#66800 From: connie Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 5:18 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (surge nichiconn hi scott, c: "idly wonder what she must have been like in person, the humouress behind 'Ajjhatta is one of those not-submerged reefs of original Buddhism calling to us, unheeding: Before anattaa was, I Am!'" sd: Probably at a loss for words regarding 'that which arises from within'. Who was she? c: too perfect -- the Mrs R-D at a loss for words! :) Tonight, she's at the front desk with Kisha. Tomorrow, Illustrator goes to Ilene, who brought back the ghosts & mansions book today. Oh, but these are those fifth nikaya books, you know. Read at your own risk. Thanks for the typos & all. No further comment for now, c. #66801 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "I believe that in Dhammic terminology, while painful bodily sensations are rupas, the "pain" of them is the feeling of them ("vedanizing" of them) as unpleasant. So, from that perspective, a pain (better, a "paining") is actually an activity, a distasteful affective "tasting" of a bodily sensation. I think that in common usage, 'pain' usually denotes the unpleasant bodily sensations, themselves, which would make 'pains" constitute a variety of rupa in that common usage. There is yet another (similar) common-usage thinking about pain that I consider to be worse. That is the view that posits the following "things": 1) The painful sensation, 2) The "pain" - some other something-or-other or entity (another sort of rupa perhaps - who knows!) that accompanies the painful sensation, and 3) The knowing of the sensation and the knowing of the pain. In this case, item 1 is a reality and item 3 is a slightly distorted reality, but item 2 is a completely false postulation. There is no "pain" category of dhammas different from the painful sensations and also different from the feeling of them as unpleasant, neither fish nor fowl. There are just the painful sensations (rupas) and the knowing of them in a variety of ways, including the feeling of them as painful/unpleasant (vedana)." L: You seem to be saying pain is both rupa and cetasika. I think it is clear that pain is only vedana (feeling). However, my contention is that all pain (including mental pain) always arises with body rupas. In other words, we can examine the body and say "this is where hatred hurts". What is your view on the experience of mental pain? H: "My understanding is the following: Namas are mental activities of knowing of phenomena in a variety of ways and also activities that support such knowing. The mere knowing of a dull hardness in the body as "present" is vi~n~nanizing it, the feeling of it as unpleasant is vedanizing it, and the recognizing of it (wordlessly) as an ache is sa~n~nizing it." L: Let's stick with feeling. If hardness is known as painful aren't we saying hardness _is_ painful; in other words a rupa is a vedana cetasika? That is obviously wrong. Does that mean that consciousness, except that rooted in wisdom, is an erroneous knowing of an object, a kind of synthesis of dhammas? If nama knows an object but rupa does not does that mean nama synthesizes dhammas but rupa doesn't? Using your distinctions aren't hardness and painfulness both sensations, both experiences? Larry #66802 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 6:40 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (surge scottduncan2 Hey connie, Oh: c: too perfect -- the Mrs R-D at a loss for words! :) She'd have been a real interesting woman to say the least. I quite enjoyed her excellent and over-the-top essay introducing her translation of Dhammasa"nga.ni. Quite the scholar. And I dig that whole intellectual era anyway - Freud in his prime (not to mention 'the Mrs R-D'). "...We do hear, at least, in the Diigha Nikaaya, of beings in one of the middle circles of the Form heavens termed Radiant (Aabhassara) as 'made of mind, feeding on joy, radiating light, traversing the firmament, continuing in beauty'. Were it not that we miss here the unending melody sounding through each circle of the Western poet's Paradise we might well apply this description to Dante's 'anime liete', who, like incandescent spheres: - 'Fiammando forte a guisa di comete, E come cerchi in tempra d'oriuoli Si giran.'... Liker to those brilliant visions the heavens of Form seem to have been than to the 'quiet air' and 'meadow of fresh verdure'..." I get what you mean. c: "Tonight, she's at the front desk with Kisha. Tomorrow, Illustrator goes to Ilene, who brought back the ghosts & mansions book today. Oh, but these are those fifth nikaya books, you know. Read at your own risk." She gets around, man. Scholar and bohemian. Got the whole crew going have you? And I can't wait until I get my own fifth nikaaya. Love the risky reading. Any more for us? Dig the sisters as well. Sincerely Scott #66803 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 6:54 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi again Scott, Another thought on the first vipassana-nana and how far away it is: Before we heard the Dhamma we had no knowledge at all of mental phenomena, did we? Modern science has no explanation for consciousness; the prevailing view being that there is only materiality. I think a few scientists have put forward theories but nothing has been generally, or widely, accepted. So the teaching, "Nama experiences an object; rupa doesn't experience anything," is very new to us. We are only beginning to know what it means. Ken H BTW, thanks for quietly covering up the pedant's embarrassing typo. :-) #66804 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 1:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/5/07 9:06:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > > L: You seem to be saying pain is both rupa and cetasika. ------------------------------------------ Howard: No, I'm not, at least not "officially", because I adopt the Dhammic terminology as reflecting the facts of the matter. However, I, like everyone else, also adopt the informal way of speaking of "a pain in my back". That informal usage is referring to an unpleasant bodily sensation as a "pain". So, manner of speaking is one thing, but knowing what is what is another. The reality is that there are rupas, and there is the feeling operation. Whether by 'pain' one means a painful rupa or the feeling of it as painful is a matter of language use. --------------------------------------------- I think it is> > clear that pain is only vedana (feeling). However, my contention is that > all pain (including mental pain) always arises with body rupas. In other > words, we can examine the body and say "this is where hatred hurts". > What is your view on the experience of mental pain? ------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh. Okay, I understand what you are saying. What this would mean, I think, is that when mental activities (i.e. namas) are felt as unpleasant, that is unpleasant feeling but not yet what we think of as mental pain. However, sankharic reaction to that unpleasant feeling produces unpleasant bodily sensations associated with the original mental phenomena, and those physical sensations (or the feeling of them) is what is typically identified as the "mental pain". So, great sorrow, for example, involves unpleasant bodily sensations - an ache in the chest, unpleasant sensations in the head, etc. Is this what you are driving at, Larry? -------------------------------------- > > H: "My understanding is the following: Namas are mental activities of > knowing of phenomena in a variety of ways and also activities that > support such knowing. The mere knowing of a dull hardness in the body as > "present" is vi~n~nanizing it, the feeling of it as unpleasant is > vedanizing it, and the recognizing of it (wordlessly) as an ache is > sa~n~nizing it." > > L: Let's stick with feeling. If hardness is known as painful aren't we > saying hardness _is_ painful; in other words a rupa is a vedana > cetasika? > -------------------------------- Howard: No. The rupa, with whatever characteristics it has, is a rupa - period. It is not a knowing. The feeling of it as unpleasant etc is a cetasika. ---------------------------------- That is obviously wrong. Does that mean that consciousness,> > except that rooted in wisdom, is an erroneous knowing of an object, a > kind of synthesis of dhammas? --------------------------------- Howard: Huh? Consciousness is the apprehending of the mere presence of the object, whatever that object may be. -------------------------------- > > If nama knows an object but rupa does not does that mean nama > synthesizes dhammas but rupa doesn't? ---------------------------------- Howard: I don't know what you mean here by "synthesizes". The sankharas are namas that synthesize/fabricate. Rupas are nothing more than physical objects of awareness. (Jon & Co. would drop "of awareness" in the foregoing.) --------------------------------- > > Using your distinctions aren't hardness and painfulness both sensations, > both experiences? ------------------------------- Howard: Hardness is a rupa. Feeling a rupa as painful is vedana. Painfulness is an abstraction - a concept. ------------------------------- With metta, Howard #66805 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 7:55 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Ken, Thanks again, man: K: "Another thought on the first vipassana-nana and how far away it is: Before we heard the Dhamma we had no knowledge at all of mental phenomena, did we?" No. Its so cool. I mean you figure you do, in an unthinking, myopic way and then bam you're hit with just a smidgen of Dhamma heaviness and you know you know nothing; but the vastness of it stretching out ahead and all around. The Teacher really did do it. K: "Modern science has no explanation for consciousness; the prevailing view being that there is only materiality. I think a few scientists have put forward theories but nothing has been generally, or widely, accepted." Again, no. Nothing anywhere near useful. Dhamma and science don't mix, can't mix. I mean I like the computer, the medicine, the convenience but clinging is clinging whether its to modernity or to nostalgia. K: "So the teaching, "Nama experiences an object; rupa doesn't experience anything," is very new to us. We are only beginning to know what it means." Very true. That's why the idea for the thread. I want to learn all I can about these distinctions. I ponder this: Is that music I'm listening to or sound? It 'sounds' like music. Must be naama then. But its sound. So why does it 'sound' like something? Why am I digging it? Naama. No. Ruupa. Never mind, just turn it up. K: "BTW, thanks for quietly covering up the pedant's embarrassing typo. :-)" Ah couldna hel' mesel' laddy :( Sincerely, Scott. #66806 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 8:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana lbidd2 Hi Howard, H: "So, great sorrow, for example, involves unpleasant bodily sensations - an ache in the chest, unpleasant sensations in the head, etc. Is this what you are driving at, Larry?" L: Yes, only I would say great sorrow involves unpleasant vedana arising with chest area rupas, and of course the dosa that is sorrow; all, except possibly the rupas, having the object of loss of a loved one, for example. However, the question I am asking is, is all negative feeling experienced in the body? Is there any negative feeling not experienced in the body? H: "Hardness is a rupa. Feeling a rupa as painful is vedana. Painfulness is an abstraction - a concept." L: What does "feeling a rupa as painful" mean? Surely it means "this particular rupa" = painful feeling. Rupa = vedana. Or "this particular rupa" and pain are one. One could call this an abstraction or a formation or a synthesis, but either way this is what it means for one dhamma to experience or know or cognize another dhamma. Larry #66807 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 3:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 1/5/07 10:56:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > I ponder this: Is that music I'm listening to or sound? It 'sounds' > like music. Must be naama then. But its sound. So why does it > 'sound' like something? Why am I digging it? Naama. No. Ruupa. > Never mind, just turn it up. > ===================== My perspective: It is sounds you are hearing. The sounds, occuring in a sequence, are related to each other in a variety of complex ways, and the pattern of interelationships is apprehended by sankharic fabrication (specifically conceptual processing) and viewed as a unit that is thought of as "some music". So, in short, it is sounds you are hearing, but music you are cognizinng. That's the full story as I see it. With metta, Howard #66808 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/5/07 11:40:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > H: "So, great sorrow, for example, involves unpleasant bodily sensations > - an ache in the chest, unpleasant sensations in the head, etc. Is this > what you are driving at, Larry?" > > L: Yes, only I would say great sorrow involves unpleasant vedana arising > with chest area rupas, and of course the dosa that is sorrow; all, > except possibly the rupas, having the object of loss of a loved one, for > example. However, the question I am asking is, is all negative feeling > experienced in the body? Is there any negative feeling not experienced > in the body? --------------------------------------- Howard: I think there is, but it is not called "pain". --------------------------------------- > > H: "Hardness is a rupa. Feeling a rupa as painful is vedana. Painfulness > is an abstraction - a concept." > > L: What does "feeling a rupa as painful" mean? Surely it means "this > particular rupa" = painful feeling. Rupa = vedana. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Not to me. Feeling as painful is an affective, evaluative operation. It is a mental function. It is not rupa in the slightest. ---------------------------------------- Or "this particular> > rupa" and pain are one. One could call this an abstraction or a > formation or a synthesis, but either way this is what it means for one > dhamma to experience or know or cognize another dhamma. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Rupas are dhammas that are not operations. Namas are operations. Operations can operate on rupas and on namas. Rupas operate on nothing, but, being phenomena, that can serve as conditions for other phenomena. ---------------------------------------- > > Larry > =================== With metta, Howard #66809 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 9:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na nilovg Dear Scott, I would love to, but I am such going! Keep it for when I am back. Nina. Op 5-jan-2007, om 22:13 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > What exactly is naama? What exactly is ruupa? Ruupa doesn't > experience anything. Naama is experience. Or something. Anyone want > to discuss this? #66810 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 10:43 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 buddhatrue Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear James, > > Thanks, I like the Sutta; but isn't this, as a response to the > specifics of my question, a bit tautological? That's okay. Yeah, it is okay. Normally, your redundant questions would be extremely vexing to me, but since increased patience is my New Year's resolution, I'm cool. ;-)) Additionally, I can understand your confusion because you have a synthesis approach to the dhamma texts. As I can see in your other posts, you value the suttas, commentaries, sub-commentaries, Abhidhamma, and KS's viewpoint- all equally. Unfortunately, all of these sources don't agree when it comes to the subject of Right Concentration. The suttas define Right Concentration as the four rupa jhanas; the commentaries and sub- commentaries define Right Concentration as the four rupa jhanas plus `momentary concentration' and `access concentration'; KS defines Right Concentration as the concentration inherent in every citta. Hmmmm….what is one to believe?? Personally, I have no confusions over this matter because the Buddha is my refuge so, to me, what he taught is the truth. As the Buddha defines Right Concentration ("A Analysis of the Path Sutta"): "And what, monks, is right concentration? (i) There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. (ii) With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. (iii) With the fading of rapture, he remains in equanimity, mindful & alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' (iv) With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This, monks, is called right concentration." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html So the Buddha starts with, "And what, monks, is right concentration?" and he ends with "This, monks, is called right concentration." I don't think you can get anymore direct than that! The four rupa jhanas are right concentration! Scott: The 'right concentration' referred to is what I am trying to pin down. James: Well, I don't think you should have anymore difficulty pinning it down now. If the Buddha is your teacher and refuge, you have the answer. Right Concentration refers to the four rupa jhanas. If you don't like this sutta enough and you want a sutta which show a much more direct link between jhana and panna, here is another sutta for you: There's no jhana for one with no discernment, no discernment for one with no jhana. But one with both jhana & discernment: he's on the verge of Unbinding. ************** And here's another one: "Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. And he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the Blessed One as released through discernment. ************** And here's another one: On one occasion Ven. Ananda was staying in Kosambi, at Ghosita's monastery. There he addressed the monks, "Friends!" "Yes, friend," the monks responded. Ven. Ananda said: "Friends, whoever — monk or nun — declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of four paths. Which four? "There is the case where a monk has developed insight preceded by tranquillity. …. "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity preceded by insight. … "Then there is the case where a monk has developed tranquillity in tandem with insight. … "Then there is the case where a monk's mind has its restlessness concerning the Dhamma [Comm: the corruptions of insight] well under control. There comes a time when his mind grows steady inwardly, settles down, and becomes unified & concentrated. … "Whoever — monk or nun — declares the attainment of arahantship in my presence, they all do it by means of one or another of these four paths." (Note: Insight AND tranquillity [jhana] are required in all four types of arahants. There is no such thing as "dry insight arahants".) *************** And here's another one: The enlightened, constantly absorbed in jhana, persevering, firm in their effort: they touch Unbinding, the unexcelled rest from the yoke. ****************** And here's another one: They, the enlightened, intent on jhana, delighting in stilling & renunciation, self-awakened & mindful: even the devas view them with envy. And here's another one: Better than a hundred years lived without virtue, uncentered, is one day lived by a virtuous person absorbed in jhana. And better than a hundred years lived undiscerning, uncentered, is one day lived by a discerning person absorbed in jhana. Okay, I think you should get the idea by now. I could be at this all day! ;-)) Metta, James #66811 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 11:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > P.S. I'm not very interested at the moment in engaging in lengthy discussions > of what meditation may or may not be. Instead, I'd rather do a bit more of > it! ;-) James: Amen to that!! ;-)) It happens that I have been more regular in my meditation practice > recently, and I have benefited from it, it seems. Last night I had a "mystical" > dream of such majesty and glorious beauty that it caused me to sob from joy > (while dreaming and upon awakening). It was like a "gift". Not the usual sort of > experience for me, but very, very welcome. James: This is fantastic news! I'm so happy for you! Most people in the west poo-poo such things as being unimportant (and consequently should be ignored), but I disagree. Such a dream could be a very auspicious sign that you are on the right track. The Buddha had such dreams before his enlightenment: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.196.than.html Your sharing of this inspires me to practice more (and post less). Thank you for sharing. Metta, James #66812 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 11:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na buddhatrue Hi Howard (and Scott), > music". So, in short, it is sounds you are hearing, but music you are cognizinng. > That's the full story as I see it. Yeah, I agree. Also, is it just me or is this so obvious that it practically seems like a non-issue?? Metta, James #66813 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 11:46 pm Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 625- Wholesome Deeds(v) 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;-) =============================================== Wholesome Deeds contd One of the “Perfections”, the wholesome qualities the Bodhisatta developed, was determination, the resolution to continue developing understanding in whatever situation he was. We read in the commentary to the “Cariyåpiìaka” (the Paramatthadípaní VII)(1): * "… For when the Great Man, straining and striving for the fulfilment of the requisites of enlightenment, encounters troubles difficult to endure, depriving him of happiness and his means of support, or when he encounters injuries imposed by beings and formations— difficult to overcome, violent, sapping the vitality— then, since he has surrendered himself to the Buddhas, he reflects: “I have relinquished my very self to the Buddhas. Whatever comes, let it come.” For this reason he does not waver, does not quake, does not undergo the least vacillation, but remains absolutely unshaken in his determination to undertake the good." * When we are in very unpleasant circumstances we find it difficult to be mindful of realities. We lack determination. We want to control the experience of sense objects, we want objects to be pleasant. We forget that the experience of sense objects such as seeing or hearing is vipåka, conditioned by kamma. The realities which appear have been conditioned already and if we learn to be mindful of them there will be less inclination to try to exert control over them. Then there will be more patience and more determination to continue developing right understanding in whatever situation. *** 1) Translated by Ven. Bodhi, included in The All-embracing Net of Views, p.323. ***** Wholesome Deeds to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #66814 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 2:03 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi Scott, We are seeing this from slightly different angles, but I think we agree: ------------------ S: > I ponder this: Is that music I'm listening to or sound? It 'sounds' like music. Must be naama then. But its sound. So why does it 'sound' like something? Why am I digging it? Naama. No. Ruupa. Never mind, just turn it up. ------------------ At first when I read, "Must be naama then," I wondered why music, a concept, was being referred to as naama, a paramattha dhamma. But I think it was because music - or the sound of music - is thinking, and thinking is [a function of] naama. Then you point out that, actually, only sound is being heard. In between moments of 'sound being heard' there are moments of 'music being conceptualised' (at the mind door). There are also moments in which sound is directly experienced and reacted to by mind-door consciousness. However, the uninstructed worldling has no understanding of namas and rupas. So, even though a rupa is directly experienced and reacted to by mind-door consciousness there is no acknowledgement of it as such. And that's why you dig it (feel attachment for it). You don't directly understand it as rupa (which is mere dukkha). ----------- KH: > >BTW, thanks for quietly covering up the pedant's embarrassing typo. :-)" S: > Ah couldna hel' mesel' laddy :( Sincerely, Scott. ------------ It has taken a while, but I think I finally get it . . . Scot (Scott)! :-) Ken H #66815 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 12:37 am Subject: Poya Uposatha Observance Day Calendar 2007. bhikkhu5 Poya-Uposatha-Observance Day Calendar in 2007: + 31 Full Moon Poya Days: Uposatha 8 Rule Observance! January 3 Duruthu : Buddha first visit to Ceylon at Mahiyangana Stupa, which contains hair & collarbone relics. February 1 Navam: At this day Buddha ordains S Ä? riputta and Mah Ä? Moggall Ä? na and later decides his ParinibbÄ?na . March 3 Medin: Buddha visits parents home after Enlightenment, and ordains his son R Ä? hula , & half brother Nanda . April 2 Bak: Buddha's second visit to Ceylon, at Nagadipa close to Jaffna in the 5th year after his Enlightenment. May 2 Wesak : This Sacred Day celebrates the birth, Enlightenment , and passing away of the Blessed Buddha Gotama . May 31 Adhi Poson: Extra Poson in 2007 due to two fullmoons. June 30 Poson : Emperor Asoka 's son, the Arahat Mahinda , introduces Buddhism to Ceylon in the 3rd century B.C. July 29 Esala : Buddha preaches 1st Sermon: Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta & performs the famous Twin Miracle. August 28 Nikini : Bhikkhus who did not enter the yearly rains retreat (Vassa) at Esala Poya, are allowed to enter now. September 26 Binara : Start of Bhikkhuni Sangha by the ordination of Queen MahÄ?pajÄ?patÄ«; the Buddha's foster-mother. October 25 Vap : Marks the end of the Bhikkhu's three months rains retreat and begins Kathina month of giving robes. November 24 Il : Celebrates the Buddha Gotama 's explanation of the next Buddha Metteyya & Breathing Meditation . December 24 Unduwap : Arrival in Ceylon of a sapling of the sacred Bodhi-tree, brought by Arahat Theri Sanghamitta . Keeping the 8 vows every 14th day is the Way to transition to a Divine Existence right at Death moment! http://What-Buddha-Said.net/various/Poya.Uposatha.Observance_days.2007.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #66816 From: "Leo" Date: Fri Jan 5, 2007 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what can be the right balance leoaive Hi I remember very good. It was a hill in Eastern Sri Lanka with Buddha's footstep. It was not any kind of peak and it was not in South West. Maybe I will see it again somewhere, then I will post it. Leo #66817 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 5:32 am Subject: Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 scottduncan2 Dear James, Thanks for the suttas, all good ones. J: "...since increased patience is my New Year's resolution, I'm cool. ;-))" Yeah, man. J: "Additionally, I can understand your confusion because you have a synthesis approach to the dhamma texts. As I can see in your other posts, you value the suttas, commentaries, sub-commentaries, Abhidhamma, and KS's viewpoint- all equally. Unfortunately, all of these sources don't agree when it comes to the subject of Right Concentration. The suttas define Right Concentration as the four rupa jhanas; the commentaries and sub-commentaries define Right Concentration as the four rupa jhanas plus `momentary concentration' and `access concentration'; KS defines Right Concentration as the concentration inherent in every citta..." You make a good point here, and of course you're right: this is how I see it. I think I mentioned this sort of 'deeper' area of disagreement to Swee Boon earlier in the thread. My sense is that this sort of underlies the surface discussion, hence it goes nowhere. Since the Abhidhamma exegesis clarifies that concentration, as everything, is a momentary dhamma having its own characteristics, and since I buy that the Abhidhamma is one basket in the ti-pitaka, then this colours the way I see things. KS doesn't differ from the Abhidhamma take when she agrees and notes that concentration, as a mental factor, is inherent in every citta. I consider it all to be Dhamma. It has to be 'in the suttas' and - although we see it differently - it is. Remember I think I've been clear in stating that I know jhaana as a meditative absorption is real. And this whole aspect, I think, could be a separate thread in and of itself (The Sutta-Only Dilemna) but do we have the patience? (Well, you do now due to the resolution.) Me, I wonder about the 'sutta-only' stance. (Gird up your new-found patience for here comes another string of rhetorical - rhetorical I say - questions). Did I mention that there will follow, very soon, a string of annoying questions? James? First of all, how accurate are the translations? What are the original words for terms rendered in English? What is the context, both for the word in the structure of a phrase and for the sutta in terms of its audience? What do these words mean? Who defines that? The reader? The translator? Or have they already been defined? Are we reading a sutta or a translator's opinion? Are we reading a sutta and giving our own opinion? Does the one who reads only suttas, then, become the one who decides what they mean? If so, how credible is that? Does this not open one up to bias based on one's limited understanding? Does one favour modern commentary over ancient commentary? Why? What gives the commentator of this era any credibility over and above the ancient commentator? Why don't I stop now? Anyway, yeah that's how I see it. You've got me pegged. I think one is missing the boat if one doesn't consider the whole picture when it comes to jhaana. One has to know what it is. One has to be able to discern it when it is there. If one can't even tell the difference between naama and ruupa, how then jhaana - that is all of the finer points of jhaana practise such as noticing, for example, whether its the mental factor of vitakka or vicaara that is arising or being abandoned? Whoa. This must stop. I see you've joined in on the other thread so see you there. Sincerely, Scott. #66818 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 12:46 am Subject: Right Concentration Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Scott) - In a message dated 1/6/07 1:44:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > As the Buddha defines Right Concentration ("A > Analysis of the Path Sutta"): > > "And what, monks, is right concentration? (i) There is the case where > a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful > (mental) qualities — enters &remains in the first jhana: rapture & > pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & > evaluation. (ii) With the stilling of directed thought &evaluation, > he enters &remains in the second jhana: rapture &pleasure born of > concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & > evaluation — internal assurance. (iii) With the fading of rapture, he > remains in equanimity, mindful &alert, and physically sensitive of > pleasure. He enters &remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble > Ones declare, 'Equanimous &mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' > (iv) With the abandoning of pleasure &pain — as with the earlier > disappearance of elation &distress — he enters &remains in the > fourth jhana: purity of equanimity &mindfulness, neither pleasure > nor pain. This, monks, is called right concentration." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html > > So the Buddha starts with, "And what, monks, is right concentration?" > and he ends with "This, monks, is called right concentration." I > don't think you can get anymore direct than that! The four rupa > jhanas are right concentration! > > ========================= I agree with you, James. This is the most definite, clear cut, perfectly delineated specification of 'samma samadhi' the Buddha gave. There is no ambiguity there at all. A separate issue, I think, is the matter of exactly what 'samadhi' means. Ven Vimalaramsi has said the term pretty much began with the Buddha. Now, the venerable claims that the word means "tranquil wisdom", with 'sama' referring to tranquillity and 'dhi' pertaining to wisdom. Now, he's correct as far as I can see with regard to 'sama'. As far as 'dhi', I'm not sure. I have found "dhimantu : [adj.] wise" and also "dhira : [adj.] wise; the wise" in the PTS dictionary, which suggests the possibility of 'dhi' referring to wisdom. On the other hand, it occurs to me that 'dhi' may be close to 'dhr' and may be the root of 'dhamma' and 'dhatu', and may signify "holding" or "sustaining", in which case 'samadhi' might mean "sustaining of tranquillity". But either reading, "tranquil wisdom" or "sustaining of tranquillity" leans more towards the sense of "samatha" than one-pointedness. With metta, Howard #66819 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 5:52 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Interested Mental-Developers' > > I would like to learn more about the first stage of insight. Kh. > Sujin notes (A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas, p. 325): >... Hallo Scott, all For meditators more useful is the paragraph about nama-rupa- pariccheda-ñana of "The Progress of Insight; A Modern Treatise on Buddhist Satipatthana Meditation" by the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw (In: www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/progress.html) Below BTW I don't agree with Ken's suggestion "Nama experiences an object," or, "Nama is the experiencing of an object." " Joop: To me nama=the experience Saying 'nama experiences an object' is a kind of dualism: there is (1) nama and there is (2) the object. And that is not correct (and this discussion is not new) Metta Joop 1. Analytical Knowledge of Body and Mind Endowed with purification of mind and continuing the practice of noticing, the meditator now comes to know body-and-mind analytically as follows: "The rising (upward movement) of the abdomen is one process; the falling (downward movement) is another; sitting is another; touching is another," etc. In this way he comes to know how to distinguish each bodily process that he notices. Further he realizes: "The knowing of the rising movement is one process; the knowing of the falling movement is another." In that way he comes to know each mental act of noticing. Further he realizes: "The rising movement is one process; the knowing of it is another. The falling movement is one process; the knowing of it is another," and so on. In that way he comes to know how to distinguish each bodily and mental process. All that knowledge comes from simply noticing, not from reasoning; that is to say, it is knowledge by direct experience arrived at by the mere act of noticing, and not knowledge derived from ratiocination. Thus, when seeing a visual object with the eye, the meditator knows how to distinguish each single factor involved: "The eye is one; the visual object is another; seeing is another, and knowing it is another." The same manner applies in the case of the other sense functions. For at the time, in each act of noticing, the meditator comes to know analytically the mental processes of noticing, and those of thinking and reflecting, knowing them for himself through direct knowledge by his experience thus: "They have the nature of going towards an object, inclining towards an object, cognizing an object." On the other hand, he knows analytically the material processes going on in the whole body -- which are here described as "the rising and falling movements of the abdomen," "sitting," etc., knowing them thus: "These have not the nature of going or inclining towards an object, or of cognizing an object." Such knowing is called "knowing matter (or the body) by its manifestation of non-determining." For it is said in the Mula-Tika, the "Principal Sub-commentary" to the Abhidhamma Vibhanga: "In other words, 'non-determining' (as in the passage quoted) should be understood as having no faculty of cognizing an object." Such knowledge as this, which analyzes in each act of noticing both the bodily process noticed and the mental process engaged in noticing, according to their true essential nature, is called "analytical knowledge of body and mind." When that knowledge has come to maturity, the meditator understands thus: "At the moment of breathing in, there is just the rising movement of the abdomen and the knowing of the movement, but there is no self besides; at the moment of breathing out, there is just the falling movement of the abdomen and the knowing of the movement, but there is no self besides." Understanding it thus in these and other instances, he knows and sees for himself by noticing thus: "There is here only that pair: a material process as object, and a mental process of knowing it; and it is to that pair alone that the terms of conventional usage 'being,' 'person' or 'soul,' 'I' or 'another,' 'man' or 'woman' refer. But apart from that dual process there is no separate person or being, I or another, man or woman." #66820 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 12:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) upasaka_howard Hi, James - > > Your sharing of this inspires me to practice more (and post less). > Thank you for sharing. > ======================= Ahhh. Thank you, James! So nice to hear warm encouragement from a good friend. :-) With metta, Howard P.S. The experience has served to urge me on to an increase in my meditation practice (still not 24/7, though, Sarah! LOL!), and your words, James, are a further encouragement to me. #66821 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 12:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, James - > >music". So, in short, it is sounds you