may have the attitude you have described. But at this stage, while I am still a puthujjana, my house is still my house from whatever angle I look at it. It reminds me of a book by a Burmese author titled “Ditthe dittha mattam.” He wrote that if I have a bank account, only when the citta arises when I think about it, I possess the money. The next instant, if my mind thinks of something else, that money is gone and I don’t possess it. I could not appreciate that book. My money in the bank is my money whether I think about it or not. So also my house is my house, although it may be falling to pieces and decaying at each moment, and although I cannot take it away with me when I die. Therefore, there will be conflict between the world in conventional sense and the world of paramattha dhammas, in this particular case, as long as I am still a puthujjana. Respectfully, Han #65071 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 11:53 am Subject: external rupas. nilovg Hi Howard, ------- H: But so called body door rupas that exist "out there" not as sensations but as things-in-themselves are merely hypothesized. It is *such* that I call "external". That is my usage. That is what I am referring to. Such phenomena may well exist. There simply is no way of knowing, and that being the case, I adopt Occam's parsimonious razor. ------- N: I find it reasonable to follow the Dhammasangani, differentiating rupas that are internal, ajjhattika: § 673: 'belonging to the individual, and external, bahira. § 674. The first are the five senses, and the latter are the five kinds of sense objects and all the others up to nutritive essence, thus 23 kinds. Co to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, Topics of Abhidhamma, p. 231: Perhaps this changes the picture? It is like I said: the inner aayuaatanas and the outer aayaatanas. Ironically, I cannot experience my eyesense, I cannot touch it, it can only be known through the mind-door, and that through insight. It is the condition for seeing, that is clear. It is internal, not external. So this division is not dealing with rupas out there, there are far more rupas external, even those that seem quite near and can be experienced now, such as colour or sound. ------- H: Nina, where are unseen visual objects? Where are the unseen sights? Where are such rupas? ------- N: Seen or unseen they are external rupas in the classification above. But you mean something else by rupas out there which cannot be experienced. I understand what you mean. Rupa is not always an object, only when it has impinged on the relevant doorway it becomes an object. But first it comes knocking on a doorway and at that moment it has arisen and is not yet experienced, it is a future object. Khandhas are past, present and future as is said in the suttas. We have to take that seriously. Khandhas are the same as conditioned paramattha dhammas, they are not conventional realities. ------- H:Please seriously consider that question! ------ N: When we are discussing external rupas there can easily be confusion about what this or that person means. It depends on the individual whether he is inclined to keep to the ancient texts. Nina. #65072 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 12:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: external rupas. nilovg Dear Swee Boon, Kamma produces the vipaakacitta that experiences a desirable object or an undesirable object. The object itself is desirable or undesirable. People may feel differently about a similar object because of their own proliferation. An example is the sight of a Buddha which is in itself desirable, but not appreciated by outsiders. Nina. Op 6-nov-2006, om 16:43 heeft nidive het volgende geschreven: > (The > culprit can't be the external sense object, since it is not under the > 'jurisdiction' of kamma. Also, it fails to explain why some people > experience an external sense object as pleasant and some as > unpleasant.) > > Since the internal sense organ is said to be old kamma, then it is > logical to postulate that depending on the result of past kamma, the > meeting of internal sense organ, external sense object and the sense > consciousness will be either an injurious or uninjurious contact. And > depending on the type of contact, there arises the corresponding type > of feeling. #65073 From: "Sebastien Billard" Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 1:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? sbillard2000 Thanks Nina, the "Vocabulaire français des termes bouddhiques" translates pasada rupa as "corporeité sensitive" I ordered some days ago " A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: The Abhidhammattha Sangaha of Acariya Anuruddha" by Bhikkhu Bodhi and Mahathera Narada . It is in english, as far as I know there is nothing in french about Abhidhamma. Sébastien Billard :: http://s.billard.free.fr/referencement :: http://s.billard.free.fr/dotclear >> bodysense: kaya pasada ruupa. > For each of the five sensedoors the term pasada ruupa is used: cakkhu > pasada rupa for the eyesense, etc.) > What may be helpful: A Manual of Abhidhamma, Naarada . It is the > Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Is it in French? > Nina. #65074 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 9:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Fruit of Study and Practice: the Delight of Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/6/06 2:11:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > well this is a thread in itself. There were many posts: the Dhamma > Vinaya includes the Abhidhamma. Suan and Sarah gave many > explanations. See also Rob K's forum now on Abhidhamma, worth while > reading! See in the suttas: Sutta, Geyya, etc, the teachings > classified as 'angas' which include Abhidhamma. > Many suttas deal with the khandhas, etc. and these are certainly not > conventional terms, but paramattha dhammas. It shows: Abhidhamma is > also in the suttas. Abhidhamma is Dhamma. --------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddhadhamma is presented throughout the entire tipitaka using both conventional and "ultimate" terminology. I see no reason to label teachings in the suttas that speak of khandhas etc as "Abhidhamma". They are Dhamma. It is all Dhamma. There is nothing of Dhamma missing from the Sutta Pitaka. ----------------------------------------------- > If you like you could read up in Rob's forum and we can discuss it. > He has a lot under Abhidhamma. > Thank you for the link to Therigatha. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: You're most welcome, Nina. :-) ------------------------------------------------- > Nina. > ========================= With metta, Howard #65075 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 9:24 am Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi again, Nina - In a message dated 11/6/06 2:32:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > this is what I mean: Abhidhamma is in the sutta. It is the teaching > of what is real in the ultimate sense, and you rendered this just now. > Nina. > ========================== And I say to call "ultimate" teachings in the suttas Abhidhamma and to say that Abhidhamma can be found in the suttas implies a presumed superiority of the Abhidhamma Pitaka over the Sutta Pitaka. I consider it a "put down" of the suttas - unintentional, I'm sure, but real nonetheless. From my point of view, the facts are closer to the opposite, with the suttas being the primary source of Dhamma, and I would think it far more legitimate to say "Dhamma can be found in the Abhidhamma Pitaka," but I imagine there are some here who would consider *that* to be condescending. Do you understand my perspective, Nina? With metta, Howard #65076 From: "nidive" Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 5:17 pm Subject: Re: external rupas. nidive Hi Nina, > Kamma produces the vipaakacitta that experiences a desirable object > or an undesirable object. The object itself is desirable or > undesirable. People may feel differently about a similar object > because of their own proliferation. An example is the sight of a > Buddha which is in itself desirable, but not appreciated by > outsiders. I don't understand why the sight of a Buddha is intrinsically desirable. Isn't the "sight of a Buddha" just a combination of colors and shapes seen through the eye? I don't understand why the rupas of the Buddha's body can be so full of goodness. You know, in Singapore, we are going to build a Buddha Tooth Relic Temple housing supposedly one of the Buddha's tooth remains. We also have almost yearly exhibitions of the remains of the Buddha's and his disciples' bodies which attract lots of people every time. But is it really the case that the rupas of these remains are so full of goodness? I don't think so. Regards, Swee Boon #65077 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 6:44 pm Subject: Heedfulness (Appamada) philofillet Hi all I'd like to launch a discussion of my main interest these days - heedfulness. As we know, the Buddha's last words were to encourage heedfulness. I've been thinking about what it is and it doesn't seem that it can be reduced to one dhamma. I checked the UPs but didn't find much - I'm not surprised because the way I understand heedfulness, at this point, doesn't tie in with an approach to Dhamma that values moments of awareness of realities, if and when they arise. Appamada is not something that lasts one moment, I sense - by defintion it must stretch out over our experience with a kind of vigilance. This is something I found in the UPs, from Nina's Cetasikas: "Therein what is "heedlessness?E 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 or not working carefully, not working constantly, working spasmodically, being stagnant, relinquishing wish (desire-to-do, chanda), relinquishing the task, non-pursuance, non-development, non-repetition, nonresolution, non-practising, heedlessness in the development of good states; that which is similar, heedlessness, being heedless, state of being heedless. This is called heedlessness." Ph: This suggests there is constancy, repetition, non-succumbing, carefulness, pursuance in heedfulness. Hard to understand that in the context of momentary arisings of awareness. Nina writes: "When we are not mindful we succumb repeatedly to the "five strands of sense pleasures?E The doors of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, bodysense and the mind-door are not guarded. We are working "spasmodically?E or we are stagnant; we are lazy as to the development of right understanding. Ph: Lazy, stagnant....slack. I think of appamada having a kind of tautness, like a tarp that is stretched over the mind to protect it from the flood of defilements. Stretched to taut and it will snap, allowed to go slack and the junk will pour in. Just thinking out loud. Nina writes : We cannot force the arising of mindfulness, but when we see the danger of akusala it can condition non-forgetfulness of the reality appearing at the present moment. When mindfulness arises there is no "relinquishing of the task?E namely the task of the development of right understanding. Ph: I don't think appamada is a momentary arising of mindfulness. I think it is something that is to be maintained, and can be, more often than not, during the day. Some days less, some days more. Maybe this is early on, for some people more than others, and for people who have developed wholesome habits of mind, the appamada can be more of a momentary arising thing. Someone will say that if there is clingoing to self the appamada can only condition more kusala, but I think I disagree with that. In any case, I'd like to discuss appamada. Since this is an overriding interest of mine these days, I will drop out of the other threads I am already in. (Thanks Ken H, Nina, Jon and Sarah.) Phil #65078 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 6:58 pm Subject: Cutting off at feeling philofillet Hi Sarah (and all) This is another thing I've wanted to discuss for a few years and never seem to get around to it. It relates to one of the older talks I heard, maybe from Myanmar, in which a woman asks about cutting off at feeling, something she'd heard from a meditation teacher. Sarah acknowledges that it is a popular idea (maybe popularized especially by Goenka) but says how could it be possible? There is feeling with every citta, so... I forget exactly what you said, Sarah, but it gets at something I wonder about a lot but can't put my finger on. It also ties in with this desire I write of to stamp out akusala. Techncially speaking, there is a moment of akusala which has already fallen away, so how can it be stamped out. There is a citta with an associated feeling, and then it's gone, so how can it be "cut"? But it seems to me the point is not doing somehting about the individual citta, but the situation that has developed. A feeling has developed that is not a single citta but thousands or millions of them or whatever spreading over 5 seconds or 5 minutes or whatever. And craving is developing that is not one citta of craving but thousands or millions of them arising in response to all the many moments of feeling. The undeveloped mind experiences this as one feeling conditioning one craving - and I think the undeveloped mind can "cut off" craving in response to sati remembering the teaching about the dangers of akusala or whatever. A feeling situation is handled wisely by awareness of the danger of a craving situation, or something like that. This is nowhere near the depths of sati and panna arising to penetrate the present arisen citta, but I think that kind of insight is still foreign to undevelped minds and it would be an error to count on it to help one out of dangerous situations. (Even mildly dangerous situations.) I don't know if I've made this clear. But I do think there can be a valuable "cutting off" at feeling. Not saying that a practice should be built around it (I think that is the Goenka way, isn't it?) but I do think this cutting off can happen. And should happen. Phil #65079 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 7:05 pm Subject: Re: Heedfulness (Appamada) philofillet Hi again typo below > Someone will say that if there is clingoing to self the appamada > can only condition more kusala, but I think I disagree with that. > more akusala. though now on second thought, if there is "clinging to self" I guess it must be akusala. I personally am not averse to lesser forms of akusala that are eventually eradicated by the sotapanna helping us to crush grosser forms of akusala that involve transgression, rebirth in hell realms, waking up next to naked animals etc.... phil #65080 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 9:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Heedfulness (Appamada) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- Phil wrote: > > > Hi all > > I'd like to launch a discussion of my main interest these days - > heedfulness. As we know, the Buddha's last words were to encourage > heedfulness. I've been thinking about what it is and it doesn't seem > that it can be reduced to one dhamma. > > I checked the UPs but didn't find much .... S: Andrew T very recently made the same comment which led to some helpful discussion, I think. Please take a look at the following which you may have missed and let me know if they are along the lines of what you are looking for: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/64785 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/64786 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/64846 Metta, Sarah p.s U.P. is due for some update-work.....We've just got Jon's computer back WITH all the data , so our various projects such as U.P.s, audio work etc can proceed again, yeeeh! ========== #65081 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 9:27 pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 573- Understanding/pa~n~naa (l) 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 Understanding is one of the wholesome faculties (indriyas), called the “spiritual faculties”, which has to be developed together with the other “spiritual faculties” of confidence, energy, mindfulness and concentration. Through the development of these faculties the four noble Truths can be realized. Understanding is a controlling faculty, an indriya, in the sense of predominance since it overcomes ignorance (Atthasåliní I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 122)(1). It exercises government over the associated dhammas (the citta and cetasikas it accompanies) by the characteristic of vision, that is, the realization of the three characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anattå. The Atthasåliní states further on (in the same section) that understanding has as characteristic illuminating and understanding. It states (123) that just as a clever surgeon knows which food is suitable and which is not, understanding knows states as “moral or immoral, serviceable or unserviceable, low or exalted, black or pure…” Understanding which has been developed knows the four noble Truths. The Atthasåliní then gives another definition of understanding: * "Understanding has the penetration of intrinsic nature, unfaltering penetration as its characteristic, like the penetration of an arrow shot by a skilled archer; illumination of the object as its function, as it were a lamp; non-perplexity as manifestation, as it were a good guide in the forest." * The Visuddhimagga (Chapter XIV, 143) gives a similar definition. Understanding is also a “power” (bala), because it does not vacillate through ignorance (Atthasåliní, I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter II, 148). As we have seen, when the wholesome faculties have been developed they become powers which are unshakable. They cannot be shaken by their opposites. *** 1) See also Dhammasangaùi (Book I, Chapter I, §16) which describes understanding among others as “searching the Dhamma”, that is: the four noble Truths, as a “guide”, as a “sword” which cuts off defilements, as a “light”, as “glory” or “splendour”. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #65082 From: JC Mendoza Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 112. jcmendoza1000 What are those numbers (I,178 and III,7,$ 63)? PTS editions use different numbers than the Tipitaka original right? If so, what are the original numbers since I'm searching the web for them and the web usually contains the original and not the PTS edition. Thanks Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear JC, anguttara Nikaya, and I use the PTS edition. This text is annotated as : I, 178, or as III, 7, § 63. Can you find it? Nina. Op 6-nov-2006, om 6:06 heeft JC Mendoza het volgende geschreven: > what is "Gradual Sayings" in the original Pali? I'd like to read > the whole sayings in those texts you wrote and can you tell me > where I can find them? <...> #65083 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Nov 6, 2006 11:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 112. sarahprocter... Hi JC, (Nina & all), Let me see if I can help with this: --- JC Mendoza wrote: > What are those numbers (I,178 and III,7,$ 63)? <...> > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear JC, > anguttara Nikaya, and I use the PTS edition. This text is annotated > as : I, 178, or as III, 7, § 63 ..... Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear friends, We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Threes, chapter VII, §62, Terror, V and VI): .... S: In the English, this reference is to Ang.Nik, Book of 3s, ch 7, 62, 'Terror' etc I think the other reference is to the page number in the PTS Pali http://mettanet.org/tipitaka/index.html Anguttara Nikaya Tikanipata (Book of 3s) 7 Mahavaggo Pali - scroll down to 3.2.2.2, where it says [PTS Pali, page 178] http://mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara1/3-tikani\ pata/007-mahavaggo-p.htm English - scroll down to the second sutta: 2. Amataputtikaani 63 Bhikkhus, the ordinary folk say....etc http://mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara1/3-tikani\ pata/007-mahavaggo-e.htm [S: I don't know why it is #63 here and #62 in the PTS transl. - very confusing, I know. Also, some translations are given in B.Bodhi's Anthology from AN and these have the same kind of reference at the end, eg 111, 61. But, this one is not included.] Metta, Sarah p.s Pls would you (and everyone) make it clear whom you are addressing in posts as much as possible! ======================== #65084 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 12:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu sarahprocter... Hi Andrew T, any lurking hens or others, --- Andrew wrote: > "avyakata" unexplained, undecided, not declared, indeterminate {PTS > dictionary} > > Swee Boon's statements would appear to argue that atta/anatta is > acinteyya and avyakata. .... S: I don't think we can use 'avyakata' in this way. I think it's just used as a rather technical term to refer to those cittas and cetasikas which are not kusala or akusala, i.e 'indeterminate' in the sense of not being 'determined' as kusala or akusala. These include all vipaka and kiriya cittas. The Dhammasangani starts of with definitions of kusala, then akusala, then avyakata dhammas, for example. (See Nyantiloka dict also). **** > PS typo of the year award goes to Sarah who addressed a post to "Hen > H" - either our good Dhamma friend, Ken H, or a new member who holds > controversial views on ornithology. ;-)) .... S: Well thanks Andrew for bringing this to the attention to all of us too concussed to notice:-)). As Ken H pointed out recently, many of us are quite used to being called far worse here.... all terms of endearment, I'm sure:-). Metta, Sarah ====== #65085 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 12:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? sarahprocter... Hi Sebastien (& Nina), --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Sebastien, > > bodily feeling, these are dukkha vedanaa and sukha vedanaa. > `(it is dukkha in another sense than the truth of dukkha, that is why > the confusion came with your writer). > > bodysense: kaya pasada ruupa. > For each of the five sensedoors the term pasada ruupa is used: cakkhu > pasada rupa for the eyesense, etc.) > Op 6-nov-2006, om 17:33 heeft s.billard@... het volgende geschreven: > > > perhaps could you give me the pali term you translated in english > > as "bodily feeling" and "bodysense" ... Sarah: I forget if you have a hard copy of ADL (if not and you'd like one, pls ask me or Sukin off-list). At the back of it, there's a Pali glossary which might be useful. You can also find almost the same simple glossary in the files section of DSG and this will include most the terms and translations used in ADL by Nina. For example, if you know 'kaya = body', you can scroll through the kaya words til you come to kaya pasada = body sense. Just an idea. Interesting to read the questions and comments on your translation and the issues behind them! Metta, Sarah ===== #65086 From: s.billard@... Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 1:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? sbillard2000 Hello Sarah, Yes I have the print version of ADL, I read the text body but didn't thought to look at the glossary thanks : I lack of attention sometimes :) Sebastien http://s.billard.free.fr > Sarah: I forget if you have a hard copy of ADL (if not and you'd like one, > pls ask me or Sukin off-list). At the back of it, there's a Pali glossary > which might be useful. You can also find almost the same simple glossary > in the files section of DSG and this will include most the terms and > translations used in ADL by Nina. For example, if you know 'kaya = body', > you can scroll through the kaya words til you come to kaya pasada = body > sense. #65087 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) sarahprocter... Hi Phil,(Han & all), No need for a response - I just wished to say I think it's very good that you're airing your reflections and ideas on this topic and not feeling that you have to agree with all or anyone in the process! Yes, I think the discussions you listen to from Bangkok reflect the issues or concerns of those present. You'll enjoy listening to some of the Vince 'issues' soon.....I'm sure that if you do ever join us, they'll be great discussions too. Just one point from a post of yours to Jon which I've been thinking about: --- Phil wrote: > 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. .... S: :-) (I'll leave aside whether anyone here has actually said that 'sila should not be stressed....). What I was thinking about was if you are the poor person and you want to get rich, do you ask someone who has become rich or someone who has remained poor? If someone is prone to evil deeds, do they follow the advice of others prone to evil deeds or do they start listening to those of very tidy ethical dispositions if they wish to develop sila? I was thinking of your comment when I was reading in the paper today about the charismatic Evangelical speaker in the States who's had to resign over the drug and 'massage' services rendered, showing him to be a real hypocrite. People said, no wonder he used to speak with such 'gusto' and feeling about temptations and sins....but I doubt anyone will listen now... I won't say more, otherwise you'll feel under pressure to reply or continue the thread:-). And no need to respond to some other posts of mine you mentioned either. Just keep up your babbling confessional posts:-)) Metta, Sarah p.s Celebrating our 25th wedding anniversay today.....And yes, Han, only 'my husband','my wife' when there's thinking of such, but really it's just a recurring idea. The same with the 'anniversary' too. Doesn't mean we can't have flowers and a nice breakfast out (with the reading of DSG posts for dessert) to celebrate:-). Of course, I've been very blessed to live with 'a person of a very tidy ethical disposition' and a day never goes by without an appreciation of such. But, we all have our ways and I liked this line of Jon's a lot: "..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." We fall down, pick ourselves up and carry on.....all with sati and panna of course. There really is no alternative:-). ==================================== #65088 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 2:10 am Subject: Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma. nilovg Hi Howard, ------- H: And I say to call "ultimate" teachings in the suttas Abhidhamma and to say that Abhidhamma can be found in the suttas implies a presumed superiority of the Abhidhamma Pitaka over the Sutta Pitaka. I consider it a "put down" of the suttas - unintentional, I'm sure, but real nonetheless. From my point of view, the facts are closer to the opposite, with the suttas being the primary source of Dhamma, and I would think it far more legitimate to say "Dhamma can be found in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. --------- N: What you say is very understandable, and Lodewijk is inclined to prefer the suttas, though he sees the importance of the Abhidhamma. You are not alone. I think we need all three parts of the Tipitaka, they are complementary. The Suttanta is indispensable in supporting us not to be heedless, to see the danger of akusala, to have a sense of urgency for the development of all kinds of kusala: daana, siila and bhaavanaa. I need the pertinent reminders in the suttas, they inspire confidence. The Abhidhamma helps us to know our cittas in detail, not to mislead ourselves as to what kusala is, what akusala is. We cling to happy feeling, but we learn that happy feeling can accompany kusala citta and also citta rooted in attachment. It helps us to understand wholesome and unwholesome accumulations, latent tendencies that condition akusala citta at any time. It shows us all the different types of conditions by way of which one dhamma conditions another dhamma. It helps us to understand what an ultimate dhamma is and what a concept is. Otherwise we would not know what exactly the object of insight is. We could not develop right understanding of paramattha dhammas. I also would like laypeople to have more appreciation of the Vinaya. It would help our social life. The Buddha put down rules so that the community of Bhikkhus would live in harmony. The Dhamma can and should help us all for more harmonious living with our fellowmen. The Vinaya helps us to see danger in the slightest faults. Even a slight form of akusala is dangerous, it accumulates and it can harm both ourselves and others. There is no contradiction between Abhidhamma and Sutta, as you feared when giving the text about contact. In the sutta the proliferation is shown about the object that was contacted, that caused feeling and that sa~n~naa remembered so that one was obsessed. Yes, this happens in daily life. What one feels strongly about one remembers and it can obsess a person. As to the Abhidhamma, this gives the details about the different cittas, feelings, sa~n~naa. There is feeling born of eye-contact, born of ear-contact, etc. This shows that each moment there is a different contact and a different feeling, and also that contact conditions feeling by being conascent. There is also sa~n~naa at each moment of citta, how otherwise could one remember anything? It is after seeing, etc. that akusala cittas arise in a sense-door process and in mind-door processes. In mind-door processes one keeps on remembering the object that caused strong feelings and that is the cause of obsession. Another example I quote from Kh Sujin's Perfections, Pa~n~naa: Nina. #65089 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 2:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Heedfulness (Appamada) philofillet Hi Sarah (and Andrew) > .... > S: Andrew T very recently made the same comment which led to some helpful > discussion, I think. Ph: Yes, I did miss those. Thanks. Very helpful. Probably will cover any need to discuss at length. I like what B. Bodhi wrote. "What is needed most to train and subdue the mind, according to the Dhammapada, is a quality called heedfulness. Heedfulness combines critical self-awareness and unremitting energy in a process of constant self-observation in order to detect and expel the defilements whenever they seek an opportunity to come to the surface." unremitting...process...constant... detect and expel. B. Bodhi is not the Buddha, of course, so his word is not almighty, but appamada feels very much like a process here, an ongoing state of extended awareness rather than a dhamma/cetasika. But as you point out in the linked posts, nobody has said it is a cetasika. Th. Bhikku has a very vigorous audio talk about appamada. To be honest, he sounds more like a "10 Powerful Steps to Personal Power" kind of motivational speaker and is kinda offputting when he gets to the issue of not-self ("when you are filled with perfect bliss, will you care if there is a self or not?") but he makes good points about the need for heedfulness. I should post a link. Thanks again. Phil p.s re the audio, have you considered the plan I think you mentionned once of making some of Acharn Sujin's "greatest hits" available to listen to at the site? Of course that's arbitrary, a la UPs, but there certainly are some classics. I think, for example, of my old friend Ben Poomy Pokitty. > #65090 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 3:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Joop, (Larry & all), ... Dear Sarah, As you perhaps have seen, I'm still/again posting, with a lower frequency, I now more busy with 'engaged buddhism', a topic about which I'm giving a lecture this saterday. First a reaction on a rather old post of you (#64591) S: "As I mentioned before, I don't think that anyone really understands what rebirth or DO mean without a very developed understanding of namas and rupas." J: It's possible that I don't have that "a very developed understanding" but why should one find the rebirth-topic important? Just being mindful in this moment is enough (is difficult enough), wahat happens in the future is not a problem of the now. N: "As for the 'revision of Nyantiloka's definition [natthika-ditthi] I once pointed out to BB a couple of errors in the dictionary, but basically he said it could not be changed now as Nyantiloka is no longer alive." [It was the definition in a electronic version of the dictionary: natthika-ditthi: 'nihilistic view' (a doctrine that all values are baseless, that nothing is knowable or can be communicated, and that life itself is meaningless)] J: It was not my purpose to change this definition, because I think it's a good one (and I'm according this definition not a nihilist) Is it really an error? On the first page of this version I read it was the Fourth Revised Edition, edited by Nyanaponika Mahathera. Perhaps this was his intention. My problem was another one, the definition of BB in MCA, page 207/208: " nihilism (natthika-di.t.thi), which denies the survival of the personality in any form after death, thus negating the moral significance of deeds;…" I'm not insulted by this definition but I think it's terribly wrong. So perhaps when you contact Bhikkhu Bodhi you can ask him if he still thinks (his thinking is evoluated, is my impression) this "THUS" is correct? You already said about this quote (in #64591): "I wouldn't use the phrase 'survival of the personality' as in the quote above, because this sounds to much like the idea of 'Joop' or 'Sarah' continuing on. In a new life, there will be a completely different personality with no recollection of this one. No self or being at all. However, accumulated tendencies continue on....". I agree with that in a broad sense (after my physical death other sentient being will be born, unless pollution makes any life on Earth impossible of course). But you not yet responded on the 'thus'-part of BB's definition. I now have a question about your remark "accumulated tendencies continue on" (after the death of the five kandhas formerly known as 'Joop') We have discussed more about the accumulation-concept (I said a accumulation cannot be a paramattha dhamma because is is not falling away quick, it is not anicca enough) But now my question is: do you think a wrong view (for example natthika-ditthi) itself is making the accumulated tendencies (I think you mean the akusala ones) bigger? That by the view I have on rebirth my accumulation is grown from for example 591 to 592 ? BTW 1: you use "accumulated tendencies" as a plural; how much there are: two (kusala & akusala) or more? BTW 2: I think "accumulated tendencies" exist, but that the distinguishment ultimate-conventional has a flaw. Metta Joop #65091 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 3:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cuti citta and bhavanga citta jonoabb Hi Howard --- upasaka@... wrote: > > 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"!) > --------------------------------------- I understand your confusion. However, I think what has been said before is not quite what you've understood to have been said, but something to the effect that the object being experienced by the bhavanga citta is not at that moment being experienced through any of the 6 doorways. ... > > 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. > ------------------------------------------- Strictly speaking, there are no 'follow-up' states to bhavanga citta because the bhavanaga citta is not a part of any process. Sense- and mind-door cittas arise when the flow of bhavanga cittas is interrupted. Jon #65092 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 3:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Self, No Tathagata, No Anyone (was Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, (Nina, James & all), In brief here because it was addressed to James & Nina, but I don't recall seeing a reply and there isn't one in the thread I just checked following your post.... --- Phil wrote: > > 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. .... S: You are referring to sacca ~naa.na, kicca ~naa.na and kata ~naa.na These refer to the mundane and supramundane kinds of knowledge of the 4 Noble Truths. The first, sacca ~naa.na refers to very firm intellectual understanding of the 4 truths after having heard and considered a lot (lots of suta and cinta maya pa~n~naa). And through the development of satipatthana, bhavana maya panna, there comes to be the direct insight and knowledge of the 4NT (kicca and kata ~naa.na). [See more under: Rounds (3) - sacca ~nana, kicca ~nana. kata ~nana in U.P. and also under 'Suta maya panna etc'.] Metta, Sarah ========= #65093 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa sarahprocter... Dear Han,(Nina & all), --- han tun wrote: <...