are hearing, but music you > are cognizing. > >That's the full story as I see it. > > Yeah, I agree. Also, is it just me or is this so obvious that it > practically seems like a non-issue?? > ========================= It seems like plain truth to me as well. With metta, Howard #66822 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 6:15 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Ken, Thanks for your reply: K: "At first when I read, "Must be naama then," I wondered why music, a concept, was being referred to as naama, a paramattha dhamma. But I think it was because music - or the sound of music - is thinking, and thinking is [a function of] naama." That's what I was getting at: Proving that I can't tell the difference between naama and ruupa when it comes to the here-and-now experience. I figure if my experience is 'music' - that is, a whole, something hanging together - then I'm experiencing the product of synthetic thought or, in other words, naama. It happens so quickly. I'm not experiencing sound because it is 'music'. Howard and Nina are having this discussion in relation to visible object. I was listening to something the other day, sort of electronic stuff, and the artist had sampled speech and then broke it down, presenting very short phonetic 'speech moments' and this was more 'sound-like' except even there I was aware of 'voice' (I knew these were phonemes) versus just sound and that too was naama. K: "Then you point out that, actually, only sound is being heard. In between moments of 'sound being heard' there are moments of 'music being conceptualised' (at the mind door). There are also moments in which sound is directly experienced and reacted to by mind-door consciousness. However, the uninstructed worldling has no understanding of namas and rupas. So, even though a rupa is directly experienced and reacted to by mind-door consciousness there is no acknowledgement of it as such." Yeah, I don't think I even get close to 'moments in which sound is directly experienced and reacted to by mind-door consciousness'. Again, that is what I was getting at. K: "It has taken a while, but I think I finally get it . . . Scot (Scott)! :-)" Yeah! Sincerely, Scott. #66823 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 1:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Joop - In a message dated 1/6/07 9:00:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, jwromeijn@... writes: > BTW > I don't agree with Ken's suggestion "Nama experiences an > object," or, "Nama is the experiencing of an object." " > > Joop: To me nama=the experience > Saying 'nama experiences an object' is a kind of dualism: there is > (1) nama and there is (2) the object. And that is not correct (and > this discussion is not new) > ======================= There is a difference between non-dualism and monism. Your position strikes me as more of a monism than a non-dualism. I understand knowing/known non-dualism as the inseparability of knowing from known, their interdependency, with one never occurring without the other, but still allowing for the distinguishing between them. To me, the knowing/known non-dual relationship is analogous to inside and outside of a container. There is never one without the other; so they are "not-two" in the sense of not being two separate, independent, self-existent things, nor are they one, because inside and outside are NOT the same. With metta, Howard #66824 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 11:06 am Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Sorry for the delay, thanks for: H: "My perspective: It is sounds you are hearing. The sounds, occuring in a sequence, are related to each other in a variety of complex ways, and the pattern of interelationships is apprehended by sankharic fabrication (specifically conceptual processing) and viewed as a unit that is thought of as "some music". So, in short, it is sounds you are hearing, but music you are cognizing. That's the full story as I see it." Okay, sound is ruupa, 'music' naama. But how are 'sounds occuring in a sequence' related to each other (other than, say, by contiguity condition and conascence condition as far as the succession of ruupas and the kalaapas)? I would say that the 'pattern' might be a function of naama, and not a function of ruupa at all. Otherwise there might be 'music' ruupa, which, I think, there is not. You are probable saying just this. And without sati and pa~n~na actually arising and performing their separate functions and 'knowing' that this is not 'music' but just sadda-ruupa arising and falling away, I'm thinking that that is not the full story. That is, given we have got it straight, its just a sound intellectual foundation, not yet naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na. As I understand it, this sort of coming to an intellectual understanding is a basic level of pa~n~na and can be condition for deeper penetration of objects. Sincerely, Scott. #66825 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 7:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 1/6/07 2:10:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > > Okay, sound is ruupa, 'music' naama. -------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, not quite. Sounds are rupas, and music is pa~n~natti. Music is not baseless or ungrounded concept, but it IS concept - it is not nama. It is neither nama nor rupa, but it is a mental construct reflecting actual relations holding among actual rupas. What is true with regard to music and namas is that particular namas, namely sankharic operations (along, of course, with the actual complex of relations holding among the sounds that "comprise the music"), are responsible for our perception of the structured aggregate of sounds as a unity. It is because of those relations that the "music" percept (or concept) isn't baseless. ------------------------------------- > > But how are 'sounds occuring in a sequence' related to each other > (other than, say, by contiguity condition and conascence condition as > far as the succession of ruupas and the kalaapas)? I would say that > the 'pattern' might be a function of naama, and not a function of > ruupa at all. Otherwise there might be 'music' ruupa, which, I think, > there is not. You are probable saying just this. ------------------------------------ Howard: Musical relations are not imagined. If they were, there would be no objective basis for distinguishing Chopin's nocturnes from trash-can banging. There are relations holding among rupas that are in addition to relations among cittas and cetasikas. If there were not, physics and engineering wouldn't work at all. The Buddha didn't deal with them, because they are irrelevant to the matter of cessation of dukkha, as, of course, are some of the conversations on Buddhist email lists as well! ;-)) ------------------------------------- > > And without sati and pa~n~na actually arising and performing their > separate functions and 'knowing' that this is not 'music' but just > sadda-ruupa arising and falling away, I'm thinking that that is not > the full story. ------------------------------------- Howard: And it is also important to know that music is not utter illusion either. Don't despise aggregations - just know their nature. -------------------------------------- > > That is, given we have got it straight, its just a sound intellectual > foundation, not yet naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na. As I understand > it, this sort of coming to an intellectual understanding is a basic > level of pa~n~na and can be condition for deeper penetration of objects. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > ====================== With metta, Howard #66826 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 12:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na jwromeijn Hallo Howard, (Ken, Scott, all) The problem is, we used an abstract term: "nama" Better I could have used one concrete nama, for example "eye- consciousness" Then it is clear that one can better not say: 'eye-consciousness experiences an object' (Of course one can say: 'eye-consciousness is the experiencing (by eye) of an object' but that gives no information, it's a kind of definition). For the rest: it was not my intention to write about non-duality. Your reaction made me read again the chapter about it in the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra: there are many kinds of non-duality. And there are, I think, many kinds of duality, not only the one you mentioned Metta Joop #66827 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 8:55 am Subject: Shadows Shadows Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi again, Scott - In a message dated 1/6/07 3:24:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > Music is > not baseless or ungrounded concept, but it IS concept - it is not nama. It > is > neither nama nor rupa, but it is a mental construct reflecting actual > relations > holding among actual rupas. > ==================== Let me clarify a bit further: When I speak of a "mental construct", it sounds like a mind-door paramattha dhamma has been created by sankharic operations. Actually, I don't think that is quite the case. What I think is the case is that semiconscious or subliminal mental processes, sankharic operations, actually, *project* the seeming of a self-existent phenomenon, namely the "heard" music. The "cognizing of the music" is actually nothing other than the entire sankharic process, it seems to me. The so-called "music" has an ungraspability to it that goes even beyond that of the ungraspability of the sounds of which it is "comprised". If dhammas are empty, shadowy, evanescent willothewisps, then music and other pa~n~natti are mere shadows of shadows! ;-) Final disclaimer: But even shadows are not nothing at all! ;-) With metta, Howard #66828 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 8:57 am Subject: Re: Shadows Shadows Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi Scott and all - The subject line was intended to read "Shadows of Shadows". Should anyone reply, please be so kind as to insert the "of" in the subject line. ;-) With metta, Howard #66829 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 4:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana lbidd2 Hi Howard, L: "Is there any negative feeling not experienced in the body?" Howard: "I think there is, but it is not called "pain"." -------------------------------- L: What is it called? --------------------------------- L: "What does "feeling a rupa as painful" mean? Surely it means "this particular rupa" = painful feeling. Rupa = vedana." Howard: "Not to me. Feeling as painful is an affective, evaluative operation. It is a mental function. It is not rupa in the slightest." ---------------------------------- L: I was trying to show that the notion of one dhamma experiencing another dhamma is incoherent. Hardness isn't painful; hardness conditions painful feeling. But this is only evident with panna. Without panna there is a 'compact whole': painful hardness. Larry #66830 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 6:40 pm Subject: Re: Letters on Vipassana V, 4 nidive Hi Nina, > With 'already' I mean, it has already arisen together with > sammaditthi and no need to try to have it. It is there already > because of its own conditions. This is important: because of its > own conditions. If we don't grasp this we take it for my important > concentration which I should try to increase. > We continue after Bgk if you like. This is in direct contradiction with AN 4.94 Samadhi Sutta where the Buddha distinguishes (a) 'internal tranquillity of awareness' and (b) 'insight into phenomena through heightened discernment'. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.094.than.html One with (a) need not have (b) and one with (b) need not have (a). Therefore, your yoking together of sammaditthi with concentration by way of 'conditioning' is not in line with the sutta. Swee Boon #66831 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 6:44 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi Scott, --------------- KH: > > thinking is [a function of] naama. S: > That's what I was getting at: Proving that I can't tell the difference between naama and ruupa when it comes to the here-and-now experience. -------------------- Yes, that is a good way of putting it for the purposes of this thread. However, it could lead to confusion in other contexts. We must remember that nama experiences its object; it does not experience itself. Even when the object is an illusion (pannatti), object-condition operates in the same way it would if the object were a nama or rupa. And so the object of nama is the illusion that it and/or other namas have created. The individual namas that create the illusion (of music, e.g.) can themselves become objects of experience. However, that will happen in subsequent cittas when music is no longer being experienced. ----------------------- S: > I figure if my experience is 'music' - that is, a whole, something hanging together - then I'm experiencing the product of synthetic thought or, in other words, naama. ----------------------- Yes, the product of naama. ---------------------------------- S: > It happens so quickly. I'm not experiencing sound because it is 'music'. Howard and Nina are having this discussion in relation to visible object. ---------------------------------- I'll do a quick revision, if I may. Ear-consciousness hears sound at the ear door. Then, in the same process of cittas, mind-door consciousness experiences (as distinct form 'hears') and reacts to that same sound (still at the ear door). Then there might be subsequent mind-door citta processes in which the sound (audible rupa) that has just fallen away is again experienced and reacted to. And there might be still more mind-door citta processes in which citta creates concepts based on the audible rupas experienced by those, and other, previous cittas. That is when music is experienced. ---------------------------------------------- S: > I was listening to something the other day, sort of electronic stuff, and the artist had sampled speech and then broke it down, presenting very short phonetic 'speech moments' and this was more 'sound-like' except even there I was aware of 'voice' (I knew these were phonemes) versus just sound and that too was naama. ---------------------------------------------- Yes, it was still 'thinking' 'conceptualising' 'pannatti' 'the idea of voice' (or whatever we like to call it) and it was the creation of various namas. Thinking happens so quickly after a dhamma is experienced that it is impossible for anyone to separate them. Only understanding can do that. -------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > . . . the uninstructed worldling has no understanding of namas and rupas. So, even though a rupa is directly experienced and reacted to by mind-door consciousness there is no acknowledgement of it as such." S: > Yeah, I don't think I even get close to 'moments in which sound is directly experienced and reacted to by mind-door consciousness'. ------------------------------------- And it is good to understand that, isn't it? What more could we want? Why would we want to be someone we aren't? Ken H #66832 From: "nidive" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 7:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na nidive Hi Howard, > Sounds are rupas, and music is pa~n~natti. Music is not baseless or > ungrounded concept, but it IS concept - it is not nama. It is > neither nama nor rupa, but it is a mental construct reflecting > actual relations holding among actual rupas. Yes, I agree that music is concept and is neither rupa nor nama. > Musical relations are not imagined. If they were, there would be no > objective basis for distinguishing Chopin's nocturnes from trash- > an banging. There are relations holding among rupas that are in > addition to relations among cittas and cetasikas. If there were > not, physics and engineering wouldn't work at all. Very often, for me, those 'musical relations' tell a story with differing moods. I think music is actually all about feelings. Which reminds me of a sutta where the Buddha said 'all things converge on feelings'. Swee Boon #66833 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 8:27 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Ken, Thanks for the reply. K: "...We must remember that nama experiences its object; it does not experience itself. Even when the object is an illusion (pannatti), object-condition operates in the same way it would if the object were a nama or rupa. And so the object of nama is the illusion that it and/or other namas have created." Right, 'self-reflection' is not an aspect of citta, nor any naama I guess. Pa~n~natti have reality; they are simply not paramattha dhammaa. K: "The individual namas that create the illusion (of music, e.g.) can themselves become objects of experience. However, that will happen in subsequent cittas when music is no longer being experienced." Okay, the lobha, the ekagattaa, the sukha, the piiti, etc. - all these factors can be known. And these are naama. But this is a much more advanced stage of vipassanaa-~naa.na isn't it? K: "I'll do a quick revision, if I may. Ear-consciousness hears sound at the ear door. Then, in the same process of cittas, mind-door consciousness experiences (as distinct form 'hears') and reacts to that same sound (still at the ear door). Then there might be subsequent mind-door citta processes in which the sound (audible rupa) that has just fallen away is again experienced and reacted to. And there might be still more mind-door citta processes in which citta creates concepts based on the audible rupas experienced by those, and other, previous cittas. That is when music is experienced." Its not 'music' until many, many moments of consciousness have passed. I think, at the moment ear-consciousness cognises a sound, it is just one sound. Not 'music' and never really music. K: "And it is good to understand that, isn't it? What more could we want? Why would we want to be someone we aren't?" Yeah. Well, ignorance for me, I guess. Talk to you more about this soon. I've gotten a bit busy today. Sincerely, Scott. #66834 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 9:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks, I think I've got it. [S: "Okay, sound is ruupa, 'music' naama." Howard: "Mmm, not quite. Sounds are rupas, and music is pa~n~natti. Music is not baseless or ungrounded concept, but it IS concept - it is not nama. It is neither nama nor rupa, but it is a mental construct reflecting actual relations holding among actual rupas."] Sound is ruupa, 'music' pa~n~natti. Howard: "...And it is also important to know that music is not utter illusion either. Don't despise aggregations - just know their nature." I don't quite know what you mean here. I mean, hey man, I love music! Right now I'm listening to the first release by the Plastic Ono Band. Actually, the cd player is shuffling and I've got Endless Wire by 'The Who', Milkman by 'Deerhoof', Return to Cookie Mountain by 'TV On The Radio', and Funeral by 'Arcade Fire'. Who at this stage is capable of despising aggregates? That's the whole problem, as far as I can tell. No detachment. (The concept 'music' *is* illusory, I think. It is sa~n~naavipillaasa - a perversion of perception. 'Music' is still impermanent, unsatisfactory, and non-self - not to mention totally asubha. However, despite all that, I still like it and I still want to learn as much about the difference between naama and ruupa as I can.) Sincerely, Scott. #66835 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 10:59 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 buddhatrue Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > You make a good point here, and of course you're right: this is how I > see it. I think I mentioned this sort of 'deeper' area of > disagreement to Swee Boon earlier in the thread. My sense is that > this sort of underlies the surface discussion, hence it goes nowhere. James: It is difficult for me to know entirely where you are coming from because I have such strong faith in the Buddha that any alternative sources have less importance in my eyes. You want to synthesize the entire Tipitaka, commentaries and all, and believe that that will result in you having Right View. However, I don't have faith in the Tipitaka, I have faith in the Triple Gem (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha). Since the Buddha didn't teach the commentaries, they are less important to me; since the Buddha didn't teach the Abhidhamma, it is less important to me. Scott, as you have previously explained, you have problems with "faith" because of your negative exposure to the Christian religion. I cannot completely empathize with this because I was free to choose my own religion and chose Buddhism (with Taoism) when I was 16-years-old. But, I will be patient and try to reveal this issue to you with reasoning and evidence from the suttas, and not just "push" faith in the Triple Gem on you. > > Since the Abhidhamma exegesis clarifies that concentration, as > everything, is a momentary dhamma having its own characteristics, and > since I buy that the Abhidhamma is one basket in the ti-pitaka, then > this colours the way I see things. James: That's fine, I also agree with this. Concentration is inherent in every citta. However, we are discussing Right Concentration, not just regular concentration. KS doesn't differ from the > Abhidhamma take when she agrees and notes that concentration, as a > mental factor, is inherent in every citta. James: KS doesn't just state that concentration is inherent in every citta, she goes so far as to say that Right Concentration is inherent in every citta. I cannot emphasize strongly enough how this viewpoint goes against the Dhamma! What KS teaches is right concentration, the Buddha specifically taught is WRONG CONCENTRATION!: "It wasn't the case, brahman, that the Blessed One praised mental absorption of every sort, nor did he criticize mental absorption of every sort. And what sort of mental absorption did he not praise? There is the case where a certain person dwells with his awareness overcome by sensual passion, seized with sensual passion. He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from sensual passion once it has arisen. Making that sensual passion the focal point, he absorbs himself with it, besorbs, resorbs, & supersorbs himself with it. "He dwells with his awareness overcome by ill will... "He dwells with his awareness overcome by sloth & drowsiness... "He dwells with his awareness overcome by restlessness & anxiety... "He dwells with his awareness overcome by uncertainty, seized with uncertainty. He does not discern the escape, as it actually is present, from uncertainty once it has arisen. Making that uncertainty the focal point, he absorbs himself with it, besorbs, resorbs, & supersorbs himself with it. This is the sort of mental absorption that the Blessed One did not praise. "And what sort of mental absorption did he praise? There is the case where a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana….. This is the sort of mental absorption that the Blessed One praised. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.108.than.html#concen I consider it all to be > Dhamma. James: Well, it is not all Dhamma. The concentration inherent in every citta is not Right Concentration. Only the concentration of jhana is Right Concentration. It has to be 'in the suttas' and - although we see it > differently - it is. James: No, it isn't in the suttas! I have just given you a sutta which specifically states that not all concentration is Right Concentration, only jhana is Right Concentration. Remember I think I've been clear in stating that > I know jhaana as a meditative absorption is real. James: Yes, I know that you accept that. However, what you haven't accepted is that jhana is Right Concentration. You still see jhana as some sort of mental perk- something nice to have but not necessary. Again, again, again ;-)), jhana is necessary for anyone wishing liberation. > > And this whole aspect, I think, could be a separate thread in and of > itself (The Sutta-Only Dilemna) but do we have the patience? (Well, > you do now due to the resolution.) Me, I wonder about the > 'sutta-only' stance. (Gird up your new-found patience for here comes > another string of rhetorical - rhetorical I say - questions). Did I > mention that there will follow, very soon, a string of annoying > questions? James? James: LOL! This really made me laugh out loud! > > First of all, how accurate are the translations? What are the > original words for terms rendered in English? What is the context, > both for the word in the structure of a phrase and for the sutta in > terms of its audience? What do these words mean? Who defines that? > The reader? The translator? Or have they already been defined? Are > we reading a sutta or a translator's opinion? Are we reading a sutta > and giving our own opinion? Does the one who reads only suttas, then, > become the one who decides what they mean? If so, how credible is > that? Does this not open one up to bias based on one's limited > understanding? Does one favour modern commentary over ancient > commentary? Why? What gives the commentator of this era any > credibility over and above the ancient commentator? Why don't I stop now? James: ;-)) Thank goodness these are rhetorical questions...I couldn't even begin to answer them. But perhaps you might like to read this article by Thanissaro Bhikkhu on the subject of the credibility of the suttas "'When you know for yourselves..' The Authenticity of the Pali Suttas": http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/authenticity.htm l > > Anyway, yeah that's how I see it. You've got me pegged. I think one > is missing the boat if one doesn't consider the whole picture when it > comes to jhaana. James: Yeah. And Scott, you are definitely missing the boat. ;-)) One has to know what it is. One has to be able to > discern it when it is there. If one can't even tell the difference > between naama and ruupa, how then jhaana - that is all of the finer > points of jhaana practise such as noticing, for example, whether its > the mental factor of vitakka or vicaara that is arising or being > abandoned? James: I didn't say that jhana was easy, it just say that it is necessary. I, myself, am still trying to work out the finer points of jhana (And Scott, it's obvious you can tell the difference between nama and rupa...it's time to move on ;-)) > > Whoa. This must stop. I see you've joined in on the other thread so > see you there. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > Metta, James #66836 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Jan 6, 2007 11:35 pm Subject: Right Concentration Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 buddhatrue Hi Howard (and Scott), James: As I wrote to you before, Ven Vimalaramsi has a few weird ideas about the Dhamma which I don't agree with- that is why I quit his group. But I wish him luck with his temple and I wouldn't want to deprive him of supporters and requisites. "Tranquil Wisdom" is a misnomer. Really, what he is teaching is the exact thing that he criticizes- vipassana meditation. Just because he puts more emphasis on tranquillity, that doesn't make it samatha meditation. However, I can't really fault him too badly (like I can Goenka) because he bases most of his meditation teaching on the Anupada Sutta. I don't believe that sutta is authentic (and you already know my many reasons why) so it should come as no surprise to you, Howard, why I am not a big fan of Ven. Vimalaramsi ;-)). But either reading, "tranquil wisdom" or > "sustaining of tranquillity" leans more towards the sense of "samatha" than > one-pointedness. James: I agree with you that "one-pointedness" gives the wrong impression. It makes samadhi sound like making the mind focus on one single rupa continuously- which is not beneficial to do as it will result in a `black out' type of trance. Samadhi is not trapping the mind on an object like a monkey in a small cage, and it's also not letting the monkey swing all over the place- it is the middle ground between these two, I believe. As long as the mind stays within the body so that it becomes "Quite secluded from sense pleasures, secluded from unwholesome states of mind," samadhi will arise. Metta, James #66837 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 12:24 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi Howard and Scott, I am interested to know more about the suggested "reality" of certain concepts. Scott mentioned to me; "Pa~n~natti have reality; they are simply not paramattha dhammaa," and Howard wrote: "Music is not baseless or ungrounded concept, it is a mental construct reflecting actual relations holding among actual rupas." I'm not so sure. I think pannatti is pannatti (stories are just stories). One example of a story is, "George Washington chopped down the cherry tree." Another is, "George Washington did not chop down the cherry tree." I think the Abhidhamma is telling us the two are equally illusory. ---------- Howard > > ...And it is also important to know that music is not utter illusion either. Don't despise aggregations - just know their nature. Scott replied: > I don't quite know what you mean here. I mean, hey man, I love music! Who at this stage is capable of despising aggregates? That's the whole problem, as far as I can tell. No detachment. ----------- It's getting complicated! I think Howard is saying 'Don't be dismissive of useful concepts," while Scott is saying 'Concepts should not be clung to.' I am sure Howard would agree with Scott and vice versa, but I am interested in the "relative reality" that is being ascribed to some concepts: ------------------- <. . .> Scott: > 'Music' is still impermanent, unsatisfactory, and non-self - not to mention totally asubha. ------------------- Hmmm, I think I know what you mean, Scott, but that is a very loose way of putting it, isn't it? The dhammas that we associate with music are anicca, dukkha and anatta. But music, being a mere concept, does not possess any of those characteristics. It is asabhava. In the same way, "George Washington did/did-not chop down the cherry tree" is asabhava. It is just a story. Ken H PS: Scott, please don't worry about dropping out of conversations while you attend to other matters. I think some DSG members do take offence if they are not answered promptly, but don't let that bother you. Take a tip from Jon, who regularly keeps us waiting a week or more. :-) #66838 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 12:30 am Subject: Faith Summary! bhikkhu5 Friends: Faith is the Seed, the Initiator, the Origin of the Beginning. Faith is the Hand that takes up all the advantageous states. Faith is the Wealth above all, since it brings real Happiness. Faith is the Jump, since it enables beings to cross the flood. Faith is the Purifier, since it clears contaminating defilements. For further details please see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_Buddha_on_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Going_Forth_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Outstanding_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Unwavering_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Analysis_of_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Power_of_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Highest_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Leaping_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Fruitful_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Mutual_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Dual_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Fine_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Rich_Faith.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Lay_Faith.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #66839 From: connie Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 4:58 am Subject: Meditation (surge nichiconn sd: She gets around, man. Scholar and bohemian. Got the whole crew going have you? And I can't wait until I get my own fifth nikaaya. Love the risky reading. Any more for us? Dig the sisters as well. Sincerely Scott connie: gotta love her, don'cha? the traitor. how does it happen that one walks away? o, mourning. now and then. yea, tho i walk, with abundant daily bread: the form of colour, the form of sound, the form captured in the nasal caves, etc., yet i find "i can't get no satisfaction". my mother's new year's calligraphy: may we purify our minds limit our desires learn to be content feel free to experience the quiet unassuming joys of life and learn to abandon all attachment formed in the mind #66840 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 12:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/6/07 10:22:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@... writes: > Very often, for me, those 'musical relations' tell a story with > differing moods. I think music is actually all about feelings. ------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, it sure does affect our feelings & emotions. I've wondered from time to time, from the scientific perspective, why this is so? It is interesting in terms of how & why that developed in animals & humans. I've never read any hypotheses in that regard. ---------------------------------- > > Which reminds me of a sutta where the Buddha said 'all things > converge on feelings'. > ------------------------------- Howard: Yes. I suppose that relates to the primary Dhammic matter of dukkha - with contact conditioning feeling, feeling conditioning recognition, and that, afflicted by ignorance, leading to (conceptual and emotional) papa~nca and dukkha. ================= With metta, Howard #66841 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 5:46 am Subject: Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 scottduncan2 Dear James, Thanks for your reply. James: "It is difficult for me to know entirely where you are coming from because I have such strong faith in the Buddha...I have faith in the Triple Gem (Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha)." I appreciate your expression of faith! James: "Thank goodness these are rhetorical questions...I couldn't even begin to answer them. But perhaps you might like to read this article by Thanissaro Bhikkhu..." Thank you, James. I just read the article (the link didn't quite work for some reason but the essay was easy to find). Truth be told I'm a bit leery of Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and as such can't help but read him at a bit of a distance. Sorry about that. James: "(And Scott, it's obvious you can tell the difference between nama and rupa...it's time to move on ;-))" No, I really can't! Sincerely, Scott. #66842 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 6:17 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Ken (And Howard), Thanks for the reply. (I do have the time to reply this morning!) "I am interested to know more about the suggested "reality" of certain concepts. Scott mentioned to me; "Pa~n~natti have reality; they are simply not paramattha dhammaa,"...I'm not so sure. I think pannatti is pannatti (stories are just stories). One example of a story is, "George Washington chopped down the cherry tree." Another is, "George Washington did not chop down the cherry tree." I think the Abhidhamma is telling us the two are equally illusory." I'm not sure whether I'm on track or not but with the above I guess I was thinking that, since concepts can be objects of consciousness, they have 'reality' in that sense. They serve as condition for citta to arise in the mind-door (if I've said that correctly) hence are not 'nothing'. Does that make sense? In other words, I'm satisfied that the concepts are not naama but the moment of consciousness that cognises them is. I see that I had some notion that if 'it was in the mind it was naama', which isn't right. Scott: "'Music' is still impermanent, unsatisfactory, and non-self - not to mention totally asubha." K: "Hmmm, I think I know what you mean, Scott, but that is a very loose way of putting it, isn't it? The dhammas that we associate with music are anicca, dukkha and anatta. But music, being a mere concept, does not possess any of those characteristics. It is asabhava. In the same way, "George Washington did/did-not chop down the cherry tree" is asabhava. It is just a story." Yeah, it wasn't very well put. I meant, by putting 'music' in quotes, to save myself the time of writing: 'The ruupas which, in their arising and falling away, and in their being cognised by naama which too arises and falls away...' Or something to that effect. I like this whole clarification. Pa~n~natti is asabhava. All the more reason for not mixing it up with naama. Sincerely, Scott. #66843 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 1:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 1/7/07 12:14:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > (The concept 'music' *is* illusory, I think. It is sa~n~naavipillaasa > - a perversion of perception. 'Music' is still impermanent, > unsatisfactory, and non-self - not to mention totally asubha. > However, despite all that, I still like it and I still want to learn > as much about the difference between naama and ruupa as I can.) > ======================== Music if considered a self-standing reality is pure illusion, not unlike a desert mirage. It is delusive in being perceived as more than it is. But it is not nothing at all, because the sounds that are its "data-basis" actually occur, and the relations among those sounds that are its "concept-basis" are actual relations. [The terms 'data-basis' and 'concept-basis' are mine.] As for music being "asubha" (unattractive, loathsome, and foul), I would suggest you consider a change in composers and artists! LOLOL! Yes, music is empty of own-being, and its components are fleeting, insubstantial, impersonal, and conditioned, and provide no lasting source of satisfaction. But (good ;-) music is a cause of grief only if clung to and considered to be other than what it is. Jhanas, too, definitely "kusala", after all, are anicca, dukkha, and anatta, but the Buddha said they are useful in cultivating the mind and are calm abidings for here and now. Metta, definitely "kusala", is also anicca, dukkha, and anatta. So, while conditioned dhammas partake of all the tilakkhana, they should not, in and of themselves, be thought of as loathsome. Thinking in terms of loathsomeness and foulness is a "skillful means", a medicine, for those people and on those occasions for whom and when it is helpful, but not for all people and not on all occasions. ========================= With metta, Howard #66844 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 1:39 am Subject: Re: Right Concentration Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 1/7/07 2:40:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > But either reading, "tranquil wisdom" or > >"sustaining of tranquillity" leans more towards the sense > of "samatha" than > >one-pointedness. > > James: I agree with you that "one-pointedness" gives the wrong > impression. It makes samadhi sound like making the mind focus on one > single rupa continuously- which is not beneficial to do as it will > result in a `black out' type of trance. Samadhi is not trapping the > mind on an object like a monkey in a small cage, and it's also not > letting the monkey swing all over the place- it is the middle ground > between these two, I believe. As long as the mind stays within the > body so that it becomes "Quite secluded from sense pleasures, > secluded from unwholesome states of mind," samadhi will arise. > > ===================== Then we are in fundamental agreement on this. As for Ven V, there are numerous details of his teaching that I don't fully accept. What I like is his overall view of samadhi being primarily a state of tranquillity, mindfulness, and clarity more than a state of completely fixed, concentrative absorption, and also his taking seriously the Buddha's admonishment in the Anapanasati Sutta and Satipatthana Sutta to calm bodily and mental formations. I don't meditate according to Ven V's step-by-step directions. I meditate according to my own understanding of the Anapanasati Sutta, an understanding that has been gained over a long period of time based on my own meditative experience in conjunction with studying the sutta (and other suttas). With metta, Howard #66845 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 1:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Scott) - In a message dated 1/7/07 3:28:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard and Scott, > > I am interested to know more about the suggested "reality" of certain > concepts. Scott mentioned to me; "Pa~n~natti have reality; they are > simply not paramattha dhammaa," and Howard wrote: "Music is not > baseless or ungrounded concept, it is a mental construct > reflecting actual relations holding among actual rupas." > > I'm not so sure. I think pannatti is pannatti (stories are just > stories). One example of a story is, "George Washington chopped down > the cherry tree." Another is, "George Washington did not chop down the > cherry tree." I think the Abhidhamma is telling us the two are equally > illusory. -------------------------------------------- Howard: No, it isn't. Specific realities occurrred. One conventional description is a correct figurative characterization, and the other incorrect. They are both figurative, but they are not both false. ------------------------------------------- > > ---------- > Howard >>...And it is also important to know that music is not utter > illusion either. Don't despise aggregations - just know their nature. > > Scott replied: >I don't quite know what you mean here. I mean, hey > man, I love music! Who at this stage is capable of despising > aggregates? That's the whole problem, as far as I can tell. No > detachment. > ----------- > > It's getting complicated! I think Howard is saying 'Don't be > dismissive of useful concepts," while Scott is saying 'Concepts should > not be clung to.' I am sure Howard would agree with Scott and vice > versa, but I am interested in the "relative reality" that is being > ascribed to some concepts: > > ------------------- > <. . .> > Scott: > 'Music' is still impermanent, unsatisfactory, and non-self - > not to mention totally asubha. > ------------------- > > Hmmm, I think I know what you mean, Scott, but that is a very loose > way of putting it, isn't it? The dhammas that we associate with music > are anicca, dukkha and anatta. But music, being a mere concept, does > not possess any of those characteristics. It is asabhava. > ------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I agree with that. ------------------------------------ In the same> > way, "George Washington did/did-not chop down the cherry tree" is > asabhava. It is just a story. -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, an untrue story, the negation of it being a true one. -------------------------------------- > > Ken H > =================== With metta, Howard #66846 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 2:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi again, Ken (and Scott) - A further clarification: The sentence "The Buddha taught the truth about dukkha and the ending of dukkha." is a true statement, and its negation is a false statement. Both statements involve pa~n~natti, most prominently 'Buddha' and 'truth'. But the sentence quoted is both meaningful and true, and the concept of 'Buddha' is not "just" representative of a story. If one truly ignores relations and conventional objects as utterly unreal and all conventional speech as equally delusive ("pannatti is pannatti"), there will be, for us, neither understanding of what's going on nor the ability to function. Valid concepts have their (limited) "reality" borrowed from the (less limited) reality of the interrelated dhammas that are their basis. Invalid concepts are just that - invalid. With metta, Howard #66847 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 7:51 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Interested 'Mental-Developers', Having read through the posts in the archives, I thought, so as not to re-invent the wheel, to post some quotes: #9090, by Jon: "...the understanding of realities appearing at the present moment. And it is not an easy thing to grasp, although it seems so simple on a first hearing." "...the starting point is that there are realities arising/appearing now that are not apparent to us in their true nature." "The beginning of 'seeing realities' is the understanding that at this moment both kinds of realities ['One kind of reality experiences an object' and 'The other kind of reality does not experience an object']are appearing but are not known as they truly are." "...what is perhaps lacking because of other views we hold is the relating of that intellectual understanding to the realities of the present moment as they appear right now, rather than at some other time or in some other circumstance." I think that, with James suggesting that I already know the difference between naama and ruupa, these points made by Jon are worth bringing up again. I don't know them in the way that is being discussed above. Sincerely, Scott. #66848 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 8:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Howard (And Ken), With this... H: "...Valid concepts have their (limited) "reality" borrowed from the (less limited) reality of the interrelated dhammas that are their basis. Invalid concepts are just that - invalid." ...I thought of this: "Concept as What is Made Known. "...There are such terms as 'land,' 'mountain,' and the like, so designated on account of the mode of transition of the respective elements; such terms as 'house,' 'chariot,' 'cart' and the like, so named on account of the mode of formation of materials; such terms as 'person,' 'individual,' and the like, so named on account of the five aggregates; such terms a 'direction,' 'time,' and the like, named according to the revolution of the moon and so forth; such terms as 'well,' 'cave,' and the like, so named on account of the mode of non-impact and so forth; such terms as kasi.na signs and the like, so named on account of respective elements and distinguished mental development. "All such different things, though they do not exist in the ultimate sense, become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of ultimate things. "They are called concepts because they are thought of, reckoned understood, expressed, and made known on account of, in consideration of, with respect to, this or that mode. This kind of concept is so called because it is made known. "Concept as What Makes Known. "Then, as it makes known, it is called concept. It is described as name, nomenclature, etc. "It is sixfold: (1) a (direct) concept of the real; (2) a (direct) concept of the unreal; (3) a concept of the unreal by means of the real; (4) a concept of the real by means of the unreal; (5) a concept of the real by means of the real; and (6) a concept of the unreal by means of the unreal. "As, for instance, when it makes known what really exists in the ultimate sense by a term such as 'matter,' 'feeling,' and so forth, it is called a (direct) concept of the real. "When it makes known what does not really exist in the ultimate sense by a term, such as 'land,' 'mountain,' and so forth, it is called a (direct) concept of the unreal. "The rest should be respectively understood by combining both as, for instance, 'possesor of sixfold direct knowledge,' 'woman's voice,' 'eye-consciousness,' and 'king's son.'" (Abhidhammattha Sangaha, CMA, VII, pp.326-27). So, concept is concept but there exist a variety based on what is made known and what makes known. Sincerely, Scott. #66849 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 9:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Ken and Howard, All, I found this post in the archives. I think it is a very concise elucidation of the matter at hand: #10384 Mike writes (if you don't mind, Mike): "As I understand it a naama is characterized by its ability to experience an object. "For example, tactile consciousness (kayavi~n~naa.na) experiences tangible object, heat for example - feeling (vedanaa) arising with tactile consciousness experiences feeling (pleasant or unpleasant in this case). So kayavi~n~naa.na, a citta, and vedanaa, a cetasika, are both experiencing the same object (heat is a ruupa, it doesn't experience anything). Of course, many other cetasikas arise at the same time as vedanaa, all experiencing the same aarammana. "The concept of pleasant or unpleasant heat arises afterwards but doesn't experience anything, it is an idea made up of memories of the experiences. To me, this is important because the experiences (naamas) and the things they can experience (aarammanas, naamas, ruupas) can be objects of satipa.t.thaana and so can produce the kind of understanding (sati-pa~n~na) that destroys defilements. Concepts can't be the objects of satipa.t.thaana, so can't produce this kind of understanding" Sincerely, Scott. #66850 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 10:57 am Subject: Re: Meditation (surge scottduncan2 Dear connie, Yeah. connie: "gotta love her, don'cha? the traitor. how does it happen that one walks away? o, mourning. now and then. yea, tho i walk, with abundant daily bread: the form of colour, the form of sound, the form captured in the nasal caves, etc., yet i find 'i can't get no satisfaction'." Know it well - condition for finding what is unfound and unfinding what is found. A very, very, very unsettling time. c: "my mother's new year's calligraphy:" Your actual mother? I like it: "may we purify our minds limit our desires learn to be content feel free to experience the quiet unassuming joys of life and learn to abandon all attachment formed in the mind" Sincerely, Scott. #66851 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 8:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 1/7/07 11:33:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: > So, concept is concept but there exist a variety based on what is made > known and what makes known. > ================== Yes. Well said, IMO. :-) With metta, Howard #66852 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 1:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na m_nease Hi Scott and Ken, > "Pa~n~natti have reality; they are > simply not paramattha dhammaa,"...I'm not so sure. I think pannatti is > pannatti (stories are just stories). I think one of the reasons Dhamma is called Dhamma is because it is about dhammå--not paùùatti--though of course paùùatti is used to explain both. In this context, would it be useful to say that thought (vitakka/vicaara) is real but that thoughts aren't? mike #66853 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 9:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Mike - In a message dated 1/7/07 4:34:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, mlnease@... writes: > In this context, would it be useful to say that thought (vitakka/vicaara) > is > real but that thoughts aren't? > ====================== That's rather much as I see it - thinking occurs, but thoughts do not. With metta, Howard #66854 From: "bjones6513" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 3:05 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 Hi James and Howard, It's great to here both of you encouraging meditation practice. That's a rare occasion in this group. Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu Bill #66855 From: "bjones6513" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 3:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: vedana bjones6513 ---Hi All, Any thoughts on what is meant by contemplating feelings as feelings externally? In the notes to the Mahasatipattha sutta by Walsch it is infered that one should have telepathic powers to know the feelings of others. I don't think the Buddha encouraged development of telepathic powers. Metta, Bill #66856 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 4:13 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi Scott, ----------- S: >I guess I was thinking that, since concepts can be objects of consciousness, they have 'reality' in that sense. They serve as condition for citta to arise in the mind-door (if I've said that correctly) hence are not 'nothing'. Does that make sense? In other words, I'm satisfied that the concepts are not naama but the moment of consciousness that cognises them is. ----------- I totally agree with your summary. The preceding part, however, is not quite so accurate, IMO, because it suggests a kind of reality in concepts. I know it is a difficult to avoid that suggestion. However, the following explanation, which I have been given here at DSG, strikes me as totally satisfactory: Object condition operates in every citta because every citta has an object. Even when the object is an illusory one, the citta and its cetasikas are taking an object. It is by virtue of that 'taking of an object' that object condition operates. It is not by virtue of any "reality" pertaining to the object itself. Whaddya think? Ken H #66857 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 11:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana upasaka_howard Hi, Bill - In a message dated 1/7/07 6:30:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, Bjones6513@... writes: > Hi All, > Any thoughts on what is meant by contemplating feelings as feelings > externally? In the notes to the Mahasatipattha sutta by Walsch it is > infered > that one should have telepathic powers to know the feelings of others. I > don't think the Buddha encouraged development of telepathic powers. > Metta, > Bill > ======================= This is one reason, Bill, that Goenka identifies vedana with bodily sensations. As to the general anwer, I really don't know. I agree that it's hard to understand. That is the sort of question to which I would be eager to hear what the commentarial response is! With metta, Howard P.S. Thanks for the supportive words with regard to meditating. :-) #66858 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 4:55 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) ken_aitch --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bjones6513" wrote: > > Hi James and Howard, > It's great to here both of you encouraging meditation practice. That's a > rare occasion in this group. > Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu > Bill > Hi Bill, I think you will find that kind of encouragement on just about any Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, (etc.) site, will you not? People love it, and they are welcome to it. Good luck to them! At DSG, however, you can learn a practice that is unique to the Buddhadhamma *as found in the Pali Tipitaka and its ancient commentaries.* Uniquely, it is not a practice followed by human beings or by any other kind of sentient being. A lot of people object to this. They don't like to be told that their cherished, conventional practices are not at all what the Buddha taught. If they want to, they can go to the other sites, but here there will always be someone who will tell them the truth. Or, perhaps I should say, 'someone who will point out the Dhamma that is found in the Tipitaka and its ancient commentaries.' Conventional practices, however attractive they may seem, will only keep us going round and round in the cycle of birth and rebirth. Do you really want that kind of encouragement? Ken H #66859 From: "bjones6513" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 5:01 pm Subject: Re: vedana bjones6513 Hi Howard, We recently discussed this with Bhante Gunaratana. He totally disagreed with the note in the Walshe translation. He said, external means feelings that impinge on one from the outside. This makes more sense to me than cultivating telepathy. I'm curious to see what James has to say. Maybe he can butter the toast, but I hope he is practicing meditation. With metta, Bill > > don't think the Buddha encouraged development of telepathic powers. > > Metta, > > Bill > > > ======================= > This is one reason, Bill, that Goenka identifies vedana with bodily > sensations. As to the general anwer, I really don't know. I agree that it's hard #66860 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 12:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (again) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/7/07 8:04:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > At DSG, however, you can learn a practice that is unique to the > Buddhadhamma *as found in the Pali Tipitaka and its ancient > commentaries.* Uniquely, it is not a practice followed by human beings > or by any other kind of sentient being. > ==================== How 'bout you tell us about that practice? ;-) With metta, Howard #66861 From: "bjones6513" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 5:28 pm Subject: Re: vedana bjones6513 --- Hi Howard, My understanding of the Goenka approach is that he emphasizes feelings arising within the confines of one's own body. From the standpoint of the Suttas I still think Goenka's approach is a valid one but limited primarily because it's unrealistic not to include the four satipatthanas in ones practice. Plus it's unrealistic not to include other positions such as standing, walking and lying down. But, as I said in an earlier post, I assumed that was covered in his Satipatthana retreats, but James said that was not so. Goenka should use a different term when referring to those retreats. With metta, Bill #66862 From: "bjones6513" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 5:32 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 > Hi Ken, No I don't want that kind of encouragement, but nevertheless I will continue my meditation practice as I and many others understand it in the Suttas. With metta, Bill > > Conventional practices, however attractive they may seem, will only > keep us going round and round in the cycle of birth and rebirth. Do > you really want that kind of encouragement? > > Ken H > #66863 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana upasaka_howard Hi, Bill - In a message dated 1/7/07 8:11:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, Bjones6513@... writes: > Hi Howard, > We recently discussed this with Bhante Gunaratana. He totally > disagreed with the note in the Walshe translation. He said, external > means feelings that impinge on one from the outside. This makes more > sense to me than cultivating telepathy. I'm curious to see what James > has to say. Maybe he can butter the toast, but I hope he is practicing > meditation. > With metta, > Bill > ========================= I'm not clear on what Bhante G means by "feelings that impinge on one from the outside". What do you understand that to mean? With metta, Howard #66864 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 5:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 jonoabb Hi James Jon here from Bangkok. Finding your thread with Scott very interesting. Hope you don't mind if I come in on a point here. --- buddhatrue wrote: ... > The suttas define Right > Concentration as the four rupa jhanas; the commentaries and sub- > commentaries define Right Concentration as the four rupa jhanas > plus `momentary concentration' and `access concentration' ... I of course agree that the suttas define Right Concentration of the NEP in terms of the four jhanas (but as to just what that means we no doubt differ – see my further comments below). But there is no inconsistency between that and 'momentary concentration'. Path consciousness (magga citta) is momentary, and so then is the concentration that accompanies it. > ... KS defines > Right Concentration as the concentration inherent in every citta. > Hmmmm….what is one to believe?? This is not a correct summary of Aj. Sujin's position. She explains Right Concentration as the momentary concentration that accompanies moments of path consciousness (or, at a mundane level, that accompanies moments of vipassana). > Personally, I have no confusions > over this matter because the Buddha is my refuge so, to me, what he > taught is the truth. As the Buddha defines Right Concentration ("A > Analysis of the Path Sutta"): Thanks for the sutta quote. What it clearly says is that Right Concentration is the concentration of one or other of the four jhanas. What it does not specifically say, but is commonly taken to mean, is that a person who attains the mundane jhanas has Right Concentration. That reading is an inference. > "And what, monks, is right concentration? (i) There is the case where > a monk — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful > (mental) qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & > pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & > evaluation. (ii) With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, > he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of > concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & > evaluation — internal assurance. (iii) With the fading of rapture, he > remains in equanimity, mindful & alert, and physically sensitive of > pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble > Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' > (iv) With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier > disappearance of elation & distress — he enters & remains in the > fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure > nor pain. This, monks, is called right concentration." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html > > So the Buddha starts with, "And what, monks, is right concentration?" > and he ends with "This, monks, is called right concentration." I > don't think you can get anymore direct than that! The four rupa > jhanas are right concentration! I would see it differently. 'Right concentration is one or other of the four jhanas'; not, 'the four (mundane) jhanas are [necessarily] right concentration'. (There are some sutta quotes that I think support this view, but I don't have access to them at the moment. They are in the magga-samyutta of SN.) James, I know this post will be extremely vexing to you, but it'll be a good test of your New Year's resolve ;-)) Stay cool, now!! Jon #66865 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 5:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) jonoabb Hi Howard --- upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > What I consider Buddhist meditation to be is the intentional > activity > discussed in such suttas as the Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas. We > view > those suttas differently, of course. ;-) But that's all been hashed out > many > times before, Jon. > ... > I'm not very interested at the moment in engaging in lengthy > discussions > of what meditation may or may not be. ... Understood. But I'm only interested in clarifying what you mean by meditation in contexts such as the post of yours that I replied to. So taking meditation as the intentional activity discussed in suttas such as the Satipatthana Sutta, I understand you to be equating it to what you also refer to as 'practice'. But doesn't that give rise to a difficulty in that, as we have previously agreed, any such intentional activity is bound to involve many (and perhaps a majority of) moments of akusala, which would then mean that bhavana is seen as including akusala? Not trying to debunk, just to question in a (hopefully) constructive, non-confrontational way ;-)) > Instead, I'd rather do a bit more of > it! ;-) It happens that I have been more regular in my meditation > practice > recently, and I have benefited from it, it seems. Last night I had a > "mystical" > dream of such majesty and glorious beauty that it caused me to sob from > joy > (while dreaming and upon awakening). It was like a "gift". Not the usual > sort of > experience for me, but very, very welcome. Interesting (your comments). In what sense a "gift" or benefit of meditation pracitce? How do you see it in terms of kusala/akusala? Jon #66866 From: "bjones6513" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 5:58 pm Subject: Re: vedana bjones6513 Hi Howard, I guess one way of looking at it could be bodily sensations that arise on the external surface of body. This would, once again my understanding, agree with the section contemplating the body as body externally, mindfulness that there is body present to him. I understand that to mean hair, nails, skin, sweat, tears, snot (runny nose), etc. Certainly not someone else's body. Although is some situations I may contemplate another body, maybe at the beach or maybe as an artist doing a portrait. Even more difficult is what is contemplating mind as mind externally. Maybe my meditation practice is confusing me. with metta, Bill > ========================= > I'm not clear on what Bhante G means by "feelings that impinge on one > from the outside". What do you understand that to mean? #66867 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 6:48 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Ken, Yeah. K: "I totally agree with your summary. The preceding part, however, is not quite so accurate, IMO, because it suggests a kind of reality in concepts. I know it is a difficult to avoid that suggestion. However, the following explanation, which I have been given here at DSG, strikes me as totally satisfactory: "Object condition operates in every citta because every citta has an object. Even when the object is an illusory one, the citta and its cetasikas are taking an object. It is by virtue of that 'taking of an object' that object condition operates. It is not by virtue of any "reality" pertaining to the object itself. "Whaddya think?" I think 'excellent'. I'm the fuzziest thinker I know and simply live to be whipped into precision. Beautiful. Concepts are 'unreal', not real, illusory, what have you. I think I have it. By virtue of object condition, the taking of an object - and not the object - is important. This is naama: bending towards an object. Pa.t.thaana: "(vii) All states are related to mind-conciousness 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." Abhidhammattha Sangaha, VII,17, p.315 (CMA): "In two ways concepts and min-and-matter are conditions for mind - namely, by way of object and decisive support. "Therein, object is sixfold as visible form, etc. But decisive support is threefold, namely object decisive support, proximity decisive support, and natural decisive support. "Of them, the object itself, when it becomes prominent serves as object decisive support. Consciousness and mental factors that immediately cease, act as proximity decisive support. The natural decisive support is of many kinds: states of lust, etc., states of faith, etc., pleasure, pain, individuals, food, season, lodgings - (all such things) internal and external, as the case may be, are conditions for wholesome states, etc." The object is the 'conditioning state'. As object it causes the other states, the conditioned states to arise. They take the conditioning state as object. Is this what you say as well? I think so. A concept can be the object which is the conditioning state causing the conditioned state, citta/cetasikas to arise taking it as object. Sincerely, Scott. #66868 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 7:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana lbidd2 Hi Bill and Howard, Here is B. ~Nanamoli or B. Bodhi's (?) summation of the commentary on internal and external in the MN Satipatthana: "MA: "Internally": contemplating the breathing in his own body. "Externally": contemplating the breathing occurring in the body of another. "Internally and externally": contemplating the breathing in his own body and in the body of another alternately, with uninterrupted attention. A similar explanation applies to the refrain that follows each of the other sections, except that under the contemplation of feeling, mind, and mind-objects, the contemplation externally, apart from those possessing telepathic powers, must be inferential." Nyanaponika Thera says mindfulness of internal and external is meant to lead to a comprehensive understanding of the dhamma in the sense that it is this way not just for me but for everyone. But he also adds the following: "It should be noted, however, that in the strict meditative development of Insight only 'internal' objects are taken up and brought into the focus of Bare Attention. This is so because only one's own bodily and mental processes are accessible to direct experience. And it is a knowledge by direct experience (paccakkha~naa.na), in the strictest sense, which is aimed at, and which is the distinguishing mark of the Buddhist meditation of Insight (vipassanaa-bhaavanaa). Inference, reflection, etc., are entirely excluded at the beginning of the practice, and only at a later stage may they receive a limited place in it, as a kind of interlude, when inference is made from the meditative observation of the facts present, to past and future events of the same type. Mindfulness on 'external' objects, however, may, and should, be cultivated outside the strict meditative practice." ("The Heart of Buddhist Meditation", p.59) L: H. Gunaratana's instruction differs slightly from the above but it has the facility of not requiring inference. I'm sure every teacher has a slightly different conceptual handle that is perceived as 'skillful means'. Larry #66869 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 7:20 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na buddhatrue Hi Scott (and Jon), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Interested 'Mental-Developers', > I think that, with James suggesting that I already know the difference > between naama and ruupa, these points made by Jon are worth bringing > up again. I don't know them in the way that is being discussed above. > James: LOL! That is because Jon is not describing this first stage of insight in the proper way. Jon, Sarah, and Nina tend to describe things in a way which over-advances them. The first stage of insight is called `Analytical Knowledge of Body and Mind' and it involves knowing the difference between nama and rupa. As described by Mahasi: "Endowed with purification of mind and continuing the practice of noticing, the meditator now comes to know body-and-mind analytically as follows: "The rising (upward movement) of the abdomen is one process; the falling (downward movement) is another; sitting is another; touching is another," etc. In this way he comes to know how to distinguish each bodily process that he notices. Further he realizes: "The knowing of the rising movement is one process; the knowing of the falling movement is another." In that way he comes to know each mental act of noticing. Further he realizes: "The rising movement is one process; the knowing of it is another. The falling movement is one process; the knowing of it is another," and so on. In that way he comes to know how to distinguish each bodily and mental process. All that knowledge comes from simply noticing, not from reasoning; that is to say, it is knowledge by direct experience arrived at by the mere act of noticing, and not knowledge derived from ratiocination." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mahasi/progress.html#top The two important words to consider here are: noticing and analytical. Merely though the act of noticing (mindfulness) the practitioner builds an analytical knowledge (logical) of the difference between nama and rupa. Scott, it is obvious that you have an analytical knowledge of the differences between nama and rupa. You have already posted that by listening to music, you noted how sound is one thing and the mental construct of "music" another. Congratulations! You have reached the first stage of insight! (Most of the world's population is not even at this stage). Jon writes, which you post: "...the understanding of realities appearing at the present moment. And it is not an easy thing to grasp, although it seems so simple on a first hearing." "...the starting point is that there are realities arising/appearing now that are not apparent to us in their true nature." What Jon is describing is the fourth stage of insight "Knowledge of Arising and Passing Away", not the first stage of insight: "There will also arise in him strong mindfulness pertaining to insight. As a result, all the successive arisings of bodily and mental processes will present themselves to the consciousness engaged in noticing, as if coming to it of themselves; and mindfulness too seems as if alighting on the processes of itself. Therefore the meditator then believes: "There is no body-and-mind process in which mindfulness fails to engage."" So, the fourth stage is noticing all "of the realities appearing at the present moment" and "realities arising/appearing now". Jon, Sarah, and Nina usually refer to this fourth stage of insight as being the first stage. This fourth stage of insight is very advanced and it is proceeded by, the very least, momentary to access concentration. So, no Scott, I wasn't being flippant with you. I really do believe you have achieved the first stage of insight- but it is a very weak stage of insight (relatively speaking). The important thing to remember is that the insight doesn't end there. To go further in your insight, you must practice samatha meditation. Metta, James #66870 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 7:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Mike, Great to 'see' you. Sorry for the delay: We were sledding and the dog peed on my chair - among other concepts. M: "I think one of the reasons Dhamma is called Dhamma is because it is about dhammaa--not pa~n~natti--though of course pa~n~natti is used to explain both." ~Naa.namoli, Visiddhimagga, VII,note 1: "...The word [dhamma] itself is a gerundive of the verb dharati (caus. dhaareti - 'to bear') and so it is the literal equivalent of '(quality) that is to be borne'. But since the grammatical meanings of the two words dhaareti ('to bear') and dahati ('to put or sort out', whence dhaatu - 'element') sometimes coalesce, it often comes very close to dhaatu...If it is asked, what bears the qualities to be borne?, a correct answer here would probably be that it is the event (samaya)...in which the various dhammas...arise and are present, variously related to each other..." M: "In this context, would it be useful to say that thought (vitakka/vicaara) is real but that thoughts aren't?" I thought about this all the time I was at the hill. Is 'thought' synonymous with 'thinking'? At any rate, 'thoughts' aren't real. I think this is correct. Might one say that thoughts are nimitta? Sincerely, Scott. #66871 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 7:41 pm Subject: Re: vedana buddhatrue Hi Bill (and Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bjones6513" wrote: I'm curious to see what James > has to say. Maybe he can butter the toast, but I hope he is practicing meditation. James: LOL! Actually, I am at school at the present moment, during a break between classes. But I did meditate this morning for 10 minutes. ;-)) Since you want my input, I will give it; though, I am merely giving my opinion. I don't know how much it will "butter the toast", but we will see ;-)). One doesn't need to be extremely psychic to know the feelings of others (I believe that we all have some psychic ability; just some people have it more developed than others). To know the feelings of others just requires empathy. Even someone with very little psychic ability can tell how someone else is feeling by their facial expressions, body posture, and tone of voice. It is important to be mindful of these feelings of others so that one can begin to realize the universality of feelings. Everyone reacts to everything with either attraction, repulsion, or a neutral feeling (uninterested). Mindfulness of this universality of feeling makes one better understand the Four Noble Truths and Dependent Origination. Scott, you write, We recently discussed this with Bhante Gunaratana. He totally disagreed with the note in the Walshe translation. He said, external means feelings that impinge on one from the outside." James: Feelings that impinge on one from the outside??? That makes feelings sound like they are physical sensations, and feelings are mental feelings. Mental feelings can impinge on one from the outside, but again that person would have to be very psychic to receive those mental feelings from others. Metta, James #66872 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 8:18 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear James, James: "LOL! That is because..." You've really, really got me here, my good man! (Reminds me suddenly of The Kinks.) I absolutely have no idea whatsoever how to respond to this post! Flummoxedly yours, Scott. #66873 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 3:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana upasaka_howard Hi, Bill - > My understanding of the Goenka approach is that he emphasizes feelings > arising within the confines of one's own body. From the standpoint of the > Suttas I still think Goenka's approach is a valid one but limited primarily > because it's unrealistic not to include the four satipatthanas in ones > practice. Plus it's unrealistic not to include other positions such as > standing, > walking and lying down. But, as I said in an earlier post, I assumed that > was covered in his Satipatthana retreats, but James said that was not so. > Goenka should use a different term when referring to those retreats. > With metta, > Bill > ======================== Well, yes, I agree, Bill. He refers to his retreats as "vipassana retreats" and his exact style of meditation as "vipassana", which, IMO, is a usurpation of the term to a restricted form of practice. With metta, Howard #66874 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 8:45 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 buddhatrue Hi Jon, Jon: James, I know this post will be extremely vexing to you, but it'll be a good test of your New Year's resolve ;-)) Stay cool, now!! James: LOL! Okay, I will stay cool. Jon: I of course agree that the suttas define Right Concentration of the NEP in terms of the four jhanas…But there is no inconsistency between that and 'momentary concentration'. Path consciousness (magga citta) is momentary, and so then is the concentration that accompanies it. James: This is not the type of "momentary concentration" I was referring to. The Vism. defines "Momentary Concentration" very differently from the concentration inherent in every citta (sorry, this quote is rather long…because it is a complex issue): In the Commentary to the //Visuddhimagga//, in the explanation of the chapter relating to mindfulness of breathing, it is said thus: " 'Momentary unification of mind' means the concentration of mind lasting only for a moment. For that (type of concentration), too, when it occurs uninterruptedly with its respective object in a single mode and is not overcome by opposition, fixes the mind immovably, as if in absorption." "It occurs uninterruptedly with its respective object" refers to the uninterrupted continuity of the thoughts engaged in noticing; after noticing one object, one attends, in the same manner, to another that follows immediately;[19] again, having noticed that object, one turns to the next one, and so on. "In a single mode" means: though the objects to be noticed, as they present themselves, are numerous and varied, yet the force of concentration of the mind uninterruptedly engaged in noticing remains virtually on the same level. For what is meant here is: just as the first object was noticed with a certain degree of concentration, so the second, third, and other subsequent objects are noticed in each case with the same degree of concentration. "Is not overcome by opposition": this means that the momentary concentration in its uninterrupted flow is not overwhelmed by the mental hindrances.