> > 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." .... S: That's the way I read it, but of course I may be wrong. As Nina and I both commented, yoniso manasikara includes all kinds of kusala. Animals may have kusala cittas too (ask any dog-lover!). In the analogy about the barley-reaper, manasikaara (not yoniso manasikaara) is used and in this case it clearly points to yoniso, I think, don't you. ***** Btw, I like your deep, delving questions on 'Cetasikas' a lot. Pls pursue the threads until satisfied:-) You do us all a favour. For example, you were asking about the object of virati cetasikas in the development of the path, weren't you? I thought at first you were asking how a concept could be the object when path factors have paramattha dhammas as objects. Did I misunderstand you? Also, with regard to the rupas experienced through the body-sense, I thought you were asking how you knew the location when only rupas were experienced. The discussion took another turn as well, so again I wonder if I misunderstood your original question? Actually, your good questions remind me of Htoo's a lot:-)). We used to have some good discussions with him. You mentioned to me (off-list) that you've been writing a series on the Patthana. I know Nina will be interested to hear this and will also like to encourage you to share any of your reflections when you have time and feel inclined to do so. Metta, Sarah ============ #65094 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 4:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Heedfulness (Appamada) sarahprocter... Hi Phil, (Naomi, Andrew T, Howard & all), --- Phil wrote: > > S: Andrew T very recently made the same comment which led to some > helpful > > discussion, I think. > > > Ph: Yes, I did miss those. Thanks. Very helpful. Probably will > cover any need to discuss at length. ... S: Thx for letting me know....I'll look at your BB coments later, thx. ... > p.s re the audio, have you considered the plan I think you > mentionned once of making some of Acharn Sujin's "greatest hits" > available to listen to at the site? Of course that's arbitrary, a la > UPs, but there certainly are some classics. I think, for example, of > my old friend Ben Poomy Pokitty. .... S: Thx for reminding me....yes, I think we could do that relatively easily. Ben Poomy Pokitty will be no 1)!! Let me know of others you (or anyone else) likes. If that comes with a date/place and track no, even better.... Nalanda from the last India trip comes to mind as a very nice one. You could give the 'hits' their titles - bound to get some interest that way:-)) Metta, Sarah p.s Interested in Naomi's aromatherapy suggestions - you guys could make your fortune by exported her potions to Buddhists round the world, desperate for a non-harmful 'fix'....Howard could be your first customer:-) ======= #65095 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 4:10 am Subject: Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) philofillet Hi Sarah (and Jon) and all > > 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. > .... > S: :-) (I'll leave aside whether anyone here has actually said that 'sila > should not be stressed....). I'll just say that I might be getting my terms mixed up. Maybe it isn't "sila" I'm referring to. Maybe it's abstention, or something else. What I'm talking about is this idea that akusala cannot easily be identified or that it's "already gone" and that it is a sign of greed or delusion or ditthi or whatever else to take measures to avoid it. Whatever that kind of thinking is, epitomized in the talk in which Nina asks Acharn Sujin about someone on the list who is concerned about transgression, and Acharn Sujin says the akusala is already gone or whatever. Terribly advice, in my opinion. (Nina suggests 'avoiding bad friends' which is the kind of practical advice the Buddha gave, and Acharn says 'I'm not saying not to' or something kinda...cryptic. There is a time for good Dhamma friends to give direct, forthright advice. I think she really missed the mark that time, but hey, it's just one question in one of many talks. She is obviously wrong sometimes since she is not a sotapanna. (I assume.) Anways, it may not be sila I'm talking about so never mind. I know everyone here values sila. Phil #65096 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 3:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma sarahprocter... Hi Ken H (& Howard), --- ken_aitch wrote: > 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. ... S: Uh, oh - Just when Howard and I managed to wrap up the thread 'on the same page':-) As I understand it, Howard and I are both agreeing that concepts such as 'things' cannot be said to impermanent because they don't exist. ... >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. ... S: I'd say, an 'actual' directly observable characterstic/aspect of a paramattha dhamma...not as an observable 'thing' in its own right....but I don't think you can be saying that:-/??? ... > > When panna knows a conditioned dhamma as having the characteristic, > anicca, what is the object of citta and panna at that moment? .... S: The impermanence OF the dhamma....(not isolated from the dhamma) .... >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. .... S: That's how I understand it. That's also why when people suggest they have experiences of anicca but without any understanding of dhammas, it makes no sense. .... >I have been thinking it both experiences, and > understands, anicca. .... S: Experiences and understands the anicca of the dhamma at that moment. (The same applies to the understanding of dhammas as dukkha and anatta - but only one characteristic is said to be apparent at a time. For example, just before enlightenment, one 'aspect' of the dhamma appears...) Have I understood the point? Metta, Sarah ======== #65097 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 5:05 am Subject: Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: >. She is obviously wrong sometimes since > she is not a sotapanna. (I assume.) > > Anways, it may not be sila I'm talking about so never mind. I know > everyone here values sila. > > Phil >____________ Dear Phil Curious why you assume that? Robert #65098 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 5:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa hantun1 Dear Sarah, Sarah: That's the way I read it, but of course I may be wrong. As Nina and I both commented, yoniso manasikara includes all kinds of kusala. Animals may have kusala cittas too (ask any dog-lover!). In the analogy about the barley-reaper, manasikaara (not yoniso manasikaara) is used and in this case it clearly points to yoniso, I think, don't you. Han: Animals may have some kusala cittas. But I am very much against the idea of the animals having “yoniso-manasikaara.” The reason is as follows. In SN 46.2 Kaaya Sutta, (ii) The nutriments for the enlightenment factors (page 1569 of A Translation of the Samyutta Nikaaya by Bhikkhu Bodhi): “And what, bhikkhus, is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness and the fulfillment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness? There are, bhikkhus, things that are the basis for the enlightenment factor of mindfulness: frequently giving careful attention (yoniso manasikaara bahuliikaaro) to them is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness and for the fulfillment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of mindfulness.” [To repeat the same with the remaining enlightenment factors.] So, I cannot imagine the animals having yoniso manasikaara, which is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factors and the fulfillment by development of the arisen enlightenment factors. ------------------------------ > Sarah: Btw, I like your deep, delving questions on 'Cetasikas' a lot. Pls pursue the threads until satisfied:-) You do us all a favour. For example, you were asking about the object of virati cetasikas in the development of the path, weren't you? I thought at first you were asking how a concept could be the object when path factors have paramattha dhammas as objects. Did I misunderstand you? Han: I will continue to pursue. But it may or may not be to my satisfaction. I do not want to engage in lengthy discussions, and so I will easily give in whether I am satisfied or not. To be honest, I heard about the “concepts” for the first time at DSG. Still now, I do not know the significance of “concepts.” I will pretend I know, but I do not actually know (<:) The question I asked was can the objects of abstinence not be the objects of virati cetasikas. For example, can the property that can be stolen not be an object of virati cetasika? I have accepted Nina’s explanation, and that issue was closed. ------------------------------ > Sarah: Also, with regard to the rupas experienced through the body-sense, I thought you were asking how you knew the location when only rupas were experienced. The discussion took another turn as well, so again I wonder if I misunderstood your original question? Actually, your good questions remind me of Htoo's a lot:-)). We used to have some good discussions with him. Han: My question was on 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.” That reminded me about a bhikkhu (I cannot remember where I read that) who was having intense severe pain in abdomen, probably with gastric ulcer or even perforation. He was moaning and a younger bhikkhu asked him where the pain was. He said it was inside his abdomen. The younger one then said that it was the senior bhikkhu who said that one could not point out the exact location of pain in the body, because the pain was experienced by vedana cetasika, and one could not find the place where vedana cetasika was. (That sort of conversation between the two bhikkhus.) So I asked whether I could point out where the pain was in my body to the surgeon if I had some pain in the body. That issue was also closed after I received the explanation from Nina. -------------------- > Sarah: You mentioned to me (off-list) that you've been writing a series on the Patthana. I know Nina will be interested to hear this and will also like to encourage you to share any of your reflections when you have time and feel inclined to do so. Han: I am still working on it. I study one condition at a time and then write it at JTN and Triplegem. It is like a learning process for me. I am writing not as an expert but as a student. So the standard of my writing will not be, I am sure, to the standard of DSG. I will let you know when I am through. Respectfully, Han #65099 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 5:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cuticitta. jonoabb Hi Nina Thanks very much for the further comments and for the references to STA. --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Jon, > Yes. You gave the answer to Howard: 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> > > 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. What you say here would apply if the object was a rupa. But that's not the case (or perhaps it may it be, I'm not really clear on this). > More about this in Topics of Abhidhamma, p. 106, 107, and p. 203, 204. Yes, some interesting discussion here. But not easy for me to follow - I need to spend some more time on it. May come back later if I have any further questions. Jon #65100 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 5:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Argument Pertaining to "External Rupas" and "Internal Rupas" sarahprocter... Hi Howard, You're already having many discussions with good folk on this topic, but I'd like to run through your original arguments as well and add my comments/understanding: --- upasaka@... wrote: > Premiss #1: Being (non-perversely) felt as pleasant or unpleasant > or > neutral is intrinsic to a rupa. ... S: Pleasant or unpleasant only... ... >When one person or animal experiences a > rupa as > pleasant and another experiences "it" as unpleasant, they are actually > experiencing *different* rupas. .... S: Yes, always. .... >That is - how a rupa feels is NOT "in > the eye of the > beholder", but is objective, intrinsic to the rupa itself. ... S: Yes intrinsic to the rupa experienced and depending on the kusala or akusala vipaka which experiences that particular rupa. ... > > 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.] .... S: Lets say 'objects' instead or rupas and then we can say conventionally that this is true only. We don't experience 'those exact rupas'/ .... > 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.] .... S: Vedana and contact arise together and experience the same object (nama, rupa or concept). Of course both contact and vedana can be a condition for subsequent dhammas (including phassa and vedana) too. .... > > Premiss #4: Contact with an object is dependent on consciousness > of > that very object. [I think this also is basic Dhamma.] .... S: Yes, dependent on many factors including co-arising consciousness and other mental factors. Likewise, they are dependent on it as well. .... > 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. .... S: In the sense door process, the only rupas experienced are the 8 rupas experienced through eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body-sense. .... >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. ... S: No. There is contact with subtle rupas experienced through the mind-door as well. Eg, apo dhatu (water element, manifesting as cohesion). It's not easily known, but there is contact arising with every citta, experiencing every rupa that citta experiences. .... >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. ... S: No. See above. .... > 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. .... S: I've indicated my reasoning anyway:-) I hope it's of some interest. Metta, Sarah ======= #65101 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 12:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cuti citta and bhavanga citta upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Nina, please) - In a message dated 11/7/06 6:19:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@... writes: > > Hi Howard > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > > >>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"!) > >--------------------------------------- > > I understand your confusion. However, I think what has been said before > is not quite what you've understood to have been said, but something to > the effect that the object being experienced by the bhavanga citta is not > at that moment being experienced through any of the 6 doorways. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, that would be a better situation from my perspective, but I'm not so sure, Jon. I hope you are correct. Perahps Nina will clarify this matter. ------------------------------------------------ > > ... > >> 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. > >------------------------------------------- > > Strictly speaking, there are no 'follow-up' states to bhavanga citta > because the bhavanaga citta is not a part of any process. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I understand that. Sort of like ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, with each Z identical with the preceding. -------------------------------------------------- > > Sense- and mind-door cittas arise when the flow of bhavanga cittas is > interrupted. > > Jon > ====================== With metta, Howard #65102 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 1:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Argument Pertaining to "External Rupas" and "Internal Rupas" upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 11/7/06 8:20:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > You're already having many discussions with good folk on this topic, but > I'd like to run through your original arguments as well and add my > comments/understanding: > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > > Premiss #1: Being (non-perversely) felt as pleasant or unpleasant > >or > >neutral is intrinsic to a rupa. > ... > S: Pleasant or unpleasant only... ------------------------------------ Howard: No indifferently-felt rupas? Visual objects not neutral? ------------------------------------- > ... > >When one person or animal experiences a > >rupa as > >pleasant and another experiences "it" as unpleasant, they are actually > >experiencing *different* rupas. > .... > S: Yes, always. > .... > >That is - how a rupa feels is NOT "in > >the eye of the > >beholder", but is objective, intrinsic to the rupa itself. > ... > S: Yes intrinsic to the rupa experienced and depending on the kusala or > akusala vipaka which experiences that particular rupa. > ... > > > > 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.] > .... > S: Lets say 'objects' instead or rupas and then we can say conventionally > that this is true only. We don't experience 'those exact rupas'/ > .... > > 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.] > .... > S: Vedana and contact arise together and experience the same object (nama, > rupa or concept). Of course both contact and vedana can be a condition for > subsequent dhammas (including phassa and vedana) too. > .... > > > > Premiss #4: Contact with an object is dependent on consciousness > >of > >that very object. [I think this also is basic Dhamma.] > .... > S: Yes, dependent on many factors including co-arising consciousness and > other mental factors. Likewise, they are dependent on it as well. > .... > > 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. > .... > S: In the sense door process, the only rupas experienced are the 8 rupas > experienced through eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body-sense. > .... > >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. > ... > S: No. There is contact with subtle rupas experienced through the > mind-door as well. Eg, apo dhatu (water element, manifesting as cohesion). > It's not easily known, but there is contact arising with every citta, > experiencing every rupa that citta experiences. --------------------------------------- Howard: I experience wetness through touch and thru mind, Thru mind I experience it conceptually. No where in any sutta did the Buddha ever say that liquidity and cohesion are known only mentally, did he? --------------------------------------- > .... > >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. > ... > S: No. See above. > .... > > 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. > .... > S: I've indicated my reasoning anyway:-) I hope it's of some interest. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======================== Thank you for making an analysis, Sarah. :-) With metta, Howard #65103 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 6:40 am Subject: Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) philofillet Hi Robert Nice to hear from you. Hope everything's going well in Kyushu. About Acharn Sujin not being a sotapanna or everyone valuing sila? Re sotapanna, I assume that there are no sotapannas these days. If I am wrong, nice surprise. I don't think aspiring to be sotapanna makes it any more likely we will be one, and I don't think not aspiring to be one will make it any less likely. So I don't, and I don't hope for my Dhamma friends or teachers to be sotapanna either. I guess I am wrong because if there were no sotapannas when the Buddha's teaching still exists, what hope would there be? No arahants is as far as we can say? BTW, am I right in thinking that a sotapanna could never give faulty advice on Dhamma points becasue wrong view has been eliminated? (Forget Acharn Sujin, I mean in general.) Re everyone valuing sila (morality) well...I assume all people do except for very extreme cases. Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > >. She is obviously wrong sometimes since > > she is not a sotapanna. (I assume.) > > > > Anways, it may not be sila I'm talking about so never mind. I know > > everyone here values sila. > > > > Phil > >____________ > Dear Phil > Curious why you assume that? > Robert #65104 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 6:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa nilovg Dear Han, One condition at a time is very good. Perhaps you can also post it here for discussion? Nina. Op 7-nov-2006, om 14:18 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I study one condition at a > time and then write it at JTN and Triplegem. It is > like a learning process for me. I am writing not as an > expert but as a student. So the standard of my writing > will not be, I am sure, to the standard of DSG. I will > let you know when I am through. #65105 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 10:10 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life 114. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 16 Objects and Doors Citta knows or experiences something, it experiences an object. There cannot be any citta without an object. When an object presents itself through one of the five senses or through the mind-door, do we realize that it is citta which experiences an object? So long as we do not see things as they really are, we think that a self experiences objects, and, moreover, we take objects for permanent and for self. For example, when we see a log of wood, we are used to thinking that the object which is seen at that moment is a log of wood; we do not realize that only visible object is the object which can be seen. When we touch the log of wood, hardness or cold, for example, can be experienced through the bodysense. We take the log of wood for a thing which lasts, but what we call ``log of wood'' are many different rúpas which arise and fall away. Only one characteristic of rúpa can be experienced at a time, when it presents itself. If we develop understanding of the different characteristics which appear through different doorways we will be able to see things as they really are. The ariyan sees life in a way which is different from the way the non- ariyan sees it. What the non-ariyan takes for happiness (in Påli: sukha), is for the ariyan sorrow (dukkha); what for the non-ariyan is sorrow, is for the ariyan happiness. In the Kindred Sayings (IV, Saîåyatana-vagga, Third Fifty, chapter IV, §136) it is said in verse: Things seen and heard, tastes, odours, what we touch, Perceive--all, everything desirable, Pleasant and sweet, while one can say ``it is'', These are deemed ``sukha'' by both gods and men. And when they cease to be they hold it woe. The dissolution of the body-self To ariyans seems ``sukha''. Everything The world holds good, sages see otherwise. What other men call ``sukha'', that the saints Call ``dukkha''; what the rest so name, That do the ariyans know as happiness. Behold a Dhamma that's hard to apprehend. Hereby are baffled they that are not wise. Darkness is theirs, enmeshed by ignorance: Blindness is theirs, who cannot see the light... The Buddha taught about objects, experienced by cittas through different doors, in order to cure people of their blindness. ***** Nina. #65106 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 10:25 am Subject: re: Q. Cetasikas' study corner 571- Understanding/pa~n~naa nilovg Dear Han, there are severalpoints to talk about. You mentioned that concepts is a topic you had not heard of before. This is important to clarify so that it will be clearer what the world in conventional sense is and what the world in the sense of paramattha dhammas. First your post: Nina: “My point is that there is no conflict between the world in conventional sense and the world of paramattha dhammas.” ----------- H: For a worldling (puthujjana) like me there is a conflict in this specific case (may not be in a general sense). I know that I cannot take away my house with me when I die, but while I am still living my house is my house, whether I “see” it or I “think” about it. I cannot let someone else come and occupy my house against my wish. ------- N: Quite right. --------- H: “Only at a later stage”, yes, only at a later stage, when my understanding (panna) becomes very much advanced I may have the attitude you have described. ------- N: Even the sotaapanna who has eradicated wrong view still likes his/ her house. The anaagaami does not cling any more, he does not want to live in a house anymore. -------- H: It reminds me of a book by a Burmese author titled “Ditthe dittha mattam.” He wrote that if I have a bank account, only when the citta arises when I think about it, I possess the money. The next instant, if my mind thinks of something else, that money is gone and I don’t possess it. I could not appreciate that book. My money in the bank is my money whether I think about it or not. ------- N: I understand what you mean, Lodewijk runs away when he hears such a story. We agreed that one should be very careful in formulating matters concerning concepts and paramattha dhamms, otherwise it causes great confusion for many. Someone in Bgk gave the example of a girl in a meditation center who did not recognize her parents, and people laughed. We all found this absurd.We do not have to live on the clouds, in a heaven of paramattha dhammas, only thinking of paramattha dhammas. If someone says when referring to a concept such as money one possesses: 'this is just an idea', it can be taken in several ways. For some people, it sounds as if it is wrong and despiceable to think of concepts. Kh Sujin said: nobody can stop thinking. We can think of concepts with kusala citta or with akusala citta. We can have the intention of daana when we think of our money. When we think of a person (which is a concept) we can have appreciation for his kusala, or have metta. Now some more about concept, pa~n~natti: everything that is not citta, cetasika, rupa or nibbaana is a concept. Person, house, tree, these are concepts, not paramattha dhammas. In order to develop understanding of the nature of anattaa of paramattha dhammas, the characteristics of these should be objects of awareness as they appear one at a time through the six doors. We do not develop understanding of houses and trees, only of paramattha dhammas, of citta, cetasika and rupa. How about this, do you find this clear? Perhaps you knew the term pa~n~natti, but not the English term concept? It is so beneficial to know more about our different cittas. To know that seeing is a citta, and that on account of what we see akusala citta arises very soon afterwards. Seeing is different from what we always thought it was: we believed that we saw a house, but now we learn that seeing only experiences just what appears through eyesense, colour. A house cannot impinge on the eyesense. A house is not seen. If we understand this, we begin to know what citta is. I mean, not the term citta, but its characteristic as it appears in our life. We learnt from books what citta is, but in discussing this there is a condition to reflect more often on seeing when our eyes are open, like now. There can be a little more understanding from day to day, and that is good. You do not have to agree with me. It is useful for everybody here if you raise the points that you find hard to accept. But I also understand that you do not like debates. ****** Nina. #65107 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 10:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Heedfulness (Appamada) nilovg Hi Phil, As you know heedfulness is actually sati and other beautiful cetasikas, and since these arise with the citta they are momentary. But they can be accumulated so that they arise again. That is the meaning of maintaining. Just when I saw your post this morning I had listened to Khun Sujin on a Thai CD. This may give you some more thoughts about it: Nina. Op 7-nov-2006, om 3:44 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > Ph: I don't think appamada is a momentary arising of mindfulness. > I think it is something that is to be maintained, and can be, more > often than not, during the day. #65108 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 11:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: external rupas (rupas of the Buddha0. nilovg Hi Swee Boon, The wholesome deeds the Buddha did in past lives were a condition for the beauty of his bodily features. See Diigha Nikaaya,III, 30, Lakkhana Sutta, it is very impressive. For example: Colours were seen, but they were the result of his good kamma. Heretics disliked the sight. In the Co. to the Mahaaraahulovadasutta: < There the venerable Rahula who walked behind the Exalted One looked at the “Thus-gone” from the soles of his feet up to the tips of his hairs. And when he saw the graceful Buddha appearance in the Exalted One, he thought: “The Exalted One is beautiful, his body adorned with the thirtytwo characteristics, Since he is surrounded by his aura of one fathom, he is as it were going in the middle of gold dust, scattered all around him, He is like a golden mountain encircled by a flash of lightning He is like a golden festoon decorated with jewels that is pulled along by a mechanical contrivance. Although he is clothed in a saffron rag-robe, he is like a golden mountain covered by a shimmering woollen cloth, He is like a golden festoonwork ornamented with coral creepers, He is like a golden pagoda which is venerated by (the application of) powder made from red lead, He is like a golden sacrificial post covered with lac colouring, He is like the full moon that emerges at that moment in between misty clouds. O, what splendour of his body, adorned with the majesty of the thirty perfections.”. -------- With interest I read about the relics in Singapore. We should not cling or be superstitious, but we can pay respect and think of his virtues, and his teachings. They are the only thing left of him in this world. Nina. Op 7-nov-2006, om 2:17 heeft nidive het volgende geschreven: > I don't understand why the sight of a Buddha is intrinsically > desirable. Isn't the "sight of a Buddha" just a combination of colors > and shapes seen through the eye? I don't understand why the rupas of > the Buddha's body can be so full of goodness. > > You know, in Singapore, we are going to build a Buddha Tooth Relic > Temple housing supposedly one of the Buddha's tooth remains. We also > have almost yearly exhibitions of the remains of the Buddha's and his > disciples' bodies which attract lots of people every time. > > But is it really the case that the rupas of these remains are so full > of goodness? I don't think so. #65109 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 11:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cuti citta and bhavanga citta nilovg Hi Howard and Jon, Op 7-nov-2006, om 14:19 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > 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 that had been made was that it is not known > > >through *any* > > >sense door! (That, as I see it, would place it outside "the all"!) > > >--------------------------------------- > N: The last javana cittas can experience an object through anyone > of the six doors. Thus, these cittas are not doorfreed. But after that, the *photocopy* of that object (same or similar object) is experienced by the first citta in the new life and all bhavanga-cittas and the cuticitta without being dependent on any door. Not even on the mind-door. --------- > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, that would be a better situation from my perspective, but I'm > not so sure, Jon. I hope you are correct. Perahps Nina will clarify > this matter. > ------------------------------------------------ N: I hope I could clarify? Nina. #65110 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 12:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] degrees of pa~n~naa hantun1 Dear Nina (and Sarah), I thank you very much for your kind suggestion. But I would rather wait till I finish the whole thing. The reason is that I want to edit it when I finish the last condition. The second reason is that if I post it now at DSG condition by condition, there will be discussions and questions, and I cannot do two things together at the same time, i,e, answering the questions on the one I posted and writing the new posts at the same time. It will be too demanding on me and I doubt if my physical and mental condition can meet that demand. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han, > One condition at a time is very good. Perhaps you > can also post it > here for discussion? > Nina. #65111 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 8:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Cuti citta and bhavanga citta upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Jon) - In a message dated 11/7/06 2:35:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > >N: The last javana cittas can experience an object through anyone > >of the six doors. Thus, these cittas are not doorfreed. > Now, you, Nina, currently say: > But after that, the *photocopy* of that object (same or similar > object) is experienced by the first citta in the new life and all > bhavanga-cittas and the cuticitta without being dependent on any > door. Not even on the mind-door. > --------- > >---------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > >Well, that would be a better situation from my perspective, but I'm > >not so sure, Jon. I hope you are correct. Perahps Nina will clarify > >this matter. And you inquire now: > >------------------------------------------------ > N: I hope I could clarify? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, you are clarifying two things, for which I thank you, and which show that Jon's understanding of what you said was correct: 1) The original object was via some doorway - the mind door, I suppose, but 2) The first object of consciousness of the new life and every subsequent occurrence of it in a bhavanga citta is independent of any door. What I suppose I don't understand, then, is the role of a doorway, and most especially the mind door. When we are aware of a just-passed sight or sound, for example, it is also a "photocopy" that we experience [or "fresh memory" as I call it], and it is via the mind door. WHAT EXACTLY does it MEAN when we say it is via the mind door? And how is that being-via-the mind-door different from the being-via-NO-door for bhavanga cittas? What is the difference in the experience, and what is the difference of *function*? In each case, there is the knowing of an object. What exactly does the doorway provide, and why is it needed in some cases and not in others? Thse questions are important to me, for without such detail, I have no means of evaluating the (rather odd) details of the notion of "bhavanga citta". Even more important is understanding what sense doors are all about, what they do, how they do it, and why they are needed. With metta, Howard #65112 From: "Sebastien Billard" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 1:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? sbillard2000 Greetings Nina and all, I made some corrections to the passage mentionned earlier, here is my translation now, is it fully correct now ? "Les sensations corporelles sont les sensations qui ont la corporéité sensitive (kaya pasada rupa) pour condition. Ces sensations en elle-même sont nama, mais elle ont rupa (la corporeité sensitive) pour condition. Quand un objet rentre en contact avec cette corporeité sensitive, la sensation est soit agréable, soit désagréable : il ne peut y avoir de sensation corporelle neutre. Quand la sensation corporelle est désagréable, elle est akusala vipaka, le résultat d'actions pernicieuses. Et quand la sensation corporelle est agréable, elle est kusala vipaka, le résultats d'actions bénéfiques. Du fait que l'on expérimente une suite continue de sensations apparaissant et disparaissant en permanence, il est difficile de les distinguer l'une de l'autre. Par exemple nous avons tendance à confondre la sensation corporelle agréable qui est vipaka (née du kamma) avec la sensation mentale agréable pouvant apparaître juste après, et qui est accompagnée d'attachement pour cette sensation corporelle. Ou nous pouvons des fois confondre les sensations corporelles désagréables avec les sensations mentales désagréables accompagnées d'aversion qui apparaissent juste après. Quand il y a douleur physique, la sensation douloureuse est vipaka, elle accompagne le vipakacitta qui expérimente l'objet désagréable en contact avec la corporeité sensitive." Also Nina, could you confirm me that the bodysense regroupe all "senses" potentially felt through the body, hence the 5 senses ? (I want to make sure my comprehension is correct) Sébastien Billard :: http://s.billard.free.fr/dotclear >> "Bodily feeling is feeling which has bodysense, the rúpa which has >> the capacity to receive bodily impressions, as condition; the feeling >> itself is nâma, but it has rûpa (bodysense) as condition. When an >> object contacts the bodysense, the feeling is either painful or >> pleasant; there is no indifferent bodily feeling" #65113 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 2:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu corvus121 Hi Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: I don't think we can use 'avyakata' in this way. I think it's just used > as a rather technical term to refer to those cittas and cetasikas which > are not kusala or akusala, i.e 'indeterminate' in the sense of not being > 'determined' as kusala or akusala. These include all vipaka and kiriya > cittas. The Dhammasangani starts of with definitions of kusala, then > akusala, then avyakata dhammas, for example. (See Nyantiloka dict also). I did see the entry in Nyanatiloka's dictionary which was purely technical. However, when I checked the PTS online dictionary, I got "unexplained, undecided, not declared, indeterminate" and some colourful examples of the root word 'vyakata' e.g. "brought to a decision by the sword". Clearly, in general Pali, avyakata doesn't always have the technical meaning ascribed by Nyanatiloka. > **** > > PS typo of the year award goes to Sarah who addressed a post to "Hen > > H" Sorry, didn't mean to embarrass you! I thought it was funny and in some ways apt. After all, Ken H has to cross the road to go surfing!! Best wishes Andrew #65114 From: han tun Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 3:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: Q. Cetasikas' study corner 571- Understanding/pa~n~naa hantun1 Dear Nina, I wish to express my deepest gratitude for your kind and patient explanation, especially as regards to “concepts.” I like your short but precise definition: “Now some more about concept, pa~n~natti: everything that is not citta, cetasika, rupa or nibbaana is a concept.” I also like your further explanation on the concepts. By your explanation, you are also motivating me to read more. Now, I am reading “pa~n~nattibheda” in A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma. It is also a very good analysis of concepts: the concept as what is made known or meaning-concept (attha-pa~n~natti); and concept as what makes known or name concept (naama-pa~n~natti). I did not read it before, because I thought I knew what is pa~n~natti. Actually I did not know it. I only thought I knew. That happened many times with other subjects as well. I thought I knew and did not study in detail. Actually I did not know. Your post is an eye-opener for me, and I thank you very much. No, I do not like debates. The debates only irritate me. What I like is your style of writing. You teach me what I do not know. You fill up my knowledge gaps. That is very beneficial for me. After all, I join the Discussion Groups to gather knowledge and to improve my understanding of dhamma. Respectfully, Han #65115 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 3:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Heedfulness (Appamada) corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: appamada feels very much like a process here, an > ongoing state of extended awareness rather than a dhamma/cetasika. > But as you point out in the linked posts, nobody has said it is a > cetasika. Hi Phil I wonder if you are feeling some friction or discord between conventional and ultimate language, between conceptual-composite words like 'appamada' and conceptual-singular words like 'sati'? Is appamada "an ongoing state of extended awareness" or "a succession of moments involving awareness" or "a single moment involving a specific set of citta-cetasikas"? Is this question mere semantics? Insofar as appamada is a concept describing realities, it must refer to the present moment (because realities only exist in the present moment). But appamada may also be a concept describing another concept e.g. a 'behaviour' over time when it is believed appamada is arising in all or many of the moments involved. In either case, I think it's important to know that there are concepts and realities involved. I suspect you are mixing it up with the thought 'how can we develop appamada' - by putting in place all the requisite conditions for its arising? Among other things, such a question presupposes a complete understanding of conditionality - which is way out of my league. But my best guess is: "Right Understanding" comes first. BB seems to agree: Right Understanding (panna) "is the primary instrument in the quest for enlightenment and the attainment of deliverance" [Intro to Brahmajala Sutta]. Best wishes Andrew #65116 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 3:39 pm Subject: Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu corvus121 Dear Swee Boon I've been going round in circles but now I understand what you are saying. Thanks for elaborating. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Without seeing directly for oneself the not-self characteristic of > conditioned dhammas, it is impossible to achieve any break through to > the Dhamma. Regarding this comment: I see Ken H's view of "absolute no control" as a subtle > form of annihilationism, but obviously he finds absolute delight in > it. > > Also, when one gets stuck into an intellectual position/belief that > there is no self, it makes insight meditation so much more difficult > because there is so much more expectation. One becomes so much more > sensitive to thoughts of self when it arises and becomes frustrated > because they think their insight meditation has gone awfully wrong. > Their disappointment in insight meditation becomes so much stronger > that they eventually give up entirely on it. > > Which is why I say: Don't worry about "no self", worry instead about > "not self". I live near Ken H and know him quite well. I suspect he does believe in "absolute no control" in the present moment, but he also does believe in a way out of samsara. And that's the issue where we all have differing opinions and points of emphasis. For many like myself, the main emphasis is "right understanding comes first". Others seem to argue that concentration is needed as a precursor to right understanding. Others emphasise sila. Differing views ... it's just the way of the world and certainly makes DSG an interesting place! Best wishes Andrew #65117 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 4:06 pm Subject: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. ken_aitch Hi Howard, --------- H: > And I say to call "ultimate" teachings in the suttas Abhidhamma and to > say that Abhidhamma can be found in the suttas implies a presumed superiority > of the Abhidhamma Pitaka over the Sutta Pitaka. I consider it a "put down" of > the suttas - unintentional, I'm sure, but real nonetheless. --------- If that is what some people believe then that is what they should say. You, for example, have never been reluctant to tell us the Abhidhamma-pitaka was, "not the Buddha word" or that some students of the ancient-commentaries were promoting helplessness and hopelessness etc. And if that is what you think you should continue to say so. I am in a similar position. You may have noticed my somewhat negative attitude towards religious (ritualistic) Buddhism. :-) I think anyone who misconstrues the Dhamma of the suttas as being different from the Abhidhamma (the teaching of absolute reality) is on a dangerously wrong path. Time and time again we see people claim, "The suttas say I should be mindful of whatever happens, and that is what I am doing." (!!!) No, that is not what they are doing at all! If people knew the Abhidhamma they wouldn't make such a claim. They wouldn't waste their lives looking at concepts in the name of satipatthana, and they wouldn't misrepresent the Buddha's profound, unique way to enlightenment as just another banal, religious ritual. I hope I haven't been too backward in coming forward. :-) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Nina - > > In a message dated 11/6/06 2:32:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > this is what I mean: Abhidhamma is in the sutta. It is the teaching > > of what is real in the ultimate sense, and you rendered this just now. > > Nina. > > > ========================== #65118 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 5:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma ken_aitch Hi Sarah, ------------- <. . .> KH: > > I disagree. > > S: > Uh, oh - Just when Howard and I managed to wrap up the thread 'on the same page':-) As I understand it, Howard and I are both agreeing that concepts such as 'things' cannot be said to impermanent because they don't exist. --------------- No, I think you have missed Howard's point. Howard was saying that conditioned dhammas did not last. (That, we all agree on.) But then he said that their non-lastingness was not a thing. I disagreed: I said anicca - the non-lastingness of dhammas - was an observable thing. You seemed to think Howard was talking about something else - about concepts' not having characteristics. ------------------------ KH: > >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. > > >... S: > I'd say, an 'actual' directly observable characterstic/aspect of a paramattha dhamma...not as an observable 'thing' in its own right....but I don't think you can be saying that:-/??? ------------------------- I don't know what I think. :-) I could be persuaded either way. When a scientist observes that a certain element is, for example, magnetic he doesn't see (directly observe) magnetism, does he? But I thought it would be different in satipatthana. I thought that, rather than inferring anicca from the data (by experiment, as it were), panna would directly observe anicca. Maybe that is what you are saying too. :-/??? If you'll forgive the reckless waste of bandwidth, I will reprint the rest of our conversation without snipping: --------------------------------- .. > > When panna knows a conditioned dhamma as having the characteristic, > anicca, what is the object of citta and panna at that moment? .... S: The impermanence OF the dhamma....(not isolated from the dhamma) .... >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. .... S: That's how I understand it. That's also why when people suggest they have experiences of anicca but without any understanding of dhammas, it makes no sense. .... >I have been thinking it both experiences, and > understands, anicca. .... S: Experiences and understands the anicca of the dhamma at that moment. (The same applies to the understanding of dhammas as dukkha and anatta - but only one characteristic is said to be apparent at a time. For example,just before enlightenment, one 'aspect' of the dhamma appears...) Have I understood the point? ------------------------------ No I am happy with that, but, as I said, you may have misunderstood Howard's point. I was wondering if panna experienced an entire dhamma at any one moment or just one of its characteristics. In any case, we clearly agree that anicca is something to be *directly* observed, and not just to be observed *by inference.* It is not a matter of observing, "First a conditioned dhamma was here and now it has gone, therefore, it had the characteristic, anicca!" Phew! How are we going? :-) Ken H #65119 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 5:37 pm Subject: Re: Heedfulness (Appamada) philofillet Hi Andrew > I wonder if you are feeling some friction or discord between > conventional and ultimate language Ph: Yes, these days that is the case, though not quite friction or discord. All up in the air, but feeling that there was a premature emphasis on the ultimate, that understanding the ultimate is something that happens gradually and that there was a forcing of the issue, a premature desire to appreciate/understand/be aware of ultimate realities. (paramattha dhammas) A sense that understanding them is where we are all moving towards, but naturally we are at different places. Agqain, all up in the air, so just thinking out loud here. > between conceptual-composite words > like 'appamada' and conceptual-singular words like 'sati'? Ph: yes, always confusion there, but that's ok. Appamada is highly praised in the suttanta, but it doesn't seem to make sense to me in the context of a way of understanding that stresses the presently arisen moment rather than something-not-quite-so-presently- arisen. :) > > Is appamada "an ongoing state of extended awareness" or "a succession > of moments involving awareness" or "a single moment involving a > specific set of citta-cetasikas"? Is this question mere semantics? Ph: Oh, you put that very well Andrew! Thanks. Not just semantics. It is exactly the sort of thing I have been wondering about. > Insofar as appamada is a concept describing realities, it must refer to > the present moment (because realities only exist in the present > moment). But appamada may also be a concept describing another concept > e.g. a 'behaviour' over time when it is believed appamada is arising in > all or many of the moments involved. In either case, I think it's > important to know that there are concepts and realities involved. I > suspect you are mixing it up with the thought 'how can we develop > appamada' - by putting in place all the requisite conditions for its > arising? Among other things, such a question presupposes a complete > understanding of conditionality - which is way out of my league. No, the "appamada" (or what I take to be appamada) is there, has been there for a few weeks. So I guess it's more wondering about the implications of it, whether it is something the Buddha taught that I am wisely tapping into (thanks to the Buddha's teaching of it being condition for it be there) or whether it is just a self-generated deception. So not "how can we develop appamda?" More "what is this watching/that is guiding my mind/out of muddied gutters/into brighter channels/oh baby baby appamda/oh baby baby appamada (sing 3X and clap your hands on each "baby baby" and draw out the app-a- maah-da!) > > But my best guess is: "Right Understanding" comes first. BB seems to > agree: Right Understanding (panna) "is the primary instrument in the > quest for enlightenment and the attainment of deliverance" [Intro to > Brahmajala Sutta]. Ph: This is not the message I've been hearing from BB. In the Majhima Nikaya talks there is a consistent message that panna (insight) comes later - There is not a single reference in the 30 hours or so of talks I've listened to of panna arising anywhere but at a more advanced stage - maybe he is referring to only one high/deep degree of panna. But I do think that we use panna too lightly. Phra Dhammadaro said "a few moments of sati, wealthy man!" These days I'm feeling it is panna that is the rarer one, though there are the forms of panna that come from hearing, reflecting etc. The three kinds of panna that James quoted from the Vism. So it's so complex and trying too hard to work it out will throw us off from what is happening here and now. "Is there seeing now?" Thanks for the feedback, Andrew. Phil > #65120 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 12:50 pm Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 11/7/06 7:15:50 PM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --------- > H: >And I say to call "ultimate" teachings in the suttas > Abhidhamma and to > >say that Abhidhamma can be found in the suttas implies a presumed > superiority > >of the Abhidhamma Pitaka over the Sutta Pitaka. I consider it a "put > down" of > >the suttas - unintentional, I'm sure, but real nonetheless. > --------- > > If that is what some people believe then that is what they should say. > You, for example, have never been reluctant to tell us the > Abhidhamma-pitaka was, "not the Buddha word" or that some students of > the ancient-commentaries were promoting helplessness and hopelessness > etc. And if that is what you think you should continue to say so. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I don't think that I have asserted as fact that the Abhidhamma Pitaka is not the Buddha word, but only that I don't *think* that it is. I readily admit that I don't know that to be a fact. I DO believe that much of the Abhidhamma is a detailing of the Buddha's Dhamma, but from a different perspective. Actually, I consider the Abhidhammic framework to be quite useful, and I admit that I have definitely been influenced by it. (I do believe, however, that there are some substantive differences as well.) ----------------------------------------------- > > I am in a similar position. You may have noticed my somewhat negative > attitude towards religious (ritualistic) Buddhism. :-) > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I somewhat share that perspective, but we differ radically on what constitutes ritual. --------------------------------------------- I think anyone> > who misconstrues the Dhamma of the suttas as being different from the > Abhidhamma (the teaching of absolute reality) is on a dangerously > wrong path. Time and time again we see people claim, "The suttas say I > should be mindful of whatever happens, and that is what I am doing." > (!!!) No, that is not what they are doing at all! > > If people knew the Abhidhamma they wouldn't make such a claim. They > wouldn't waste their lives looking at concepts in the name of > satipatthana, and they wouldn't misrepresent the Buddha's profound, > unique way to enlightenment as just another banal, religious ritual. -------------------------------------- Howard: :-) What can I say! I would only suggest keeping in mind the virtue of not clinging too tenaciously to fixed positions, Ken. -------------------------------------- > > I hope I haven't been too backward in coming forward. :-) ------------------------------------ Howard: I just can't tolerate your timid holding back, Ken! LOLOL! ----------------------------------- > > Ken H > =================== With metta, Howard #65121 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 5:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Heedfulness (Appamada) philofillet Hi Nina > As you know heedfulness is actually sati and other beautiful > cetasikas, and since these arise with the citta they are momentary. > But they can be accumulated so that they arise again. That is the > meaning of maintaining. Ph: If it is maintaining in the sense that I mean, the arising again would happen in a long successive chain - millions of citta moments, billions of cittta moments arising in a chain that gives the impression of 10 seocnds of heedfulness, or whatever. So could this be what happens? I suppose it doesn't matter to think so hard about it. It is happening, and it is helpful. > When we do not know the characteristics of realities or we do not > understand the Dhamma there is no heedfulness. When we listen to the > Dhamma and understand what we hear, there is heedfulness. I think these two sentences sound a bit contradictory to me, Nina. "Know the characteristics of realities" is something that I have never experienced, though I have listened to talks about it and understood it in theory. Realities are so fast falling, how could I know their characteristics directly. By the nimitta, right? Sorry to keep asking about this. I think there can be heedfulness without understanding the characteristics of realities. If I am aware that a violent fantasy has entered my mind, for example, and am heedful of it, and watching it subside by virtue of being watched (that is what I have found happens) there is no understanding of any characteristic of a reality, but it is a cutting off of akusala proliferation that prevents further proliferation, and certainly helps reduce the probability that that proliferation will condition a violent deed, word or further transgressional thoughts. This is all happening at the conceptual level but is very valuable, I think. > If we think that we have already > understood realities (when we have not) we are heedless.> Well, no danger of thinking I have understood realities these days, because I know I haven't, and I'm not convinced these days that it is something that there are conditions for me to do yet, so I'm not worrying about it. I'm sure that could change. Nina, remember when I told you not to worry if people don't get what you are trying to get across to them, because there are not conditions for them to understand? The shortcoming is in their understanding, not in your explanation. That now applies to me. The shortcoming is in my understanding, never in your explanation, so please don't feel any frustration. :) Phil #65122 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 1:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Books on Dhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Sarah) - In a message dated 11/7/06 8:44:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Sarah, > > ------------- > <. . .> > KH: >>I disagree. > >> > > S: >Uh, oh - Just when Howard and I managed to wrap up the thread 'on > the same page':-) As I understand it, Howard and I are both agreeing > that concepts such as 'things' cannot be said to impermanent because > they don't exist. > --------------- > > No, I think you have missed Howard's point. Howard was saying that > conditioned dhammas did not last. (That, we all agree on.) But then > he said that their non-lastingness was not a thing. I disagreed: I > said anicca - the non-lastingness of dhammas - was an observable thing. > > You seemed to think Howard was talking about something else - about > concepts' not having characteristics. ----------------------------------------- Howard: You are correct, Ken, but I also happen to agree with the other as well, so I let that go by without comment. ------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------ > KH: >>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. > >> > >... > S: >I'd say, an 'actual' directly observable characterstic/aspect of > a paramattha dhamma...not as an observable 'thing' in its own > right....but I don't think you can be saying that:-/??? > ------------------------- > > I don't know what I think. :-) I could be persuaded either way. When a > scientist observes that a certain element is, for example, magnetic he > doesn't see (directly observe) magnetism, does he? But I thought it > would be different in satipatthana. I thought that, rather than > inferring anicca from the data (by experiment, as it were), panna > would directly observe anicca. Maybe that is what you are saying too. > :-/??? > > If you'll forgive the reckless waste of bandwidth, I will reprint the > rest of our conversation without snipping: > > -------------------------------------- Howard: I'll snip the rest, though. ;-) ==================== With metta, Howard #65123 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 4:58 pm Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/6/2006 5:41:41 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: I interpret the Bahiya Sutta as saying to not go beyond the mere elements of experience, themselves, and not to external phenomena that are an allged basis for such sensations. There the Buddha said the following: "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." [Here, by 'sensed' the Buddha is said to have meant "tasted, smelled, or felt through body sense". And by "sensing" here, my understanding is that he didn't mean tasting or smelling or feeling a bubbling hot, pungent and fragrant stew or some such conventional object, but sensing a gustatory, olfactory, or tactile sensation.] Hi Howard I think I understand where you're coming from regarding this Sutta. But I think the emphasis is on the "not you" aspect rather than a phenomenological aspect. For example...what is sensation? ... it is the coming together of 3 things...sense object, sense base (organ) and corresponding consciousness. This the Buddha has clearly expressed in a multitude of suttas. The elements that generate sensation are just that...i.e., elements that generate sensation. No more, no less. There is no self, there are just these elements of sensation. I think this latter sentiment is what the Sutta is pointing out. Sensation is just sensation that incorporates all the components that generate such sensation. (I never sensed the Buddha indicating that "the external" was an "alleged basis" for sensations. I think you interpret "the All" more narrowly than necessary.) In my thinking, focusing on pure experience is not a remedy for realizing "no-self." Someone could focus on sensation and come to the opposite conclusion, that there is a self, (and usually do.) I think it is the principles of conditionality, cause and effect, which lead to insightful realization of no-self. This Sutta, being quite advance IMO, is being delivered to a mind that is already well versed in conditionality principles. This Sutta therefore would be a "final push" designed to take the students mind "over the top." I believe it is not trying to edify other than trying to eject any remaining sense-of-self. Hence it is a notoriously difficult Sutta to extract edification from it. I don't think the point of this Sutta has anything to do with minimizing "the external." I think you're interpreting it that way because that's your propensity; I'm just not. I could be wrong, but your point, if correct, would be very important and I think the Buddha would have been clearer, more deliberate, and repetitive on it if that was the case. However, believing your DO insights to be very sound, I'm not sure your way of looking at it or mine will matter much in the end. In both our cases, we will need to eventually eject these models (crutches). TG #65124 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Nov 7, 2006 11:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Groundhog Day Reflections buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > thank you, I appreciate your reminder. You're welcome. > One additional remark, even when reflecting on birth, old age, etc. > one can be calm, because it is so true. I think that when you > understand what is true it can go along with calm. I suppose that one could reflect on dukkha with calm, especially during the brahmavihara of equanimity. However, Sarah and I were discussing samvegga (sense of urgency) and according to the Vism. there isn't any calm when reflecting on dukkha during samvegga. This only makes sense because if one is too calm and accepting of suffering, why would one want to escape samsara? You can have > confidence in the truth of dukkha and even rejoice. To suggest that we should "rejoice" in dukkha is really going too far, I think. You really think that we should rejoice over child abuse, murder, war, poverty, disease, famine, etc.? You really think we should rejoice over depression, suicide, lonliness, anxiety, boredom, etc.? Dukkha is not a reason to rejoice. You specifically mention that we can rejoice in birth and old age, but that isn't what the Buddha taught: Birth: Through many a birth in samsara have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house (of life) Repeated birth is indeed suffering! Old Age: These dove-coloured bones are like gourds that lie scattered about in autum. Having seen them, how can one seek delight? Fully worn out is this body, a nest of disease, and fragile. This foul mass breaks up, for death is the end of life. - Dhammapada Metta, James #65125 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 12:13 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 574- Understanding/pa~n~naa (m) 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 Right understanding of realities, sammå-diììhi, is a factor of the Eightfold Path which has to be developed together with the other factors of the eightfold Path so that it can penetrate the four noble Truths. The object of right understanding which is not lokuttara, supramundane, but “lokiya”, mundane, is the nåma or rúpa appearing at the present moment. The object of right understanding which is lokuttara is nibbåna. Right understanding which accompanies the lokuttara magga-citta eradicates defilements; defilements are eradicated at different stages of enlightenment and all of them are eradicated at the attainment of arahatship. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #65126 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 12:26 am Subject: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > ... Hallo Ken H, Howard, Nina, all K: "Time and time again we see people claim, "The suttas say I should be mindful of whatever happens, and that is what I am doing." (!!!) No, that is not what they are doing at all! If people knew the Abhidhamma they wouldn't make such a claim." J: Some months I have been trying to explain to Tibetan en Zen- Buddhists why they should not use the term 'Hinayana' anymore: not because the term is insulting (it is) but because mahayanists doing it are constructing a buddhist tradition that had never existed in history and are projecting properties to this virtual construction, so a thought error. I'm afraid you are doing the same now.Perhaps there are somewhere in the world person who say what you think is done "time and again" but I have never heard it. What I hear is that people say: I try to practice being mindful in daily life, and sitting vipassana meditation is helpful in this efforts, but it's difficult. So much more modest in the first place. In the second place people knowing the Abhidhamma are doing the same: trying to be mindful, trying to see the things as they really are, for example the vithi's described in Abhidhamma. Ken, you continue with: "They [the category of people you have constructed, Joop] wouldn't waste their lives looking at concepts in the name of satipatthana," May I ask you a question: reading a text of Nina or Sujin: what is the number a concepts in it, compared with the number of ultimate realities? I think a text with 100% ultimates is impossible. Let's take the most conceptual of all concepts and one of the favorite terms of Nina: 'accumulations'; as I said to sarah yesterday: I think 'accumulations' exist but it's a concept, an important concept but a concept. So, looking at concepts is not a waste of time, as long as one knows they are concepts, a waste of time is it to construct strawmen and fight them. Metta Joop #65127 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 12:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Argument Pertaining to "External Rupas" and "Internal Rupas" sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- upasaka@... wrote: > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > > > Premiss #1: Being (non-perversely) felt as pleasant or unpleasant > > >or > > >neutral is intrinsic to a rupa. > > ... > > S: Pleasant or unpleasant only... > > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > No indifferently-felt rupas? Visual objects not neutral? > ------------------------------------- .... S: The visible objects, sounds, smells and tastes are experienced by seeing consciousness and so on, accompanied by indifferent feeling. However, the nature of the visible objects and these other rupas is said to be intrinsically pleasant, unpleasant (or very pleasant). .... Typo: > > S: In the sense door process, the only rupas experienced are the 8 > rupas > > experienced through eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body-sense. .... S: This should read 'the 7 rupas', i.e visible object, sound, smell, taste, hardness/softness, temperature and pressure/motion. .... > > S: No. There is contact with subtle rupas experienced through the > > mind-door as well. Eg, apo dhatu (water element, manifesting as > cohesion). > > It's not easily known, but there is contact arising with every citta, > > experiencing every rupa that citta experiences. > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > I experience wetness through touch and thru mind, Thru mind I > experience it conceptually. No where in any sutta did the Buddha ever > say that > liquidity and cohesion are known only mentally, did he? > --------------------------------------- .... S: You think you experience wetness through touch, but actually what is experienced through touch is the temperature, motion and softness/texture at such a time. I'm quite sure he never said liquidity could be experienced by body-sense:-). Of course, I can give Abhidhamma references if you like, but I think we can also test it out. .... > Thank you for making an analysis, Sarah. :-) ... S: After all the discussions that have followed, I was curious to go back to your original analysis. Metta, Sarah ======== #65128 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 12:49 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 111 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 111, Intro: In this section it is explained that ignorance of dukkha causes someone to believe that the cycle of birth and death is happiness. Because of ignorance he performs kusala kamma, akusala kamma and imperturbable kamma. It is kamma that causes him to be reborn again and again. ------------ Text Vis 111.: And its state as a condition has already been given in the way beginning, 'For when unknowing--in other words, ignorance--of suffering, etc., is unabandoned in a man, owing firstly to his unknowing about suffering and about the past, etc., then he believes the suffering of the round of rebirths to be pleasant and he embarks upon the three kinds of formations, which are the cause of that very suffering' (par.62). ---------- N: Reviewing Vis. XVII, 62 which gives an explanation of the foregoing: The ‘Dispeller of Delusion’ (p.171) states : ’Herein, “about the past” (pubbante) is the past time, past aggregates, elements, bases (aayatanas). “About the future” (aparante)is the future time, future aggregates, elements, bases.’ Moreover, there is ignorance about both the past and the future. What is khandha arises and falls away, but ignorance does not know this. Tiika to Vis. 62: The Tiika explains that he, because of wrong perception of happiness (sukhasaññaa) takes for happiness what is understood by the wise as just dukkha, namely, the three kinds of dukkha: intrinsic dukkha (dukkha-dukkha, painful feeling and unhappy feeling), dukkha in change (vipari.naama dukkha)and sa”nkhaaradukkha (dukkha inherent in all conditioned dhammas). He wrongly perceives the dukkha of sa.msaara (the cycle of birth and death) as happiness and clings to it. In this way the occurring of clinging, tanhaa, is taught. ------- Reviewal of Text Vis.62: and he embarks upon the three kinds of formations which are the cause of that very suffering. Owing to his unknowing about suffering's origin he embarks upon formations that, being subordinated to craving, are actually the cause of suffering, imagining them to be the cause of pleasure. And owing to his unknowing about cessation and the path, he misperceives the cessation of suffering to be in some particular destiny [such as the Brahmaa-world] that is not in fact cessation. ------- N: Here it is explained that ignorance does not understand the four noble Truths: It does not understand dukkha and takes the cycle of birth and death for happiness. It does not understand that craving is the origin of dukkha, imagining the formations to be the cause of pleasure. It takes a happy rebirth for the cessation of dukkha, and it does not know the Path leading to the end of dukkha. ------ Reviewal of Text Vis 63.: he embarks upon the formation of merit of the kinds already stated, which is the condition for that very [suffering in change], like a moth that falls into a lamp's flame, and like the man who wants the drop of honey and licks the honey-smeared knife-edge. -------- N: The fruit of merit is taken for agreeable and pleasant, but in order to show its danger it is compared to the falling into a lamp’s flame and the licking of honey from the knife’s edge. -------- Reviewal of Text Vis. 63: Also, not seeing the danger in the indulgence of the sense desires, etc., with its results, [wrongly] perceiving pleasure and overcome by defilements, he embarks upon the formation of demerit that occurs in the three doors [of kamma], like a child who plays with filth, and like a man who wants to die and eats poison. ------- N: It is further explained that he embarks upon the formation of the imperturbable, aruupa-jhaana. The results of aruupa-jhaana may be wrongly perceived as eternal, since these are uninterrupted and because of the non-discrimination of arising and ceasing their long duration is the cause that he does not see dukkha in change and dukkha inherent in formations, the Tiika explains. He has the perversion of seeing permanence in what is impermanent (niccaavipallaasa). The embarking upon the formation of the imperturbable is like going to a goblin city. ___________ Conclusion: Because of ignorance we do not realize the four noble Truths. We do not see what dukkha is: the fact that conditioned dhammas are impermanent and thus dukkha, that they cannot be any refuge. The way to understand that naama and ruupa are impermanent and thus dukkha is the development of insight. The arising and falling away of dhammas cannot be realized in the beginning. However, when there is mindfulness of whatever dhamma appears now through one of the six doors, understanding of naama and ruupa can grow. The difference between the characteristic of naama and of ruupa must be known first before their impermanence can be penetrated. When the stage of enlightenment of the streamwinner, sotåpanna, has been attained, the wrong view that takes realities for self and all other kinds of wrong view are completely eradicated. The development of insight leads to the end of dukkha, there is no other way. ******* Nina. #65129 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 1:49 am Subject: cuticitta and bhavangacitta nilovg Hi Howard, ---------- H: Well, you are clarifying two things, for which I thank you, and which show that Jon's understanding of what you said was correct: 1) The original object was via some doorway - the mind door, I suppose, ------- N: No, it was an object appearing through any of the six doorways. It could be, as I said, the odour of incense, or the sound of chanting. I use conventional terms, but I mean, just odour, just sound. Or, through the mind-door: a symbol or sign of kamma performed during that life, etc. ---------- H: but 2) The first object of consciousness of the new life and every subsequent occurrence of it in a bhavanga citta is independent of any door. What I suppose I don't understand, then, is the role of a doorway, and most especially the mind door. ------- N: Just now I am posting ADL Objects and doors and see also the next Ch.17. If there are points that are not clear, please raise them, since this is useful for everybody. Meanwhile I try now to add something to your remarks. I quote from Ch 17 ADL: < The rúpa which is eyesense can function as the door (in Påli: dvåra) for seeing. A door or ``dvåra'' is the means through which citta experiences an object. There is eyesense arising and falling away all the time; throughout our life it is produced by kamma. However, eyesense is not a door all the time, because there is not all the time the experience of visible object. Eyesense is a door only when citta experiences visible object. It is the same with the pasåda-rúpas which are the other sense-organs. They are doors only when they are the means through which citta experiences an object. The eye-door is the means through which citta experiences visible object. Not only the cittas which are eye-door-adverting- consciousness, cakkhu-dvåråvajjana-citta, and seeing-consciousness, cakkhu-viññåùa, experience the object through the eye-door, the other cittas of that process, which are receiving-consciousness, sampaìicchana-citta, investigating-consciousness, santíraùa-citta, determining-consciousness, votthapana-citta, the javana-cittas and the tadårammaùa-cittas (retention) are also dependent on the same door, in order to experience the object. All the cittas of that process experience the object through the eye-door while they each perform their own function. After the rúpa which is experienced by these cittas has fallen away, the object is experienced through the mind-door (mano-dvåra).... In between the different processes of citta there have to be bhavanga- cittas (life-continuum). Bhavanga-cittas are not víthi-cittas. They are not part of the process of cittas experiencing objects which time and again throughout our life impinge on the six doors. They experience an object without being dependent on any doorway. > As to mind-door: I quote from Ch 16: < Five doors are rúpa and one door is nåma. The mind-door is nåma. The cittas of the mind-door process experience an object through the mind-door. Before the mind-door-adverting-consciousness, mano- dvåråvajjana-citta, arises, there are the bhavanga-calana (vibrating bhavanga) and the bhavangupaccheda (arrest-bhavanga). The bhavangupaccheda, the citta preceding the mano-dvåråvajjana-citta, is the mind-door. It is the ``doorway'' through which the mano- dvåråvajjana-citta and the succeeding cittas of the mind-door process experience the object. > ----------- H:When we are aware of a just-passed sight or sound, for example, it is also a "photocopy" that we experience [or "fresh memory" as I call it], and it is via the mind door. WHAT EXACTLY does it MEAN when we say it is via the mind door? --------- N: I know this in theory, but in real life I am confused as to the six doors. I have a rough idea about the sense-doors, but, as Kh Sujin says, the mind-door is concealed by the sensedoors. And so it is. But at the first stage of insight it is understood what nama is, completely different from rupa and it is also understood what the mind-door is. All this is difficult for me to really understand. I only know names and terms. ---------- H: And how is that being-via-the mind-door different from the being-via-NO-door for bhavanga cittas? What is the difference in the experience, and what is the difference of *function*? In each case, there is the knowing of an object. ------- N: The bhavangacittas do not arise in a process. Thus, there is no adverting to an object, the object has been conditioned already by kamma. Also, there are no kusala cittas or akusala cittas arising on account of that object, such as is the case in a mind-door process, because the bhavangacittas are only vipaakacittas produced by kamma. ---------- H: What exactly does the doorway provide, and why is it needed in some cases and not in others? ------- N: Cittas arising in processes need a doorway. For example, there could not be seeing without the eye-door. There could not be like or dislike of visible object without the eye-door. If you would be blind, no seeing, no like or dislike of visible object. The bhavangacittas are only vipaakacittas and these do not arise in a process, as said above. No adverting to an object, no reactions to it in the way of kusala cittas or akusala cittas. They have been condiitoned by kamma once and for all, throughout life and they do not change as to characteristic, they are always the same type, arising and falling away. ---------- H: These questions are important to me, for without such detail, I have no means of evaluating the (rather odd) details of the notion of "bhavanga citta". Even more important is understanding what sense doors are all about, what they do, how they do it, and why they are needed. ------ N: The sense-doors are needed for all the cittas arising in a process. The first citta of such a process has to advert to the new object that presents itself after the stream of bhavangacittas is arrested. You say: 'what they do, how they do it". They are rupas that have the special capacity to receive the relevant sense-object. This means: eyesense can only receive visible object, earsense can only receive sound, etc. More on this, Vis. XIV, 37 about eyesense. This rupa (smaller than a louse's head) arises together with the four great elements and other rupas. It could not arise alone. We read:<” Herein, sentient organ that is ready for the impact of visible data is the characteristic and so on”. As to the expression herein, this means, with regard to the derived materiality. On account of visible object, or the impact of visible object is visible object-impact, it is fit for this, thus, ready for impact of visible object, the sentient organ that is dependent on the four primaries is of such nature, no matter whether it is impinged on by visible object or not, thus, (there is the compound) “the sentient organ dependent on the primaries that is ready for the impact of visible data”; thus is its characteristic, meaning the eye. > When it is the right time for kamma to produce seeing, there is eyesense also produced by kamma, that is ready to receive visible object, so that there can be seeing. I do not know whether I clarified enough? Points raised are always welcome. Nina. #65130 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 2:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: Q. Cetasikas' study corner 571- Understanding/pa~n~naa nilovg Dear Han, I am grateful for your remarks and questions, I want to thank you. A person can help someone else by raising points, remarks, questions. Always welcome, I would like to encourage everybody here. Lodewijk said that he found your post with questions raised very sympathetic. I also have this sentiment like you: I think I have understood, but no, not yet. This is natural in the development of understanding. If we think we have understood a great deal of what we heard, we are lost! You may also like to read in Survey: Part III, Concepts, p. 248. Useful to discuss, if you have any points. It is on line on Rob K's web: That saves you typing when you like to discuss it. Nina. Op 8-nov-2006, om 0:19 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I wish to express my deepest gratitude for your kind > and patient explanation, especially as regards to > “concepts.” #65131 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 3:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu sarahprocter... Hi Andrew T, --- Andrew wrote: > > S: I don't think we can use 'avyakata' in this way. I think it's > just used > > as a rather technical term to refer to those cittas and cetasikas > which > > are not kusala or akusala, i.e 'indeterminate' in the sense of not > being > > 'determined' as kusala or akusala. These include all vipaka and > kiriya > > cittas. The Dhammasangani starts of with definitions of kusala, then > > akusala, then avyakata dhammas, for example. (See Nyantiloka dict > also). > > I did see the entry in Nyanatiloka's dictionary which was purely > technical. However, when I checked the PTS online dictionary, I > got "unexplained, undecided, not declared, indeterminate" and some > colourful examples of the root word 'vyakata' e.g. "brought to a > decision by the sword". Clearly, in general Pali, avyakata doesn't > always have the technical meaning ascribed by Nyanatiloka. ... S: Thanks for this. Yes, I see that it's also used in a more general sense in the suttas, such as when the Buddha refers to what has beeen left 'undeclared'(avyaakata)in MN63. Of course, many Pali terms have everyday as well as technical meanings and I'm glad you've pointed this out here! .... > > > **** > > > PS typo of the year award goes to Sarah who addressed a post > to "Hen > > > H" > > Sorry, didn't mean to embarrass you! I thought it was funny and in > some ways apt. After all, Ken H has to cross the road to go surfing!! .... S: On the contrary, we both had a good laugh this end. Yes, the hens and the bush turkeys crossing the road to reach the 'point':-). Metta, Sarah ======== #65132 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 4:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some points on art sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, (Connie & all), --- ken_aitch wrote: > 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.) .... S: As you corrected it, you're referring to adosa. If another person is not the object when adosa arises, it cannot be metta. So, if one is reflecting with kusala cittas on any other object, there is adosa, but not metta. I agree that nearly always when we think of ourselves in anyway, it's not with kusala cittas. But certainly when the Buddha or arahants thought of themselves, it was. ... > > 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)? .... S: Well, in these examples of course, usually there isn't any kusala. But, only panna can know. I think it's difficult to generalize about such situations. Of course, there are many, many moments of thinking of different concepts at such times. ..... .... > 3) Why would anyone have a thought of self? I suppose it would be o ....ut > of concern (attachment) for one's personal affairs, comfort and > well-being. .... S: Well, it usually is and such concerns are invariably with attachment. But there may also be thoughts about what we can do to help others, to study dhamma and so on. Again, I think we can only say that 'panna can know', otherwise it is theorizing only as you say. .... >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. .... S: I think it makes no difference. As you say, usually any thoughts about oneself are akusala, but I'd add 'not necessarily so'. .... >"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. .... S: I don't think so, but usually with attachment, I agree. When you think about writing a message or doing some shopping to help Sue or cleaning up, aren't there the (occasional) kusala thoughts with yourself as object in between thoughts of the other person you're helping? I just think it's very difficult to generalize about situations - it's just speculation. In the end it'll be different for everyone, depending on accumulated tendencies at such times. I'm reminded of when someone, maybe Azita, asked K.Sujin whether cittas are always akusala when there are tears in our eyes. Her response was to forget about the 'wholes', the situations and know the namas and rupas appearing now. .... >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. .... S: I don't get this at all. Do you mean that Sariputta, Ananda or the Buddha never had a thought involving themselves such as where they could go and what they could do that day to help? .... >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. .... S: I would say it's because all attachment has been eradicated. Again, I don't see why there cannot be the concept of self without attachment. The arahants knew who they were, by what name they were addressed and so on. ... > 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. ..... S: I don't think there is more to it. Yes, it's 'right virati' arising in the course of one's work. For an arahant, there's no virati arising at all, because there's no harm to abstain from. Likewise for a sotapanna bread-maker, there won't be right livelihood virati from telling lies, because the inclination to tell a lie has been completely eradicated. But there can be right livelihood virati from idle gossip whilst putting the bread into the oven. I'm not sure how this relates to the earlier points? .... > 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. .... S: I don't see a special distinction in the case of livelihood. It's the same as right speech or action, but refers to these in particular circumstances, that's all. I'd be glad to hear Connie's or anyone else's input and your further comments as I may be missing something here. Put it down to the PS that follows, perhaps. Metta, Sarah > PS: What a coincidence! Connie and I have hit our heads at the same > time. <...>I have to > keep out of the surf for two weeks (expires Tuesday morning). .... S: And I'll tell you another coincidence - I'm now grounded for two weeks too:-). This time because of a sea toxin which has got into my lymph system and is producing some v.unpleasant effects:-/ It wouldn't happen in Australia, I was told... ================ #65133 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 4:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] re: Q. Cetasikas' study corner 571- Understanding/pa~n~naa hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind note. I also thank Lodewijk for reading my posts with sympathy. I have downloaded Realities and Concepts, by Khun Sujin. I will study it and also Survey Part III Concepts. I will ask you if I have any questions. Respectfully, Han #65134 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 5:00 am Subject: Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Robert > > Nice to hear from you. Hope everything's going well in Kyushu. > > About Acharn Sujin not being a sotapanna or everyone valuing sila? > > Re sotapanna, I assume that there are no sotapannas these days. > If I am wrong, nice surprise. No > arahants is as far as we can say? > ________ The texts say there are no longer conditions ofr arahants, but there can still be sotapanna. ___________________ > BTW, am I right in thinking that a sotapanna could never give > faulty advice on Dhamma points becasue wrong view has been > eliminated? (Forget Acharn Sujin, I mean in general.) > __________ http://www.vipassana.info/j.htm#285 ""XX (9) The Story of a Thera who had been a Goldsmith While residing at the Jetavana monastery, the Buddha uttered Verse (285) of this book, with reference to a bhikkhu, a pupil of Thera Sariputta. Once, a young, handsome son of a goldsmith was admitted into the Order by Thera Sariputta. The young bhikkhu was given loathsomeness of the dead body as the subject of meditation by Thera Sariputta. After taking the subject of meditation he left for the forest and practised meditation there; but he made very little progress. So he returned twice to Thera Sariputta for further instructions. Still, he made no progress. So Thera Sariputta took the young bhikkhu to the Buddha, and related everything about the young bhikkhu. The Buddha knew that the young bhikkhu was the son of a goldsmith, and also that he had been born in the family of goldsmiths during his past five hundred existences. Therefore the Buddha changed the subject of meditation for the young bhikkhu; instead of loathsomeness, he was instructed to meditate on pleasantness. The Buddha saw him from his perfumed chamber and with his supernormal power made the flower wither instantly. Seeing the flower wither and change its colour, the bhikkhu perceived the impermanent nature of the flower and of all other things and beings. That led to the realization of the impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and the insubstantiality of all conditioned things."" Even Sariputta can give wrong advice. What a sotapanna can't have or promote is wrong view. Robert #65135 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 12:47 am Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/8/06 1:16:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > In a message dated 11/6/2006 5:41:41 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > Howard: > I interpret the Bahiya Sutta as saying to not go beyond the mere > elements of experience, themselves, and not to external phenomena that are > an > allged basis for such sensations. There the Buddha said the following: > "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the > seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the > heard. In > reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, > only > the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there > will > be > only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the > heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in > reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. > When there > is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you > there, > you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is > the > end of stress." [Here, by 'sensed' the Buddha is said to have meant > "tasted, > smelled, or felt through body sense". And by "sensing" here, my > understanding > is that he didn't mean tasting or smelling or feeling a bubbling hot, > pungent > and fragrant stew or some such conventional object, but sensing a > gustatory, > > olfactory, or tactile sensation.] > > > > > Hi Howard > > I think I understand where you're coming from regarding this Sutta. But I > think the emphasis is on the "not you" aspect rather than a > phenomenological > aspect. --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I understand that as a reasonable reading. My take on "When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that," is that the "no you" isn't a paraphrase, but a statement of result. But I do readily admit that yours is one of several alternative credible readings of this sutta. ----------------------------------------- > > For example...what is sensation? ... it is the coming together of 3 > things...sense object, sense base (organ) and corresponding consciousness. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Well, you are identifying 'sensation' with 'contact'. That isn't my usage. By 'sensation' I mean experienced rupa - the rupa alone, as object of consciousness, an itch for example. ----------------------------------------- This the > > Buddha has clearly expressed in a multitude of suttas. The elements that > generate sensation are just that...i.e., elements that generate sensation. > No > more, no less. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: As I say, I am using the English word 'sensation' differently from you. As for elements "out there" that alledly generate contact, they are exactly what, IMO, are debatable as to existence, being not elements of experience, but hypothetical constructs that are assumed bases for experience. The rupas that are experienced are objects of consciousness, and they arise via sense doors as new or continued objects of consciousness "generated by" multiple conditions, most especially past kamma. The "itch on my hand" and the "sight that appears when I open my eyes" are not "things-out-there" but elements of experience. ----------------------------------------- There is no self, there are just these elements of sensation. > > I think this latter sentiment is what the Sutta is pointing out. Sensation > > is just sensation that incorporates all the components that generate such > sensation. (I never sensed the Buddha indicating that "the external" was > an > "alleged basis" for sensations. I think you interpret "the All" more > narrowly > than necessary.) ------------------------------------------ Howard: I understand and agree that there are non-phenomenalist interpretations that are possible. I'm not alone in my interpretation, though. Ven ~Nanananda, for one, takes the same position as I on this - or, better said, he and I take the same position. I would be willing to bet that David Kalupahama does also. Of course, everyone could take a position, and that position be faulty, and, on the other hand, no one might take a certain position which in fact is completely valid. Correctness isn't determined by vote! LOL! ----------------------------------------- > > In my thinking, focusing on pure experience is not a remedy for realizing > "no-self." Someone could focus on sensation and come to the opposite > conclusion, that there is a self, (and usually do.) I think it is the > principles of > conditionality, cause and effect, which lead to insightful realization of > no-self. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: It's a matter of *how* we train to focus on experience. But it is certainly experience that has to be examined, for experience is all that we have or can have. What is required is to "clean the doors of perception," removing cognitive and affective defilements and perversions, and cultivating wisdom. ------------------------------------------ This Sutta, being quite advance IMO, is being delivered to a mind that > > is already well versed in conditionality principles. This Sutta therefore > would be a "final push" designed to take the students mind "over the top." > I > believe it is not trying to edify other than trying to eject any remaining > sense-of-self. Hence it is a notoriously difficult Sutta to extract > edification > from it. > > I don't think the point of this Sutta has anything to do with minimizing > "the external." I think you're interpreting it that way because that's > your > propensity; I'm just not. > > I could be wrong, but your point, if correct, would be very important and I > > think the Buddha would have been clearer, more deliberate, and repetitive > on > it if that was the case. > > However, believing your DO insights to be very sound, I'm not sure your way > > of looking at it or mine will matter much in the end. In both our cases, > we > will need to eventually eject these models (crutches). ------------------------------------ Howard: I agree with that. Conditions allowing, we will scuttle the raft. ------------------------------------- > > TG > > > ================== With metta and a wish for raft-scuttling for us all, Howard #65136 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 1:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] An Argument Pertaining to "External Rupas" and "Internal Rupas" upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 11/8/06 3:50:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > >>--- upasaka@... wrote: > >>> Premiss #1: Being (non-perversely) felt as pleasant or unpleasant > >>>or > >>>neutral is intrinsic to a rupa. > >>... > >>S: Pleasant or unpleasant only... > > > >------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > No indifferently-felt rupas? Visual objects not neutral? > >------------------------------------- > .... > S: The visible objects, sounds, smells and tastes are experienced by > seeing consciousness and so on, accompanied by indifferent feeling. > However, the nature of the visible objects and these other rupas is said > to be intrinsically pleasant, unpleasant (or very pleasant). ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I assume that what you are saying is that they are indifferently felt dring the 5-sense-door mindstate but pleasantly or unpleasantly during the subsequent mind-door state. Is that your meaning? To be intrinsically non-neutral would have to require being felt non-neutrally in *some* respect, else the notion would be utterly empty. ----------------------------------------------- > .... > Typo: > >>S: In the sense door process, the only rupas experienced are the 8 > >rupas > >>experienced through eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body-sense. > .... > S: This should read 'the 7 rupas', i.e visible object, sound, smell, > taste, hardness/softness, temperature and pressure/motion. > .... > >>S: No. There is contact with subtle rupas experienced through the > >>mind-door as well. Eg, apo dhatu (water element, manifesting as > >cohesion). > >>It's not easily known, but there is contact arising with every citta, > >>experiencing every rupa that citta experiences. > > > >--------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > I experience wetness through touch and thru mind, Thru mind I > >experience it conceptually. No where in any sutta did the Buddha ever > >say that > >liquidity and cohesion are known only mentally, did he? > >--------------------------------------- > .... > S: You think you experience wetness through touch, but actually what is > experienced through touch is the temperature, motion and softness/texture > at such a time. > > I'm quite sure he never said liquidity could be experienced by > body-sense:-). Of course, I can give Abhidhamma references if you like, > but I think we can also test it out. ----------------------------------------- Howard: It may be so that liquidity and cohesiveness and any of the other things we associate with "water" are not experienced by body sense. As I think about it, when touching liquid, all that is actually experirnced are such things as coolness, smoothness, etc. (I'm not sure whether wetness is a distinct experirnce, though it might be.) Certainly, I do not touch cohesion! But that only leaves concept for me. If I don't know "water" through body sense, which may in fact be the case, then I don't know liquidity or cohesiveness by any means other than conceptual construction based upon body-sense and eye-sense contacts. Do you? What is the mystery of "water" that requires special insight? The "water element" isn't some lokuttara dhamma requiring special wisdom for its experiencing. ------------------------------------------ > .... > > > Thank you for making an analysis, Sarah. :-) > ... > S: After all the discussions that have followed, I was curious to go back > to your original analysis. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======================== With metta, Howard P.S. The more I think about it, the less persuaded I am that the "water element" is anything other than concept. Cohesion, for example, does not appear to be an elementary feature of experience, but a concept based upon a multitude of experiences. #65137 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 1:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] cuticitta and bhavangacitta upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 11/8/06 4:57:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ---------- > H: Well, you are clarifying two things, for which I thank you, and which > show that Jon's understanding of what you said was correct: 1) The > original > object was via some doorway - the mind door, I suppose, > ------- > N: No, it was an object appearing through any of the six doorways. It > could be, as I said, the odour of incense, or the sound of chanting. > I use conventional terms, but I mean, just odour, just sound. Or, > through the mind-door: a symbol or sign of kamma performed during > that life, etc. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. :-) ------------------------------------------- > ---------- > H: but 2) The first object > of consciousness of the new life and every subsequent occurrence of > it in a > bhavanga citta is independent of any door. > What I suppose I don't understand, then, is the role of a doorway, and > most especially the mind door. > ------- > N: Just now I am posting ADL Objects and doors and see also the next > Ch.17. If there are points that are not clear, please raise them, > since this is useful for everybody. > Meanwhile I try now to add something to your remarks. > I quote from Ch 17 ADL: > dvÃ¥ra) for seeing. A door or ``dvÃ¥ra'' is the means through which > citta experiences an object. There is eyesense arising and falling > away all the time; throughout our life it is produced by kamma. > However, eyesense is not a door all the time, because there is not > all the time the experience of visible object. Eyesense is a door > only when citta experiences visible object. It is the same with the > pasÃ¥da-rúpas which are the other sense-organs. They are doors only > when they are the means through which citta experiences an object. > The eye-door is the means through which citta experiences visible > object. Not only the cittas which are eye-door-adverting- > consciousness, cakkhu-dvÃ¥rÃ¥vajjana-citta, and seeing-consciousness, > cakkhu-viññåùa, experience the object through the eye-door, the other > cittas of that process, which are receiving-consciousness, > sampaìicchana-citta, investigating-consciousness, santùa-citta, > determining-consciousness, votthapana-citta, the javana-cittas and > the tadÃ¥rammaùa-cittas (retention) are also dependent on the same > door, in order to experience the object. All the cittas of that > process experience the object through the eye-door while they each > perform their own function. After the rúpa which is experienced by > these cittas has fallen away, the object is experienced through the > mind-door (mano-dvÃ¥ra).... > In between the different processes of citta there have to be bhavanga- > cittas (life-continuum). Bhavanga-cittas are not vÃ-cittas. They > are not part of the process of cittas experiencing objects which time > and again throughout our life impinge on the six doors. They > experience an object without being dependent on any doorway. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: So - if objects can be experienced w/o benefit of sense door, what is the difference in the experience if any, and what is the need for sense doors? That is the question. -------------------------------------------- > > As to mind-door: I quote from Ch 16: > The cittas of the mind-door process experience an object through the > mind-door. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: I read the words, but I don't have the meaning. What does it *mean* for an object to be experienced "through" the mind door? What exactly does that mean? If this cannot be explained, then it is just empty words. ----------------------------------------- Before the mind-door-adverting-consciousness, mano- > > dvÃ¥rÃ¥vajjana-citta, arises, there are the bhavanga-calana (vibrating > bhavanga) and the bhavangupaccheda (arrest-bhavanga). The > bhavangupaccheda, the citta preceding the mano-dvÃ¥rÃ¥vajjana-citta, is > the mind-door. It is the ``doorway'' through which the mano- > dvÃ¥rÃ¥vajjana-citta and the succeeding cittas of the mind-door process > experience the object. > ------------------------------------- Howard: How does that bhavanga citta serve as "mind door"? Exactly what does it do that one should call it such? ------------------------------------- > ----------- > H:When we are aware of a just-passed sight or > sound, for example, it is also a "photocopy" that we experience [or > "fresh > memory" as I call it], and it is via the mind door. WHAT EXACTLY does > it MEAN when we say it is via the mind door? > --------- > N: I know this in theory, but in real life I am confused as to the > six doors. I have a rough idea about the sense-doors, but, as Kh > Sujin says, the mind-door is concealed by the sensedoors. And so it > is. But at the first stage of insight it is understood what nama is, > completely different from rupa and it is also understood what the > mind-door is. All this is difficult for me to really understand. I > only know names and terms. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: That is a good and fair (and courageous) statement. I do think it worthwhile to point out that names and terms without elucidation are quite inadequate. They may, in fact, be worse than inadequate in that using a lot of names and terms may fool us into thinking we understand something when we really do not. ----------------------------------------------- > ---------- > H: And how is that being-via-the mind-door > different from the being-via-NO-door for bhavanga cittas? What is the > difference in > the experience, and what is the difference of *function*? In each > case, there > is the knowing of an object. > ------- > N: The bhavangacittas do not arise in a process. Thus, there is no > adverting to an object, the object has been conditioned already by > kamma. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: So, you are saying that a sense door is required for adverting? That is a step in the right direction, IMO! It is a beginning of an explanation of the actual function of sense doors. Still, there is the need to distinguish this situation form the awareness of a just-passed sense object which has been replaced by a "photocopy". ------------------------------------------- Also, there are no kusala cittas or akusala cittas arising on > > account of that object, such as is the case in a mind-door process, > because the bhavangacittas are only vipaakacittas produced by kamma. > ---------- > H: What exactly does the doorway provide, and why is > it needed in some cases and not in others? > ------- > N: Cittas arising in processes need a doorway. For example, there > could not be seeing without the eye-door. There could not be like or > dislike of visible object without the eye-door. If you would be > blind, no seeing, no like or dislike of visible object. > The bhavangacittas are only vipaakacittas and these do not arise in a > process, as said above. No adverting to an object, no reactions to it > in the way of kusala cittas or akusala cittas. They have been > condiitoned by kamma once and for all, throughout life and they do > not change as to characteristic, they are always the same type, > arising and falling away. ------------------------------------------ Howard: This is not as clear as would like, but it IS helpful! :-) ------------------------------------------ > ---------- > H: These questions are important to > me, for without such detail, I have no means of evaluating the > (rather odd) > details of the notion of "bhavanga citta". Even more important is > understanding > what sense doors are all about, what they do, how they do it, and why > they are > needed. > ------ > N: The sense-doors are needed for all the cittas arising in a > process. The first citta of such a process has to advert to the new > object that presents itself after the stream of bhavangacittas is > arrested. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm. The adverting seems central to the issue. ----------------------------------------- > You say: 'what they do, how they do it". They are rupas that have the > special capacity to receive the relevant sense-object. This means: > eyesense can only receive visible object, earsense can only receive > sound, etc. > > More on this, Vis. XIV, 37 about eyesense. This rupa (smaller than a > louse's head) arises together with the four great elements and other > rupas. It could not arise alone. We read:<â€? Herein, sentient organ > that is ready for the impact of visible data is the characteristic > and so onâ€?. > As to the expression herein, this means, with regard to the derived > materiality. > On account of visible object, or the impact of visible object is visible > object-impact, it is fit for this, thus, ready for impact of visible > object, > the sentient organ that is dependent on the four primaries is of such > nature, no matter whether it is impinged on by visible object or not, > thus, (there is the compound) “the sentient organ dependent on the > primaries that is ready for the impact of visible dataâ€?; thus is its > characteristic, meaning the eye. > > > When it is the right time for kamma to produce seeing, there is > eyesense also produced by kamma, that is ready to receive visible > object, so that there can be seeing. > > I do not know whether I clarified enough? Points raised are always > welcome. ------------------------------------------ Howard: You've done very well here, Nina, and I much appreciate the time and effort you are devoting to this! ----------------------------------------- > > Nina. > =================== With metta, Howard #65138 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 10:29 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, 115 nilovg Dear friends, When we study the teachings we learn that there are six classes of objects (in Påli: aaramma.na), which can be known by citta. The first class is: visible object or rúpaaramma.na. The object which is experienced through the eye-door can only be the kind of rúpa which is visible object. We can call it visible object or colour, it does not matter how we name it; but we should know that it is just that which is visible, that which appears through the eyes. Visible object is not a thing or a person we may think of. When we think that we see a tree, animal or man, we think of concepts and such moments are different from seeing, the experience of what is visible. The second class of aaramma.na, is sound (saddaaramma.na). The third class is smell (gandhaaramma.na). The fourth class is taste (rasaaramma.na). The fifth class is tangible object, experienced through the bodysense (phoììhabbaaramma.na). Tangible object comprises the following rúpas: the Element of Earth (in Påli: pathavi-dhåtu) or solidity, which can be experienced as hardness or softness the Element of Fire (in Påli: tejo-dhåtu) or temperature, which can be experienced as heat or cold the Element of Wind (in Påli: våyo-dhåtu) or motion, which can be experienced as motion or pressure Solidity (earth), cohesion (water), temperature (fire) and motion (wind or air) are the four principle rúpas (mahå-bhúta-rúpas). Rúpas arise in groups or units of several kinds of rúpas and the four principle rúpas always have to arise together with any other kind of rúpa, no matter whether it is in the body or external. Cohesion or fluidity (the Element of Water, in Påli: apo-dhåtu) cannot be experienced through the bodysense. When we touch water the characteristics of hardness or softness, heat or cold, motion or pressure can be directly experienced through the bodysense. The characteristic of cohesion can be experienced only through the mind- door; it is, as we will see, included in the sixth class of aaramma.na, the dhammaaramma.na. Dhammaaramma.na comprises all objects other than those included in the first five classes of objects, as will be explained later on. Dhammaaramma.na can be experienced only through the mind-door. ****** Nina. #65139 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 11:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stephen Batchelor and Buddhadasa Bhikkhu nilovg Hi Joop and Scott, you had a discussion about boredom, and my eye just feel on an alinea in Kh Sujin's Perfection of energy: < Whenever kusala citta arises and someone performs an action with patience and diligence, there is viriya cetasika which gives support at such a moment. One can perform one’s task without becoming disheartened. As the “Expositor” explained, the controlling faculty of viriya has the characteristic of strengthening and giving support. If one develops paññå one is supported by viriya so that one does not decline from the development of paññå and all kusala dhammas. The “Expositor”(120) uses the simile of an old house that is strengthened and supported by new pillars. Evenso, when someone is supported by viriya, kusala dhammas will not decline in him. If someone at this moment is bored, lazy, drowsy or disheartened, he should know that he is like an old building that is dilapidated, because he is not able to be firm in kusala and to apply himself to it. Viriya cetasika has the characteristic of strengthening and supporting just as a pillar supports an old house so that it is stable. Thus we see the characteristic of support of viriya.> Nina. Op 6-nov-2006, om 11:02 heeft Joop het volgende geschreven: > Being bored is partly also: having no goal in life, or how that is > said in english: no end, no object, no aim, no purpose. And why one > has no goal etc? #65140 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 12:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? nilovg Dear Sebastien, no, that is not so. The 5 senses are: eyesense, earsense, nose sense, tongue sense and bodysense. These are quite separate, they can become different doorways for different objects. Through the bodysense you experience only hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure. This is felt everywhere inside or on the body where there is sensitivity. Not the nails or the hairs. Eyesense is the rupa that is the means through which colour is experienced. People may think: eyes are part of the body, but eyesense has nothing to do with bodysense. Some remarks: actions mauvauses instead of pernicieuses? This includes more all degrees of akusala kamma.Pernicieuses seems very bad kamma. en permanence: tout le temps? I want to avoid permanence. Nina. Op 7-nov-2006, om 22:36 heeft Sebastien Billard het volgende geschreven: > Also Nina, could you confirm me that the bodysense regroupe all > "senses" > potentially felt through the body, hence the 5 senses ? (I want to > make sure > my comprehension is correct) #65141 From: "Sebastien Billard" Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 1:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? sbillard2000 Hi Nina (and thanks for being so patient and helpful) >Through the bodysense you > experience only hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure. > This is felt everywhere inside or on the body where there is > sensitivity. Not the nails or the hairs. Eyesense is the rupa that is > the means through which colour is experienced. People may think: eyes > are part of the body, but eyesense has nothing to do with bodysense. Oh ok I understand now, it is what we call in french "toucher" :) When my eyes burn because I am tired, it is through bodysense right ? > Some remarks: actions mauvauses instead of pernicieuses? This > includes more all degrees of akusala kamma.Pernicieuses seems very > bad kamma. I chose to use the terms used in the french translation of Vissudhimagga by Christian Maes : "pernicieuse" for akusala and "bénéfique" for kusala. "Bonnes" and "mauvaises" are problematic, because these words have moral connotation. "Meritoires" and "démeritoires" could be used but they are more related to punna (for the meritorious aspect). "Pernicieux" means dangerous, bad, nocive, detrimental, I think it is a good translation for Akusala. > en permanence: tout le temps? I want to avoid permanence. Well what I wrote is that "we experiment a permanent stream of sensations appearing then disappearing". The word "permanent" is used, but in the context it is for me clear that there is nothing permanent. But I can simply remove the word and use the following " "Du fait que l'on expérimente une suite continue de sensations apparaissant pour ensuite disparaître, il est difficile (...)" what do you think ? Sébastien Billard :: http://s.billard.free.fr/dotclear #65142 From: E C Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 9:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) shennieca Hello all, I'm a 'newbie' Buddhist and new to this dhammastudygroup. This topic about being a Sotapanna is interesting. I was wondering how 'easy' or 'difficult' is it to achieve Sotapanna hood in this life? I've always fantasized about going for 60 days intensive retreat but I cannot go because I have no time and have other family responsibilities. I meditate using Mahasi Sayadaw's method at home for about an hour a day. Will the daily meditation help towards the path to being a Sotapanna in this life? Or will I see the result only in the next life? Do people who go to intensive retreat achieve Sotapanna more easily from the guidance of meditation teachers? Hoping to hear your replies. Thank you. rjkjp1 wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > Hi Robert > > Nice to hear from you. Hope everything's going well in Kyushu. > > About Acharn Sujin not being a sotapanna or everyone valuing sila? > > Re sotapanna, I assume that there are no sotapannas these days. > If I am wrong, nice surprise. No > arahants is as far as we can say? > ________ The texts say there are no longer conditions ofr arahants, but there can still be sotapanna. ___________________ > BTW, am I right in thinking that a sotapanna could never give > faulty advice on Dhamma points becasue wrong view has been > eliminated? (Forget Acharn Sujin, I mean in general.) > #65144 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 4:23 pm Subject: Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) philofillet Hi Shennica (and Robert see p.s) >I meditate using Mahasi Sayadaw's method at home > for about an hour a day. Welcome to the group. Others will give you more feedback on your questions, but I'd just like to throw in that I too have started using the Mahadi Sayadaw method at home. Personally, I think the basic exercises are great - noting what's coming and going (whether it is just thinking rather than real awareness or not) conditions more of the same in daily life, I find. One thing I am dubious about is that there seems to be an encouragement in the book I have for meditators to expect stages of insight such as knowing body from mind, rising and falling, conditionality quite soon. I think this is dangerous. There is a natural tendency for people (especially Westerners, I think, but that's just my opinion) to want too much too soon. Being told that this or that stage of insight is availbale to one who practices diligently is dangerous, I think. It'll throw us off so that we don't even get the real benefits available from the basic "bare awareness" exercises. I think just having a little more awareness of the way the mind prolfierates, a little bit more watchfulness, a little bit less mental chaos, a little bit more mental clarity - these "little bits" add up to something very real. If we aim for the big stages we lose even the little bits, possibly. On the other hand, aspiring to the higher stages could be helpful, I don't know. I just think we have to be very careful. My opinion. Phil p.s I think I have heard that some retreats promise attainment of sotapanna to meditators who diligently do the retreat. I don't know if that is the Mahadi Sayadaw policy. That sounds a bit nutty to me. p.p.s thanks for your feedback, Robert. Makes sense. #65145 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 5:08 pm Subject: Vipaaka cittas and Patthaana hantun1 Dear Nina (and Sarah), (1) The following is an excerpt from the “Conditions” by Nina, under the natural decisive support-condition (pakatupanissaya-paccaya). “The natural decisive support-condition is very wide, it comprises also vipaka which conditions akusala citta or kusala citta, or vipaka which conditions vipaka. Vipaka conditions kusala citta when one, for example, suffers bodily pain and is reminded by it that life is short and that one therefore should not delay the development of right understanding. Vipaka conditions akusala citta when one has aversion towards pain. Body-consciousness which is kusala vipaka can condition body-consciousness which is akusala vipaka by natural decisive support-condition. When it is hot outside one may use air-conditioning and this may cause bodily well-being. But then the temperature inside may become too cold and one suffers bodily discomfort or catches a cold. Akusala vipaka can condition kusala vipaka by natural decisive support-condition. When we are sick we may have to follow a painful therapy in order to get cured and then there is akusala vipaka through the bodysense, but as a result there will be bodily well-being again.” (2) I learn from Abhidhamma books that vipaaka cittas are kamma-resultants, kammically neutral, and do not produce kammic reslts. (3) If so, how can a vipaaka citta (which do not produce any kammic result) condition akusala citta or kusala citta or another vipaaka citta? (4) The following sentences are taken from “Questions and answers about kamma” by Nina. “The moment of vipaaka citta is very short, it falls away immediately.” “Like or dislike and thinking about the object are not vipaaka. Those functions are performed by other cittas, which are akusala cittas or kusala cittas. The cittas that like or dislike, and the cittas that think about the object, are not results but causes; they can motivate deeds which will bring fresh results.” If so, how can vipaaka citta condition akusala citta or kusala citta which are not resultant cittas but which are causes? (5) There is one example given in the above paragraph (1): “When it is hot outside one may use air-conditioning and this may cause bodily well-being.” It will then be: hot body-consciousness (vipaaka citta) > using air condition > pleasant body-consciousness (vipaaka citta). Here, one can say vipaaka citta conditions another vipaaka citta, but there is an intervening activity, i.e. using of air condition. Will it still be vipaaka conditioning vipaaka despie the intervening activity? I think it is permissible, because in the Pali text: “purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimaanam pacchimaanam abyaakataanam dhammanam upanissaya paccayena paccayo.” Here, the word purimaa (preceding) is mentioned twice as “purimaa purimaa” and the word subsequent (pacchimaanam) is mentioned twice as (pacchimaanam pacchimaanam). To me, it indicates that the conditioning dhamma and conditioned dhamma need not be in close proximity. So, there can be some intervening activity. (6) I have one assumption. I assume that “kamma satti” and paccaya satti” are different. A vipaaka citta cannot condition another citta by kamma satti, but it can condition by paccaya satti. If my assumption is correct, then the above questions are automatically solved. If my assumption is incorrect, then the above questions will still need answers. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #65146 From: han tun Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 5:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipaaka cittas and Patthaana - Correction hantun1 Dear Nina (and Sarah), In my last post, I have made a wrong Pali text reference. Please replace paragraph (5) with the following revised paragraph (5) (5) There is one example given in the above paragraph (1): “When it is hot outside one may use air-conditioning and this may cause bodily well-being.” It will then be: hot body-consciousness (vipaaka citta) > using air condition > pleasant body-consciousness (vipaaka citta). Here, one can say vipaaka citta conditions another vipaaka citta, but there is an intervening activity, i.e. using of air condition. Will it still be vipaaka conditioning vipaaka despite the intervening activity? I think it is permissible, because in the Pali text: “purimaa purimaa abyaakataa dhammaa pacchimaanam pacchimaanam abyaakataanam dhammanam upanissaya paccayena paccayo.” Here, the word purimaa (preceding) is mentioned twice as “purimaa purimaa” and the word subsequent (pacchimaanam) is mentioned twice as (pacchimaanam pacchimaanam). To me, it indicates that the conditioning dhamma and conditioned dhamma need not be in close proximity. So, there can be some intervening activity. I am extremely sorry for the mistake. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han --- han tun wrote: > Dear Nina (and Sarah), > > (5) There is one example given in the above > paragraph > (1): “When it is hot outside one may use > air-conditioning and this may cause bodily > well-being.” > > It will then be: hot body-consciousness (vipaaka > citta) > using air condition > pleasant > body-consciousness (vipaaka citta). Here, one can > say > vipaaka citta conditions another vipaaka citta, but > there is an intervening activity, i.e. using of air > condition. Will it still be vipaaka conditioning > vipaaka despie the intervening activity? > > I think it is permissible, because in the Pali text: > > “purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimaanam > pacchimaanam abyaakataanam dhammanam upanissaya > paccayena paccayo.” > Here, the word purimaa (preceding) is mentioned > twice > as “purimaa purimaa” and the word subsequent > (pacchimaanam) is mentioned twice as (pacchimaanam > pacchimaanam). To me, it indicates that the > conditioning dhamma and conditioned dhamma need not > be > in close proximity. So, there can be some > intervening > activity. > #65147 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 1:07 pm Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. TGrand458@... Hi Howard Just a couple of more comments on this... In MN 140, "The Exposition of the Elements," The Buddha analyses the 4 Great Elements as being either internal or external. He proceeds to identify all the aspects that pertain to the body as being the "internal elements," and it is very clear that the "external elements" are things "outside" of the body. This is clearly a deep Sutta that directly pertains to "internal and external" in a large section/passage. Seems to me the Buddha says -- there is the external -- with no ifs, ands, or hypotheticals. A few comments below... In a message dated 11/8/2006 6:55:45 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/8/06 1:16:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > In a message dated 11/6/2006 5:41:41 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > Howard: > I interpret the Bahiya Sutta as saying to not go beyond the mere > elements of experience, themselves, and not to external phenomena that are > an > allged basis for such sensations. There the Buddha said the following: > "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the > seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the > heard. In > reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, > only > the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there > will > be > only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the > heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in > reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. > When there > is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you > there, > you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is > the > end of stress." [Here, by 'sensed' the Buddha is said to have meant > "tasted, > smelled, or felt through body sense". And by "sensing" here, my > understanding > is that he didn't mean tasting or smelling or feeling a bubbling hot, > pungent > and fragrant stew or some such conventional object, but sensing a > gustatory, > > olfactory, or tactile sensation.] > > > > > Hi Howard > > I think I understand where you're coming from regarding this Sutta. But I > think the emphasis is on the "not you" aspect rather than a > phenomenological > aspect. --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I understand that as a reasonable reading. My take on "When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that," is that the "no you" isn't a paraphrase, but a statement of result. But I do readily admit that yours is one of several alternative credible readings of this sutta. ----------------------------------------- > > For example...what is sensation? ... it is the coming together of 3 > things...sense object, sense base (organ) and corresponding consciousness. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Well, you are identifying 'sensation' with 'contact'. That isn't my usage. By 'sensation' I mean experienced rupa - the rupa alone, as object of consciousness, an itch for example. ----------------------------------------- TG: Yes, I believe contact and sensation are simultaneous and un-separable...other than for purposes of conceptualization two sides of the same coin. This the > > Buddha has clearly expressed in a multitude of suttas. The elements that > generate sensation are just that...i.e., elements that generate sensation. > No > more, no less. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: As I say, I am using the English word 'sensation' differently from you. As for elements "out there" that alledly generate contact, they are exactly what, IMO, are debatable as to existence, being not elements of experience, but hypothetical constructs that are assumed bases for experience. TG: In a greater sense, experience is the whole process of the universe that "lights up" in certain spots due to conditions. Like a star. "My" experience is not just local to one area. Yes, that "area" is where feeling arises, but not where it is generated. The whole of the universe is generating it. To not incorporate "the external" as part of insight is to shut out a great deal of DO knowledge IMO. The rupas that are experienced are objects of consciousness, and they arise via sense doors as new or continued objects of consciousness "generated by" multiple conditions, most especially past kamma. The "itch on my hand" and the "sight that appears when I open my eyes" are not "things-out-there" but elements of experience. TG: If there were no external forces/rupa, the idea of "sense doors" would be "non-sense." (That wasn't bad!) LOL And vice versa. They are mutually supporting. ----------------------------------------- There is no self, there are just these elements of sensation. > > I think this latter sentiment is what the Sutta is pointing out. Sensation > > is just sensation that incorporates all the components that generate such > sensation. (I never sensed the Buddha indicating that "the external" was > an > "alleged basis" for sensations. I think you interpret "the All" more > narrowly > than necessary.) ------------------------------------------ Howard: I understand and agree that there are non-phenomenalist interpretations that are possible. I'm not alone in my interpretation, though. Ven ~Nanananda, for one, takes the same position as I on this - or, better said, he and I take the same position. I would be willing to bet that David Kalupahama does also. Of course, everyone could take a position, and that position be faulty, and, on the other hand, no one might take a certain position which in fact is completely valid. Correctness isn't determined by vote! LOL! TG: Yep. ----------------------------------------- > > In my thinking, focusing on pure experience is not a remedy for realizing > "no-self." Someone could focus on sensation and come to the opposite > conclusion, that there is a self, (and usually do.) I think it is the > principles of > conditionality, cause and effect, which lead to insightful realization of > no-self. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: It's a matter of *how* we train to focus on experience. But it is certainly experience that has to be examined, for experience is all that we have or can have. What is required is to "clean the doors of perception," removing cognitive and affective defilements and perversions, and cultivating wisdom. TG Yes. Through experience we learn about the world. And all these concepts about sense-doors, consciousness, etc. are just as apart from direct experience as is "the external." Therefore the Dhamma "steps out" of the "actual" in order to teach about relatively true things. Without this teaching device, there is just plain ignorance. But by this "stepping out," we learn about conditions, and if deeply enough, we can "step out" of ignorance/samsara. END ------------------------------------------ This Sutta, being quite advance IMO, is being delivered to a mind that > > is already well versed in conditionality principles. This Sutta therefore > would be a "final push" designed to take the students mind "over the top." > I > believe it is not trying to edify other than trying to eject any remaining > sense-of-self. Hence it is a notoriously difficult Sutta to extract > edification > from it. > > I don't think the point of this Sutta has anything to do with minimizing > "the external." I think you're interpreting it that way because that's > your > propensity; I'm just not. > > I could be wrong, but your point, if correct, would be very important and I > > think the Buddha would have been clearer, more deliberate, and repetitive > on > it if that was the case. > > However, believing your DO insights to be very sound, I'm not sure your way > > of looking at it or mine will matter much in the end. In both our cases, > we > will need to eventually eject these models (crutches). ------------------------------------ Howard: I agree with that. Conditions allowing, we will scuttle the raft. ------------------------------------- > > TG #65148 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 6:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] An Argument Pertaining to "External Rupas" and "Internal Rupas" scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Re: Your excellent musings below: Howard: "It may be so that liquidity and cohesiveness and any of the other things we associate with "water" are not experienced by body sense. As I think about it, when touching liquid, all that is actually experirnced are such things as coolness, smoothness, etc. (I'm not sure whether wetness is a distinct experirnce, though it might be.) Certainly, I do not touch cohesion! But that only leaves concept for me. If I don't know "water" through body sense, which may in fact be the case, then I don't know liquidity or cohesiveness by any means other than conceptual construction based upon body-sense and eye-sense contacts. Do you? What is the mystery of "water" that requires special insight? The "water element" isn't some lokuttara dhamma requiring special wisdom for its experiencing." Note 32, Visuddhimagga XIV, pp.812-813: '"Sensed (muta)" means apprehendable by sensing (mutvaa), by reaching; hence he said "because they are the objective fields of faculties that take contiguous [objective fields]"...But what is it that is called a tangible datum? It is the three elements, earth, heat, and air. But why is water element not included here? Is not cold apprehended by touching; and that is the water element? Certainly it is apprehended but it is not the water element. What is it then? It is just fire element. For there is the sensation (buddhi) of cold when heat is sluggish. There is no quality called cold; there is only the assumption (abhimaana) of coldness due to the sluggishness of the state of heat. How is that to be known? Because of the unreliability of the sensation of cold, like "beyond and not beyond." For in hot weather, while those who stand in the sun and go into the shade have the sensation of cold, yet those who go to the same place from an underground cave have the sensation of heat. And if coldness were the water element it would be found in a single group (kalaapa) along with heat; but it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not water element. And this is conclusive (uttara) for those who agree to the inseparable existence of the primary elements; and it is conclusive too even for those who do not agree because it is disproved by associate existence through seeing the function of the four primaries in a single group. It is conclusive too for those who say that coldness is the characteristic of the air element; for if coldness were the air element, coldness would be found in a single group along with heat, and it is not so found. That is why it may be known that coldness is not the air element either. But those who hold the opinion that fluidity (dravataa) is the water element and that that is apprehended by touching should be told: "That fluidity is touched merely by the venerable ones' assumption as is the case with shape". For this is said by the Ancients: "Three elements coexisting with fluidity Together form what constitutes a tangible; That 'I succeed in touching this fluidity' Is a common misconception in the world. And as a man who touches elements, And apprehends a shape then with his mind, Fancies 'I really have been touching shape'. So too fluidity is recognized"'(Pm. 459) I find this to be exquisite. With loving kindness, Scott. #65149 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 2:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] An Argument Pertaining to "External Rupas" and "Internal Rupas" TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/8/2006 7:25:00 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: It may be so that liquidity and cohesiveness and any of the other things we associate with "water" are not experienced by body sense. As I think about it, when touching liquid, all that is actually experirnced are such things as coolness, smoothness, etc. (I'm not sure whether wetness is a distinct experirnce, though it might be.) Certainly, I do not touch cohesion! But that only leaves concept for me. If I don't know "water" through body sense, which may in fact be the case, then I don't know liquidity or cohesiveness by any means other than conceptual construction based upon body-sense and eye-sense contacts. Do you? What is the mystery of "water" that requires special insight? The "water element" isn't some lokuttara dhamma requiring special wisdom for its experiencing. Hi Howard Re: the "water element." The water element or cohesion or coalescence, as I prefer, is an inward force. As it moves inward, it is moving away from other things. Therefore we can't "touch it" because it is moving away from us. Water is only predominantly coalescence and the other 3 Great Elements composing water are what we feel/contact. TG #65150 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 2:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) upasaka_howard Hi - Excuse me for not calling you by name. You didn't close with it. :-) In a message dated 11/8/06 5:57:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, shennieca@... writes: > Hello all, > I'm a 'newbie' Buddhist and new to this dhammastudygroup. > -------------------------------------- Howard: Welcome to the Dhamma, and, from another member, welcome to the list! --------------------------------------- This topic about being a Sotapanna is interesting. I was wondering how 'easy' or > 'difficult' is it to achieve Sotapanna hood in this life? I've always > fantasized about going for 60 days intensive retreat but I cannot go because I > have no time and have other family responsibilities. I meditate using Mahasi > Sayadaw's method at home for about an hour a day. Will the daily meditation help > towards the path to being a Sotapanna in this life? Or will I see the result > only in the next life? Do people who go to intensive retreat achieve > Sotapanna more easily from the guidance of meditation teachers? > Hoping to hear your replies. Thank you. > > ======================== In my opinion, we don't know enough about ourselves - what some here call our "accumulations" - to have any sure idea of what progress will be made or exactly when it will be made. Moreover, wishing for progress and constantly looking for it is the opposite of helpful. To whatever extent we study the Dhamma and put it into practice (by all the varied means the Buddha taught), that is the extent to which we can be assured of doing the right thing. The Buddha taught us to do no harm, to do good, and to purify the mind. Let the results follow as they will, without expectation. Dhamma practice is complex. Moral and kind behavior (sila) is basic, attending clearly to what arises at all times, and being a vigilant guardian of the senses is essential, calming the mind through meditation is fundamental, and cultivation of wisdom through study and mindful, direct investigation of phenomena is at the heart of the movement towards liberation. Dhamma practice is not a one-trick pony, and quick fixes are pipe dreams. But continued progress through serious cultivation is realistic, and should be adhered to. With metta, Howard #65151 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 2:30 pm Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/8/06 9:14:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > Just a couple of more comments on this... > > In MN 140, "The Exposition of the Elements," The Buddha analyses the 4 > Great > Elements as being either internal or external. He proceeds to identify all > > the aspects that pertain to the body as being the "internal elements," and > it > is very clear that the "external elements" are things "outside" of the > body. > This is clearly a deep Sutta that directly pertains to "internal and > external" in a large section/passage. Seems to me the Buddha says -- there > is the > external -- with no ifs, ands, or hypotheticals. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I too speak of things outside the body. I consider that conventional speech. ------------------------------------------- > > A few comments below... > > > In a message dated 11/8/2006 6:55:45 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > Hi, TG - > > In a message dated 11/8/06 1:16:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, > TGrand458@... writes: > > >In a message dated 11/6/2006 5:41:41 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > >upasaka@... writes: > > > >Howard: > >I interpret the Bahiya Sutta as saying to not go beyond the mere > >elements of experience, themselves, and not to external phenomena that > are > >an > >allged basis for such sensations. There the Buddha said the following: > >"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the > >seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the > >heard. In > >reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, > >only > >the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there > >will > > be > >only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to > the > >heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in > >reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of > that. > >When there > >is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you > > there, > >you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is > >the > >end of stress." [Here, by 'sensed' the Buddha is said to have meant > >"tasted, > >smelled, or felt through body sense". And by "sensing" here, my > > understanding > >is that he didn't mean tasting or smelling or feeling a bubbling hot, > >pungent > >and fragrant stew or some such conventional object, but sensing a > >gustatory, > > > >olfactory, or tactile sensation.] > > > > > > > > > >Hi Howard > > > >I think I understand where you're coming from regarding this Sutta. But > I > >think the emphasis is on the "not you" aspect rather than a > >phenomenological > > aspect. > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I understand that as a reasonable reading. My take on "When for > you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard > in > > reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only > the > cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in > terms > of that," is that the "no you" isn't a paraphrase, but a statement of > result. > But I do readily admit that yours is one of several alternative credible > readings of this sutta. > ----------------------------------------- > > > > For example...what is sensation? ... it is the coming together of 3 > >things...sense object, sense base (organ) and corresponding consciousness. > > > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, you are identifying 'sensation' with 'contact'. That isn't my > usage. By 'sensation' I mean experienced rupa - the rupa alone, as object > of > consciousness, an itch for example. > ----------------------------------------- > > TG: Yes, I believe contact and sensation are simultaneous and > un-separable...other than for purposes of conceptualization two sides of the > same coin. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, simultaneous, but distinguishable. [Two sides of a 3-sided coing, actually.] ----------------------------------------- > > > > This the > > >Buddha has clearly expressed in a multitude of suttas. The elements that > > >generate sensation are just that...i.e., elements that generate > sensation. > > No > >more, no less. > > > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > As I say, I am using the English word 'sensation' differently from > you. As for elements "out there" that alledly generate contact, they are > exactly > what, IMO, are debatable as to existence, being not elements of experience, > > but hypothetical constructs that are assumed bases for experience. > > TG: In a greater sense, experience is the whole process of the universe > that "lights up" in certain spots due to conditions. Like a star. "My" > experience is not just local to one area. Yes, that "area" is where > feeling arises, > but not where it is generated. The whole of the universe is generating it. > > To not incorporate "the external" as part of insight is to shut out a great > > deal of DO knowledge IMO. -------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not sure. We may just be speaking with different language. ------------------------------------ > > > The rupas > that are experienced are objects of consciousness, and they arise via sense > > doors > as new or continued objects of consciousness "generated by" multiple > conditions, most especially past kamma. The "itch on my hand" and the > "sight > that > appears when I open my eyes" are not "things-out-there" but elements of > experience. > > TG: If there were no external forces/rupa, the idea of "sense doors" would > > be "non-sense." (That wasn't bad!) LOL And vice versa. They are > mutually > supporting. ---------------------------------- Howard: Your pun was cute. But your assumption is just that - an assumption. ---------------------------------- > > > > > ----------------------------------------- > There is no self, there are just these elements of sensation. > > >I think this latter sentiment is what the Sutta is pointing out. > Sensation > > > >is just sensation that incorporates all the components that generate such > > >sensation. (I never sensed the Buddha indicating that "the external" was > > >an > >"alleged basis" for sensations. I think you interpret "the All" more > >narrowly > >than necessary.) > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I understand and agree that there are non-phenomenalist > interpretations that are possible. I'm not alone in my interpretation, > though. Ven > ~Nanananda, for one, takes the same position as I on this - or, better > said, > he and I > take the same position. I would be willing to bet that David Kalupahama > does > also. Of course, everyone could take a position, and that position be > faulty, > and, on the other hand, no one might take a certain position which in fact > is > completely valid. Correctness isn't determined by vote! LOL! > > TG: Yep. > > > > ----------------------------------------- > > > > >In my thinking, focusing on pure experience is not a remedy for realizing > > > >"no-self." Someone could focus on sensation and come to the opposite > >conclusion, that there is a self, (and usually do.) I think it is the > >principles of > > conditionality, cause and effect, which lead to insightful realization > of > >no-self. > > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It's a matter of *how* we train to focus on experience. But it is > certainly experience that has to be examined, for experience is all that we > > have > or can have. What is required is to "clean the doors of perception," > removing > cognitive and affective defilements and perversions, and cultivating > wisdom. > > TG Yes. Through experience we learn about the world. And all these > concepts about sense-doors, consciousness, etc. are just as apart from > direct > experience as is "the external." Therefore the Dhamma "steps out" of the > "actual" > in order to teach about relatively true things. Without this teaching > device, there is just plain ignorance. But by this "stepping out," we > learn about > conditions, and if deeply enough, we can "step out" of ignorance/samsara. > > END > > > > ------------------------------------------ > This Sutta, being quite advance IMO, is being delivered to a mind that > > > >is already well versed in conditionality principles. This Sutta > therefore > >would be a "final push" designed to take the students mind "over the > top." > >I > >believe it is not trying to edify other than trying to eject any > remaining > > sense-of-self. Hence it is a notoriously difficult Sutta to extract > >edification > >from it. > > > >I don't think the point of this Sutta has anything to do with minimizing > >"the external." I think you're interpreting it that way because that's > >your > >propensity; I'm just not. > > > >I could be wrong, but your point, if correct, would be very important and > > I > > > >think the Buddha would have been clearer, more deliberate, and repetitive > > >on > >it if that was the case. > > > >However, believing your DO insights to be very sound, I'm not sure your > way > > > >of looking at it or mine will matter much in the end. In both our cases, > > >we > > will need to eventually eject these models (crutches). > > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > I agree with that. Conditions allowing, we will scuttle the raft. > ------------------------------------- > > > > > TG > ==================== With metta, Howard #65152 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 2:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] An Argument Pertaining to "External Rupas" and "Internal Rupas" upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 11/8/06 9:18:54 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Re: Your excellent musings below: > =================== Thanks, Scott. :-) With metta, Howard #65153 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 3:05 pm Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/8/2006 8:32:19 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/8/06 9:14:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) writes: > Hi Howard > > Just a couple of more comments on this... > > In MN 140, "The Exposition of the Elements," The Buddha analyses the 4 > Great > Elements as being either internal or external. He proceeds to identify all > > the aspects that pertain to the body as being the "internal elements," and > it > is very clear that the "external elements" are things "outside" of the > body. > This is clearly a deep Sutta that directly pertains to "internal and > external" in a large section/passage. Seems to me the Buddha says -- there > is the > external -- with no ifs, ands, or hypotheticals. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I too speak of things outside the body. I consider that conventional speech. Hi Howard Fun discussing this with you. I have to say that your reply to this Sutta seems to "table" the point of the Sutta. The Buddha here is talking about the 4 Great Elements...i.e., actual things. It is not mere conventional speech. The Buddha says for example... "The Earth Element may be either internal or external, etc." This Sutta is clarifying where the 4 Great Elements are...and he says they are internal and external. This Sutta should not be so lightly considered IMO. It directly pertains to the point and does so with the 4 Great Elements. Anyway, that's my opinion. TG #65154 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 4:32 pm Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/8/06 11:09:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > Fun discussing this with you. I have to say that your reply to this Sutta > seems to "table" the point of the Sutta. The Buddha here is talking about > the > 4 Great Elements...i.e., actual things. It is not mere conventional > speech. > The Buddha says for example... "The Earth Element may be either internal or > > external, etc." This Sutta is clarifying where the 4 Great Elements > are...and he says they are internal and external. This Sutta should not be > so > lightly considered IMO. It directly pertains to the point and does so with > the 4 > Great Elements. Anyway, that's my opinion. > > TG > ================== I also experience hardness as in the body and hardness as outside (in tables for example), but that is just a manner of thinking and speaking. Any actual hardness experienced is not literally internal or external in terms of an "actual body". All hardness that is experienced is mere object of consciousness. The same applies to other rupas as well. The "body" is pa~n~natti, and there is literally neither interior nor exterior with regard to "it". In any case, the internal-external dichotomy I have been discussing has nothing to do with apparent physical locus. That is not what I am discussing at all. Perhaps I need to find terms other than 'internal' and 'external'. What I have been discussing are 1) rupas that are mere elements of experience (sights, sound sensations, touch sensations, etc) and 2) the rupas alleged to exist in a "world of matter" independent of experience. It is these latter alleged rupas that I doubt the existence of, but especially that I deny the relevance of, precisely because they are beyond experience. These latter, alleged rupas are what I call "external", and it is the former rupas, the experienced sensations, that I call "internal". Only they are known, and only they are knowable. With metta, Howard #65155 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 10:40 pm Subject: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. ken_aitch Hi Joop, ------------------ KH: > > "Time and time again we see people claim, "The suttas say I should be mindful of whatever happens, and that is what I am doing." (!!!) No, that is not what they are doing at all! If people knew the Abhidhamma they wouldn't make such a claim." > > J: > <. . .> Perhaps there are somewhere in the world person who say what you think is done "time and again" but I have never heard it. What I hear is that people say: I try to practice being mindful in daily life, and sitting vipassana meditation is helpful in this efforts, but it's difficult. So much more modest in the first place. -------------------- I see what you mean, but it doesn't make any difference to my argument. My argument was that the conventional practice of looking (watching, focusing the mind, trying to do those things - or whatever you like to call it) was not taught by the Buddha. Anyone can be mindful in a conventional way. However, a monk practises mindfulness in a unique way taught only by the Buddha. I think there is an important message in the way some suttas begin with, "How does a monk practise mindfulness of the body?" or, "How does a monk practice mindfulness of breathing?" etc. The message is that the Buddha is going to explain something profoundly different from its conventional counterpart. It is quite common for someone to say that (for example) a child sees a house differently from the way an adult sees a house. An artist sees it differently again. And so does a carpenter, a builder, an engineer or an architect etc. Most profoundly, however, a monk sees things very differently. A monk sees things as they are in absolute reality. When the Buddha taught mindfulness of the body (and the other three bases of satipatthana) he was talking of something profoundly different from conventional mindfulness. -------------------------------------- J: > In the second place people knowing the Abhidhamma are doing the same: trying to be mindful, trying to see the things as they really are, for example the vithi's described in Abhidhamma. --------------------------------------- There are two issues here. Firstly, hearing and considering the Dhamma is the way that leads to enlightenment, whereas conventional mindfulness (of the body etc) does not lead to enlightenment. There is no mention in the Tipitaka of focusing on (for example) the way the feet move while a person is walking, or on the way thoughts come and go while a meditator is sitting quietly or any of that sort of thing. And so, in that way, the Abhidhamma students are on the right track, and the formal meditators are on the wrong track. Secondly, however, the Dhamma is not a set of steps to be followed in order to attain something. A meaningful understanding of the present moment will discount any idea of "doing things." There is no time for that! So if Abhidhamma-students study with the idea of trying to make enlightenment happen, they too are on a wrong path. ----------------------------------------------- J: > Ken, you continue with: "They [the category of people you have constructed, Joop] wouldn't waste their lives looking at concepts in the name of satipatthana," May I ask you a question: reading a text of Nina or Sujin: what is the number a concepts in it, compared with the number of ultimate realities? I think a text with 100% ultimates is impossible. Let's take the most conceptual of all concepts and one of the favorite terms of Nina: 'accumulations'; as I said to sarah yesterday: I think 'accumulations' exist but it's a concept, an important concept but a concept. So, looking at concepts is not a waste of time, as long as one knows they are concepts, a waste of time is it to construct strawmen and fight them. ------------------------------------------------- You are equating Dhamma study with formal meditation on the basis that they both involve concepts. That's a nice argument, but the similarities don't go very far. The formal meditator knows concepts that are ordinary (the movement of his feet etc), while the Dhamma student knows concepts that are taught only by a Buddha (concepts that refer to paramattha dhammas). Ken H #65156 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 5:42 pm Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/8/2006 10:42:45 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: I also experience hardness as in the body and hardness as outside (in tables for example), but that is just a manner of thinking and speaking. Any actual hardness experienced is not literally internal or external in terms of an "actual body". All hardness that is experienced is mere object of consciousness. The same applies to other rupas as well. The "body" is pa~n~natti, and there is literally neither interior nor exterior with regard to "it". In any case, the internal-external dichotomy I have been discussing has nothing to do with apparent physical locus. That is not what I am discussing at all. Perhaps I need to find terms other than 'internal' and 'external'. What I have been discussing are 1) rupas that are mere elements of experience (sights, sound sensations, touch sensations, etc) and 2) the rupas alleged to exist in a "world of matter" independent of experience. It is these latter alleged rupas that I doubt the existence of, but especially that I deny the relevance of, precisely because they are beyond experience. These latter, alleged rupas are what I call "external", and it is the former rupas, the experienced sensations, that I call "internal". Only they are known, and only they are knowable. With metta, Howard Hi Howard I understand and you're welcome to your beliefs of course. I just don't see this tangent as being Sutta based at all. TG #65157 From: "Leo" Date: Wed Nov 8, 2006 11:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: some points on art leoaive > 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 > ====== Hi I do not consider that as attachment. I see nothing to be attached to really. Your mind is more relaxed, then seeing nice subjects and mind participation in discrimination of what is better. Or some high extreme of night life and bars and all that "sexy go-go" and "I like that music" or "that one is better". It says that forest is end of perceptions. So I guess it is a good healthy ground that everybody needs sooner or later. People come to parks in Hawaii to have talk and food and relax from problems and work. Like I said I see it as relaxation from common activities. With Metta Leo Leo #65158 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 1:18 am Subject: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > .... Hallo Ken K: "I see what you mean, but it doesn't make any difference to my argument" J: That's funny, you agree that your statement "Time and time again we see people claim …" was wrong but that does not change your opinion about that claim, I like that. K: "So if Abhidhamma-students study with the idea of trying to make enlightenment happen, they too are on a wrong path." J: I'm glad that there is a point on which we agree: one should not try to make enlightenment (I prefer the term 'awakening') happen. Perhaps our arguments are not exactly the same, for you: one should not try anything; for me: one should not think about the future. K: "You are equating Dhamma study with formal meditation on the basis that they both involve concepts. That's a nice argument, but the similarities don't go very far. The formal meditator knows concepts that are ordinary (the movement of his feet etc), while the Dhamma student knows concepts that are taught only by a Buddha (concepts that refer to paramattha dhammas)." J: Four remarks on this First: I have not used the term 'formal meditation', that's a typical DSG-expression, I wrote "sitting in vipassana meditation"; When one uses the term 'formal meditation' one is saying there is also something like 'informal meditation', is that what I call "mindfulnes in daily life" ? Second: why do you think everybody doing vipassana meditation only knows ordinary concepts? Why use the term 'knows', better talk about 'observes'; and a good instructed and experienced meditator distinguishes an experience through one of the sense doors (for example: hearing) and an experience of the mind door (for example: an airplane) Third, your antithesis is false, my position and that of many I know, is: one has to do both, meditation AND Dhamma-study (and sila because one has to do all aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path) Fourth: is 'accumulations' (because that's about what I was talking) a concept taught only by the Buddha? Because you don't know much of vipassana meditation you can perhaps read some day the ebook of Venerable Sujiva: Meditation Practice, A Pragmatic Approach to Vipassana Essentials of Insight www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/essentials.pdf A quote of it I also gave a year ago "Certain objects can be used for samatha or vipassana meditation. One is the anapana object, watching the in-breath at the nose tip. People frequently ask, "Is the concentration at the nose tip (anapana) a samatha or vipassana object?" It can be both. This depends on the nature of your attention. In the beginning when using the preliminary object it can be a samatha or vipassana object as it is mixed. When you start counting the breath it tends more towards the samatha object. But there is still the sensation of the breath to be felt. Vipassana objects, unlike samatha objects, are realities. They are not mind-created, that is you do not imagine them. They happen as a natural occurrence—as mental processes and material processes. When you see these processes clearer and clearer, of course the three characteristics of existence—anicca, dukkha and anatta—also become clearer. These are deeper aspects of the mental and material processes." (p. 166-167) Metta Joop #65159 From: "jcmendoza1000" Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 1:07 am Subject: eating salt on Uposatha jcmendoza1000 To everyone: Just wanted to ask if we can eat salt and butter after 12 noon in observing Uposathas. And, To Sarah and Nina: Have you found the sutta number of the Gradual Sayings I was askingyou about? Thanks. -JC #65160 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 3:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] eating salt on Uposatha nilovg Dear JC, certainly not butter. As to salt, it depends whether it has been dissolved in a liquid. But Venerable Samahita knows more details. BTW I was missing him on uposatha day, he always reminds us and explains about the occasion. I hope he is well. I wrote to you before, but I forgot now which text. Nina. Op 9-nov-2006, om 10:07 heeft jcmendoza1000 het volgende geschreven: > Just wanted to ask if we can eat salt and butter after 12 noon in > observing Uposathas. > > And, > > To Sarah and Nina: > Have you found the sutta number of the Gradual Sayings I was askingyou > about? #65161 From: JC Mendoza Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 3:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] eating salt on Uposatha jcmendoza1000 Really? This website,http://www.vipassana.com/resources/uposatha.php, says you can. It says, "If one is troubled by tiredness after work on a day when these precepts are undertaken then tea or coffee are allowable as refreshing drinks. If hunger is the trouble then cocoa (or even plain chocolate) should cure it. None of these refreshments should contain milk, which is considered a food, though sugar, honey and butter are allowed (to bhikkhus, and therefore to lay people keeping the Eight Precepts), presumably because one can take only a little of these things. Fruit juices which have been strained (without fruit pulp) are other possible drinks." Who s Venerable Samahita? And how can I contact him? Nina van Gorkom wrote: Dear JC, certainly not butter. As to salt, it depends whether it has been dissolved in a liquid. But Venerable Samahita knows more details. BTW I was missing him on uposatha day, he always reminds us and explains about the occasion. I hope he is well. I wrote to you before, but I forgot now which text. Nina. Op 9-nov-2006, om 10:07 heeft jcmendoza1000 het volgende geschreven: > Just wanted to ask if we can eat salt and butter after 12 noon in > observing Uposathas. <...