[20] "As if in absorption": this means that the strength of the momentary concentration is similar to that of concentration which has reached full mental absorption. However, such similarity of momentary concentration with fully absorbed concentration will become evident (only) when the methodical practice of insight reaches its culmination.[21] http://www.purifymind.com/Insight1.htm Jon: This is not a correct summary of Aj. Sujin's position. She explains Right Concentration as the momentary concentration that accompanies moments of path consciousness (or, at a mundane level, that accompanies moments of vipassana). James: This is the same thing I said. KS defines Right Concentration as the concentration that is inherent in every citta. Jon, you can call it a moment of path consciousness or a moment of vipassana, but it is still a vithi citta- and the quality of concentration of that vithi citta is no different from every other vithi citta (kusala or akusala). So, KS defines Right Concentration as the concentration inherent to every citta, vithi and jhana (not including bhavanga cittas as they do not have the concentration cetasika). Again, KS is misrepresenting what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that the rupa jhanas are Right Concentration, and jhana cittas are not vithi cittas. (Note, I am being calm and I am using Abhidhamma terminology so you can understand…I deserve a gold star! LOL!) Jon: I would see it differently. 'Right concentration is one or other of the four jhanas'; not, 'the four (mundane) jhanas are [necessarily] right concentration'. James: I think we had this discussion before. I also don't believe that all four of the jhanas are required for Right Concentration. Even the first jhana alone would be sufficient to qualify as Right Concentration. After all, the fundamental nature of the jhana doesn't change as it progresses, only the cetasikas change. Metta, James P.S. Hope you are having a nice time in Bangkok. Say hi to Sarah for me. :-) #66875 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 4:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - > ... > > What I consider Buddhist meditation to be is the intentional > >activity > >discussed in such suttas as the Satipatthana and Anapanasati Suttas. We > >view > >those suttas differently, of course. ;-) But that's all been hashed out > >many > >times before, Jon. > >... > >I'm not very interested at the moment in engaging in lengthy > >discussions > >of what meditation may or may not be. ... > > Understood. But I'm only interested in clarifying what you mean by > meditation in contexts such as the post of yours that I replied to. ----------------------------------- Howard: That sounds an awful lot like wanting to discuss what meditation may or may not be, which is exactly what I said I'm not really interested in going into any further. --------------------------------- > > So taking meditation as the intentional activity discussed in suttas such > as the Satipatthana Sutta, I understand you to be equating it to what you > also refer to as 'practice'. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: No. Meditation is only part of practice. --------------------------------------------------- > > But doesn't that give rise to a difficulty in that, as we have previously > agreed, any such intentional activity is bound to involve many (and > perhaps a majority of) moments of akusala, which would then mean that > bhavana is seen as including akusala? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ho, hum. I never agreed that the occurrence of (even many) unwholesome states precludes advantageous intentional activities. Even a monster like Angulimala could be saved, so I think it not unreasonable to hold out hope for such as you and I. He met the Buddha in person. We have met him through his Dhamma. He went on to active practice, including meditation, and became an arahant. If we seriously follow the Buddha's guidelines for practice, we can make progress also. But that is a big "if"! Meditation can lead into wholesome states and frequently does. I know this for a fact. I am perfectly satisfied that the Buddha taught meditating as an essential part of the practice, that it is good to do, right to do so, and I can tell you that despite the urging to the contrary on DSG, it is something I will continue to do until the day I die, and hopefully beyond. Until perfection is attained, there will be unwholesome states. You wish to use that fact as a justification for not following the Buddha's practice teachings, or, probably better said, for interpreting his teachings as saying to do nothing at all intentionally, or, at most, to study. As regards practice, we couldn't be further apart, Jon. -------------------------------------------------- > > Not trying to debunk, just to question in a (hopefully) constructive, > non-confrontational way ;-)) ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Oh, c'mon, Jon. You don't believe that the Buddha taught intentionally doing anything, because that, in your opinion, would allegedly involve a sense of self and thus can lead nowhere. I think that view is nonsense. What is constructive in your approach? You wish to say that if we begin with more unwholesome mindstates than wholesome ones, there is nothing useful that can be intentionally done. You say what happens depends on conditions, which of course is true, but you allow for no intentional actions to foster the useful conditions. Well, I disagree with your view, and I consider it a negative teaching that appears to simultaneously be a form of determinism and a form of random eventuality. I believe there is loads to be intentionally done to improve matters, and that is exactly how I read the Buddha's teaching in the Sutta Pitaka. ---------------------------------------------------- > > > >Instead, I'd rather do a bit more of > >it! ;-) It happens that I have been more regular in my meditation > >practice > >recently, and I have benefited from it, it seems. Last night I had a > >"mystical" > >dream of such majesty and glorious beauty that it caused me to sob from > >joy > >(while dreaming and upon awakening). It was like a "gift". Not the usual > >sort of > >experience for me, but very, very welcome. > > Interesting (your comments). In what sense a "gift" or benefit of > meditation pracitce? How do you see it in terms of kusala/akusala? --------------------------------------- Howard: Really? You're kidding me, right? Can't you guess how I evaluate it? Was I unclear? What do you think the odds are of my considering it unwholesome? ----------------------------------------- With metta, Howard #66876 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 4:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana upasaka_howard Hi, Bill - In a message dated 1/7/07 9:08:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, Bjones6513@... writes: > Hi Howard, > I guess one way of looking at it could be bodily sensations that arise on > the external surface of body. This would, once again my understanding, > agree with the section contemplating the body as body externally, > mindfulness that there is body present to him. I understand that to mean > hair, nails, skin, sweat, tears, snot (runny nose), etc. > --------------------------------------- Howard: That is how Goenka would understand "contemplating feelings externally". But that identifies vedana with sensations, and sensations are rupas. One possibility for the meaning of "focusing externally on feelings" is focusing on the feeling (pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral) of sensations experienced on the body surface such as itches, cut stings, scratch pains, warmth of skin, coldness of skin, and so on. So vedana is still the operation of affectively tasting the sensations, and is different from the sensations themselves, but the feeling is considered internal or external depending on whether the sensation that is examined affectively is internal or external. ------------------------------------- Certainly not > > someone else's body. ------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. That would be "thinking about" instead of directly experiencing the reality. ------------------------------------ Although is some situations I may contemplate > > another body, maybe at the beach or maybe as an artist doing a portrait. > > Even more difficult is what is contemplating mind as mind externally. -------------------------------------- Howard: Well, when one is aware of emotion, that might be an example of contemplating mind internally, and one is aware of remembering sights and sounds or aware of thinking about worldly events, that might be contemplating mind externally. --------------------------------------- > > > Maybe my meditation practice is confusing me. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Probably not the practice. Probably all the thinking about it! ;-)) --------------------------------------- With metta, Howard #66877 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 9:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi Howard, I am not sure of where we agree and where we disagree on this one: -------------------------------------------- Howard: No, it isn't. Specific realities occurrred. One conventional description is a correct figurative characterization, and the other incorrect. They are both figurative, but they are not both false. ------------------------------------------- 'Correct' 'incorrect' 'cherry tree' - these are things that belong in conventional reality. When George Washington could not tell a lie and told the truth instead there was, in absolute reality, abstention from lying (virati-cetasika). But there was no true version of the story, no George Washington and no chopped-down cherry tree. -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, an untrue story, the negation of it being a true one. -------------------------------------- But neither is ultimately real. The true story lacks any inherent correctness, and the false story lacks any inherent incorrectness (or any other inherent characteristics for that matter). That was the point I wanted to make. Aha! Just as I was about to post this I noticed your follow-up post: ------------------------- H: > A further clarification: The sentence "The Buddha taught the truth about dukkha and the ending of dukkha." is a true statement, and its negation is a false statement. Both statements involve pa~n~natti, most prominently 'Buddha' and 'truth'. But the sentence quoted is both meaningful and true, and the concept of 'Buddha' is not "just" representative of a story. If one truly ignores relations and conventional objects as utterly unreal and all conventional speech as equally delusive ("pannatti is pannatti"),there will be, for us, neither understanding of what's going on nor the ability to function. Valid concepts have their (limited) "reality" borrowed from the (less limited) reality of the interrelated dhammas that are their basis. Invalid concepts are just that - invalid. --------------------- For sure: "Look out, there is a car coming" should be treated differently from, "All clear!" But we also need to know that, in ultimate reality, there no one to be run down and no car. The Dhamma is teaching us how to know conditioned dhammas; we already know how to cross a road. Ken H #66878 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 10:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi Mike, Nice to talk to you again: -------- M: > In this context, would it be useful to say that thought (vitakka/vicaara) is real but that thoughts aren't? -------- Useful, yes, but far from the end of the matter, I'm afraid. :-) As you know, K Sujin and her students often point out to us that something we may be mistaking for reality is only "thinking." It is a major problem that is often treated as a minor one. Ken H #66879 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Sun Jan 7, 2007 11:52 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) ken_aitch > No I don't want that kind of encouragement, but nevertheless I will > continue my meditation practice as I and many others understand it in the Hi Bill, That's fine, and I wish you well with it. Neither I nor anyone else I know at DSG would want you to stop doing what you think is best. If you are prepared to discuss the teachings as you understand them that please me very much. But at DSG you can expect some people to understand the teachings very differently. As I was saying before, these people are not going to pretend to agree with you just to make you feel good (or just to make you like them). They are not going to encourage you to keep going round and round in samsara. If they did, what kind of friends would they be? Ken H #66880 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 12:29 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi Scott, Thanks for this; I like it very much: ------------- <. . .> S: > By virtue of object condition, the taking of an object - and not the object - is important. This is naama: bending towards an object. Pa.t.thaana: "(vii) All states are related to mind-conciousness 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." Abhidhammattha Sangaha, VII,17, p.315 (CMA): "In two ways concepts and mind-and-matter are conditions for mind - namely, by way of object and decisive support. ----------------- It takes a lot of explanation of things way beyond my ken, but I know that concepts, themselves, do not condition dhammas. Only dhammas condition dhammas. "Shark!" conditions fear in a surfer, and "Bear!" conditions fear in a tobogganer. :-) But, when we say that, we mean the dhammas that think up those concepts (or thought them up in the past) are the real conditioning agents. Ken H #66881 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 3:18 am Subject: Cetasikas' study corner 626- Wholesome Deeds(w) 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;-) =============================================== Wholesome Deeds contd The tenth “base of meritorious deeds” is “rectification of view”. There are many degrees of this way of wholesomeness. Before we studied the Dhamma we may have considered the enjoyment of pleasant sense objects to be the goal of our life. As we gradually come to see that selfishness leads to unhappiness and that kusala is beneficial both for ourselves and for others we start to correct our wrong ideas. We may, for example, be absorbed in the enjoyment of something pleasant such as listening to music, but then, when someone else suddenly needs our help, we may realize that it is more beneficial to help someone than to continue being selfish. However, each situation is conditioned and there is no self who can choose what action he will perform in a given situation. We correct our views when we come to understand that wholesome deeds are kusala kamma which will produce kusala vipåka. We should not cling to pleasant results, that is akusala. Kamma will produce its result, no matter whether we think of it or not. While we are performing good deeds there can be understanding of cause and effect without clinging. We correct our views most of all by developing right understanding of realities. In that way the clinging to the concept of self will decrease, we will be less inclined to take akusala or kusala for self. The “rectification of view” can go together with the other nine “bases of meritorious deeds”, thus, with any kind of wholesome action. ***** Wholesome Deeds to be contd Metta, Sarah ====== #66882 From: "bjones6513" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 4:18 am Subject: Re: vedana bjones6513 ---Hi Howard, That's the way I see it and, as Ken says, I'm not agreeing to gain points or to make you like me. That's also the way I had it explained at my limited experience with Goenka. The sensations were merely a means to gain assess to understand how the mind attaches to pleasant objects, pushes away unpleasant objects. The objective, as I understand it from the Goenka retreat, was to gain equanimity of mind by observing the impermanance of those bodily sensations. They were merely a tool. Howard: So vedana is still the operation of > affectively tasting the sensations, and is different from the sensations > themselves, but the feeling is considered internal or external depending on whether > the sensation that is examined affectively is internal or external. Bill: Even more difficult is what is contemplating mind as mind externally. Bill: I listened to a talk on this last night. contemplating mind as mind externally was explained as objects of consciousness arising externally to the body such as an object of eye-consciousness, etc. The way I would understand an emotion, it would arise internally, not from an external source. > -------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, when one is aware of emotion, that might be an example of > contemplating mind internally, and one is aware of remembering sights and sounds or > aware of thinking about worldly events, that might be contemplating mind > externally. > --------------------------------------- Bill: You're right. I interupted my meditation time to write this. Later. > Howard: > Probably not the practice. Probably all the thinking about it! ;-)) >] > #66883 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 4:51 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Ken, K: "It takes a lot of explanation of things way beyond my ken, but I know that concepts, themselves, do not condition dhammas. Only dhammas condition dhammas. "Shark!" conditions fear in a surfer, and "Bear!" conditions fear in a tobogganer. :-) But, when we say that, we mean the dhammas that think up those concepts (or thought them up in the past) are the real conditioning agents. Knowing this, then, is helpful. By eliminating concepts, as it were, one can be less confused about what naama is by knowing what it isn't. Naama is not ruupa. Naama is not pa~n~natti. It is not ruupa because ruupa doesn't experience an object. It is not pa~n~natti because pa~n~natti does not experience an object (although is a 'product' of the function of vitakka and vicaara). Does that stand as a tentative summary? Sincerely, Scott. #66884 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 5:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Mike, (part II) M: "In this context, would it be useful to say that thought (vitakka/vicaara) is real but that thoughts aren't?" S: "I thought about this all the time I was at the hill. Is 'thought' synonymous with 'thinking'? At any rate, 'thoughts' aren't real. I think this is correct. Might one say that thoughts are nimitta?" Sorry, more thought: Naama, in this case, are cetasikas vitakka and vicaara. They 'think' - or rather the thinking is them (or some such mode of expression). I meant, when asking about the idea that thoughts might be nimitta, to suggest that these concepts have the illusion of wholeness and I see how I mistake the thoughts themselves for 'me', on the one hand, and for 'something' on the other. I notice that there is so much clinging to thoughts. This is a good distinction to contemplate. Sincerely, Scott. #66885 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 5:42 am Subject: Re: Letters on Vipassana V, 4 jonoabb Hi Swee Boon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > > With 'already' I mean, it has already arisen together with > > sammaditthi and no need to try to have it. It is there already > > because of its own conditions. This is important: because of its > > own conditions. If we don't grasp this we take it for my important > > concentration which I should try to increase. > > We continue after Bgk if you like. > > This is in direct contradiction with AN 4.94 Samadhi Sutta where the > Buddha distinguishes (a) 'internal tranquillity of awareness' and > (b) 'insight into phenomena through heightened discernment'. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.094.than.html > > One with (a) need not have (b) and one with (b) need not have (a). > > Therefore, your yoking together of sammaditthi with concentration by > way of 'conditioning' is not in line with the sutta. > > Swee Boon I think what Nina is saying is that (a) at the moment of consciousness of mundane insight and of path consciousness is accompanied by the mental factor of right concentration, and (b) in the sutta that gives concentration as the proximate cause for insight, the concentration referred to is that co-arising right concentration. I don't think this is contradicted by the Samadhi Sutta. The Samadhi Sutta, as I recall it, makes it clear that moments of both samatha consciousness and vipassana consciousness are accompanied by samadhi. However, the samadhi that accompanies samatha is not particularly a condition for the samadhi that accompanies vipassana, as I understand it. Jon #66886 From: "bjones6513" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 5:54 am Subject: Re: vedana bjones6513 Hi Larry, Thanks for your post. I don't see how contemplating anything about someone else's body leads to anything but desire, craving, hatred, and aversion. Plus any contemplation of this sort involves conjecture. The only reality that can truly seen is within one's own body and mind. Metta, Bill #66887 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 5:52 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na jonoabb Hi Ken --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: ... > PS: Scott, please don't worry about dropping out of conversations > while you attend to other matters. I think some DSG members do take > offence if they are not answered promptly, but don't let that bother > you. Take a tip from Jon, who regularly keeps us waiting a week or > more. :-) Yeah. A week is quick for me. Because I'm a bit slow in the uptake, I like to ponder on the contents of the post I'm replying to. Besides, most members aren't in a hurry to read what I've got to say ;-)) Jon #66888 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 5:56 am Subject: Re: Meditation (surge jonoabb Hi Connie --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: ... > my mother's new year's calligraphy: > > may we purify our minds > limit our desires > learn to be content > feel free to experience > the quiet unassuming > joys of life and > learn to abandon all > attachment formed in the mind Mother sounds a one cool lady. Has she considered joining the list? ;-)) Jon #66889 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 6:09 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na jonoabb Hi Scott Enjoying very much your exchanges with KenH. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: ... > The object is the 'conditioning state'. As object it causes the other > states, the conditioned states to arise. They take the conditioning > state as object. Correct, in the case of object condition the object is the 'conditioning state'. However, this does not mean that it causes the conditioned state to arise. That would be the function of a different condition or conditions. An object is object condition merely be virtue of being the object. As a matter of interest, I don't think (but I'm just guessing) that a concept as object could condition the arising of the citta that experiences the object. Jon #66890 From: "bjones6513" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 6:02 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 ---Hi Ken, I have no idea what you mean when you say that I can learn about a practice at DSG that is unique to the Buddhadhamma but not a practice followed by human beings or any other kind of sentient being. In other words, are you saying there is no practice, whatever happens, happens and I should just except it? Metta, Bill > >Ken: At DSG, however, you can learn a practice that is unique to the > Buddhadhamma *as found in the Pali Tipitaka and its ancient > commentaries.* Uniquely, it is not a practice followed by human beings > or by any other kind of sentient being. #66891 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 1:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/8/07 1:08:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > For sure: "Look out, there is a car coming" should be treated > differently from, "All clear!" But we also need to know that, in > ultimate reality, there no one to be run down and no car. The Dhamma > is teaching us how to know conditioned dhammas; we already know how to > cross a road. > ====================== You seem to think that the Dhamma is about philosophy, but I think it is about actually living without suffering. With metta, Howard #66892 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 1:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/8/07 1:08:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > 'Correct' 'incorrect' 'cherry tree' - these are things that belong in > conventional reality. When George Washington could not tell a lie and > told the truth instead there was, in absolute reality, abstention from > lying (virati-cetasika). But there was no true version of the story, > no George Washington and no chopped-down cherry tree. > ======================= You very readily accept whatever catagories of paramattha dhamma the Abhidhamma throws at you, but I am not. As far as I'm concerned, lying is a conventional activity, and thus so is abstaining from it. But frankly, that isn't the issue here. There *was* an enormous complex of paramattha dhammas underlying the cherry tree story. That story was an abbreviational formulation of that facts in a form suitable for communication, which is what concepts are all about - communication, and it was, so far as we know, a true story. There was a George Washington and there was a cherry tree IN THE SENSE that dhammas, interrelated in very specific ways [namely, justifying the figurative story] actually occurred. If there was no George Washington and no cherry tree IN THAT SENSE, then there were no dhammas as basis either, in which case there was nothing at all, making the nihilists quite correct and the Buddha's middle way quite wrong. In your eagerness to adopt the truth of paramattha dhammas, you are taking a position that dimishes the "creative power" of dhammas, obliterating their very roll in accounting for "the world of convention". I have read that the following was stated in the Katthavatthu: "The Awakened One, the best of teachers, spoke of two truths, conventional and higher; no third is ascertained; a conventional statement is true because of convention and a higher statement is true as disclosing the true characteristics of events." This countenances two truths, not a truth and a falsehood. Conventional truth is conventional, figurative, not literal - but truth nonetheless, and its truth lies in being backed up by the "higher truth". With metta, Howard #66893 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 6:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - ... > > >Instead, I'd rather do a bit more of > > >it! ;-) It happens that I have been more regular in my meditation > > >practice > > >recently, and I have benefited from it, it seems. Last night I had a > > >"mystical" > > >dream of such majesty and glorious beauty that it caused me to sob from > > >joy > > >(while dreaming and upon awakening). It was like a "gift". Not the usual > > >sort of > > >experience for me, but very, very welcome. > > > > Interesting (your comments). In what sense a "gift" or benefit of > > meditation pracitce? How do you see it in terms of kusala/ akusala? > > --------------------------------------- > Howard: > Really? You're kidding me, right? Can't you guess how I evaluate it? > Was I unclear? What do you think the odds are of my considering it unwholesome? > ----------------------------------------- A difficult subject for you to discuss, I know. Nevertheless, I'd like to ask why you consider it such experiences (dreams of majesty and glorious beauty, sobbing) to be kusala. Jon #66894 From: "jonoabb" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 6:23 am Subject: Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 jonoabb Hi James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Jon, ... > James: This is the same thing I said. KS defines Right Concentration > as the concentration that is inherent in every citta. Jon, you can > call it a moment of path consciousness or a moment of vipassana, but > it is still a vithi citta- and the quality of concentration of that > vithi citta is no different from every other vithi citta (kusala or > akusala). So, KS defines Right Concentration as the concentration > inherent to every citta, vithi and jhana (not including bhavanga > cittas as they do not have the concentration cetasika). Again, KS > is misrepresenting what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that > the rupa jhanas are Right Concentration, and jhana cittas are not > vithi cittas. (Note, I am being calm and I am using Abhidhamma > terminology so you can understand…I deserve a gold star! LOL!) You are certainly surprising me! A big gold star to you for staying calm (and yes I'm very impressed by the Abhidhamma terminology). As regards content though, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one ;-)) > Jon: I would see it differently. 'Right concentration is one or other > of the four jhanas'; not, 'the four (mundane) jhanas are > [necessarily] right concentration'. > > James: I think we had this discussion before. I also don't believe > that all four of the jhanas are required for Right Concentration. > Even the first jhana alone would be sufficient to qualify as Right > Concentration. After all, the fundamental nature of the jhana > doesn't change as it progresses, only the cetasikas change. As I understand it, a person who attains jhana but who has never heard the teachings does not thereby develop Right Concentration of the NEP. But I'll have to wait until I'm back in Hong Kong to give the sutta references I mentioned in my earlier post. > P.S. Hope you are having a nice time in Bangkok. Say hi to Sarah for > me. :-) Thanks, James. Everything going fine so far. Sarah says hi to you and to all. Jon #66895 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 1:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/8/07 9:35:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > A difficult subject for you to discuss, I know. Nevertheless, I'd > like to ask why you consider it such experiences (dreams of majesty > and glorious beauty, sobbing) to be kusala. > > ======================== If you insist, though I don't know why you do, one reason is that this dream has served as encouragement for me, spurring my effort at practice, not only in meditating, but practice in its entirety. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and the value of an event is in its consequences. With metta, Howard #66896 From: "m_nease" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 10:32 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na m_nease Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Mike, > > Nice to talk to you again: My pleasure-- > M: > In this context, would it be useful to say that thought > (vitakka/vicaara) is real but that thoughts aren't? > -------- > > Useful, yes, but far from the end of the matter, I'm afraid. :-) Very far of course, sorry if I seemed to suggest otherwise. mike #66897 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 12:12 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) ken_aitch Hi Bill, ---------- B: > I have no idea what you mean when you say that I can learn about a practice at DSG that is unique to the Buddhadhamma but not a practice followed by human beings or any other kind of sentient being. In other words, are you saying there is no practice, whatever happens, happens and I should just except it? ----------- No, not at all! This practice is 'beautiful at the beginning, beautiful at the middle and beautiful at the end.' It never involves helpless acceptance of fate. But nor does it involve the romantic hero who overcomes evil and attains enlightenment (and gets the girl). :-) Those extremes are seen whenever there is the idea of a sentient being - someone who is either trying, or not trying, to follow the Path. What I was saying before (about DSG being different from other groups) probably sounded pompous and ridiculous. But the fact remains there are very few places in the world where you can hear an explanation of the Dhamma that adheres strictly to the ancient texts. The Path, as it is explained elsewhere, involves the idea of a self that does something (follows a series of steps) in order to attain enlightenment. But that is not the way it was originally taught. Ken H #66898 From: "Joop" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 2:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: vedana jwromeijn Hallo Larry, Melek, Bill, all The scholar-monk Analayo givesn in his book 'Satipatthana; the direct path to realization" a broad review about 'internal and external contemplation' in the Satipatthana Sutta. I quote parts of page 94-102 below I must say I have hardly an opinion myself. Perhaps that the best opinion: it is not explained in a Sutta so we cannot know it. Ands further: in vipassana (a la Mahasi) I just notice what happens and I cannot remember that 'external' phenomena ever occured. Metta Joop "V.1 INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CONTEMPLATION The two expressions used in the first part of the 'refrain' are internal (ajjhatta) and its complementary 'external' (bahiddha). The significance of these two terms is not further explained in the Sutta. The Abhidhamma and the commentaries associate internal with the personal and external with correspondingphenomena in other human beings. Modern meditation teachers have proposed several alternative interpretations …I will at first consider the Abhidhammaand commentarial interpretation. Then I will suevey some alternative interpretations. According to the Abhidhamma and in the commentarial interpretation, 'internal' and 'external' satipatthana encompasses phenomena arising in oneself and in others. In this way, proper practice of satipatthana would also include awareness of the subjective experience of others. Although this may be quite feasible in the case of observing another person's body, to directly experience another's feelings or states of mind seems at first sight to require psychic powers. This would, of course, significantly limit the possibility of carrying out 'external' satipatthana. Yet in the Satipatthana Samyutta the Buddha introduced these three modes of attention - internal, external and both - seperately … … In order to do justice a practible soluation is possibly tot develop awareness of another's feelings and mental condition by carefully observing their outer manifestations This suggestion finds support in several discourses that list four means of knowing another person's state of mind: based on what one sees, based on what one hears, by considering and further reflecting on what one has heard, and lastly with the help of mind reading. … V.2 ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL Modern meditation teachers have proposed various alternative interpretations of internal and external satipatthana. Some take 'internal' and 'external' to mean quit literally what is spatially internal and external. They suggest that external bodily feelings, for example, are those observed at skin level, while internal bodily feelings are those occurring deeper within the body. … Other teachers suggest that the distinction between internal and external contemplation hints at the difference between apparent and ultimate truth. Its is certainly true that as practice progresses one comes to see phenomena more and more in their true nature. Yet it is highly omprobable that a distinction between apparent and ultimate truth corresponds tot the original sense of 'internal' and 'external' in the Satipatthana Sutta, firstly because neither of the two terms ever has this implication in the discourses, and secondly simply because the distinction between these two levels of truth is a late development, belonging to the post-canonical period. Another interpretation proposes to distinguish between internal mental and external physical objects, so that in the case of feelings, for example, one distinguishes mental feelings from physical feelings, and in the second case of mind one distinguishes between pure mental experience and states of mind related to sensory experiences. … In summery, although alternative ways of understanding internal and external satipatthana have their practical value, to understand 'internal' as referring to oneself and 'external' as referring to others offers a practicable form of contemplation which can moreover claim support from the discourses, the Abhidhamma, and the commentaries. In the end, whichever interpretation one may adopt, once contemplation is practised both internally and externally it entails a shift towards a comprehensive type of practice. At this stage even the boundary between 'I' and 'other' or 'internal' and 'external' is left behind, leading to a comprehensive vision of phenomena as such, independent of any sense of ownership …" #66899 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 3:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi Howard, --------------- H: > You very readily accept whatever catagories of paramattha dhamma the Abhidhamma throws at you, but I am not. As far as I'm concerned, lying is a conventional activity, and thus so is abstaining from it. But frankly, that isn't the issue here. --------------- I suspect it *is* an issue here, but I am also interested in the following: ------------------------------ H: > There *was* an enormous complex of paramattha dhammas underlying the cherry tree story. That story was an abbreviational formulation of that facts in a form suitable for communication, which is what concepts are all about - communication, and it was, so far as we know, a true story. There was a George Washington and there was a cherry tree IN THE SENSE that dhammas, interrelated in very specific ways [namely, justifying the figurative story] actually occurred. If there was no George Washington and no cherry tree IN THAT SENSE, then there were no dhammas as basis either, in which case there was nothing at all, making the nihilists quite correct and the Buddha's middle way quite wrong. -------------------------------- I am out of my depth here. I don't know in what ways it can be said that one ultimate reality (e.g., the hardness we associate with "axe") relates to another (the not-so-hardness of "tree") to condition another dhamma (that is conceived as a chopped-down tree). Ultimately, vipaka comes from kamma (usually of the distant past) and so, in the George Washington story, the rupas that the boy experienced (saw, heard, felt, etc.) were not experienced by virtue of his resolve to chop down a tree. And the virati cetasika that momentarily arose did not do so by virtue of his resolve to be the good little boy who could not tell a lie. Deeds and tendencies accumulated over countless lifetimes are the real determinants of what happens to us and how we react to it. ---------------------------------------------- H: > In your eagerness to adopt the truth of paramattha dhammas, you are taking a position that diminishes the "creative power" of dhammas, obliterating their very roll in accounting for "the world of convention". ---------------------------------------------- I think the real issue here is 'the efficacy of conventional activity.' Will handing money to a charity collector mean dana? Will walking around an ants' nest mean sila? Will wanting to be a disciple of the Buddha mean bhavana? ---------------------------------- H: > I have read that the following was stated in the Katthavatthu: "The Awakened One, the best of teachers, spoke of two truths, conventional and higher; no third is ascertained; a conventional statement is true because of convention and a higher statement is true as disclosing the true characteristics of events." This countenances two truths, not a truth and a falsehood. Conventional truth is conventional, figurative, not literal - but truth nonetheless, and its truth lies in being backed up by the "higher truth". ----------------------------------- What were you saying before about straw men? :-) Who has ever suggested that "concept" means "falsehood?" The Buddha described an ultimately real world of citta, cetasikas and rupas. That is the world we can understand through his teaching. At any moment when one of those namas or rupas is directly understood, there are no stories of any kind (true or false). Ken H #66900 From: "bjones6513" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 3:37 pm Subject: Re: vedana bjones6513 Hi Joop, Thanks for the reference. I just finished Analayo's book. He is very good at pointing out the many interpretations and lets one draw their own conclusions. I believe his book was his PhD thesis. With Metta, Bill #66901 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 10:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/8/07 6:19:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > I think the real issue here is 'the efficacy of conventional > activity.' Will handing money to a charity collector mean dana? Will > walking around an ants' nest mean sila? Will wanting to be a disciple > of the Buddha mean bhavana? > ====================== Think multiple conditions, Ken. Mere intention to give will not have the kammic efficacy of the intention to give plus the giving. Of course, giving for ill-intentioned reason will not have the kammic efficacy of well intentioned giving. The same with the anthill. Deed alone and intention alone each lacks the "power" of intention plus deed. With metta, Howard #66902 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 11:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi again, Ken - In a message dated 1/8/07 6:19:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > > What were you saying before about straw men? :-) Who has ever > suggested that "concept" means "falsehood?" > ===================== You did - when you said "But there was no true version of the story, no George Washington and no chopped-down cherry tree." With metta, Howard #66903 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 4:46 pm Subject: Inauthenticity of Anupada Sutta, MN111 buddhatrue Dear Members, A member wrote to me off-list and asked why I believed the Anupada Sutta was not authentic. Since other members may wonder about this, I thought I would share my answer: There are three reasons why I don't think the Anupada Sutta is authentic (listed from least important to most important): 1. The description of jhana found in that sutta doesn't correspond to any other description of jhana found in the entire Tipitaka (including the commentaries). That sutta describes jhana tranquility as arising at the exact sime time as insight (vipassana). This doesn't make sense because insight doesn't bring tranquility- seeing that everything is dukkha, annica, and anata is very disconcerting without a base of tranquility. Additionally, jhana cittas follow one another in succession without being broken by discursive thought. This sutta describes many kinds of thoughts occurring during jhana. 2. There are terms in this sutta which are only found in the Abhidhamma and commentaries (like "one pointedness of mind", etc), not found in any other sutta. As the Abhidhamma and commentaries were later texts, this shows me that the Anupada Sutta was a later addition. 3. This sutta describes Sariputta as achieving enlightenment while in the highest jhana state, Cessation of Perception and Feeling. However, many other Buddhist sources (much more reliable) verify that Sariputta actually achieved enlightenment while fanning the Buddha and listening to a discourse. Sariputta couldn't be fanning the Buddha (which requires perception) and listening to a discourse (which requires discursive thought) and still be in the jhana of Cessation of Perception and Feeling. Some argue that Sariputta was `phasing' in and out of jhana very quickly when he was listening to that discourse; so he actually achieved enlightenment while in a quick jhana phase. This argument ignores the quality of jhana. Vithi cittas, which are responsible for discursive thinking, occur in seventeen thought moments (cittas) before they are interrupted by bhavanga cittas (unconsciousness). However, jhana cittas occur one after the other with no interruption of bhavanga cittas. The arising of bhavanga cittas during the moments of discursive thinking would interrupt the flow of the jhana state in Sariputta. In other words, he couldn't be listening to a discourse and phasing in and out of jhana that quickly because the thing that makes jhana jhana is that it is an uninterrupted state! Okay, I hope this answers your question. I think I might go ahead and post this to DSG since others might want to know my reasons. I will leave your name out though. Metta, James #66904 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 5:00 pm Subject: Re: vedana buddhatrue Hi Bill (and Larry), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bjones6513" wrote: > > Hi Larry, > Thanks for your post. I don't see how contemplating anything about > someone else's body leads to anything but desire, craving, hatred, and > aversion. Plus any contemplation of this sort involves conjecture. The > only reality that can truly seen is within one's own body and mind. Contemplating the bodies of others could be helpful if they are seen as dukkha, annica, and anata. However, for you, that might not be helpful. Remember, the Buddha doesn't teach that this "contemplation of the external" is a necessity. As the Satipatthana Sutta states: "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself…" So, you have a choice here. You can focus on just your body, the bodies of others, or both. Do what brings about the most dispassion and detachment for you. Metta, James #66905 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 5:13 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) buddhatrue Hi Jon (and Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Howard > A difficult subject for you to discuss, I know. Nevertheless, I'd > like to ask why you consider it such experiences (dreams of majesty > and glorious beauty, sobbing) to be kusala. I haven't read Howard's reply to this post yet; but I do have to tell you, I think this post is very inappropriate. As the old adage goes, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." When someone shares something personal on this list, I think he/she should receive only positive feedback- nothing negative. If you have something nice to say, say it; if you don't, then keep it to yourself. This subject hits a nerve with me because you, Jon, if you remember, questioned my desire to become ordained (samvegga) as possibly being a "state of panic". I didn't appreciate that and it wasn't appropriate. When are you going to learn to be nice? Metta, James #66906 From: "bjones6513" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 5:29 pm Subject: Re: vedana bjones6513 Hi James, The translation I have does not have the "or" in the sentence. It states, "contemplating body as body internally, contemplating body as body externally, contemplating body as body both internally and externally." If one wants to practice the complete practice as described in this sutta, then both internal and external need to be understood. So for me what brings the most dispassion and detachment would be defining external as something perceived, but something arising externally that the senses contact. With metta, Bill >. As the Satipatthana Sutta states: > > "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of > itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally > & externally on the body in & of itself…" > > So, you have a choice here. You can focus on just your body, the > bodies of others, or both. Do what brings about the most dispassion > and detachment for you. #66907 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 6:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana lbidd2 Hi Joop, J: "I must say I have hardly an opinion myself. Perhaps that the best opinion: it is not explained in a Sutta so we cannot know it." L: Unfortunately, nothing is explained anywhere. More explanation is always needed and it is never enough. No opinion probably is the best opinion. Larry #66908 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 6:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: vedana lbidd2 Hi Bill, B: "I don't see how contemplating anything about someone else's body leads to anything but desire, craving, hatred, and aversion." L: Mindfulness is mindfulness. It doesn't condition desire. Plus "your" body is someone else's body in the sense that it isn't "you". Someone else's body isn't someone else's body in the sense that it isn't a person. If you contemplate the in and out breathing of a cat, that is the same as contemplating your own precious breathing. If you contemplate the feelings of your boss, that is the same as contemplating the feelings of yourself. There is nothing special about your experience. It is impermanent and not self. That's the main point. The same goes for everyone else. Larry #66909 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 7:02 pm Subject: Re: vedana buddhatrue Hi Bill and Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bjones6513" wrote: > > Hi James, > The translation I have does not have the "or" in the sentence. It > states, "contemplating body as body internally, contemplating body as body > externally, contemplating body as body both internally and externally." Hmmmm....that's interesting. I always took that section to contain "or"; actually, without "or" the parallelism of the sentence is lost and it becomes redundant. It becomes: A and B and A and B. With "or" inserted it becomes: A or B or A/B, which makes more sense to me. Unfortunately, I don't have my printed version of the nikayas anymore; I had to leave them in Egypt. Scott, since you like to read the original Pali of suttas, could you clarify this sutta section for us? Does it contain "or"? Metta, James #66910 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 7:38 pm Subject: Re: vedana scottduncan2 Dear Bill and James, Howzitgoin? J: "Scott, since you like to read the original Pali of suttas, could you clarify this sutta section for us? Does it contain "or"?" NOW BOYS, STOP THIS POINTLESS BICKERING IMMEDIATELY! WE'RE ALL GETTING TIRED OF IT! DO YOU HEAR? There is no need for the Paali yet. And you know full well I am no Paali scholar. Don't you know there are two suttas and you are using both and, given the one you each are using, you are both right? Look: Mahaasatipa.t.thaana Sutta DN22: "So he abides contemplating body as body internally, contemplating body as body externally, contemplating body as body both internally and externally..." Satipa.t.thaana Sutta MN10: "In this way he abides contemplating the body as a body internally, or he abides contemplating the body as a body externally, or he abides contemplating the body as a body both internally and externally..." Now, go brush your teeth and get ready for bed. Sincerely, Dad. #66911 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 7:56 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi Scott, ------------------ <. . .> S: > Knowing this, then, is helpful. By eliminating concepts, as it were, one can be less confused about what naama is by knowing what it isn't. --------------------- Yes, I am sure the elimination of concepts is a necessary first step in the development of right understanding (of nama and rupa). ----------------------------------- S: > Naama is not ruupa. Naama is not pa~n~natti. It is not ruupa because ruupa doesn't experience an object. It is not pa~n~natti because pa~n~natti does not experience an object (although is a 'product' of the function of vitakka and vicaara). Does that stand as a tentative summary? ------------------------------------- Yes, it does. I don't think anyone could disagree with it. It could be improved upon, but so too can all tentative summaries. :-) So where does your thread go from here? What comes next in the analysis of nama vis-a-vis rupa? Ken H #66912 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 12:41 am Subject: Re: Inauthenticity of Anupada Sutta, MN111 jwromeijn Hallo James, all You are not the first who doubt the authenticity of the Anupada Sutta (MN 111) In his 'Abhidhamma Studies' Nyanaponika Thera quotes mrs Rhys Davis who has the same opinion. Nyanaponika however does not agree at all with her and has arguments for the authenticity. So: who shall I trust? I'm a big admirer of Nyanaponika but after reading the Anupada Sutta my idea after reading it again, is: this text is younger then many other ones in MN, composed after the passing away of the Buddha (but that's the case with many texts of the Tipitaka; that's why 'autenticity is not a good term) BTW The 'Abhidhamma Studies' can be found at www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhistudy.pdf it's a good read. Metta Joop #66913 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 2:47 am Subject: Re: vedana buddhatrue Hi Scott, Bill, and Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > Now, go brush your teeth and get ready for bed. > > Sincerely, > > Dad. > LOL! Thanks for clearing that up. Hmmm…that is so strange! I wonder why one version has "or" and the other version doesn't! This reminds me of an article I read sometime back which questioned the authenticity of the Satipatthana Sutta and Maha-Satipatthana Sutta. The author compared the Pali versions to the Chinese versions (translated after Bodhidhamma brought Buddhism to China from India) and found some significant inconsistencies. He determined that the Chinese version was more reliable as it hadn't gone through so many hands. So, using that information, he composes a new version of the Satipatthana Sutta which probably more closely follows what the Buddha originally taught. It was a fascinating article but I lost the link. Christine, you were the one who first provided the link, can you provide it again (or anyone else)? It was written by a Theravada monk who is the abbott of a temple/meditation center in Australia, as I remember. I also remember that there are two versions: a long version and a short version. Please, can someone help? I would like to read the short version again in light of this current issue. Metta, James #66914 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 2:51 am Subject: Re: Inauthenticity of Anupada Sutta, MN111 buddhatrue Hi Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > You are not the first who doubt the authenticity of the Anupada Sutta > (MN 111) > In his 'Abhidhamma Studies' Nyanaponika Thera quotes mrs Rhys Davis > who has the same opinion. > Nyanaponika however does not agree at all with her and has arguments > for the authenticity. I was not aware of this! I found the link and downloaded the article. It is rather long and though I intend to read the entire article, can you give me the page number where Nyanaponkia Thera addressses Mrs. Rhys Davis regarding the Anupada Sutta? Thanks. Metta, James #66915 From: "Joop" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 3:04 am Subject: Re: Inauthenticity of Anupada Sutta, MN111 jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" can > you give me the page number where Nyanaponkia Thera addressses Mrs. > Rhys Davis regarding the Anupada Sutta? Thanks. > > Metta, > James > hallo James, It's page 90. Little strange: an appendix in the middle of a texts Metta Joop #66916 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 5:01 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Ken, Thanks for the reply: S: "Naama is not ruupa. Naama is not pa~n~natti. It is not ruupa because ruupa doesn't experience an object. It is not pa~n~natti because pa~n~natti does not experience an object (although is a 'product' of the function of vitakka and vicaara). Does that stand as a tentative summary?" ------------------------------------- K: "Yes, it does. I don't think anyone could disagree with it. It could be improved upon, but so too can all tentative summaries." I sure wouldn't mind seeing how you'd fine-tune it, in the interest of precision. K: "So where does your thread go from here? What comes next in the analysis of nama vis-a-vis rupa?" Having clarified, and I thought it was helpful, what is naama, and what is not (pa~n~natti),I'd like to pursue a discussion clarifying the role of sati and pa~n~na in the making of this distinction. In other words, this is likely more than just a matter of learning, by dint of intellect, what differentiates the two (naama and ruupa). Does that make sense? Sincerely, Scott. #66917 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 8:45 pm Subject: (No subject) bhikkhu5 Friends: What is the Mental Ability of Energy? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these mental five abilities. What five? The ability of Faith (saddhÄ? ) The ability of Energy (viriya ) The ability of Awareness (sati ) The ability of Concentration (samÄ?dhi ) The ability of Understanding (pañña ) But what is the Ability of Energy (Viriya): That which is the arousing of mental energy, effort, endeavour, exertion, industry, toiling travail, diligent zeal, vigour, tenacity, enthusiasm, eagerness, unfaltering will, not giving up the task, forceful drive, intense activity, controlled ardour, get-up-and-go or in short: The power of energy. This is called ability of energy! Source: The Book of Analysis: Vibhanga http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130304 For details on the Ability of Energy see: Energy is the 6th factor of the Noble 8-fold Way: Right Effort. http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/What_is_Right_Effort.htm Energy is the 5th Mental Perfection (parami): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Enthusiastic_is_Energy.htm Energy is 3rd Link to Awakening (viriya-sambojjhanga): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Energy_Viriya.htm How to Feed Energy: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Feeding_Energy.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * http://What-Buddha-Said.net http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Buddha-Direct http://groups.yahoo.com/group/What_Buddha_Said #66918 From: Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 1:32 am Subject: A word to remember ! sihalene60 Mind precedes all things; mind is their chief, mind is their maker. If one speaks or does a deed with a mind that is pure within, happiness then follows along like a never departing shadow. Dhammapada 1 #66919 From: "Ramesh Wamanrao Patil" Date: Mon Jan 8, 2007 10:56 pm Subject: Must discipline the mind!! rameshat27 Morality is sufficient for leading a good life. There are several answers to this question. First of all, in Buddhism there is more than just one goal of the religious life. Besides the goal of happiness and good fortune, there is also the goal of freedom. If you want to attain freedom, the only way is through wisdom, and wisdom can only be gained by means of mental purification, which is achieved through meditation. But even for the sound practice of good conduct, mental development is helpful if not necessary. Why? Because it is relatively easy to follow the rules of morality when things are going well. If you have a good job, live in a stable society, and earn enough to support yourself and your family, it is relatively easy to observe the moral precepts. But when you find yourself in situations of stress, instability, and uncertainty – when, for instance, you lose your job, find yourself in circumstances where lawlessness prevails , and so forth – then observance of the rules of good conduct comes under attack.!!! In such circumstances, only mental development can safeguard your practice of good conduct. By strengthening the capacity of the mind and by attaining control over it, mental development serves as a guarantor of the observance of the precepts ,and at the same time it assists in the real objective of seeing things as they really are. "Mental development prepares the mind to achieve wisdom, which opens the door to freedom and enlightenment. Mental development therefore has a distinctly important role in the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path." Buddhism's emphasis on the importance of mental development is not surprising when we remember the importance of mind in the Buddhist conception of experience. Mind is the single most important factor in the practice of the Noble Eightfold Path. The Buddha himself put this very clearly when he said that the mind is the source of all things and that all things are created by the mind. Similarly, it has been said that the mind is the source of all virtues and other beneficial qualities. "To obtain these virtues and qualities, you must discipline the mind." With Metta Ramesh #66920 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 1:56 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi Scott ------------------- S: "Naama is not ruupa. Naama is not pa~n~natti. It is not ruupa because ruupa doesn't experience an object. It is not pa~n~natti because pa~n~natti does not experience an object (although is a 'product' of the function of vitakka and vicaara). Does that stand as a tentative summary?" K: "Yes, it does. I don't think anyone could disagree with it. It could be improved upon, but so too can all tentative summaries." S: > I sure wouldn't mind seeing how you'd fine-tune it, in the interest of precision. ------------------------ I don't want to be picky, but I would have preferred, ". . . It is not pannatti because, in truth and reality, there is no pannatti." (I drove Swee Boon temporarily mad on this subject, so think carefully before getting me started.) :-) Admittedly, that would have left out the helpful bit about vitakka and vicarra. But maybe that is not such a bad thing either because to say pannatti is the product of those two cetasikas is too simplistic. The process of thinking in concepts involves other cetasikas as well - most noticeably, sanna. Vitakka and vicarra operate in all impulsive cittas (except for the higher jhana cittas) regardless of whether their object is pannatti or paramattha. -------------------- S: > I'd like to pursue a discussion clarifying the role of sati and pa~n~na in the making of this distinction. In other words, this is likely more than just a matter of learning, by dint of intellect, what differentiates the two (naama and ruupa). ---------------------- Yes, we only know the words, don't we? And we mistake the words for the meaning. Carry on with the good work! Ken H #66921 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 3:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 1/8/07 6:19:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, > ken_aitch@... writes: > > > I think the real issue here is 'the efficacy of conventional > > activity.' Will handing money to a charity collector mean dana? Will > > walking around an ants' nest mean sila? Will wanting to be a disciple > > of the Buddha mean bhavana? > > > ====================== > Think multiple conditions, Ken. Mere intention to give will not have > the kammic efficacy of the intention to give plus the giving. Of course, giving > for ill-intentioned reason will not have the kammic efficacy of well > intentioned giving. > The same with the anthill. Deed alone and intention alone each lacks > the "power" of intention plus deed. > Hi Howard, You have got me stumped again. (Or is that term understood only in cricketing nations? Let's say, you have caught me out of my ground. (Or is that still cricket?)) Perhaps I should start again! :-) I don't really understand the difference between 'deed' and 'volition.' According to the Dhamma, killing, for example, requires more than the intention to kill. There has to be a living being that is capable of being killed. And that living being needs to actually die. But living beings are only are concepts, surely! What is "killing" - and what are "deeds" - in paramattha terms? I hope you (or someone) can set me straight. Ken H #66922 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 4:12 pm Subject: Rousing of Energy buddhatrue Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, Of these five abilities, I think the one that householders have the hardest time developing is the ability of energy. Having a job, a house, bills to pay, family responsibilities, etc. can all really drain the energy out of a householder at times. And energy is crucial for meditation practice and daily mindfulness. Would you happen to have any practical suggestions for householders to follow to rouse the ability of energy? How can the householder still practice the dhamma, stay on the path, even when he/she is very much drained of energy? I really respect your insights and think that your feedback could be valuable to me and the members of this group. Metta, James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > But what is the Ability of Energy (Viriya): > That which is the arousing of mental energy, effort, endeavour, > exertion, industry, toiling travail, diligent zeal, vigour, tenacity, > enthusiasm, eagerness, unfaltering will, not giving up the task, > forceful drive, intense activity, controlled ardour, get-up-and-go > or in short: The power of energy. This is called ability of energy! #66923 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 5:06 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) ken_aitch Hi Bill, There was a typo in my last message to you that I thought I would fix up later on. But since our conversation seems to have finished, I will send this separate post just for the purpose: I wrote: > Those extremes are seen whenever there is the idea of a sentient being - someone who is either trying, or not trying, to follow the Path. > Actually, of course, wrong view does not arise every time there is the idea of a sentient being. Nor does "sentient being" always mean "someone who is either trying, or not trying, to follow the Path." What I meant was: whenever there is the idea of a sentient being who is trying to follow (etc) the Path there is wrong view. No need for a reply - unless, of course, you disagree. :-) Ken H #66924 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/9/07 6:07:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > You have got me stumped again. (Or is that term understood only in > cricketing nations? Let's say, you have caught me out of my ground. > (Or is that still cricket?)) > > Perhaps I should start again! :-) > > I don't really understand the difference between 'deed' and > 'volition.' According to the Dhamma, killing, for example, requires > more than the intention to kill. There has to be a living being that > is capable of being killed. And that living being needs to actually > die. But living beings are only are concepts, surely! What is > "killing" - and what are "deeds" - in paramattha terms? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Every conventional "thing" that is not merely imagined (like unicorns and selves) is imputed upon a complex of paramattha dhammas. But for most specific conventional "things", I neither know nor do I feel the need to know exactly what is their basis in paramattha dhammas. Inasmuch as you do feel that need, I hope that for you to be at ease you can find out. :-) However, there is a degree of peace to be found, I have discovered, in relinquishing at least some of the "need to know". --------------------------------------------- > > I hope you (or someone) can set me straight. > > Ken H > > ======================= With metta, Howard #66925 From: "bjones6513" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 6:25 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 --- Hi Ken, Then why are we having these discussions? The idea of sentient being who is trying to follow the path is wrong view and there is no practice and no one to practice the path. You've lost me. I tend to think that there is the "idea" of a sentient being eventhough it is an illusion. Metta, Bill > > >Ken: What I meant was: whenever there is the idea of a sentient being who > is trying to follow (etc) the Path there is wrong view. > > No need for a reply - unless, of course, you disagree. :-) > #66926 From: "bjones6513" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 6:41 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 Hi Ken, No Ken, our conversation has not finished. I may have to quit work to keep up with the posts on DSG. Now that you've got me totally confused about a practice that is followed by no sentient beings or any other animals and now you say the idea of a sentient being following a path is wrong view. I guess the conversation is finished since there is no sentient being typing this and no sentient being answering. There is no point in continuing since there is no path to explore and nothing more to explain.. Metta, Bill >Ken: There was a typo in my last message to you that I thought I would fix > up later on. But since our conversation seems to have finished, I will > send this separate post just for the purpose: > #66927 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 7:27 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na buddhatrue Hi Ken H. (and Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > I hope you (or someone) can set me straight. > Ken: I don't really understand the difference between 'deed' and 'volition.' According to the Dhamma, killing, for example, requires more than the intention to kill. There has to be a living being that is capable of being killed. And that living being needs to actually die. James: There is kamma and there is kamma-patha (complete course of action). The intention to kill, in and of itself, can result in negative kamma. It is the intention (cetana) that desires to deprive a living being of its life-faculty. Kamma-patha is the complete course of action that results in death. In order for there to be kamma-patha there must be: a living being, awareness of the living being, a mind that intends to kill, and death as a result of the action. Ken: But living beings are only are concepts, surely! What is "killing" - and what are "deeds" - in paramattha terms? James: According to the Abhidhamma, the intention to kill is called vedhaka-cetana. The citta which contains this killing intention is called vadhaka-citta. This citta is always accompanied by painful feeling (vedana) and its roots are hate and delusion. Metta, James #66928 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 10:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi Howard, Thanks for this: ----------- H: > Every conventional "thing" that is not merely imagined (like unicorns and selves) is imputed upon a complex of paramattha dhammas. But for most specific conventional "things", I neither know nor do I feel the need to know exactly what is their basis in paramattha dhammas. Inasmuch as you do feel that need, I hope that for you to be at ease you can find out. :-) ------------- I agree. The complex of dhammas that has led to the presently arisen reality is unknowable (acinteyya). It impresses upon me the uncontrollability of dhammas. For example, I can't kill even a cockroach unless the required conditions are in place. I can try really hard - running around the room stomping and swiping with a rolled up newspaper - and still not kill anything. At another time there can be an instinctive reaction - instantly regretted - and some poor insect is dead. ------------------------------ H: > However, there is a degree of peace to be found, I have discovered, in relinquishing at least some of the "need to know". ------------------------------- Yes, I agree entirely. And even this relinquishing is conditioned, of course, not controlled in any ultimately real way. Just as a hobby, I am learning a computer programming language called Python. I don't have a good head for maths, but even the elementary steps are fascinating. The really advanced features of the language are way beyond me now, but maybe one day . . . In the same way, I love learning more and more about Abhidhamma. It's not an obligation or a duty - it's fascinating. The mental block I am currently experiencing over "deeds vs. volition" will work itself out sooner or later. I'm pretty sure I have asked about it before and dimly remember saying, "Oh yes, thanks, I will remember that!" :-) Ken H #66929 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 10:56 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi James, ------------- J: > There is kamma and there is kamma-patha (complete course of action). The intention to kill, in and of itself, can result in negative kamma. It is the intention (cetana) that desires to deprive a living being of its life-faculty. Kamma-patha is the complete course of action that results in death. In order for there to be kamma-patha there must be: a living being, awareness of the living being, a mind that intends to kill, and death as a result of the action. ------------- Brilliant! Thanks James, I don't know how some people - like yourself - are able to put their hands on the right texts at the right time. But that is the bit I was trying to remember. It's complicated, isn't it? Even for a person who doesn't subscribe to the "momentary" view of the world, it must be difficult to explain when kamma-patha has occurred and when it hasn't. Take killing, for example: the victim might not die straight away (rarely does). So is the cetana nevertheless "vadhaka" (as you call it) at the instant it occurs? I'm sure it must be. ---------------------------------- J: > According to the Abhidhamma, the intention to kill is called vedhaka-cetana. The citta which contains this killing intention is called vadhaka-citta. This citta is always accompanied by painful feeling (vedana) and its roots are hate and delusion. ------------------------------------ Thanks again. "Vadhaka" doesn't get a mention in Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, but I found it in another one. Ken H #66930 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 11:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi James, > > Brilliant! Thanks James, I don't know how some people - like yourself > - are able to put their hands on the right texts at the right time. > But that is the bit I was trying to remember. James: I'm glad you appreciate the information. My coming across it isn't a big mystery, however. ;-)) I simply did a google search on the keyword phrase "Killing and Abhidhamma" and I found the article, "Can Killing a Living Being Ever Be an Act of Compassion? An analysis of the act of killing in the Abhidhamma and Pali Commentaries" by Rupert Gethin: http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/geth0401.pdf I read the 37-page article, took notes, and posted the information to you. I was interested in this subject as well so I wanted to find out. It is a very good article. > > It's complicated, isn't it? Even for a person who doesn't subscribe to > the "momentary" view of the world, James: I don't know if you are specifically referring to me, but I do subscribe to a momentary view of the world- I just don't subscribe to a "momentary only" view of the world. ;-)) it must be difficult to explain > when kamma-patha has occurred and when it hasn't. Take killing, for > example: the victim might not die straight away (rarely does). So is > the cetana nevertheless "vadhaka" (as you call it) at the instant it > occurs? I'm sure it must be. James: According to the article, the cetana would be vadhaka regardless of if the death occurred immediately, delayed, or not at all. It is a very interesting subject. I wanted to find out about this article because I kill mosquitoes. Here in Taiwan, the mosquito population is quite high and I, being imported meat, am often a targeted victim. ;-)) Mosquitoes will get into my apartment and feed on me all night until I am just covered with bites by the morning. I hate to kill them but I can't think of any other alternative. I tell myself that my killing them is okay because they spread disease, so I am killing them out of compassion for myself and other people. But, after reading this article, I now realize that I kill them out of hate and delusion- not any sort of compassion. What I will do about this issue I don't know. Wearing mosquito repellent every night is out of the question. I also don't want to catch a disease from these insects or become covered in itching mosquito bites. I guess I am going to start practicing metta toward them and hope that stops them from eating me alive. ;-)) (Please note all- this is personal information about me. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Thanks) Metta, James #66931 From: Date: Tue Jan 9, 2007 10:12 pm Subject: A word for the day sihalene60 No mother nor father nor any other kin can do greater good for oneself than a mind directed well. Dhammapada 43 #66932 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:14 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) ken_aitch Hi Bill, ------------------- No Ken, our conversation has not finished. I may have to quit work to keep up with the posts on DSG. Now that you've got me totally confused about a practice that is followed by no sentient beings or any other animals and now you say the idea of a sentient being following a path is wrong view. ---------------------- It can sound implausible, so I had better cite a reference. :-) Vis. XVI: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveller on it is seen." If that is true then any belief in a sufferer, doer, man or traveller must be wrong belief, mustn't it? ------------------------------------ B: > I guess the conversation is finished since there is no sentient being typing this and no sentient being answering. ------------------------------------ No, the conversation is not finished (at least I hope not). The point is; in the absolute reality taught by the Buddha there are no conversations, there are only conditioned dhammas (and nibbana). Therefore, to believe that *in absolute reality* the conversation is finished is wrong view. To believe it is not finished is wrong view. To believe it is both finished and not finished is wrong view. And, finally, to believe the conversation is neither finished nor not finished is wrong view. That's how I understand the sutta I am paraphrasing (The All Embracing Net of Views): I am willing to be corrected. So it would be very wrong to conclude that anyone partaking in a conversation must have wrong view. The point of the sutta(s) is that anyone who believes in the *absolute reality* of conversations has wrong view. You and I, as Dhamma students, can still live normal lives. We are not contradicting the Buddha's teaching every time we use the words 'I' 'doer' 'man' 'traveller' etc. However, if we believe there is a being that experiences dukkha (a conditioned dhamma) we are most certainly contradicting the teaching. So too if we believe kamma (cetana-cetasika) is performed by a doer - or if we believe that nibbana is entered into by any kind of sentient being. As for vipassana practice (the path) the same applies; if we believe *we* can practise, or develop, vipassana we are in the very dangerous territory of wrong view. --------------------------------- B: > There is no point in continuing since there is no path to explore and nothing more to explain. --------------------------------- There is no point in continuing with the idea of a self that can develop vipassana (right view). However, all is not lost! As the above Visuddhimagga quote says, "the path is." In the Tipitka and the ancient commentaries, and in a small number of discussion groups (notably DSG) we can learn about a path that requires no traveller, no sufferer, no doer and no sentient being of any kind. I should stop now. Get back to work! :-) Ken H #66933 From: "bjones6513" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:24 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 Hi Ken, Preceding your reference it mentions states that this is the ultimate sense of the truths. So, ultimately, I cannot disagree with that reference. But to penetrate those truths requires a path and until those truths are ultimately realized, not just intellectually, there is a sufferer. And how does one accomplish this realization without meditation, especially since there is no one to accomplish anything and nothing to accomplish? Metta, Bill > ---------------------- > >Ken: It can sound implausible, so I had better cite a reference. :-) > > Vis. XVI: > "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; > Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it; > The path is, but no traveller on it is seen." > #66934 From: "bjones6513" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:44 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bjones6513" wrote: > > Hi Ken, I added to this since I had a typo. > Preceding your reference it states that this is the ultimate > sense of the truths. > So, ultimately, I cannot disagree with that reference. But to penetrate > those truths requires a path and until those truths are ultimately > realized, not just intellectually, there is a sufferer. And how does one accomplish this realization without meditation, > especially since there is no one to accomplish anything and nothing to > accomplish? > Metta, > Bill > > > ---------------------- > > > >Ken: It can sound implausible, so I had better cite a reference. :-) > > > > Vis. XVI: > > "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; > > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; > > Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it; > > The path is, but no traveller on it is seen." > > #66935 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:51 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) scottduncan2 Hi Bill and Ken, I like this: Vis. XVI: "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it; The path is, but no traveller on it is seen." Here's SN XII,12(2): "Bhikkhus, there are these four kinds of nutriment for the maintenance of beings...edible food...contact...mental volition...consciousness... "When this was said, the Venerable M.oliyaphagguna said to the Blessed One: 'Venerable Sir, who consumes the nutriment of consciousness?" "Not a valid question," the Blessed One replied. "I do not say, 'One consumes.' If I should say, 'One consumes,' in that case this would be a valid question: 'Venerable Sir, who consumes?' But I do not speak thus. Since I do not speak thus, if one should ask me, 'Venerable Sir, for what is the nutriment consciousness [a condition]?' this would be a valid question...'Who makes contact?'...'Who feels?'...'Who craves?...'Not a valid question..." D 9,53: "...But, Citta, these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without misapprending them." Sincerely, Scott. #66936 From: "bjones6513" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:11 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 Scott, This is all fine and I have no problem with understanding this intellectually. I want to go beyond mere intellectual understanding. They are wise who pursue meditation, delighting in the calm of renunciation. Even the radiant ones long for those who are fully awakened, the mindful. Dhp 181. Metta, Bill > > "...But, Citta, these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, > designations in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses > without misapprending them." > #66937 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:13 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Ken, Thanks for the clarification: S: "Naama is not ruupa. Naama is not pa~n~natti. It is not ruupa because ruupa doesn't experience an object. It is not pa~n~natti because pa~n~natti does not experience an object (although is a 'product' of the function of vitakka and vicaara). K: "I don't want to be picky, but I would have preferred, ". . . It is not pannatti because, in truth and reality, there is no pannatti." I think precision is important. K: "Admittedly, that would have left out the helpful bit about vitakka and vicarra. But maybe that is not such a bad thing either because to say pannatti is the product of those two cetasikas is too simplistic. The process of thinking in concepts involves other cetasikas as well - most noticeably, sanna. Vitakka and vicarra operate in all impulsive cittas (except for the higher jhana cittas) regardless of whether their object is pannatti or paramattha." Yes. Bh. Bodhi, in his introduction to The Mahaanidaana Sutta and Its Commentaries, notes (pp.27-28): "The pathways for designation, language, and descriptions are not all that the vortical interplay of consciousness and mentality-materiality makes possible. The Buddha says that it also makes possible a sphere for wisdom (pa~n~naavaccara). The sphere for wisdom is the pathways themselves: the five aggregates in process of dependent arising. As long as the aggregates are enveloped in ignorance, the become the basis for conceiving the deluded notions 'mine,' 'I am,' and 'my self.' But when they are examined with mindfulness and clear comprehension, they become transformed into the soil for the growth of wisdom. Wisdom works with the same set of referents as deluded conceptualisations - the five aggregates, etc. - but exhibits them from a new point of view, one which leads to the abolition of all conceivings: 'Whatever material form there is, whatever feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness - past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near - all that one sees with perfect wisdom as it really is: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' For one knowing and seeing thus, there are no more ego-conceptions, conceptions of 'mine,' and underlying tendencies to conceit in regard to this conscious body and all external signs.' (S.X,91;iii,136)" I like that a 'sphere of wisdom' is made possible and that it is only natural that it arises out of the common 'soil' of all the deluded conceptualising. I think this puts into perspective the whole notion of what is 'real' and what is 'not real'. Sincerely, Scott. #66938 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:20 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) scottduncan2 Hi Bill, Yes: B: "This is all fine and I have no problem with understanding this intellectually. I want to go beyond mere intellectual understanding..." What do you mean, please, with "go beyond mere intellectual understanding"? Sincerely, Scott. #66939 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/10/07 1:36:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Thanks for this: > > ----------- > H: > Every conventional "thing" that is not merely imagined (like > unicorns and selves) is imputed upon a complex of paramattha dhammas. > But for most specific conventional "things", I neither know nor do I > feel the need to know exactly what is their basis in paramattha > dhammas. Inasmuch as you do feel that need, I hope that for you to be > at ease you can find out. :-) > ------------- > > I agree. The complex of dhammas that has led to the presently > arisen reality is unknowable (acinteyya). It impresses upon me the > uncontrollability of dhammas. For example, I can't kill even a > cockroach unless the required conditions are in place. I can try > really hard - running around the room stomping and swiping with a > rolled up newspaper - and still not kill anything. At another time > there can be an instinctive reaction - instantly regretted - and some > poor insect is dead. -------------------------------------------- Howard: With regard to "things just happening" in the sense of no "me" doing anything, let me mention something: From time to time, when I remember (LOL!), I pay attention to what's happening with regard to (mostly) the body - the walking, bending, various moves and positions, bodily sensations, etc [actually I do that a lot]. (Speaking colloquially in that last sentence, in order to communicate! ;-) Often, but especially so the other day, it becomes so crystal clear that "no one" is acting (or observing), but there is just a bunch of impersonal conditions occurring "on their own". The other day in particular, the impersonality and objectivity of it, with "nobody in charge", was as clear as can be. The body-mind complex just moving along like a programmed (sentient) robot. Quite fascinating, actually. -------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------ > H: > However, there is a degree of peace to be found, I have > discovered, in relinquishing at least some of the "need to know". > ------------------------------- > > Yes, I agree entirely. And even this relinquishing is conditioned, of > course, not controlled in any ultimately real way. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, not in any *ultimately* real way. ---------------------------------------- > > Just as a hobby, I am learning a computer programming language called > Python. I don't have a good head for maths, but even the elementary > steps are fascinating. The really advanced features of the language > are way beyond me now, but maybe one day . . . In the same way, I love > learning more and more about Abhidhamma. It's not an obligation or a > duty - it's fascinating. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Unbelievable!! It was a number of years ago, but I used to program in PYTHON!! I loved the language. (BTW, have you ever looked at the functional programming language, ML? I was even more enthusiastic about it, though I never could obtain a good enough interpreter or compiler for home use for it! :-) ------------------------------------------- > > The mental block I am currently experiencing over "deeds vs. volition" > will work itself out sooner or later. I'm pretty sure I have > asked about it before and dimly remember saying, "Oh yes, thanks, I > will remember that!" :-) > > Ken H > > ======================= What a happy communication we're having, Ken! How very, very pleasant! :-) With metta, Howard #66940 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:42 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) buddhatrue Hi Ken H. and Bill, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hi Bill, > > ------------------- > No Ken, our conversation has not finished. I may have to quit work to > keep up with the posts on DSG. Now that you've got me totally > confused about a practice that is followed by no sentient beings or > any other animals and now you say the idea of a sentient being > following a path is wrong view. > ---------------------- > > It can sound implausible, so I had better cite a reference. :-) > > Vis. XVI: > "Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found; > The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there; > Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it; > The path is, but no traveller on it is seen." > > If that is true then any belief in a sufferer, doer, man or traveller > must be wrong belief, mustn't it? You are taking this quote of the Vism. completely out of context and therefore misinterpreting its meaning. It doesn't mean that there is no person (puggala), it means that there is no self (atta). If you quote the section immediately following this one, it states: "Or alternatively: So void of lastingness, and beauty, pleasure, self, Is the first pair, and void of self the deathless state, And void of lastingness, of pleasure and of self Is the path too; for such is voidness in these four." So, even though Buddhaghosa writes, "Extinction is but no extinguished person", he doesn't mean that people (puggala) don't exist, he means that self (atta) doesn't exist. In the footnotes, you will see further clarification of this meaning when the footnotes refer to the original source, Saddhammappakasini (Sinhalese ed., pg. 464): Note 25: All dhammas whether grouped together In three ways, two ways, or one way, Are void; thus here in this dispensation Do those who know voidness make their comment. How so? Firstly, all mundane dhammas are void of lastingness, beauty, pleasure, and self, because they are destitute of lastingness, beauty, pleasure, and self. Path and fruition dhammas are void of lastingness, pleasure and self, because they are destitute of lastingness, pleasure and self. Nibbana dhammas are void of self because of the non-existence of self. Secondly, formed dhammas, both mundane and supramundane, are all void of a permanent living being (satta) because of the non-existence of such a living being or any sort whatever….Thirdly, all dhammas formed and unformed, are void of self because of the non-existence of any person (puggala) called `self' (atta)." Metta, James #66941 From: "bjones6513" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:37 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 --- > Hi Scott, That's what I'm trying to find out. Is this what it's all about, discussing concepts with ambiguity? I feel like I'm on the Abbot and Costello show trying to figure out "who's on first." Am I correct in saying there is a path but it's not a path that's followed by any sentient being? Or is there no path? Or is there no path and no sentient being? No matter how much one discusses these concepts of anatta and anicca, there still remains clinging. Since the majority in this group frown on meditation and don't see it as part of the "path" does that mean they have reached the level of sotapanna or beyond and meditation is no longer needed or did this realization arise spontaneously through discussions on DSG? Metta, Bill > > B: "This is all fine and I have no problem with understanding this > intellectually. I want to go beyond mere intellectual understanding..." > > What do you mean, please, with "go beyond mere intellectual > understanding"? > #66942 From: "Raghunath Awachar" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:46 am Subject: Re: Must discipline the mind!! raghunath_aw... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ramesh Wamanrao Patil" wrote: > > Morality is sufficient for leading a good life. > snip/slash Hi, I agree with you totally because it is mind which controls the activities we undertake whether good or bad. Buddha always stressed on this factor.If the people concentrate on this fact then and then only good human society can exist. With Metta ruawachar #66943 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 2:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi James, ---------------- J: > I'm glad you appreciate the information. My coming across it isn't a big mystery, however. ;-)) I simply did a google search on the keyword phrase "Killing and Abhidhamma" and I found the article, "Can Killing a Living Being Ever Be an Act of Compassion? An analysis of the act of killing in the Abhidhamma and Pali Commentaries" by Rupert Gethin: ----------------- Yes, when you explain it that way it is pretty straightforward. But why didn't I do it? Why do I have an aversion to large tracts of text when you don't? That's a serious question. According to my understanding of the Abhidhamma the answer lies in "accumulations." --------------------------------- J: > http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/geth0401.pdf I read the 37-page article, took notes, and posted the information to you. I was interested in this subject as well so I wanted to find out. It is a very good article. ---------------------------------- I got about half way through page one (I think it was) and got distracted. I switched to another tab and began to write a DSG post thinking, "That's a good article, I'll get back to it." End of story! :-) ------------------------------ <. . .> J: > I don't know if you are specifically referring to me, but I do subscribe to a momentary view of the world- I just don't subscribe to a "momentary only" view of the world. ;-)) ------------------------------- But doesn't it have to be one or the other? (That's a rhetorical question; you believe no, I believe yes.) ---------------------- <. . .> J: > According to the article, the cetana would be vadhaka regardless of if the death occurred immediately, delayed, or not at all. It is a very interesting subject. ---------------------- That's not the way I remember hearing it. I should, of course, read the article you are quoting (but thirty-seven pages!) :-) ------------------------------- J: > I wanted to find out about this article because I kill mosquitoes. Here in Taiwan, the mosquito population is quite high and I, being imported meat, am often a targeted victim. ;-)) Mosquitoes will get into my apartment and feed on me all night until I am just covered with bites by the morning. I hate to kill them but I can't think of any other alternative. I tell myself that my killing them is okay because they spread disease, so I am killing them out of compassion for myself and other people. But, after reading this article, I now realize that I kill them out of hate and delusion- not any sort of compassion. ------------------------------- That's an excellent result! Even though it seems to you at the time of killing that you are acting with good intentions, you understand from your Abhidhamma studies there is actually hate and delusion. Welcome to the not-self world of Abhidhamma study! :-) (Sorry if that sounds patronising; it isn't meant that way.) ------------------------------------- J: > What I will do about this issue I don't know. Wearing mosquito repellent every night is out of the question. I also don't want to catch a disease from these insects or become covered in itching mosquito bites. I guess I am going to start practicing metta toward them and hope that stops them from eating me alive. ;-)) ------------------------------------- :-) No, it won't! Even the Buddha, with all his metta, experienced the aches and pains of everyday life (which included people trying to kill him). I am in no position to give advice on how to live without [intentionally] killing insects. Sarah is; she has managed it for nearly all of her life. So too has a friend of mine here in Australia. While Sarah lives in a high-rise, air-conditioned luxury apartment, my other friend lives hippy-style in the countryside in a house with no windows. He is covered in mosquito bites - Sarah isn't. I would listen to Sarah. :-) -------------------------- J: > (Please note all- this is personal information about me. If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all. Thanks) -------------------------- Hmmm, you are alluding to Jon's post to Howard, aren't you? You are entirely misconstruing that post. Howard was man enough (is that sexist language?) - mature enough - to speak publicly about a personal experience. Jon knew Howard would be mature enough to consider genuine, relevant (Dhamma related) questions about it. That's what we're here for! Ken H #66944 From: "bjones6513" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 3:53 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na bjones6513 Hi James, Why don't you buy a mosquito net? We always use one in Thailand. Then the mosquitoes can't bite you and you don't have to kill them, although you are depriving them of a potential food source. Metta, Bill #66945 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:22 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) ken_aitch Hi Bill, ------------------- B: > Preceding your reference it states that this is the ultimate sense of the truths. So, ultimately, I cannot disagree with that reference. But to penetrate those truths requires a path and until those truths are ultimately realized, not just intellectually, there is a sufferer. ------------------------ I agree except for one thing. There might be the idea, or sense, of a sufferer, but whether we realize it or not "mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found." It is the same with the path. There certainly is a path, but there is no traveller on it. Whenever there seems to be a traveller (a developer of vipassana) the path being followed is a wrong path. ------------------------------------- S: > And how does one accomplish this realization without meditation, especially since there is no one to accomplish anything -------------------------------------- According to the Dhamma, the realization is accomplished through "bhavana." Bhavana is correctly translated as "mental development." Most people prefer the translation "meditation," which leads to no end of confusion. Every ultimate reality (including bhavana) can be understood in terms of nama and rupa. Bhavana is a moment in which certain conditioned namas (of a very rare variety) arise momentarily and immediately fall away. That moment will condition other moments of bhavana to arise at various times in the future. And so, in that way, the path is developed. Eventually, the four noble truths are fully penetrated, and there is no more need for a path. All of this can be explained and understood in terms of conditioned namas and rupas. That is the only way in which there is a path. There is no need to consider, "What about me? How can I get enlightened?" Not only are those considerations not needed; they and the path are mutually exclusive. -------------- B: > and nothing to accomplish? -------------- We are accustomed to viewing the world in terms of "I, me and mine" - we have been doing it for countless aeons. So it comes as a bit of a shock to hear a teaching of no-self. If the experience makes you feel a bit let down and disillusioned, don't worry. That is only the habitual "I, me and mine" cutting back in. :-) Ken H #66946 From: "bjones6513" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 5:29 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 Hi Ken, Then how does one practice "mental development?" It's not that I disagree with what you're saying in regard to the discussions of ultimate realities and I feel I have a fairly decent understanding of them.. What I'm trying to understand is how one accomplishes realization a la DSG. How does one practice bhavana? Does this realization just spontaneously arise by discussing ultimate realities? Or do these moments of momentary concentration just arise and pass away and one is supposed to gain realization by observing them while engaged in everyday activities? My understanding is that this is the general consensus of this group. Metta, Bill > >Ken: According to the Dhamma, the realization is accomplished through > "bhavana." Bhavana is correctly translated as "mental development." > Most people prefer the translation "meditation," which leads to no end > of confusion. > > Every ultimate reality (including bhavana) can be understood in terms > of nama and rupa. Bhavana is a moment in which certain conditioned > namas (of a very rare variety) arise momentarily and immediately fall > away. That moment will condition other moments of bhavana to arise at > various times in the future. And so, in that way, the path is > developed. Eventually, the four noble truths are fully penetrated, and > there is no more need for a path. > > All of this can be explained and understood in terms of conditioned > namas and rupas. That is the only way in which there is a path. There > is no need to consider, "What about me? How can I get enlightened?" > > No > #66947 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:39 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na buddhatrue Hi Ken H., Ken H.: Why do I have an aversion to large tracts of text when you don't? That's a serious question. According to my understanding of the Abhidhamma the answer lies in "accumulations." James: It could be accumulations, it could just be habit. I wasn't born enjoying reading large tracts of text. Actually, I got all the way through the first grade and I couldn't read at all- not one single word!! My school informed my mother that I would be held back one year if I didn't start reading. So, that summer, my mother practically locked me in my room and wouldn't let me play outside until I could read one children's book from cover-to-cover. I cried, pulled my hair, stomped my feet, and screamed my head off- by my mother wouldn't budge. By the end of that summer, I could read- and have enjoyed reading ever since. Sometimes, it just takes the right effort and the right encouragement; it's not good to blame everything on accumulations and leave it at that. (As a side note: you might want to consider that the reason you don't like to meditate is because it takes a great deal of concentration and patience [but I could be wrong]. If you get easily distracted, meditation wouldn't be very easy for you at all. But, it is worthwhile- just like reading. Maybe someone should lock you in your room all summer until you appreciate meditation?? ;-)) just kidding!!) Ken H.: That's an excellent result! Even though it seems to you at the time of killing that you are acting with good intentions, you understand from your Abhidhamma studies there is actually hate and delusion. Welcome to the not-self world of Abhidhamma study! :-) (Sorry if that sounds patronising; it isn't meant that way.) James: Oh brother! ;-)) I believe that there can be some benefit to Abhidhamma study- especially if it has practical applications such as expressed in this article. However, I still do not, and don't believe I ever will, accept the "not-self world of Abhidhamma study" as taught by KS. In other words, Ken, your Abhidhamma isn't my Abhidhamma ;-)). Ken H.: :-) No, it won't! Even the Buddha, with all his metta, experienced the aches and pains of everyday life (which included people trying to kill him). James: Perhaps you need to read the article, Ken. The author does show how metta, in Abhidhamma terms, is the proper antidote to killing- and how metta creates friendliness in other living beings (including insects). Ken H: Hmmm, you are alluding to Jon's post to Howard, aren't you? You are entirely misconstruing that post. Howard was man enough (is that sexist language?) - mature enough - to speak publicly about a personal experience. Jon knew Howard would be mature enough to consider genuine, relevant (Dhamma related) questions about it. That's what we're here for! James: I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but I don't look at it that way. No one in this group is qualified, in my opinion, to give other's advice (especially unsolicited advice) about how to live his/her life. As the Buddha taught, you should know the defilements in your own mind before you start considering the defilements of others. Is Jon enlightened? Is Jon free from defilements? I think the answer is no- so he has no place to question the defilements in other people's minds. We are here to learn the dhamma, not pass judgements about each other. Metta, James #66948 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:43 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na buddhatrue Hi Bill, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bjones6513" wrote: > > Hi James, > Why don't you buy a mosquito net? We always use one in Thailand. > Then the mosquitoes can't bite you and you don't have to kill them, > although you are depriving them of a potential food source. That's a good idea. I will start asking around about where to buy one. I don't think my landlord will appreciate me attaching a mosquito net to the ceiling over my bed, but he will have to get over it ;-)). > Metta, > Bill Metta, James #66949 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 7:47 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) scottduncan2 Dear Bill, I think these are good questions: B: "That's what I'm trying to find out. Is this what it's all about, discussing concepts with ambiguity?" I've been learning about 'concepts' on another thread. Fascinating to contemplate. And from what I'm learning, I'd say no, its not 'about discussing concepts with ambiguity'. I guess that's why I was asking you to clarify your statement so that I had a little more to respond to. And I'd say it is about 'discussing concepts' since we are communicating our thoughts to each other, and these are concepts. I hope to clarify things so that I eventually understand Dhamma. For that, these discussions serve as condition, I would say. B: "...Am I correct in saying there is a path but it's not a path that's followed by any sentient being...? MN 3,8: "...There is a Middle Way for the abandoning of greed and hate, giving vision, giving knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbaana. And what is that Middle Way? It is just this Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. This is the Middle Way giving vision, giving knowledge, which leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbaana." DN 16,5.27: "In whatever Dhamma and discipline the Noble Eightfold Path is not found, no ascetic is found of the first, second, third, or fourth grade. But such ascetics can be found, of the first, second, third, and fourth grade in a Dhamma and discipline the Noble Eightfold Path is found. Now, Subhadda, in this Dhamma and discipline the Noble Eighfold Path is found, and in it are to be found ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth grade..." B: "...Or is there no path? Or is there no path and no sentient being?" The Path, I think, arises. B: "No matter how much one discusses these concepts of anatta and anicca, there still remains clinging. Since the majority in this group frown on meditation and don't see it as part of the "path" does that mean they have reached the level of sotapanna or beyond and meditation is no longer needed or did this realization arise spontaneously through discussions on DSG?" Please keep an open mind here and struggle to learn about Right Concentration, bhaavaana, Path, conditionality and the like. I'd