> #65162 From: "Leo" Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 2:07 am Subject: A True Dhamma leoaive I found the following: In Anggutarra Nikaya 8.51,(Refer also to The First Sangha Council-The Thera Mahakassapa has made the blessed Buddha's message to endure 500 years - from the Mahavamsa book) the Buddha warned that the true Dhamma would remain unadulterated for 500 years after his passing into Nibbána. Thereafter, it will become very difficult to distinguish the true teachings from the false. Why? Because although many of these later books contain a lot of Dhamma, some adhamma (i.e. what is contrary to the Dhamma) are added here and there. These alterations scattered throughout these texts are only noticeable if one is sharp and very well versed in the earliest suttas. Otherwise, one would find it very difficult to distinguish the later books from the earlier ones. It was on a website: http://geocities.com/allbuddhism/ What do you think is A True Dhamma? With Metta Leo #65163 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 4:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] eating salt on Uposatha sarahprocter... Hi JC, --- jcmendoza1000 wrote: > To Sarah and Nina: > Have you found the sutta number of the Gradual Sayings I was askingyou > about? Thanks. .... S: Did you see my post that was addressed to you?: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/65083 Metta, Sarah ====== #65164 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 4:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some points on art sarahprocter... All, A correction: --- sarah abbott wrote: >I agree that nearly always when we think of ourselves in anyway, > it's not with kusala cittas. But certainly when the Buddha or arahants > thought of themselves, it was. .... S: This should read 'it was with sobhana (beautiful) cittas.' [Arahants don't have kusala cittas, they only have kiriya cittas which cannot bring a result.] Sarah ====== #65165 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 4:10 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 575- Understanding/pa~n~naa (n) 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 Understanding is classified in several ways and thus its different aspects can be seen. It has been classified as one of the seven factors of enlightenment (sambojjhangas) and as such it is called investigation of dhamma , dhamma vicaya. The factors of enlightenment are mindfulness, investigation of dhamma, energy, enthusiasm, calm, concentration and equanimity. These factors have to be developed together for the purpose of attaining enlightenment. There has to be “investigation” of the reality, the dhamma, appearing at the present moment, over and over again before enlightenment can be attained and defilements eradicated. ***** Understanding (paññå)to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #65166 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 12:36 am Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/9/06 1:46:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > I understand and you're welcome to your beliefs of course. I just don't > see > this tangent as being Sutta based at all. > > TG > ====================== I see it as an appropriate position - as a matter of pragmatics. I also see it as a framework that makes the Dhamma very intelligible to me. But aside from that, I do see it as sutta based. I see it in the Bahiya Sutta and most especially and clearly in the Kalaka Sutta, which, IMO, teaches in a beautiful and pristine way the emptiness of both subject and object, and presents what is to me a clear phenonemenalist perspective. (But, of course, meaning, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.) With metta, Howard #65167 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 5:52 am Subject: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. philofillet Hi Ken > There is no mention in the Tipitaka of(snip) the way thoughts > come and go while a meditator is sitting quietly or any of that sort > of thing. Have a look at MN 19. No need to reply - just have a look. :) Phil #65168 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 6:38 am Subject: Vipaakacittas and patthaana nilovg Dear Han, ----------- H:“The natural decisive support-condition is very wide, it comprises also vipaka which conditions akusala citta or kusala citta, or vipaka which conditions vipaka. .... (2) I learn from Abhidhamma books that vipaaka cittas are kamma-resultants, kammically neutral, and do not produce kammic reslts. (3) If so, how can a vipaaka citta (which do not produce any kammic result) condition akusala citta or kusala citta or another vipaaka citta? ------ N: Because there are other conditions besides kamma that produces vipaaka. In the Conditional Relations (PTS edition) under kusalattika, Natural strong dependence (pakatupanissaya paccaya) it is said: -------- H:(4) The following sentences are taken from “Questions and answers about kamma” by Nina. “The moment of vipaaka citta is very short, it falls away immediately.” “Like or dislike and thinking about the object are not vipaaka. Those functions are performed by other cittas, which are akusala cittas or kusala cittas. The cittas that like or dislike, and the cittas that think about the object, are not results but causes; they can motivate deeds which will bring fresh results.” If so, how can vipaaka citta condition akusala citta or kusala citta which are not resultant cittas but which are causes? ------- N: Further on in the same section of the Patthana: As to this condition there are many possibilities. Vipaakacitta can condiiton akusala citta, or kusala citta. In our study of Vis. Ch XVII we have seen that ignorance which is akusala conditions kusala kamma. H: (5) There is one example given in the above paragraph (1): “When it is hot outside one may use air-conditioning and this may cause bodily well-being.” It will then be: hot body-consciousness (vipaaka citta) > using air condition > pleasant body-consciousness (vipaaka citta). Here, one can say vipaaka citta conditions another vipaaka citta, but there is an intervening activity, i.e. using of air condition. Will it still be vipaaka conditioning vipaaka despite the intervening activity? ------- I think it is permissible, because in the Pali text: “purimaa purimaa kusalaa dhammaa pacchimaanam pacchimaanam abyaakataanam dhammanam upanissaya paccayena paccayo.” Here, the word purimaa (preceding) is mentioned twice as “purimaa purimaa” and the word subsequent (pacchimaanam) is mentioned twice as (pacchimaanam pacchimaanam). To me, it indicates that the conditioning dhamma and conditioned dhamma need not be in close proximity. So, there can be some intervening activity. ------- N: It does not matter whether there is any intervening activity. the conditioning dhamma and conditioned dhamma need not be in close proximity. Natural strong dependence-condition is not proximity strong dependence-condition. H: (6) I have one assumption. I assume that “kamma satti” and paccaya satti” are different. A vipaaka citta cannot condition another citta by kamma satti, but it can condition by paccaya satti. If my assumption is correct, then the above questions are automatically solved. If my assumption is incorrect, then the above questions will still need answers. ------ N: That is right, the power of kamma (kamma satti) that conditions vipaaka is not the only condition, it is one kind of paccaya satti. As said, natural strong dependence condition is very, very wide. Nina. #65169 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 6:49 am Subject: Antw.: [dsg] Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? nilovg Dear Sebastien (and Sarah), -------- S: Through the bodysense you > experience only hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure. > This is felt everywhere inside or on the body where there is > sensitivity. Not the nails or the hairs. Eyesense is the rupa that is > the means through which colour is experienced. People may think: eyes > are part of the body, but eyesense has nothing to do with bodysense. Oh ok I understand now, it is what we call in french "toucher" :) When my eyes burn because I am tired, it is through bodysense right ? ------ N: Yes, quite right. I meant to tell you. ------- > Some remarks: actions mauvauses instead of pernicieuses? This > includes more all degrees of akusala kamma.Pernicieuses seems very > bad kamma. I chose to use the terms used in the french translation of Vissudhimagga by Christian Maes : "pernicieuse" for akusala and "bénéfique" for kusala. "Bonnes" and "mauvaises" are problematic, because these words have moral connotation. "Meritoires" and "démeritoires" could be used but they are more related to punna (for the meritorious aspect). "Pernicieux" means dangerous, bad, nocive, detrimental, I think it is a good translation for Akusala. ------- N: I understand. The moral connotation may not be so wrong. I have to think about that. Let us ask Sarah. ------- S: > en permanence: tout le temps? I want to avoid permanence. Well what I wrote is that "we experiment a permanent stream of sensations appearing then disappearing". The word "permanent" is used, but in the context it is for me clear that there is nothing permanent. But I can simply remove the word and use the following " "Du fait que l'on expérimente une suite continue de sensations apparaissant pour ensuite disparaître, il est difficile (...)" what do you think ? ------- N: Yes, I also thought of continue. Permanent may mislead people into thinking that there is permanence. I found your translation very good. When I read it in parts it is not too much for me. But I am working so hard on Kh Sujin's Perfections, to have them in shape before I go to Bgk in about 8 weeks. With appreciation for your work, Nina. #65170 From: "nidive" Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 7:09 am Subject: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. nidive Hi Howard, > I see it in the Bahiya Sutta and most especially and clearly in the > Kalaka Sutta, which, IMO, teaches in a beautiful and pristine way > the emptiness of both subject and object, and presents what is to > me a clear phenonemenalist perspective. Do you see any relationship between the Kalaka Sutta and MN 1? ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others, One who is Such — among the self-fettered — wouldn't further claim to be true or even false. "Having seen well in advance that arrow where generations are fastened & hung — 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' — there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened." ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html "The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine, ' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you. "He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity. .. the All as the All... "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I see a relationship between these two suttas but I just can't describe it in words. Anyway, what is the arrow referring to, if you know? Regards, Swee Boon #65171 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 2:57 am Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 11/9/06 10:16:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >I see it in the Bahiya Sutta and most especially and clearly in the > >Kalaka Sutta, which, IMO, teaches in a beautiful and pristine way > >the emptiness of both subject and object, and presents what is to > >me a clear phenonemenalist perspective. > > Do you see any relationship between the Kalaka Sutta and MN 1? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html > > "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed > and fastened onto as true by others, > One who is Such — among the self-fettered — > wouldn't further claim to be true or even false. > > "Having seen well in advance that arrow > where generations are fastened &hung > — 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' — > there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened." > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html > > "The Tathagata — a worthy one, rightly self-awakened — directly knows > earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive > things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not > conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine, > ' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has > comprehended it to the end, I tell you. > > "He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... > beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as > Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent > glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the > gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the > dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the > infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of > consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... > the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the > dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of > neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the > heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the > cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity. > .. the All as the All... > > "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding > as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not > conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of > Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in > Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to > the end, I tell you. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I see a relationship between these two suttas but I just can't > describe it in words. > > Anyway, what is the arrow referring to, if you know? > > Regards, > Swee Boon > > ======================== There is a relationship, I agree, though I don't think the senses are identical. For one thing, there is similarity of language, but what is more essentially in common, I think, is the idea of "seeing" without following up with cognitive (conceptual) proliferation and elaboration; i.e., cognitive papa~nca. As for "the arrow," I do think I know what it is intended to be. One thing - an aside: I suspect that 'dart' would have been a better English choice than 'arrow'. As to what that dart/arrow is that one may be fastened to, the thoughts could occur that it might be craving, it might be clinging to view, it might be the inclination towards cognitive papa~nca, and it might be reification of subject and object. But what I think is most specifically intended is clinging to, and certainty of, view. That seems pretty clear where the Buddha says "Having seen well in advance that arrow where generations are fastened & hung — 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' — " It is that certainty and clinging to rightness of perspective expressed in 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' that seems to be the specific dart to which he is referring. With metta, Howard #65172 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 3:44 am Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. TGrand458@... In a message dated 11/9/2006 6:47:46 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: I see it as an appropriate position - as a matter of pragmatics. I also see it as a framework that makes the Dhamma very intelligible to me. But aside from that, I do see it as sutta based. I see it in the Bahiya Sutta and most especially and clearly in the Kalaka Sutta, which, IMO, teaches in a beautiful and pristine way the emptiness of both subject and object, and presents what is to me a clear phenonemenalist perspective. (But, of course, meaning, as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.) With metta, Howard Hi Howard Right...none of this is in doubt; and its good to have a model that clarifies. My only issue is with the idea of not allowing your mind to see external phenomena as other than hypothetical. Actually, in a way you seem to back off at that sometimes and take sort of a gray position. It seems overly tepid to me, but I think from a pure phenomenological point of view, its probably where one would have to end up. Although I think the Buddha's teaching has a lot of phenomenological aspects, it also has other aspects and cannot be pinned down to one discipline IMO. At any rate its a "fine point" that we're discussing. (I think you're approach is an extremely honest position but almost overly confining.) This does not apply to you, but for the record, one should not rely too heavily on a handful of Suttas too acquire the gist of the Buddha's teachings. By doing so, we can make the Suttas say pretty much anything we want to ... to the point of absurdity, as I'm sure we have all seen. TG #65173 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 4:15 am Subject: Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 11/9/06 12:08:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > Right...none of this is in doubt; and its good to have a model that > clarifies. My only issue is with the idea of not allowing your mind to see > external > phenomena as other than hypothetical. > --------------------------------------- Howard: I see no basis for doing that, because the only rupas I can experience are experiential. I can *only* hypothesize what is not experienced. --------------------------------------- Actually, in a way you seem to back > > off at that sometimes and take sort of a gray position. It seems overly > tepid > to me, but I think from a pure phenomenological point of view, its probably > > where one would have to end up. > --------------------------------------- Howard: If you mean that refraining from outright denying the existence of unobserved phenomena constitues a gray position, then, yes, paint me gray. :-) ---------------------------------------- Although I think the Buddha's teaching has a > > lot of phenomenological aspects, it also has other aspects and cannot be > pinned down to one discipline IMO. At any rate its a "fine point" that > we're > discussing. (I think you're approach is an extremely honest position but > almost > overly confining.) --------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. :-) -------------------------------------- > > This does not apply to you, but for the record, one should not rely too > heavily on a handful of Suttas too acquire the gist of the Buddha's > teachings. > By doing so, we can make the Suttas say pretty much anything we want to ... > to > the point of absurdity, as I'm sure we have all seen. > > TG > ======================== With metta, Howard #65174 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 10:50 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life 116. nilovg Dear friends, If one has not developed ``insight'', right understanding of realities, one does not clearly know which object presents itself through which doorway, one is confused as to objects and doors; thus, one is confused about the world. The ariyan is not confused about the world; he knows the objects which appear through the six doors as nåma and rúpa, not self. The Discourse on the Six Sixes (Middle Length Sayings III, no. 148) is very helpful for the understanding of realities which present themselves through the six doors. When the Buddha was staying in the Jeta Grove in Anåthapiùèika's monastery, he explained to the monks about the six ``internal sense-fields'' and the six ``external sense- fields'' (in Påli: åyatana). The six ``internal sensefields'' are the five senses and the mind. The six ``external sense-fields'' are the objects, experienced through six doors. The Buddha explained about six classes of consciousness (seeing, hearing, etc.) which arise in dependence on six doors and on the objects experienced through these doors. He also explained about six kinds of contact (phassa), six kinds of feeling conditioned by the six kinds of contact, and six kinds of craving conditioned by the six kinds of feeling. Thus there are ``Six Sixes'', six groups of six realities. The Buddha then explained about the person who has attachment, aversion and ignorance with regard to what he experiences through the six doors. We read: ``Monks, visual consciousness arises because of eye and visible object, the meeting of the three is sensory impingement ; an experience arises conditioned by sensory impingement that is pleasant or painful or neither painful nor pleasant. He, being impinged on by a pleasant feeling, delights, rejoices and persists in cleaving to it; a tendency to attachment is latent in him. Being impinged on by a painful feeling, he grieves, mourns, laments, beats his breast and falls into disillusion; a tendency to repugnance is latent in him. Being impinged on by a feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant, he does not comprehend the origin nor the going down nor the satisfaction nor the peril of that feeling nor the escape from it as it really is; a tendency to ignorance is latent in him...'' The same is said with regard to the other doorways. ******* Nina. #65175 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 11:39 am Subject: cuticitta and bhavangacitta nilovg Hi Howard, you are not alone in finding some points made by me re the mind-door not clear. Lodewijk also finds it difficult, wondering about it. We discussed it yesterday, after I read to him from ADL. I looked up some passages in the Co. and I shall see what to add. ----------- Howard: So - if objects can be experienced w/o benefit of sense door, what is the difference in the experience if any, and what is the need for sense doors? That is the question. -------------------------------------------- N: In the arupabrahma planes there is no rupa, no experience of sense objects, only experience of objects through the mind-door. These beings saw the disadvatages of rupa and cultivated conditions to be born in these planes. Now, we here in the human plane cling to sense objects, and we do need eyesense in order to experience colour. -------- > As to mind-door: I quote from Ch 16: > The cittas of the mind-door process experience an object through the > mind-door. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: I read the words, but I don't have the meaning. What does it *mean* for an object to be experienced "through" the mind door? What exactly does that mean? If this cannot be explained, then it is just empty words. ----------------------------------------- N: Expositor, (Analysis of Terms, 71, book p 96): In the purely representitive process through the mind-door, however, there is no function of striking the organ. These objects present themselves naturally by virtue of having seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched. How? Some one here below circumambulates a great shrine, which is well plastered...illumined by an enchanting glory, and adorned in every respect. On the sixteen platforms he pays homage in the fivefold manner of contact. With clasped hands raised in adoration he stands looking upwards with rapture derived from the contemplation of the Buddha...he may have gone and seated himself in places (reserved) for night or day, the well-decorated shrine seems to appear to his eye on reflection as it did actually at the time when he circumambulated it. Thus, first of all, by previous sight, a visible object comes into the avenue (aapaatha.m). > Evenso this has been explained for the audible object. Further on it is explained how kusala citta arises in the mind-door process after having seen visible object. One may be intent on dana, sila or bhaavanaa. We read about the kusala citta: -------- Howard: How does that bhavanga citta serve as "mind door"? Exactly what does it do that one should call it such? ------------------------------------- We read in the 'Topics of Abhidhamma' (p. 25, the Co to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha): > ----------- ------ > N: The bhavangacittas do not arise in a process. Thus, there is no > adverting to an object, the object has been conditioned already by > kamma. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: So, you are saying that a sense door is required for adverting? That is a step in the right direction, IMO! It is a beginning of an explanation of the actual function of sense doors. Still, there is the need to distinguish this situation from the awareness of a just-passed sense object which has been replaced by a "photocopy". ------------------------------------------- N: Yes, and the minddoor-adverting-consciousness adverts to an object, which is not only a just passed sense object, but also any citta or cetasika, or concept or nibbaana. Everything can be known through the mind-door. > ----------> N: Cittas arising in processes need a doorway. For example, there > could not be seeing without the eye-door. There could not be like or > dislike of visible object without the eye-door. If you would be > blind, no seeing, no like or dislike of visible object. > The bhavangacittas are only vipaakacittas and these do not arise in a > process, as said above. No adverting to an object, no reactions to it > in the way of kusala cittas or akusala cittas. They have been > condiationed by kamma once and for all, throughout life and they do > not change as to characteristic, they are always the same type, > arising and falling away. ------------------------------------------ Howard: This is not as clear as would like, but it IS helpful! :-) ------------------------------------------ N: What is not clear yet? > ---------- > N: The sense-doors are needed for all the cittas arising in a > process. The first citta of such a process has to advert to the new > object that presents itself after the stream of bhavangacittas is > arrested. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm. The adverting seems central to the issue. ----------------------------------------- N. A process always begins with adverting to the new object that has come into focus. This is not so in the case of the current of bhavangacittas, there is no new object that has come into focus, it is just an 'old' object conditioned by kamma already. **** Nina. #65176 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 11:44 am Subject: groundhog day reflections nilovg Hi James, thanks for the beautiful poem, I rejoice! Birth: Through many a birth in samsara have I wandered in vain, seeking the builder of this house (of life) Repeated birth is indeed suffering! Old Age: These dove-coloured bones are like gourds that lie scattered about in autum. Having seen them, how can one seek delight? Fully worn out is this body, a nest of disease, and fragile. This foul mass breaks up, for death is the end of life. - Dhammapada -------- Jus a short answer: I do not rejoice in bad news, but dukkha is not only: dukkha-dukkha, suffering that is obvious, nor dukkha in change, but also dukkha that is of the deepest meaning: dukkha that is inherent in all conditioned dhammas, which are impermanent. The Buddha taught this kind of dukkha and we can be grateful and rejoice. Nina. #65177 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 12:03 pm Subject: heedfulness, appamada nilovg Hi Phil, No, no, I have no frustration that I do not come across ;-). I like your straightforward remarks, even telling others that you find something nutty. -------- Ph: I think these two sentences sound a bit contradictory to me, Nina. "Know the characteristics of realities" is something that I have never experienced, though I have listened to talks about it and understood it in theory. Realities are so fast falling, how could I know their characteristics directly. By the nimitta, right? Sorry to keep asking about this. ------ N: No, we cannot yet, but we can begin to study them with awareness. even only the nimitta remains after they have fallen away. --------- Ph: I think there can be heedfulness without understanding the characteristics of realities. If I am aware that a violent fantasy has entered my mind, for example, and am heedful of it, and watching it subside by virtue of being watched (that is what I have found happens) there is no understanding of any characteristic of a reality, but it is a cutting off of akusala proliferation that prevents further proliferation, and certainly helps reduce the probability that that proliferation will condition a violent deed, word or further transgressional thoughts. This is all happening at the conceptual level but is very valuable, I think. -------- N: I thought of you when going over the perfection of viriya, and here is something that you will like. It is about sati-sampaja~n~na that sees the disadvantage of akusala, and, this happens even when one does not realize characteristics of nama and rupa. < if someone has listened to the Dhamma and he develops satipaììhåna, sati-sampajañña can arise and be aware of akusala when he is irritated or displeased. We should consider more deeply the meaning of sati-sampajañña. When akusala dhamma arises, sati-sampajañña may consider the Dhamma and realize the disadvantage of the continuation of akusala. At that moment paññå may know that it is not proper to be irritated in whatever respect, be it on account of the action or speech of someone else, or be it because we have noticed something wrong. When, for example, akusala citta with anger arises and sati- sampajaññå can be aware of its characteristic, we can see whether there is effort for giving up anger; if one continues being angry it means that akusala viriya is still strong. When kusala viriya has been further developed and awareness can arise, there are conditions for the diminuition of displeasure and for the arising of mettå. Thus, instead of anger which is an impure dhamma there can immediately be a change to kusala dhamma, dhamma which is pure. When dosa arises, we have displeasure, but sati sampajañña can arise and be aware of its characteristic and then we can see the benefit of sati sampajañña. If someone has listened to the Dhamma and he is not inert but immediately gives up akusala, we can see that kusala viriya performs its function at that moment. When a certain type of akusala arises and after that there is sati sampajañña, kusala viriya can perform its task of refraining from anger. This kind of viriya is different from thinking that one should refrain from anger. It arises at the moment of sati sampajañña, when energy or effort refrains from anger, and it is seen that mettå is the opposite of anger. This is effort to forgive, effort for mettå. At such a moment we can remember that everybody, including ourselves, makes mistakes. Therefore, we should not have anger or displeasure on account of someone else or of dhammas which arise and then fall away. However, feeling and remembrance, saññå, are conditions for being slow and inert in letting go of one’s thoughts about circumstances and events and in that case akusala dhammas have the opportunity to arise.> When you have strong feelings about something, you keep on remembering events, concepts, and this slows us down in the development of understanding. Nina. #65178 From: han tun Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 2:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipaakacittas and patthaana hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind explanations. > > Han: (3) If so, how can a vipaaka citta (which do not produce any kammic result) condition akusala citta or kusala citta or another vipaaka citta? > Nina: Because there are other conditions besides kamma that produces vipaaka. In the Conditional Relations (PTS edition) under kusalattika, Natural strong dependence (pakatupanissaya paccaya) it is said: Han: It is a good point to note that there are other conditions besides kamma that produces vipaaka. Then, I think, you were about to quote something from the Condition Relations, after “it is said: .....” ------------------------------ > > Han: (4) If so, how can vipaaka citta condition akusala citta or kusala citta which are not resultant cittas but which are causes? > Nina: Further on in the same section of the Patthana: As to this condition there are many possibilities. Vipaakacitta can condiiton akusala citta, or kusala citta. In our study of Vis. Ch XVII we have seen that ignorance which is akusala conditions kusala kamma. Han: I have no problem with akusala conditioning kusala. The problem is with vipaaka conditioning kusala, or akusala or, more importantly, another vipaaka. But as you said there are many possibilities regarding this condition. ------------------------------ > > Han: (5) There is one example given in the above paragraph (1): “When it is hot outside one may use air-conditioning and this may cause bodily well-being.” It will then be: hot body-consciousness (vipaaka citta) > using air condition > pleasant body-consciousness (vipaaka citta). Here, one can say vipaaka citta conditions another vipaaka citta, but there is an intervening activity, i.e. using of air condition. Will it still be vipaaka conditioning vipaaka despite the intervening activity? > Nina: It does not matter whether there is any intervening activity. The conditioning dhamma and conditioned dhamma need not be in close proximity. Natural strong dependence-condition is not proximity strong dependence-condition. Han: I thank you very much for this clarification. ------------------------------ > > Han: (6) I have one assumption. I assume that “kamma satti” and “paccaya satti” are different. A vipaaka citta cannot condition another citta by kamma satti, but it can condition by paccaya satti. If my assumption is correct, then the above questions are automatically solved. If my assumption is incorrect, then the above questions will still need answers. > Nina: That is right, the power of kamma (kamma satti) that conditions vipaaka is not the only condition, it is one kind of paccaya satti. As said, natural strong dependence condition is very, very wide. Han: I thank you also for this clarification. Respectfully, Han #65179 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 4:44 pm Subject: Re: groundhog day reflections buddhatrue Hi Nina, Goodness, you sure are stubborn!! ;-)) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > thanks for the beautiful poem, I rejoice! I think you missed the point. The Buddha didn't speak these words so that the listeners would say, "Oh, what a beautiful poem!" These words are to remind us that birth and old age are suffering so that we will be inspired to escape birth and old age. It is a sign of ignorance and delusion to find pleasure in that which is unpleasurable. > -------- > Jus a short answer: I do not rejoice in bad news, but dukkha is not > only: dukkha-dukkha, suffering that is obvious, nor dukkha in change, > but also dukkha that is of the deepest meaning: dukkha that is > inherent in all conditioned dhammas, which are impermanent. Yes, I am aware of the different levels of dukkha- and absolutley no level of dukkha is worthy of rejoicing!! The > Buddha taught this kind of dukkha and we can be grateful and rejoice. Then you are not rejoicing in dukkha, you are rejoicing in the Buddha's teaching. Nina, no offense, but I think you focus on anatta too much and you should go back to the basics: the Four Noble Truths! If you don't even fully understand/appreciate the First Noble Truth of Suffering, how can you expect to gain insight into anatta? > Nina. Metta, James #65180 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Nov 9, 2006 5:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: some points on art ken_aitch Hi Sarah, I was never really convinced by these theories of mine. As I said, you put the kybosh on them years ago - pointing out they were not consistent with the texts. That should have been the end of the matter, but I was tempted to go back and tinker with them again. Now, with the help of your patient comments, I think I have seen sense at last. I have to admit, though, that I was tempted to continue. Pet theories are hard to put away! But I have deleted my comments on your comments for the common good. :-) ---------------- S: > PS: > <. . .> And I'll tell you another coincidence - I'm now grounded for two weeks too:-). This time because of a sea toxin which has got into my lymph system and is producing some v.unpleasant effects:-/ It wouldn't happen in Australia, I was told... ------------------ Oh dear, I am sorry to hear that. And I am afraid that settles it; if you are going to continue with your surfing (and I am sure you are) you will have to emigrate! Hong Kong's loss will be Noosa's gain. :-) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > I just think it's > very difficult to generalize about situations - it's just speculation. In > the end it'll be different for everyone, depending on accumulated > tendencies at such times. I'm reminded of when someone, maybe Azita, asked > K.Sujin whether cittas are always akusala when there are tears in our > eyes. Her response was to forget about the 'wholes', the situations and > know the namas and rupas appearing now. #65181 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:27 am Subject: Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? nilovg Dear Sebastien, This is just a suggestion: akusala kamma: actions nuisibles. By akusala kamma one harms oneself and others. Nina. #65182 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipaakacittas and patthaana nilovg Dear Han, yes, this is the most difficult. In the Patthana I find that feeling accompanying body-consciousness, which are both vipaaka are mentioned, but not the other vipaakas through eyes, etc. A painful massage or a painful injection can condition later on bodily wellbeing. This is another example. Nina. Op 9-nov-2006, om 23:30 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > The problem is with vipaaka conditioning > kusala, or akusala or, more importantly, another > vipaaka. But as you said there are many possibilities > regarding this condition. #65183 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 12:37 am Subject: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. ken_aitch Hi Joop, -------------- KH: > > "I see what you mean, but it doesn't make any difference to my argument" J: > That's funny, you agree that your statement "Time and time again we see people claim …" was wrong but that does not change your opinion about that claim, I like that. ---------------- I think my statement was right: It makes no difference if those people claim to be practising vipassana or if, as you pointed out, they claim to be trying (to practise vipassana). The fact remains they claim to be acting in accordance with the texts. ----------------------- KH: > > So if Abhidhamma-students study with the idea of trying to make enlightenment happen, they too are on a wrong path. J: > I'm glad that there is a point on which we agree: one should not try to make enlightenment (I prefer the term 'awakening') happen. Perhaps our arguments are not exactly the same, for you: one should not try anything; for me: one should not think about the future. ----------------------- Rather than say "one should not try" I would say "one should understand that trying is not part of the path." ------------------------------------ KH: >> You are equating Dhamma study with formal meditation on the basis that they both involve concepts. That's a nice argument, but the similarities don't go very far. The formal meditator knows concepts that are ordinary (the movement of his feet etc), while the Dhamma student knows concepts that are taught only by a Buddha (concepts that refer to paramattha dhammas). J: > Four remarks on this First: I have not used the term 'formal meditation', that's a typical DSG-expression, I wrote "sitting in vipassana meditation"; ----------------------------------- If one is actually developing vipassana - whether it is while sitting or otherwise - then there can be no argument. But I am saying there is a kind of meditation that is commonly called vipassana meditation, but which is actually, as you pointed out, a form of trying (to develop vipassana). That is the kind of meditation I, and others, call "formal." Wouldn't you agree that we need a term to distinguish actual vipassana from "trying to practise vipassana?" Can't we use the word "formal" to make that distinction? ------------------------------------- J: > When one uses the term 'formal meditation' one is saying there is also something like 'informal meditation', is that what I call "mindfulnes in daily life" ? -------------------------------------- No; not if it is another form of trying. In my opinion, trying to have mindfulness during everyday activities is just as much a formal practice as trying to have mindfulness while doing sitting meditation. There is, of course, actual vipassana development (bhavana) as found in the texts. Bhavana is any moment of consciousness in which panna-cetasika knows the nature of a conditioned dhamma. It can happen at any time provided only that the teaching of paramattha dhammas has been heard and wisely considered. It doesn't depend on special circumstances, rituals or formal preparations. ---------------------------------------------------- J: > Second: why do you think everybody doing vipassana meditation only knows ordinary concepts? Why use the term 'knows', better talk about 'observes'; and a good instructed and experienced meditator distinguishes an experience through one of the sense doors (for example: hearing) and an experience of the mind door (for example: an airplane) ---------------------------------------------------- Only ariyan and highly advanced non-ariyan disciples can directly know paramattha dhammas. As far as I am aware, all of DSG's non-meditating Dhamma students regard themselves as beginners, in which case none of them will have had direct knowledge of dhammas. I can't speak for the formal meditators, but as you know, I think they are on a wrong path anyway. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- J: > Third, your antithesis is false, my position and that of many I know, is: one has to do both, meditation AND Dhamma-study (and sila because one has to do all aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- You are right about the latter; Dhamma study is mentioned several times in the texts as a factor leading to enlightenment. And study does need to be put into practice, which is another factor leading to enlightenment. But there is no mention of formal practice anywhere in the texts. Why, in your opinion, is that the case? Take for example, the instructions given by Venerable Sujiva that you attached to this post. Why are there no instructions of that kind in the ancient texts? Htoo, who is both a formal meditator and a scrupulous student of the texts, has admitted to me that he has no answer. He can only suggest it was because Ananda, at the First Conference, inexplicably omitted to recite the suttas in which instructions were given. --------------------- J: > Fourth: is 'accumulations' (because that's about what I was talking) a concept taught only by the Buddha? -------------------- I don't know how to answer that. I think anyone will tell you that people can be good at one moment and bad at another. The Buddha explained this common observation in a way that was unique (the way of dhammas and the complex conditions for their arising and non-arising). ------------------------- J: > Because you don't know much of vipassana meditation you can perhaps read some day the ebook of Venerable Sujiva: Meditation Practice, A Pragmatic Approach to Vipassana Essentials of Insight www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/essentials.pdf ----------------------- Thanks, but as you will know I am highly dubious of formal meditation. I must admit that in some places Ven Sujiva could be interpreted as saying vipassana was a matter of understanding rather than a matter of formal practice. But, from my experience, I assume the Venerable is expecting his students to sit quietly and notice dhammas as they arise and fall away. And that is not the way found in the texts. Ken H > A quote of it I also gave a year ago > "Certain objects can be used for samatha or vipassana meditation. One > is the anapana object, watching the in-breath at the nose tip. People > frequently ask, "Is the concentration at the nose tip (anapana) a > samatha > or vipassana object?" It can be both. This depends on the nature of > your attention. In the beginning when using the preliminary object it > can be a samatha or vipassana object as it is mixed. When you start > counting the breath it tends more towards the samatha object. But > there is still the sensation of the breath to be felt. > Vipassana objects, unlike samatha objects, are realities. They are > not mind-created, that is you do not imagine them. They happen as a > natural occurrence—as mental processes and material processes. When > you see these processes clearer and clearer, of course the three > characteristics of existence—anicca, dukkha and anatta—also become > clearer. These are deeper aspects of the mental and material > processes." > #65184 From: s.billard@... Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? sbillard2000 Hi Nina, "Nuisible" is a good translation. Though, I have some concerns in that people may interpret it in the conventionnal way, like "doing bad". Some actions like sensual lust are akusala, but some people would not employ the "nuisible" word for these. In conventionnal language "nuisible" is IMHO more related to actions rooted in dosa. I got several objective reasons to use "pernicieux" : it is the terminology employed by the unique french translation of Visuddhimagga and you refer frequently to this book. It would then help people to switch from one book to the other one. "Pernicieux" is not very bad kamma, it means dangerous, harmful, nocive, morally bad, causing bad consequences. See for example the dictionnary of the Academie Française, the highest authority about language in France : Anyway, in Chapter 1, when Akusala is used for the 1st time, I use several adjectives to describe it, and I will add nuisible for sure (right now I use "pernicieux, malsains, malhabiles, kammiquement, mauvais"). BTW my translation is also reread by a french bikkhu who spent many years in Myanmar and is the webmaster of dhammadana.org. He said ADL was a great introduction to Abhidhamma and plan to feature it on his website. Sébastien Billard http://s.billard.free.fr > Dear Sebastien, > This is just a suggestion: akusala kamma: actions nuisibles. > By akusala kamma one harms oneself and others. > Nina. > #65185 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right translation of ADL chapt 2 ? nilovg Dear Sebastien, What you say is quite acceptable. I do not know all the associations with the word nuisible. It is also good you add several translations. Later on you can also use just the Pali, I think. I am glad the French bhikkhu appreciates ADL. Nina. Op 10-nov-2006, om 10:32 heeft s.billard@... het volgende geschreven: > "Nuisible" is a good translation. Though, I have some concerns in > that people > may interpret it in the conventionnal way, like "doing bad". Some > actions like > sensual lust are akusala, but some people would not employ the > "nuisible" word > for these. In conventionnal language "nuisible" is IMHO more > related to actions > rooted in dosa. #65186 From: han tun Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vipaakacittas and patthaana hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much once again for your very good example of vipaaka conditioning another vipaaka. “A painful massage or a painful injection can condition later on bodily wellbeing.” Respectfully, Han >--- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > In the Patthana I find that feeling accompanying > body-consciousness, which are both vipaaka are > mentioned, but not the other vipaakas through eyes, > etc. > A painful massage or a painful injection can > condition later on bodily wellbeing. This is another > example. #65187 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some points on art sarahprocter... Hi Ken H & all, --- ken_aitch wrote: <..> That should have been the end of the > matter, but I was tempted to go back and tinker with them again. Now, > with the help of your patient comments, I think I have seen sense at > last. > > I have to admit, though, that I was tempted to continue. Pet theories > are hard to put away! But I have deleted my comments on your comments > for the common good. :-) .... S: If they are still lingering in one of those draft files under lock and key, I'd like to see them. Usually a lot of reflection has gone into those pet theories (whether useful or not) and it's better to air them properly. Interesting for us too! **** > ---------------- > S: > PS: > <. . .> And I'll tell you another coincidence - I'm now > grounded for two weeks too:-). This time because of a sea toxin which > has got into my lymph system and is producing some v.unpleasant > effects:-/ It wouldn't happen in Australia, I was told... > ------------------ > > Oh dear, I am sorry to hear that. And I am afraid that settles it; if > you are going to continue with your surfing (and I am sure you are) > you will have to emigrate! Hong Kong's loss will be Noosa's gain. :-) .... S: The 'sea toxin' diagnosis has now been given the kybosh too and the latest diagnosis by a second dr(which matches all the google descriptions exactly) is one of 'Shingles':-/ So we can't blame Hong Kong water or its sea creatures anymore. It's rather tough going at the moment- lots of nerve pain, fever, a large burning rash and very little sleep. So, apologies in advance for delays to anyone in replies or any nonsense when I'm writing in a semi-delirious mode for the next little while:-). Metta, Sarah ========= #65188 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 5:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some points on art nilovg Dear Sarah, I am sorry to hear this. I hope you get completely recovered before we meet in Thailand, in about eight weeks. Nina. Op 10-nov-2006, om 12:17 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > It's rather tough going at the moment- lots of nerve pain, fever, a > large > burning rash and very little sleep. #65189 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:09 am Subject: Re: Trying Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi again, Ken & Joop - In a message dated 11/10/06 9:03:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: > 6) If suffocating, should there be no trying to obtain water? > ======================= Well, maybe not! LOLOL! With a brain eveidently deprived of oxygen, and with metta, Howard #65190 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:03 am Subject: Trying Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Joop) - In a message dated 11/10/06 3:41:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > ------------------------------------- > J: >When one > uses the term 'formal meditation' one is saying there is also > something like 'informal meditation', is that what I call "mindfulnes > in daily life" ? > -------------------------------------- > > No; not if it is another form of trying. In my opinion, trying to have > mindfulness during everyday activities is just as much a formal > practice as trying to have mindfulness while doing sitting meditation. > ====================== Ken, you don't think it is useful, in fact you think it is harmful, for there to be any trying. I pose some questions, not expecting reply, but for your consideration: 1) If pierced by an arrow, should there be no trying to remove it? 2) If afflicted by cancer, should there be no trying to affect a cure? 3) If ignorant of the Dhamma, should there be no trying to come to hear, contemplate, and pay attention to the Buddha's teachings? 4) If starving, should there be no trying to obtain food? 5) If dying of thirst, should there be no trying to obtain water? 6) If suffocating, should there be no trying to obtain water? 7) If upset or distracted or furious or overcome by lust or aversion, should there be no trying to cultivate calm? 8) A next-to-last question: Is avoiding trying anything at all in fact simply acting like an automaton, being driven by whatever emotions and defilements come to the fore? 9) A last question: When trying, is it not, in reality, all just paramattha dhammas arising and ceasing? With metta, Howard P.S. Please don't think you aren't trying, Ken. You are! ;-)) (Just a little joking on my part. :-) #65191 From: "Phil" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:17 am Subject: Re: some points on art philofillet Hi Sarah > It's rather tough going at the moment- Sorry to hear about that, Sarah - I know that shingles is rough. Please look into essential oils as well as whatever else you're doing. I know that lavender and chamomile do wonders for painful blisters, and Naomi's book said geranium is recommend for the nerve pain aspect of shingles. Tea tree helps to boost the immune system. So I guess one drop of each in 10 ml. of carrier oil. Obviously the chinese medicine folks will have good tips. Wishing you well! Phil #65192 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:31 am Subject: Trying Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Re: H: "...9) A last question: When trying, is it not, in reality, all just paramattha dhammas arising and ceasing?" I've wondered about this. I think (beware of what follows these fatal words) that sometimes, when one is 'trying', the 'trying' has already arisen, is a self-less dhamma (as you seem to be pointing out above), and is worth cultivating. One is shriven when one thinks one should 'try' and then acts accordingly, thinking one is 'trying' in the same way as when one finds oneself 'trying' as conditioned by an arising 'trying'. With loving kindness, Scott. #65193 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: some points on art upasaka_howard Hi, Phil & Sarah - In a message dated 11/10/06 9:30:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, luxalot7@... writes: > Hi Sarah > > > >It's rather tough going at the moment- > > Sorry to hear about that, Sarah - I know that shingles is rough. > > Please look into essential oils as well as whatever else you're > doing. I know that lavender and chamomile do wonders for painful > blisters, and Naomi's book said geranium is recommend for the nerve > pain aspect of shingles. Tea tree helps to boost the immune system. So > I guess one drop of each in 10 ml. of carrier oil. Obviously the > chinese medicine folks will have good tips. > > Wishing you well! > > Phil > ======================== Sarah, I wish you a rapid recovery. I applaud you for being able to carry out DSG posting while this is going on! An aunt of my wife's, deep into her 90's, BTW, has, most untypically (!), suffered from shingles for years. So we know how very painful that can be. There are certain medications that work very well for most people even though not for Rita's aunt. I do hope that you will not use *only* alternative medicines, but will do *all* that you can to quickly remove the problem. BTW, congratulations on your & Jon's important anniversary! On 8/20 Rita & I will have our 40th! What are we guys all doing wrong? LOLOL! (My wife used to have an uncle who joked that lengthy marriages are a sure sign of having no imagination! LOL!) With metta, Howard #65194 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 2:08 am Subject: Re: Trying Re: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 11/10/06 9:46:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Re: > > H: "...9) A last question: When trying, is it not, in reality, all just > paramattha dhammas arising and ceasing?" > > I've wondered about this. > > I think (beware of what follows these fatal words) that sometimes, > when one is 'trying', the 'trying' has already arisen, is a self-less > dhamma (as you seem to be pointing out above), and is worth cultivating. > > One is shriven when one thinks one should 'try' and then acts > accordingly, thinking one is 'trying' in the same way as when one > finds oneself 'trying' as conditioned by an arising 'trying'. > > With loving kindness, > > Scott. > ========================= I think that we act with underlying sense of self in varying degrees, but that it is quite persistent, and that doing what needs to be done *should* be done, whether the time is optimal or suboptimal.. Of course, the less sense of self interfering the better. With metta, Howard #65195 From: "Sukinder" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:37 am Subject: Stressing sila ( was Re: some points on art) sukinderpal Hi Phil, all, I am still trying to catch up with the posts here. Since generally you do not like to debate, I think I can make some comments without fear of having to continue the discussion for long. You wrote to Shennica: <<< I too have started using the Mahadi Sayadaw method at home. Personally, I think the basic exercises are great - noting what's coming and going (whether it is just thinking rather than real awareness or not) conditions more of the same in daily life, I find. One thing I am dubious about is that there seems to be an encouragement in the book I have for meditators to expect stages of insight such as knowing body from mind, rising and falling, conditionality quite soon. I think this is dangerous. There is a natural tendency for people (especially Westerners, I think, but that's just my opinion) to want too much too soon. Being told that this or that stage of insight is availbale to one who practices diligently is dangerous, I think. It'll throw us off so that we don't even get the real benefits available from the basic "bare awareness" exercises. I think just having a little more awareness of the way the mind prolfierates, a little bit more watchfulness, a little bit less mental chaos, a little bit more mental clarity - these "little bits" add up to something very real. If we aim for the big stages we lose even the little bits, possibly. On the other hand, aspiring to the higher stages could be helpful, I don't know. I just think we have to be very careful. My opinion. Phil p.s I think I have heard that some retreats promise attainment of sotapanna to meditators who diligently do the retreat. I don't know if that is the Mahadi Sayadaw policy. That sounds a bit nutty to me.>>> Sukin: Putting aside the fact that some meditators may "want too much too soon", do you believe that under ideal conditions, the Mahasi method could deliver what it says it can? If so, is this because you see the method of practice, in part confirmed by your own experiences, as being the right cause for the right result, namely, Vipassana nana? As you know, I don't believe *any* `intentional noting' or `meditation method' can lead anywhere good in terms of Dhamma. This being that they are *not* the right cause for the result aimed at. If what is aimed at is vipassana, and cause and result don't match, then wrong understanding is being encouraged. Of course, every `method', `line of thought', has its own path and consequence. It is these illusions of result that are blinding, after all, when one reasons that the cause (one's chosen practice) is what lead to the result, who can argue with the lobha accompanying the associated wrong view? Phil, you appreciate the precision of Abhidhamma. You know what satipatthana is and what other levels of kusala are. It is good to be reminded that the purpose of the Teachings is to realize dhamma as dhamma, i.e. conditioned realities with the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta. Other `understandings' are concerned with the development of kusala with no appreciation about conditionality. The Dhamma student, once he has understood the aim of the Teachings and the practice (satipatthana) associated, cannot grow to be overly concerned about the development of other forms of kusala without coming to a wrong conclusion somewhere, about the Dhamma itself. After all, when there is opportunity to understand each moment, no matter what dhamma, as being conditioned, why choose to believe in the particular script dictated by the `intention to do something else'? Of course there are several influences, including attachment to self, and `self view' and understanding dhammas as `conditioned' are opposed to one another. The idea therefore, that one has to and can do something to develop panna, is an example of `cause and desired result' not matching. We will reason any number of ways to justify doing what we do, but this will only further feed lobha and wrong view. Now to your concern about papanca and possible akusala kammapattha: Several months ago, a lady came to the Saturday discussions. This lady, later I came to know, was a well known psychiatrist and had written several books on the subject and even had a T.V. program of her own. Some years earlier, she grew an interest in Dhamma and I think, left her old profession. Now, she had just come back from a 3 year meditation retreat. I was interested to find out about what she learnt from her experience. However, all she could stress about was that unlike before, she could now `control her anger'. She said that her anger used to last and overwhelm her, but now they fall away quickly. I commented that of course, "anger falls away"!! Nothing lasts for more than a fraction of a second and so there was no need to control anything. Apparently her script in relation to any arisen dosa had changed, and those `stories' which used to feed the anger, have now been replaced by ones which don't. However the new script feeds something worse, namely "wrong view' and this is much harder to identify, especially since some of it comes in the name of "noting", "watching", "observing", or even "mindfulness". Imagine, not even to be appreciating the fact of dhammas being conditioned and fallen away completely! :-/ So I think when there is focus either on wanting particular states to arise or on others, not to, this would dictate some particular conventional practice to be sought, one that by reasoning and/or `experience' appear to lead to the desired result. There is no control on what dhammas will arise and what be the thoughts, and we have all accumulated much lobha and wrong view. However I think that it better at such times, to remember Azita's "patience, courage and good cheer" and not be fooled into undertaking some wrong practice. Reading the above, it appears to be incoherent. I guess I grew to prefer commenting in-text. However I feel too lazy to change anything, hope you get my message anyway. Metta, Sukin. #65196 From: "nidive" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:28 am Subject: Attempted Fixup Re: [dsg] external rupas. nidive Hi Howard, > There is a relationship, I agree, though I don't think the senses > are identical. For one thing, there is similarity of language, but > what is more essentially in common, I think, is the idea of "seeing" > without following up with cognitive (conceptual) proliferation and > elaboration; i.e., cognitive papa~nca. I too think there is similarity of language. In particular, this is my thinking about the four points raised by the Buddha: (1) Kalaka: doesn't construe an [object as] cognized MN 1 : doesn't conceive things about the cognized I think this means that one should not contrue another [supposedly] cognizable object in what is actually cognized. (2) Kalaka: doesn't construe an uncognized MN 1 : doesn't conceive things in the cognized I think this means that one should not contrue a [supposedly] uncognizable object in what is cognized. (3) Kalaka: doesn't construe an [object] to-be-cognized MN 1 : doesn't conceive things coming out of the cognized I think this means that one should not contrue another [supposedly] cognizable object that will become cognizable in the future in what is cognized. (4) Kalaka: doesn't construe a cognizer MN 1 : doesn't conceive the cognized as 'mine' I think this means that one should not contrue a self in what is cognized. This point basically sums up the gist of the previous three points. The first point deals with present eternalism [of self], the second point deals with nihilism or annihilationism [of self], and the third point deals with future eternalism [of self]. Therefore, I think that "extra object" that one contrues is actually the self or essence or own-nature etc, etc. But I suspect you will disagree here. > As for "the arrow," I do think I know what it is intended to be. One > thing - an aside: I suspect that 'dart' would have been a better > English choice than 'arrow'. As to what that dart/arrow is that one > may be fastened to, the thoughts could occur that it might be > craving, it might be clinging to view, it might be the inclination > towards cognitive papa~nca, and it might be reification of subject > and object. I too think that 'dart' would be a better choice. I think that dart could also refer to the fastening onto positions of self/essence/own-nature/etc or no self/essence/own-nature/etc. This is the dart where generations are said to be fastened and hung, having no escape from the endless cycles of samsara, birth, aging and death. > But what I think is most specifically intended is clinging to, and > certainty of, view. That seems pretty clear where the Buddha says > "Having seen well in advance that arrow where generations are > fastened & hung â€" 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' â€" " It is > that certainty and clinging to rightness of perspective expressed > in 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' that seems to be the > specific dart to which he is referring. It appears to me that the sentence 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' was spoken by the Buddha in reference to himself. I think this sentence is related to the top paragraph where the Buddha says "whatever in the cosmos ... that do I know, that I directly know". Because the Buddha knows and directly knows, he says 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!', but because he doesn't take a stance/position on what he knows and directly knows, he says 'there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened'. Regards, Swee Boon #65197 From: "Sebastien Billard" Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:28 am Subject: Sariputtara ? sbillard2000 As the french bhikkhu (burmese tradition) was re-reading my translations, he suggested me to use "Sariputtara" instead of "Sariputta". This form seems rare, do you have any information about this ? Sébastien Billard :: http://s.billard.free.fr #65198 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:22 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life 117 nilovg Dear friends, We then read about the person who has developed the wisdom which can eradicate attachment, aversion and ignorance: ``...He, being impinged on by pleasant feeling, does not delight, rejoice or persist in cleaving to it; a tendency to attachment is not latent in him. Being impinged on by a painful feeling, he does not grieve, mourn, lament, beat his breast or fall into disillusion; a tendency to repugnance is not latent in him. Being impinged on by a feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant, he comprehends the origin and the going down and the satisfaction and the peril of that feeling and the escape as it really is, a tendency to ignorance is not latent in him. That he, monks, by getting rid of any tendency to attachment to a pleasant feeling, by driving out any tendency to repugnance for a painful feeling, by rooting out any tendency to ignorance concerning a feeling that is neither painful nor pleasant, by getting rid of ignorance, by making knowledge arise, should here and now be an end-maker of dukkha--this situation exists. Seeing this thus, monks, the instructed disciple of the ariyans turns away from eye, turns away from material shapes, turns away from visual consciousness, turns away from impact on the eye, turns away from feeling, turns away from craving. He turns away from ear, he turns away from sounds... He turns away from nose, he turns away from smells... He turns away from tongue... he turns away from tastes... He turns away from body, he turns away from touches... He turns away from mind, he turns away from mental states, he turns away from mental consciousness, he turns away from impact on the mind, he turns away from feeling, he turns away from craving. Turning away he is dispassionate; by dispassion he is freed; in freedom is the knowledge that he is freed, and he comprehends: Destroyed is birth, brought to a close the Brahma-faring, done is what was to be done, there is no more of being such or so.'' Thus spoke the Lord. Delighted, these monks rejoiced in what the Lord had said. And while this exposition was being given the minds of as many as sixty monks were freed from the cankers without grasping." While the Buddha explained to the monks about the objects appearing through the six doors, the monks were mindful of nåma and rúpa while they listened; they developed right understanding and several among them could even attain arahatship. ******* Nina. #65199 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: groundhog day reflections nilovg Hi James, let us return to the original subject, a sense of urgency, samvega. I quote from Kh Sujin's Perfections: < We read in the “Khuddhaka Nikåya” in the Commentary to the “Basket of Conduct”, the “Conduct of Yudañjaya”, about the beginning of the development of paññå during the life the Bodhisatta was young Yudañjaya : “In his life when the Bodhisatta was Yudañjaya, he was the eldest son of the King and had the rank of the viceroy. He fulfilled every day mahå-dåna , the giving of an abundance of gifts. One day when he visited the royal park he saw the dewdrops hanging like a string of pearls on the tree-tops, the grass-tips, the end of the branches and on the spiders’ webs. The prince enjoyed himself in the royal park and when the sun rose higher all the dewdrops that were hanging there disintegrated and disappeared. He reflected thus: ‘These dewdrops came into being and then disappeared. Evenso are conditioned realities, the lives of all beings; they are like the dewdrops hanging on the grass-tips.’ He felt a sense of urgency and became disenchanted with worldly life, so that he took leave of his parents and became a recluse.” From this story we can learn that people have different degrees of understanding. We may see dew drops hanging on grass-tips, but who has paññå to the degree of causing a sense of urgency and disenchantment when he compares his own life with the evanescent dew? We read: “The Bodhisatta realized the impermanence of the dewdrops and made this predominant in accumulating a sense of urgency and disenchantment; it arose once and then became a condition leading to its arising very often.” When right understanding with a sense of urgency arises we should not let it pass by without paying attention to it. We should reflect on the conditions for this sense of urgency so that it can arise more often. The thought of death and impermanence can be a condition for further developing the perfections. > One may at first be agitated by an event, but then a true sense of urgency can arise and this is always with a beautiful citta, no sadness. Phil pointed out to you the bad roots and the good roots. It is worth remembering these. They arise at different moments. A sense of urgency is never at the same time as restlessness, dosa or agitation. But there can very well be different moments of bad roots and good roots arising closely one after the other. See the dewdrops, these remind us of impermanence and dukkha. We can rejoice in the Buddha's teaching of dukkha. Nina. Op 10-nov-2006, om 1:44 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Then you are not rejoicing in dukkha, you are rejoicing in the > Buddha's teaching.