say don't worry so much about 'meditation', who does or doesn't frown on it, or who or what is in this group. No one can control when or where the Path arises. Let's all discuss Dhamma. It can be known when it is found. Sincerely, Scott. #66950 From: "Andrew" Date: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:43 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bjones6513" wrote: > And how does one accomplish this realization without meditation, Hi Bill & Happy New Year DSG! Bill, may I share these thoughts generally - they are not directed at anyone in particular. One gets interested in Dhamma and one asks "OK, what should I do?" It's a natural question and the knee-jerk answer is "I should ..." One then sets out to solve the problem ... by doing the "should". But (on my reading), the Buddha taught that the problem is never solved - by "doing" or anything else. The problem can only be "dissolved" and it is dissolved by understanding. Hence, that pivotal phrase common in the suttas: RIGHT UNDERSTANDING COMES FIRST. Striving with a desire for positive attainment always involves self- centredness. Does that mean we should stop doing it? Again, this question is a red herring. We do what we do - and have done so for "countless lifetimes". When we understand what is truly going on (even weakly), what is wholesome and unwholesome, our actions are affected by that understanding. Anyone who thinks I have just argued "against practising meditation" should read my words again. We do what we do. But it is not the posture we adopt nor where we sit nor whether we try to concentrate on the breath through our nose or our mouth that propels us towards any realisation. It is understanding. And understanding doesn't *need* a special posture or a special place or a special "practice". But it does *need* to be free of wrong view. I hope that makes sense!? Corrections welcome. Best wishes Andrew #66951 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:28 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) ken_aitch Hi Bill, --------------------- B: > Then how does one practice "mental development?" --------------------- Mental development occurs through continued association with wise friends, repeated hearing of the true Dhamma, repeated wise consideration of the true Dhamma, repeated practice of direct mundane insight and, finally, full penetrative insight into both the mundane and the supramundane realities. As we know, the world of people and places is just a concept. Ultimately, there is no "one" who develops and practises insight - there are only the presently arisen namas and rupas. Therefore, the aspects of mental development that I have listed must be understood as particular forms in which namas and rupas can (by conditions) arise. ------------------------------ B: > It's not that I disagree with what you're saying in regard to the discussions of ultimate realities and I feel I have a fairly decent understanding of them.. What I'm trying to understand is how one accomplishes realization a la DSG. How does one practice bhavana? Does this realization just spontaneously arise by discussing ultimate realities? Or do these moments of momentary concentration just arise and pass away and one is supposed to gain realization by observing them while engaged in everyday activities? My understanding is that this is the general consensus of this group. --------------------------------- Anatta and the teaching of conditionality make the Dhamma like no other teaching. Since there is no entity that continues from the present moment to the future, there can be no prospect of anyone's "becoming" enlightened. It's all a matter of the here and now. What are the dhammas that are arising now? Is there right understanding now? If there is, it is because the right conditions (hearing the Dhamma etc) have been put in place. Ken H #66952 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:51 am Subject: Re: Must discipline the mind!! ken_aitch Hi Ramesh, Ruawachar and all, I agree with all of this. I hope you won't mind if I make a few comments in context: --------------------- Ramesh: > > Morality is sufficient for leading a good life. > > > There are several answers to this question. First of all, in > Buddhism there is more than just one goal of the religious life. > > Besides the goal of happiness and good fortune, there is also the > goal of freedom. If you want to attain freedom, the only way is > through wisdom, and wisdom can only be gained by means of mental > purification, which is achieved through meditation. --------------------- We all have our ideas of what "meditation" means in Buddhism. I think the ideas that are most likely to be right will be those that can be found in the ancient texts. ------------------------------- R: > But > even for the sound practice of good conduct, mental development is > helpful if not necessary. > > Why? > > Because it is relatively easy to follow the rules of morality when > things are going well. > > If you have a good job, live in a stable society, and earn enough to > support yourself and your family, it is relatively easy to observe > the moral precepts. > > But when you find yourself in situations of stress, instability, and > uncertainty – when, for instance, you lose > your job, find yourself in circumstances where lawlessness > prevails , and so forth – then observance of the rules of good > conduct > comes under attack.!!! ------------------------------------ Yes, the Buddha taught the true meaning of morality. Morality is a moment of consciousness in which adosa cetasika (harmlessness) arises. It is a conditioned dhamma. (It is not a mere "outward appearance" of morality.) -------------------------------------------- R: > In such circumstances, only mental development can safeguard your > practice of good conduct. By strengthening the > capacity of the mind and by attaining control over it, mental > development serves as a guarantor of the observance of the > precepts ,and at the same time it assists in the real objective of > seeing things as they really are. > > "Mental development prepares the mind to achieve wisdom, which opens > the door to freedom and enlightenment. Mental development therefore > has a distinctly important role in the practice of the Noble > Eightfold Path." > > Buddhism's emphasis on the importance of mental development is not > surprising when we remember the importance of > mind in the Buddhist conception of experience. Mind is the single > most important factor in the practice of the Noble Eightfold > Path. > > The Buddha himself put this very clearly when he said that the mind > is the source of all things and that all things are > created by the mind. Similarly, it has been said that the mind is > the source of all virtues and other beneficial qualities. > > "To obtain these virtues and qualities, you must discipline the > mind." ----------------- Thank you, that was well said. I would like to add one reminder; the Buddha taught us to see conditionality everywhere, in all things. That is the difference between his teaching and other teachings. In the real world described by the Buddha there are only dhammas, none of which is has a soul or controlling entity. They arise, perform their functions and fall away in accordance with conditions. Ken H #66953 From: Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:47 am Subject: Word for the day sihalene60 One who is virtuous and wise shines forth like a blazing fire; like a bee collecting nectar he acquires wealth by harming none. Digha Nikaya III, 188 #66954 From: "bjones6513" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:06 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 ---Hi Ken, You've only answered part of my question . I guess I've been associating with the wrong, unwise friends. I thought that was one problem.:) How does one practice direct mundane insight and full penetrative insight? How does one know there is right understanding except through discussions on DSG? Will I know when the conditions are right? Thanks for your explanation. Metta, Bill > --------------------- > B: > Then how does one practice "mental development?" > --------------------- > #66955 From: "bjones6513" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:19 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 ---Hi Andrew, Thanks for your comments. I couldn't agree more-- right understanding comes first. I'm just confused on how right understanding is developed and how these truths are penetrated.. Ken partially answered my question and I wait for his reply unless someone else wishes to add something. Metta, Bill > But (on my reading), the Buddha taught that the problem is never > solved - by "doing" or anything else. The problem can only > be "dissolved" and it is dissolved by understanding. Hence, that > pivotal phrase common in the suttas: RIGHT UNDERSTANDING COMES FIRST. > #66956 From: "bjones6513" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:29 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 Hi Scott, Well said. I am keeping an open mind and I'm not worried about meditation although I will continue to practice it much to the criticism of people on DSG. Maybe you'd like to answer the questions I've asked Ken. The answers are always slightly ambiguous. Let's all discuss Dhamma.. I couldn't agree more. Metta, Bill > > Please keep an open mind here and struggle to learn about Right > Concentration, bhaavaana, Path, conditionality and the like. I'd say > don't worry so much about 'meditation', who does or doesn't frown on > it, or who or what is in this group. No one can control when or where > the Path arises. Let's all discuss Dhamma. It can be known when it > is found. > #66957 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:35 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) scottduncan2 Dear Bill, B: "...I am keeping an open mind and I'm not worried about meditation although I will continue to practice it much to the criticism of people on DSG..." Glad to hear it. The way I see it, the kalyaana-mitta, the 'good friend in the Dhamma', is not so, necessarily (or solely) due to any personal qualities such as not acting in a 'critical' or acting in a 'supportive'way. I think both these notions (desire for support and aversion of criticism) are based temporary experiences and on a need to shore up a self whose existence is illusory. The good friend in the Dhamma, I think, is the one who is able to speak of the Dhamma such that 'he' or 'she' disappears and such that there is only Dhamma. Sincerely, Scott. P.S. Just ask Ken to clarify, he will... #66958 From: "bjones6513" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:44 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 > Hi Scott, That's fine but it does not seem to be the case much of the time especially on DSG. Metta, Bill > > The good friend in the Dhamma, I think, is the one who is able to > speak of the Dhamma such that 'he' or 'she' disappears and such that > there is only Dhamma. > #66959 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 2:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (again) upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew (and Bill) - In a message dated 1/11/07 2:56:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@... writes: > Hi Bill &Happy New Year DSG! > > Bill, may I share these thoughts generally - they are not directed at > anyone in particular. > > One gets interested in Dhamma and one asks "OK, what should I do?" > It's a natural question and the knee-jerk answer is "I should ..." > > One then sets out to solve the problem ... by doing the "should". > > But (on my reading), the Buddha taught that the problem is never > solved - by "doing" or anything else. The problem can only > be "dissolved" and it is dissolved by understanding. Hence, that > pivotal phrase common in the suttas: RIGHT UNDERSTANDING COMES FIRST. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Why does it come at all? Are there no conditions necessary for it, conditions that require cultivation? Does it come for all people? If not, does intentional action have no bearing in it? And if not, how is that not random "dumb luck"? ------------------------------------------- > > Striving with a desire for positive attainment always involves self- > centredness. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: What sort of striving do you do if not goal directed? Can you please explain the striving that has no taint of self associated with it for worldlings? If there is none, then shall there be no effort made by worldlings? Is that the bottom line here: no efforts shall be made? ------------------------------------------ Does that mean we should stop doing it? Again, this > > question is a red herring. We do what we do - and have done so > for "countless lifetimes". > ------------------------------------------ Howard: So - business as usual. That was the Buddha's teaching? Don't go against the stream, but just do as we do? ----------------------------------------- When we understand what is truly going on > > (even weakly), what is wholesome and unwholesome, our actions are > affected by that understanding. ----------------------------------------- Howard: It would seem that here is the program according to you: By sheer happenstance, *eventually* everyone will hear some Dhamma, which will positively effect understanding, and that happy event will overcome all the mass of akusala afflicting us sufficiently to lead us to hearing more, and that hearing leading to more understanding, and so on and so forth. Ultimately, all sentient beings will, based on an initial random (i.e., unintentional) occurrence, eventually be free. Thus, progress will arise without basis in kamma (intention & intentional action). It's a happy little theory, sort of a randomist/fatalist mix of universal, assured liberation, but not one, IMO, ever taught by the Buddha. ----------------------------------------------- > > Anyone who thinks I have just argued "against practising meditation" > should read my words again. We do what we do. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, that's clear - we do what we do, and that's that. ----------------------------------------------- But it is not the > > posture we adopt nor where we sit nor whether we try to concentrate > on the breath through our nose or our mouth that propels us towards > any realisation. It is understanding. And understanding doesn't > *need* a special posture or a special place or a special "practice". > But it does *need* to be free of wrong view. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! Understanding you say needs nothing but being free of wrog view, i.e. understanding needs nothing but understanding. So, no conditions are required for understanding. Either its there or not, but there is nothing that can or should be done to cultivate it. If that's not a doctrine of ramdomness/fatalism, I don't know what is. I do know that the Buddha didn't spend 45 years of his final lifetime teaching that! ----------------------------------------------- > > I hope that makes sense!? Corrections welcome. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: What I wrote is my opinion, not a "correction". To correct what you said I'd have to *know* what is what. I don't claim to know, though I do *believe* that I understand. ------------------------------------------------ > > Best wishes > Andrew > ======================= With metta, Howard #66960 From: "bjones6513" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 10:00 am Subject: Re: Meditation (again) bjones6513 Hi Howard and All, I think you've hit the nail on the head, but you forget, it appears by discussing and listening to the true Dhamma one can achieve realization, at least when one has achieved right understanding and momentary concentration. I'm not sure how that comes about in the approved DSG way. But as someone said earlier, lets get on with it and discuss Dhamma. I understand there are going to be different viewpoints but the belittling when meditation is mentioned bothers me. Hence my questions. And as of yet I still don't feel my earlier questions have been answered so I still don't understand realization through DSG methods, although intellectual discussions about ultimate realities seem to be one approved way and that's fine with me. I enjoy the discussions. Metta, Bill > Howard: > Why does it come at all? Are there no conditions necessary for it, > conditions that require cultivation? Does it come for all people? If not, does > intentional action have no bearing in it? And if not, how is that not random > "dumb luck"? > > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > What sort of striving do you do if not goal directed? Can you please > explain the striving that has no taint of self associated with it for > worldlings? If there is none, then shall there be no effort made by worldlings? Is that > the bottom line here: no efforts shall be made? > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > It would seem that here is the program according to you: By sheer > happenstance, *eventually* everyone will hear some Dhamma, which will positively > effect understanding, and that happy event will overcome all the mass of > akusala afflicting us sufficiently to lead us to hearing more, and that hearing > leading to more understanding, and so on and so forth. Ultimately, all sentient > beings will, based on an initial random (i.e., unintentional) occurrence, > eventually be free. Thus, progress will arise without basis in kamma (intention & > intentional action). > It's a happy little theory, sort of a randomist/fatalist mix of > universal, assured liberation, but not one, IMO, ever taught by the Buddha. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard:LOL! Understanding you say needs nothing but being free of wrong view, > i.e. understanding needs nothing but understanding. So, no conditions are > required for understanding. Either its there or not, but there is nothing that can > or should be done to cultivate it. If that's not a doctrine of > ramdomness/fatalism, I don't know what is. I do know that the Buddha didn't spend 45 years > of his final lifetime teaching that! #66961 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (again) upasaka_howard Hi, Bill - In a message dated 1/11/07 1:07:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, Bjones6513@... writes: > Hi Howard and All, > I think you've hit the nail on the head, but you forget, it appears by > discussing and listening to the true Dhamma one can achieve realization, > at least when one has achieved right understanding and momentary > concentration. I'm not sure how that comes about in the approved DSG > way. -------------------------------------- Howard: I don't forget that. Hearting the Dhamma, and, according to Zen stories and other reports even hearing a pebble crack against bamboo (!), can trigger realization, but only for a mind that is cultivated. A slight breeze can cause the fruit to fall off the tree, but only if it is ripe. Hearing the Dhamma also serves as more than just a trigger. As I see it, it is a necessary cultivational step along the way. And bits and pieces of the truth can be heard even before coming to the Dhamma, and these will help incline one in the right direction. The facts about reality are exactly that - facts, and, so, these facts are open to at least partial discovery by all people, and elements of them are available in many traditions. IMO. though, only the Dhamma is the perfect and complete expression of these facts. ---------------------------------------------- > But as someone said earlier, lets get on with it and discuss Dhamma. I > understand there are going to be different viewpoints but the belittling > when meditation is mentioned bothers me. Hence my questions. And as > of yet I still don't feel my earlier questions have been answered so I still > > don't understand realization through DSG methods, although intellectual > discussions about ultimate realities seem to be one approved way and > that's fine with me. I enjoy the discussions. > Metta, > Bill > > ========================== With metta, Howard #66962 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:56 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) ken_aitch --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bjones6513" wrote: > > > ---Hi Ken, > You've only answered part of my question . I guess I've been associating > with the wrong, unwise friends. I thought that was one problem.:) > > How does one practice direct mundane insight and full penetrative > insight? How does one know there is right understanding except through > discussions on DSG? Will I know when the conditions are right? > Thanks for your explanation. Hi Bill, Soon after the Buddha became enlightened he directed his mind to the task of teaching. His first thoughts were along the lines of, 'No, this Dhamma is too hard to for anyone to understand; I would only be wasting my time.' That is the way every Tathagata thinks at first - such are conditions. Do you know of any teaching is that is so profound - so difficult to see - that even a Buddha would think twice before attempting it? Is your understanding of the Dhamma like that? Is the Dhamma you know and practise so totally different from every other teaching you have ever encountered? I think if any of us is honest our answer will be No. From my humble experience, the first glimmer of light comes when I think, "Aha! So this is how there can be a path 'with no traveller on it!' It is not easy. Even at these earliest (beginner) stages, our right intellectual understanding is different from anything else we have ever known. Because it is so different and difficult, we continually lose sight of it. At one minute we are discussing a 'here and now' practice and then, at the next minute, we have slipped back into our habitual, conventional, ways of understanding. That's when good friends remind us of the true path. Ken H #66963 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 8:47 am Subject: Profundity of the Dhamma Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (again) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Bill) - In a message dated 1/11/07 4:00:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Bill, > > Soon after the Buddha became enlightened he directed his mind to the > task of teaching. His first thoughts were along the lines of, 'No, > this Dhamma is too hard to for anyone to understand; I would only be > wasting my time.' That is the way every Tathagata thinks at first - > such are conditions. > > Do you know of any teaching is that is so profound - so difficult to > see - that even a Buddha would think twice before attempting it? Is > your understanding of the Dhamma like that? Is the Dhamma you know and > practise so totally different from every other teaching you have ever > encountered? I think if any of us is honest our answer will be No. > > From my humble experience, the first glimmer of light comes when I > think, "Aha! So this is how there can be a path 'with no traveller on > it!' > > It is not easy. Even at these earliest (beginner) stages, our right > intellectual understanding is different from anything else we have > ever known. Because it is so different and difficult, we continually > lose sight of it. At one minute we are discussing a 'here and now' > practice and then, at the next minute, we have slipped back into our > habitual, conventional, ways of understanding. That's when good > friends remind us of the true path. > > Ken H > ========================= Here's how I see it: The Dhamma that the Buddha taught was not "the" Dhamma, not the Dhamma that he realized, but a distant "pointing towards", and a pointing out of how it is possible to prepare the way to know "the" Dhamma as the Buddha came to know it. From a related tradition: The way (tao) which can be uttered, is not the eternal Way (Tao). The name which can be named, is not the eternal Name. The Dhamma in the ultimate sense, "the" Dhamma, is reality itself and is beyond all conditions, beyond all describing, and beyond all conditioned knowing. The way to get from here to there can't be completed in steps, one after the other. The way that is a stepping is only a preparation, and the final step is a stepping off the preparatory path entirely, a stepping that is a non-stepping into an apparent oblivion-abyss, a stepping that is an end to all stepping, a supermundane relinquishment that abandons everything. But when all is abandoned, all is attained. With metta, Howard #66964 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditation (again) corvus121 Hi Howard Thanks for your "non-corrections". (-: Actually, we've been through this all before and I feel you and Bill have not connected with the points I was trying to make. That's okay. It's obviously a sore point. I'll finish in this thread with a few comments below. > Howard: > Why does it come at all? Are there no conditions necessary for it, > conditions that require cultivation? Does it come for all people? If not, does > intentional action have no bearing in it? And if not, how is that not random > "dumb luck"? Yes, it all runs on conditions and cetana is but one of them. There *is* cultivation IMO, but I frame it over a much greater timespan than I think you do and I think that the cause-effect relationship is much more complex than you seem to make out. Complex enough to make a Buddha hesitate about teaching it. Or maybe I'm just "dumb" as well as "lucky"?? [joke] > > Striving with a desire for positive attainment always involves self- > > centredness. > > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > What sort of striving do you do if not goal directed? Can you please > explain the striving that has no taint of self associated with it for > worldlings? If there is none, then shall there be no effort made by worldlings? Is that > the bottom line here: no efforts shall be made? You've missed my point. Who can dictate "Let there be effort" or "Let there be no effort"? When we try, it only comes off when all the requisite conditions are in place. So do we keep trying in the hope that one day we'll hit the target? [That's "dumb luck" isn't it?] Or do we study what the Buddha said about what conditions are requisite and what are opponent - and feel confident that any understanding will have a conditioning effect? > ------------------------------------------ > Does that mean we should stop doing it? Again, this > > > question is a red herring. We do what we do - and have done so > > for "countless lifetimes". > > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > So - business as usual. That was the Buddha's teaching? Don't go > against the stream, but just do as we do? Business as usual? Exactly! And the "business" being spoken of is conditionality, Buddha's explanation of how the process unfolds. It's a process where going upstream can actually look like going downstream for swimmers who don't know what to look for. > ----------------------------------------- > When we understand what is truly going on > > > (even weakly), what is wholesome and unwholesome, our actions are > > affected by that understanding. > > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > It would seem that here is the program according to you: By sheer > happenstance, *eventually* everyone will hear some Dhamma, which will positively > effect understanding, and that happy event will overcome all the mass of > akusala afflicting us sufficiently to lead us to hearing more, and that hearing > leading to more understanding, and so on and so forth. Ultimately, all sentient > beings will, based on an initial random (i.e., unintentional) occurrence, > eventually be free. Thus, progress will arise without basis in kamma (intention & > intentional action). You know that's wrong, Howard. Cetana is a universal cetasika. You also know that it's impossible for a hen to hatch out infertile eggs by dint of effort. She will try, however, if all the conditions are present for that effort. > > Anyone who thinks I have just argued "against practising meditation" > > should read my words again. We do what we do. > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, that's clear - we do what we do, and that's that. Yes, exactly. When all the conditions for something to arise are present, it arises. Unstoppably. "Cultivation" is something to be viewed over a long timespan and with the knowledge that "we" don't control the exact results through our desires. Understanding does that. > ----------------------------------------------- > But it is not the > > > posture we adopt nor where we sit nor whether we try to concentrate > > on the breath through our nose or our mouth that propels us towards > > any realisation. It is understanding. And understanding doesn't > > *need* a special posture or a special place or a special "practice". > > But it does *need* to be free of wrong view. > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > LOL! Understanding you say needs nothing but being free of wrog view, > i.e. understanding needs nothing but understanding. Howard, this is a naughty "straw man" misrepresentation. For which I immediately forgive you! (-: I wrote: [understanding] does *need* to be free of wrong view. Are you saying that that precise statement is wrong? Yes or no. So, no conditions are > required for understanding. Who said that? Not me, that's for sure. (-: > Howard: > What I wrote is my opinion, not a "correction". To correct what you > said I'd have to *know* what is what. I don't claim to know, though I do > *believe* that I understand. Don't we all? Having read scores of your posts, I would generalise by saying that I usually agree with your statements but disagree with your emphasis. But that's no big deal, is it? At least, we're not out stealing!! Best wishes Andrew #66965 From: "Sukinder" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 3:43 pm Subject: Photos from Kaeng Krajan. sukinderpal Dear all, Some pictures from the Kaeng Krajan trip have just been put up. Metta, Sukin. #66966 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (again) upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 1/11/07 6:17:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, athel60@... writes: > Don't we all? Having read scores of your posts, I would generalise > by saying that I usually agree with your statements but disagree with > your emphasis. But that's no big deal, is it? At least, we're not > out stealing!! > ==================== A definite plus! ;-)) With metta, Howard #66967 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 4:50 pm Subject: Profundity of the Dhamma Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (again) ken_aitch Hi Howard, ------------------- H: > Here's how I see it: The Dhamma that the Buddha taught was not "the" Dhamma, not the Dhamma that he realized, but a distant "pointing towards", and a pointing out of how it is possible to prepare the way to know "the" Dhamma as the Buddha came to know it. ---------------------- That's one way of looking at it. But what are the realities that are arising now - while we are talking? For starters there are seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, tasting and mental cognition. These are actual paramattha dhammas that are arising now - by conditions, devoid of self. -------------------------------- H: > From a related tradition: The way (tao) which can be uttered, is not the eternal Way (Tao). The name which can be named, is not the eternal Name. The Dhamma in the ultimate sense, "the" Dhamma, is reality itself and is beyond all conditions, beyond all describing, and beyond all conditioned knowing. The way to get from here to there can't be completed in steps, one after the other. --------------------------------- Who goes from "here" to "there?" There is only the present moment. There are only the dhammas that are arising now. ----------------------------------------------------- H: > The way that is a stepping is only a preparation, and the final step is a stepping off the preparatory path entirely, a stepping that is a non-stepping into an apparent oblivion-abyss, a stepping that is an end to all stepping, a supermundane relinquishment that abandons everything. But when all is abandoned, all is attained. ------------------------------------------------------- Whether we call it a preparatory path or something else, the fact remains that the present moment is all we have (all there is). Ken H #66968 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:08 pm Subject: Profundity of the Dhamma Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (again) buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ========================= > Here's how I see it: > The Dhamma that the Buddha taught was not "the" Dhamma, not the Dhamma > that he realized, but a distant "pointing towards", and a pointing out of how > it is possible to prepare the way to know "the" Dhamma as the Buddha came to > know it. From a related tradition: The way (tao) which can be uttered, is not > the eternal Way (Tao). The name which can be named, is not the eternal Name. > The Dhamma in the ultimate sense, "the" Dhamma, is reality itself and > is beyond all conditions, beyond all describing, and beyond all conditioned > knowing. The way to get from here to there can't be completed in steps, one > after the other. The way that is a stepping is only a preparation, and the final > step is a stepping off the preparatory path entirely, a stepping that is a > non-stepping into an apparent oblivion-abyss, a stepping that is an end to all > stepping, a supermundane relinquishment that abandons everything. But when all is > abandoned, all is attained. Oh WOW! This is so beautifully stated!! (IMO) The word "Dhamma" has many meanings, and the dhamma that the Buddha taught is not the dhamma that he personally realized. The Dhamma that he personally realized is beyond words and concepts- that's why he chose to remain silent on soooooooo many issues. Metta, James #66969 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 12:16 pm Subject: Re: Profundity of the Dhamma Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (again) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/11/07 7:53:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ------------------- > H: >Here's how I see it: > The Dhamma that the Buddha taught was not "the" Dhamma, not > the Dhamma that he realized, but a distant "pointing towards", and a > pointing out of how it is possible to prepare the way to know "the" > Dhamma as the Buddha came to know it. > ---------------------- > > That's one way of looking at it. But what are the realities that are > arising now - while we are talking? For starters there are seeing, > hearing, touching, smelling, tasting and mental cognition. These are > actual paramattha dhammas that are arising now - by conditions, devoid > of self. -------------------------------------------- Howard: That's quite true, Ken. I know it's true. ------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------- > H: >From a related tradition: The way (tao) which can be uttered, is > not the eternal Way (Tao). The name which can be named, is not the > eternal Name. > The Dhamma in the ultimate sense, "the" Dhamma, is reality > itself and is beyond all conditions, beyond all describing, and beyond > all conditioned knowing. The way to get from here to there can't be > completed in steps, one after the other. > --------------------------------- > > Who goes from "here" to "there?" > --------------------------------------- Howard: Literally, nobody. And without following the Buddha's practice teaching, also conventionally nobody! LOL! -------------------------------------- There is only the present moment.> There are only the dhammas that are > arising now. ------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, right now there is only now. And right now there only arises what arises now. Is this surprising? ----------------------------------- > > ----------------------------------------------------- > H: >The way that is a stepping is only a preparation, and the final > step is a stepping off the preparatory path entirely, a stepping that > is a non-stepping into an apparent oblivion-abyss, a stepping that is > an end to all stepping, a supermundane relinquishment that abandons > everything. But when all is abandoned, all is attained. > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Whether we call it a preparatory path or something else, the fact > remains that the present moment is all we have (all there is). --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: A nice piece of information, Ken. What do you do with it? :-) -------------------------------------------------------- > > Ken H > ========================== With metta, Howard #66970 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 5:57 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) buddhatrue Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Soon after the Buddha became enlightened he directed his mind to the > task of teaching. His first thoughts were along the lines of, 'No, > this Dhamma is too hard to for anyone to understand; I would only be > wasting my time.' That is the way every Tathagata thinks at first - > such are conditions. > > Do you know of any teaching is that is so profound - so difficult to > see - that even a Buddha would think twice before attempting it? Is > your understanding of the Dhamma like that? Is the Dhamma you know and > practise so totally different from every other teaching you have ever > encountered? I think if any of us is honest our answer will be No. > > From my humble experience, the first glimmer of light comes when I > think, "Aha! So this is how there can be a path 'with no traveller on > it!' > > It is not easy. Even at these earliest (beginner) stages, our right > intellectual understanding is different from anything else we have > ever known. Because it is so different and difficult, we continually > lose sight of it. At one minute we are discussing a 'here and now' > practice and then, at the next minute, we have slipped back into our > habitual, conventional, ways of understanding. That's when good > friends remind us of the true path. > > Ken H > I really like this post! I think it is so beautifully stated. I know that we disagree on the meditation issue, but it is nice to share dialogue with someone so passionate about the Dhamma! Thank you. Metta, James #66971 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 7:31 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear All, Having said, S: "...I'd like to pursue a discussion clarifying the role of sati and pa~n~na in the making of this distinction. In other words, this is likely more than just a matter of learning, by dint of intellect, what differentiates the two (naama and ruupa)." I read in the Commentary to The Great Discourse on Causation, where Aananda's comment about how the dependent origination appears 'clear' to him is being discussed: "Dependent arising, though deep, appeared clear to the Elder Aananda for four reasons: (1)because he was endowed with decisive supporting conditions from the past; (2)because of his diligence in study; (3)because he was a steam-enterer; and (4)because he was highly learned." In clarifying the fourth point: "...For those who are highly learned, the delimitation of materialiy-mentality becomes as evident as a bed and chair in a small room illuminated by a lamp, and Venerable Aananda was the chief of those who are highly learned. Because of his great learning dependent arising, though deep, appeared clear to him." And the Sub-Commentary: "...The 'delimitation of mentality-materiality' is comprehension by delimiting mentality-materiality together with its conditions." Is naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na, in fact, an artifact of learning? I see how a complex set of other factors are noted, and the significant one being the effect on the subsequent flow of consciousness of magga and phala cittaa. Sincerely, Scott. #66972 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (again) jonoabb Hi James --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Jon (and Howard), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" > wrote: > > > > Hi Howard > > > A difficult subject for you to discuss, I know. Nevertheless, I'd > > like to ask why you consider it such experiences (dreams of majesty > > and glorious beauty, sobbing) to be kusala. > > I haven't read Howard's reply to this post yet; but I do have to tell > you, I think this post is very inappropriate. As the old adage > goes, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at > all." When someone shares something personal on this list, I think > he/she should receive only positive feedback- nothing negative. If > you have something nice to say, say it; if you don't, then keep it to > yourself. James, I appreciate your sensitivity to personal experiences shared on the list. However, I think the interests of a proper understanding of the teachings supercedes all other concerns, so where there is room for discussion in this regard I think it is appropriate to chip in. I hope at least I have not been insensitive in the way I have brought the matter up for discussion. I intend to follow through with it (after reading the rest of the posts). > This subject hits a nerve with me because you, Jon, if you remember, > questioned my desire to become ordained (samvegga) as possibly being > a "state of panic". I didn't appreciate that and it wasn't > appropriate. When are you going to learn to be nice? I apologise again for any inappropriate comments I may have made. As I said when you rejoined the list, I think you misunderstood my earlier comment. But I think we agreed to let the matter drop anyway. So I hope you don't mind if I say nothing further. Jon #66973 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 9:36 pm Subject: eCard from Bangkok jonoabb Hi All Sarah and I have just returned to Bangkok after a very pleasant 3 days in Kaeng Krajan. My thanks to Sukin for uploading the pix (including the one of me feeding my face -- a typical sight on the trip!!). We were delighted to be joined by Ann and Suzie, two 'old hands' from very early Bangkok days (mid- to late-seventies) making a welcome return to the discussions, after absences of 25 and 15 years respectively, and to welcome also their husbands Glen and Tom. Nina, Lodewijk, Azita and Pinna were the other overseas visitors, together with Sukin and Ivan/Matt, Ell and Knowing from Bkk. A rest day today, in preparation for a full day tomorrow at the Foundation. Looking forward to meeting Han Tun again. More later. Jon #66974 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 12:08 am Subject: Profundity of the Dhamma Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (again) ken_aitch Hi Howard, --------------------- <. . .> H: > > >The Dhamma that the Buddha taught was not "the" Dhamma, not > the Dhamma that he realized, but a distant "pointing towards", and a > pointing out of how it is possible to prepare the way to know "the" > Dhamma as the Buddha came to know it. KH: > > <. . .> seeing, > hearing, touching, smelling, tasting and mental cognition. These are > actual paramattha dhammas that are arising now - by conditions, devoid > of self. H: > That's quite true, Ken. I know it's true. -------------------------- Yes, of course, but I wanted to make the point that the Dhamma - the way things are - applies here and now. ---------------------- <. . .> KH:> > Who goes from "here" to "there?" > > H: > Literally, nobody. And without following the Buddha's practice teaching, also conventionally nobody! LOL! ----------------------- Ah, a joke! I get it. :-) ------------------------------ <. . .> KH: > >There is only the present moment.> There are only the dhammas that are arising now. H: > Yes, right now there is only now. And right now there only arises what arises now. Is this surprising? ------------------------------ No matter how simple it sounds, it is the hardest thing in the world to believe. ------------------- KH: > > Whether we call it a preparatory path or something else, the fact remains that the present moment is all we have (all there is). H: > A nice piece of information, Ken. What do you do with it? :-) ------------------- At least this time I didn't say, "Preparatory for whom?" :-) As for "doing something," it is the same as with "doing nothing:" in the matter of path progress those concepts do not apply. (see the Ogha Sutta) Ken H #66975 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 4:23 am Subject: "Forget About Satipatthana!" sarahprocter... Dear All, Lots of deep dhamma & controversial comments from K.Sujin and good discussion topics raised by Lodewijk and others(including 'What is Sati?" and "Meditation Again":-))..... Here's a taste:- 1.KS:"Forget About Satipatthana!" "Don't try to understand satipatthana without any understanding of realities right now! For example, [if we say] 'Be aware of visible object!' - it's impossible without the understanding of what is visible object right now, [how it's] different from dreaming about people and things after seeing.........So forget about satipatthana....so begin with understanding reality." 2. KS:"As long as there is the idea of Self, trying so hard, it's very uneasy, not natural - one is completely covered by lobha, being in the cage of lobha, never go out just a little from the cage of lobha......[The Dhamma] is for the sake of understanding, not for 'I'. [When it's] for the sake of understanding, you don't have an idea of 'when'. To be freed from lobha - only panna can give way to live without lobha little by little, to be contented. As much panna as we can have now - be contented!" 3. KS: "If one is hurt.....has unpleasant feelings...no blame for anyone because one knows it's conditioned by one's own deeds in the past..." 4. Tom*: "The world is asking you to get the bus, to raise a family, to look after your body.....how can you step outside to keep the mind quiet enought to develop understanding?" KS: "Usually, people think the dhamma world is different from the ordinary wolrd, but actually we cannot separate the world into 2 different worlds at a time, but there can be understanding or no understanding and what is better - to understand and to know the truth..? At that moment, it's so calm with right understanding - it's not being calm without any understanding, just clinging to calm as 'I'd like to have it so much all day, all night', but actually the understanding arises with calmness - no need to have other calmness besides understanding.' 5.KS:"We were born to die. The best is kusala - as much as we can do. We don't know about tomorrow, but what about today? The best kusala is right understanding." 6.Glenn*: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" KS: '..............Life is just this experience, from moment to moment - different realities and thinking or claiming 'it's mine' or 'me' all the time, when actually there's nothing left. Yesterday has gone completely, nothing is left, so this moment is like it was yesterday, passing away until tomorrow [when] we know that yesterday has gone or today has gone so there can be tomorrow - the same arising and falling away of realities from morning up to now. After waking up, so many experiences arising and falling away without any understanding of the true nature of them all. There are 'seeings, hearings, smellings, touchings and tastings'. No one can stop it - no one can stop the nature of mental realities, after arising and falling away, conditioning the next one instantly with no gap in between, beyone anyone's control. That's why we have the term 'anatta' - not 'atta', not 'self', not a 'thing'." ****** S: Jon & I will be attending one last English discussion at the Foundation tomorrow which happens to fall on K.Sujin's 80th birthday. As Jon mentioned, Han will be attending with us and we look forward to seeing many, many dear dhamma friends we've known for 30 years or more there! This afternoon we've had a most enjoyable and relaxing afternoon catching up with all your good discussions. Many thanks to everyone who has been participating in the interesting threads! Metta, Sarah * Tom & Glenn are the (Canadian) husbands of our old friends, Susie & Ann. They'd all come over specially from Vancouver and these were Tom's and Glenn's first ever Dhamma discussions & questions.... (Note also: there may well be typos in the above quotes- it's difficult to read some of my notes!). ====================== #66976 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:44 pm Subject: Re: Profundity of the Dhamma Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (again) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/12/07 3:09:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > At least this time I didn't say, "Preparatory for whom?" :-) As for > "doing something," it is the same as with "doing nothing:" in the > matter of path progress those concepts do not apply. (see the Ogha Sutta) > ====================== I happen to like that subtle sutta very much. It points beautifully to the middle way. With metta, Howard #66977 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:08 am Subject: 'We are here to learn the dhamma' jonoabb Hi James and Howard (and KenH) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Ken H., > ... > Ken H: Hmmm, you are alluding to Jon's post to Howard, aren't you? > You are entirely misconstruing that post. Howard was man enough (is > that sexist language?) - mature enough - to speak publicly about a > personal experience. Jon knew Howard would be mature enough to > consider genuine, relevant (Dhamma related) questions about it. > That's what we're here for! > > James: I suppose that's one way of looking at it, but I don't look at > it that way. No one in this group is qualified, in my opinion, to > give other's advice (especially unsolicited advice) about how to live > his/her life. As the Buddha taught, you should know the defilements > in your own mind before you start considering the defilements of > others. Is Jon enlightened? Is Jon free from defilements? I think > the answer is no- so he has no place to question the defilements in > other people's minds. We are here to learn the dhamma, not pass > judgements about each other. I'm glad you've said all this, because I now understand where you're coming from, and it gives me an opportunity to correct a misunderstanding. I think you are seeing things in my posts that are not there. I have no interest in the defilements in anyone's mind (whether Howard's or any other member's) (except my own, of course ;-)). The only thing I'm interested in, and what I'm questioning in my exchange with Howard, is the meaning of the teachings, in this instance the meaning of 'kusala'. Howard's understanding of kusala apparently includes the experiencing of dreams of the kind he has described and the sobbing caused by that experiencing. The fact that this happens to be an actual experience of Howard's is neither here nor there, as far as I'm concerned. The only question is the meaning of kusala, a term that is pivotal to a proper understanding of the teachings. So yes, like you say, we are here to learn the dhamma, and not to pass judgement on others. That learning can best be done by discussing things as they come up. If there was to be a rule that dhamma issues arising in members' postings about their personal experiences could not be the subject of discussion, then we'd be missing opportunities for learning, I believe. Please understand that there is nothing personal in my comments to Howard (least of all am I trying to 'give [Howard] advice about how to live his life'). Jon PS I have taken your questions 'Is Jon enlightened? Is Jon free from defilements?' as rhetorical ones. BTW, glad to see that rhetorical questions are are now off the list of don't's ;-)). #66978 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - ... > Howard: > That sounds an awful lot like wanting to discuss what meditation may > or may not be, which is exactly what I said I'm not really interested in going > into any further. Let me explain. I'm happy to accept 'meditation' as whatever you say it is for the purpose of reading and responding to some of your posts. I'm just asking you to be specific as to what that is, since it's not apparent to me from the context. > Howard: > No. Meditation is only part of practice. Fine. I'd just like to understand, in general terms, the meditation and the non-meditation parts of the practice, as you use the term 'meditation'. Thanks. > Howard: > Ho, hum. I never agreed that the occurrence of (even many) unwholesome > states precludes advantageous intentional activities. And I never said it did!! Talk about a straw man, Howard!! I'm simply discussing the conceptual difficulty that arises if terms are defined or interpreted such that 'bhavana' includes moments of akusala. What I'm saying is this: If bhavana means (or includes) intentional activities the undertaking of which must necessarily (because we start from where we are) include some if not many or even a majority of akusala moments, then 'bhavana', as so defined, would include akusala moments, which doesn't sound right at all, does it? I'm *not* saying that the occurrence of unwholesome states precludes bhavana. In fact, I have said many times that awareness can arise in the midst of unwholesome states, which probably goes further than you do in that regard. > Even a monster like Angulimala could be saved, Agreed (please note!!). > so I think it not unreasonable to hold out hope for > such as you and I. He met the Buddha in person. We have met him through his > Dhamma. He went on to active practice, including meditation, and became an > arahant. If we seriously follow the Buddha's guidelines for practice, we can make > progress also. But that is a big "if"! Agreed again!! (except of course that I would say 'He went on to develop the path ...'). > Meditation can lead into wholesome states and frequently does. I know > this for a fact. I am perfectly satisfied that the Buddha taught meditating as > an essential part of the practice, that it is good to do, right to do so, and > I can tell you that despite the urging to the contrary on DSG, it is > something I will continue to do until the day I die, and hopefully beyond. Again, I'm only seeking to clarify, and to discuss constructively. You begin this paragraph by saying that "Meditation can lead into wholesome states and frequently does". This clearly implies that meditation as you use the term is not exclusively moments of wholesome consciousness. Now this is obvious and is common sense, but my question is (a) are you not thereby saying that such unwholesome states form part of bhavana (because you have said that bhavana includes meditation) and (b) if bhavana does not include such unwholesome states, how you can say that bhavana includes meditation (as so conceptualised)? Is that not a fair question to ask? ;-)) > Until perfection is attained, there will be unwholesome states. Yes, of course, of course!! > You > wish to use that fact as a justification for not following the Buddha's practice > teachings, or, probably better said, for interpreting his teachings as saying > to do nothing at all intentionally, or, at most, to study. Howard, c'mon! That is your 'take' on what I'm saying. Another Howard straw man!! ;-)) > As regards practice, we couldn't be further apart, Jon. I'd rather put it this way: As regards an understanding of what the Buddha meant by bhavana, we are still sorting out our differences. Can we perhaps begin by agreeing that bhavana is insight, a level of panna? > Howard: > Oh, c'mon, Jon. You don't believe that the Buddha taught intentionally > doing anything, because that, in your opinion, would allegedly involve a > sense of self and thus can lead nowhere. I think that view is nonsense. Again, this is not what I have ever said. > What is > constructive in your approach? You wish to say that if we begin with more > unwholesome mindstates than wholesome ones, there is nothing useful that can be > intentionally done. What you say here is not my view, and has never been said by me. I only say that when the Buddha spoke of the development of the path, he did not include anything that must necessarily involve akusala. Thus, the guarding of the senses, to take but one example, is a reference to the kusala moments at which that function is being performed, and not to any non-kusala moments that may precede or follow or otherwise condition such moments. > You say what happens depends on conditions, which of course is > true, but you allow for no intentional actions to foster the useful > conditions. Again, not what I believe or have ever said. The question is whether, when the Buddha spoke of guarding the sense-doors, etc, he was describing intentional actions. That is an inference, but not a necessary one, that some like to draw from the suttas. It's quite possible to read the suttas without making that assumption. > Well, I disagree with your view, and I consider it a negative teaching that > appears to simultaneously be a form of determinism and a form of random > eventuality. There is nothing negative that I can see in the idea that the conditions for the development of insight include factors other than intentional activities. Why do you see that as negative? > I believe there is loads to be intentionally done to improve matters, > and that is exactly how I read the Buddha's teaching in the Sutta Pitaka. Well, that is your prerogative ;-)). But I'd just like to say that that is not the only reading open on the suttas, and it's not the reading supported by the ancient commentaries and the Abhidhamma. Phew! Jon #66979 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/12/07 8:49:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, Jon - > ... > >Howard: > > That sounds an awful lot like wanting to discuss what > meditation may > >or may not be, which is exactly what I said I'm not really > interested in going > >into any further. > > Let me explain. I'm happy to accept 'meditation' as whatever you say > it is for the purpose of reading and responding to some of your > posts. I'm just asking you to be specific as to what that is, since > it's not apparent to me from the context. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Jon, I think I've explained what I think it is as well as I can. Inasmuch as I use the breath as my chosen meditation subject, I'm satisfied with the description given in the Anapanasati Sutta as what I consider meditation to be. ------------------------------------------- > > >Howard: > > No. Meditation is only part of practice. > > Fine. I'd just like to understand, in general terms, the meditation > and the non-meditation parts of the practice, as you use the term > 'meditation'. Thanks. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, you've seen above what I consider as meditation. As for the rest of the practice, do I really have to enumerate? Obviously included is reading and contemplating the Buddha's teachings and cultivating sila, through right action, speech, etc. There is also ongoing mindfulness and, with that, practicing relinquishment and guarding the senses, but these are actually included in the Anapanasati Sutta, as are cultivation of samatha and vipassana. I consider cultivation of the eight factors of the path as the practice. -------------------------------------------- > > >Howard: > > Ho, hum. I never agreed that the occurrence of (even many) > unwholesome > >states precludes advantageous intentional activities. > > And I never said it did!! Talk about a straw man, Howard!! > > I'm simply discussing the conceptual difficulty that arises if terms > are defined or interpreted such that 'bhavana' includes moments of > akusala. > > What I'm saying is this: If bhavana means (or includes) intentional > activities the undertaking of which must necessarily (because we > start from where we are) include some if not many or even a majority > of akusala moments, then 'bhavana', as so defined, would include > akusala moments, which doesn't sound right at all, does it? ------------------------------------------- Howard: All our activities that go beyond single mindstates include states with some degree of unwholesomeness. What of it? What is your point in that regard. I presumed that it was that this "flaw" vitiates cultivation. If you do not think that is so, that's great. If you do, my reply was appropriate. ---------------------------------------------- > > I'm *not* saying that the occurrence of unwholesome states precludes > bhavana. In fact, I have said many times that awareness can arise in > the midst of unwholesome states, which probably goes further than you > do in that regard. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. So what WAS your point? (And why would you think that goes further than me?) ----------------------------------------------- > > >Even a monster like Angulimala could be saved, > > Agreed (please note!!). ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, good. Are we to assume that this came about only by hearing the Dhamma and not from pior-life cultivation? I do not so assume. ------------------------------------------------ > > > so I think it not unreasonable to hold > out hope for > >such as you and I. He met the Buddha in person. We have met him > through his > >Dhamma. He went on to active practice, including meditation, and > became an > >arahant. If we seriously follow the Buddha's guidelines for > practice, we can make > >progress also. But that is a big "if"! > > Agreed again!! (except of course that I would say 'He went on to > develop the path ...'). > > > Meditation can lead into wholesome states and frequently > does. I know > >this for a fact. I am perfectly satisfied that the Buddha taught > meditating as > >an essential part of the practice, that it is good to do, right to > do so, and > >I can tell you that despite the urging to the contrary on DSG, it > is > >something I will continue to do until the day I die, and hopefully > beyond. > > Again, I'm only seeking to clarify, and to discuss constructively. > > You begin this paragraph by saying that "Meditation can lead into > wholesome states and frequently does". This clearly implies that > meditation as you use the term is not exclusively moments of > wholesome consciousness. ---------------------------------------- Howard: You know darn well, Jon, that I consider meditation to consist of many conventional activities. ----------------------------------------- > > Now this is obvious and is common sense, but my question is (a) are > you not thereby saying that such unwholesome states form part of > bhavana (because you have said that bhavana includes meditation) and > (b) if bhavana does not include such unwholesome states, how you can > say that bhavana includes meditation (as so conceptualised)? > > Is that not a fair question to ask? ;-)) ------------------------------------------ Howard: What are you after, Jon? I believe it is to persuade me not to meditate. I do believe that, though you may not even realize it. ------------------------------------------ > > > Until perfection is attained, there will be unwholesome > states. > > Yes, of course, of course!! > > >You > >wish to use that fact as a justification for not following the > Buddha's practice > >teachings, or, probably better said, for interpreting his teachings > as saying > >to do nothing at all intentionally, or, at most, to study. > > Howard, c'mon! That is your 'take' on what I'm saying. Another > Howard straw man!! ;-)) ---------------------------------------- Howard: It is indeed my take. ---------------------------------------- > > > As regards practice, we couldn't be further apart, Jon. > > I'd rather put it this way: As regards an understanding of what the > Buddha meant by bhavana, we are still sorting out our differences. > > Can we perhaps begin by agreeing that bhavana is insight, a level of > panna? ---------------------------------------- Howard: No. ---------------------------------------- > > >Howard: > > Oh, c'mon, Jon. You don't believe that the Buddha taught > intentionally > >doing anything, because that, in your opinion, would allegedly > involve a > >sense of self and thus can lead nowhere. I think that view is > nonsense. > > Again, this is not what I have ever said. > > >What is > >constructive in your approach? You wish to say that if we begin > with more > >unwholesome mindstates than wholesome ones, there is nothing useful > that can be > >intentionally done. > > What you say here is not my view, and has never been said by me. I > only say that when the Buddha spoke of the development of the path, > he did not include anything that must necessarily involve akusala. > Thus, the guarding of the senses, to take but one example, is a > reference to the kusala moments at which that function is being > performed, and not to any non-kusala moments that may precede or > follow or otherwise condition such moments. > > >You say what happens depends on conditions, > which of course is > >true, but you allow for no intentional actions to foster the useful > >conditions. > > Again, not what I believe or have ever said. The question is > whether, when the Buddha spoke of guarding the sense-doors, etc, he > was describing intentional actions. > ------------------------------------ Howard: For sure he was! ----------------------------------- That is an inference, but not a > > necessary one, that some like to draw from the suttas. It's quite > possible to read the suttas without making that assumption. ----------------------------------- Howard: IMO, only if one's fixed views serve as blinders. ------------------------------------ > > >Well, I disagree with your view, and I consider it a > negative teaching that > >appears to simultaneously be a form of determinism and a form of > random > >eventuality. > > There is nothing negative that I can see in the idea that the > conditions for the development of insight include factors other than > intentional activities. Why do you see that as negative? ---------------------------------------- Howard: Surely you're not suggesting a replay, are you? -------------------------------------- > > > I believe there is loads to be intentionally done to improve > matters, > >and that is exactly how I read the Buddha's teaching in the Sutta > Pitaka. > > Well, that is your prerogative ;-)). But I'd just like to say that > that is not the only reading open on the suttas, and it's not the > reading supported by the ancient commentaries and the Abhidhamma. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: If that were so with regard to the Abhidhamma, I would dismiss it. But I don't believe it is so. As for the suttas, I don't accept your reading at all. ---------------------------------------------- > > Phew! -------------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed! ;-)) ------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ===================== With metta, Howard #66980 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:54 am Subject: Re: 'We are here to learn the dhamma' buddhatrue Hi Jon (and Howard), Jon: I think you are seeing things in my posts that are not there….I have no interest in the defilements in anyone's mind (whether Howard's or any other member's) (except my own, of course ;- )). The only thing I'm interested in, and what I'm questioning in my exchange with Howard, is the meaning of the teachings, in this instance the meaning of 'kusala'. Howard's understanding of kusala apparently includes the experiencing of dreams of the kind he has described and the sobbing caused by that experiencing. The fact that this happens to be an actual experience of Howard's is neither here nor there, as far as I'm concerned. The only question is the meaning of kusala, a term that is pivotal to a proper understanding of the teachings. James: Well, I seem to be doing that quite often with your posts- not understanding your intended message. I'm not sure how to solve that problem. Perhaps I should always assume that you don't mean what I think you mean?? That's the problem with leading questions- there is a lot of room for different interpretions. But since you simply want to discuss the kusala/akusala aspects of Howard's experience, and leave Howard out of the matter, fine, I can do that- it's kinda difficult, but I think I can do that. As I posted to Howard, there is sutta evidence that his dream was kusala. The Buddha, in the Supine Sutta, also described dreams that he had had before enlightenment. These dreams were of a fantastic nature and where psychic to the extent that they foretold what the bodhisattva was going to accomplish. Of course such dreams are wholesome because they are the truth. The truth is always wholesome. Additionally, the fact that the Buddha wanted to tell his disciples about these dreams demonstrates that dreams of this nature are wholesome. The sobbing, however, as far as what I know from the texts, isn't wholesome. Sobbing or crying is always akusala (unwholesome) and the Buddha or arahants never cried or sobbed. There are some examples from the suttas where the Buddha specifically spoke against crying. He scolded Ananda for crying when his death was approaching and there is a sutta where he compares the suffering inherent to multiple existences to tears that are greater than all the oceans. From my estimation, crying is not kusala. So, here we have a dream that is wholesome and sobbing that isn't wholesome. Not surprising. As is practically everything in life, it was an experience of mixed kusala and akusala. My opinion is that the dream was of such a fantastic and glorious wholesome state that the ego (mired in kusala and delusion) was shocked. What does the psyche do when it is shocked and wants to defend itself? It cries or sobs. Just look at any infant. Crying is a defense mechanism. So, even though what Howard experienced might appear to be bad to the unintelligent and uninformed, it was actually something very, very good! Thankfully, Howard was wise enough to see how it was a good occurrence and decided to share it with the group. He doesn't have any doubt that this was possibly a negative or akusala experience, nor did he express any doubt. Metta, James #66981 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - ... > ======================== > If you insist, though I don't know why you do, ... I ask but I don't insist ;-)) As I've explained in another thread, my interest is in the meaning of 'kusala'. > one reason is that this > dream has served as encouragement for me, spurring my effort at practice, not > only in meditating, but practice in its entirety. The proof of the pudding is > in the tasting, and the value of an event is in its consequences. In the teachings, 'kusala' refers to consciousness rooted in the mental qualities of non-attachment and non-hatred (with or without a 3rd root of panna). It is described in the suttas as being 3-fold: dana, sila and bhavana (samatha or vipassana). To my understanding of the texts, crying, like laughing, can only be akusala. Likewise, dreams are generally akusala (only the arahant does not dream at all). The idea that 'the value of an event is in its consequences' is a purely conventional idea of 'good'. Plus there are many mental states that do not have any ascertainable 'consequences', so it would not serve to explain whether such moments were kusala or akusala. In any event, 'consequences' can be construed to mean a wide variety of things. All in all, I don't think it's safe to rely on that as a criteria for assessing our own kusala/akusala. Jon #66982 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Forget About Satipatthana!" m_nease ----- Original Message ----- From: sarah abbott To: Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 4:23 AM Subject: [dsg] "Forget About Satipatthana!" > 1.KS:"Forget About Satipatthana!" > > "Don't try to understand satipatthana without any understanding of > realities right now! For example, [if we say] 'Be aware of visible > object!' - it's impossible without the understanding of what is visible > object right now, [how it's] different from dreaming about people and > things after seeing.........So forget about satipatthana....so begin with > understanding reality." Great stuff, Sarah, thanks. One of my favorite sacred cows, boohoo... mike #66983 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'We are here to learn the dhamma' upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Jon) - In a message dated 1/12/07 9:57:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > > As I posted to Howard, there is sutta evidence that his dream was > kusala. The Buddha, in the Supine Sutta, also described dreams that > he had had before enlightenment. These dreams were of a fantastic > nature and where psychic to the extent that they foretold what the > bodhisattva was going to accomplish. Of course such dreams are > wholesome because they are the truth. The truth is always > wholesome. Additionally, the fact that the Buddha wanted to tell his > disciples about these dreams demonstrates that dreams of this nature > are wholesome. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Well, a bodhisatta's dreams and mine shouldn't ever be discussed in the same post! LOLOL! But I do have no doubt as to the wholesomeness of my dream. ----------------------------------------- > > The sobbing, however, as far as what I know from the texts, isn't > wholesome. Sobbing or crying is always akusala (unwholesome) and the > Buddha or arahants never cried or sobbed. There are some examples > from the suttas where the Buddha specifically spoke against crying. > He scolded Ananda for crying when his death was approaching and there > is a sutta where he compares the suffering inherent to multiple > existences to tears that are greater than all the oceans. From my > estimation, crying is not kusala. ------------------------------------------- Howard: It might be so that the crying wasn't wholesome, though it sure seemed wholesome. I don't think all cryings are the same. I cried for utter joy. There was no sadness - not an iota. I have no doubt that there have even been people who cried upon awakening. So I don't think I'm ready to throw my hat into the agreement-ring for all crying being unwholesome. -------------------------------------------- > > So, here we have a dream that is wholesome and sobbing that isn't > wholesome. Not surprising. As is practically everything in life, it > was an experience of mixed kusala and akusala. My opinion is that > the dream was of such a fantastic and glorious wholesome state that > the ego (mired in kusala and delusion) was shocked. What does the > psyche do when it is shocked and wants to defend itself? It cries or > sobs. Just look at any infant. Crying is a defense mechanism. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Could be, James, but it seemed to be more of a crying at a huge release of suffering, and a replacement of that suffering by joy. Still, who knows - my introspection is surely flawed, and I could be mistaken in my evaluation. -------------------------------------------- > > So, even though what Howard experienced might appear to be bad to the > unintelligent and uninformed, it was actually something very, very > good! Thankfully, Howard was wise enough to see how it was a good > occurrence and decided to share it with the group. He doesn't have > any doubt that this was possibly a negative or akusala experience, > nor did he express any doubt. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed I have no doubt about this. Could I be wrong? Well, of course I could. But, as I said to Jon, only good effects have followed from it. I am feeling more at peace than ever, and I have a renewed dedication to practice. (Some here consider intentional practice to be unwholesome and fruitless, but I completely dismiss that as nonsense.) ========================= With metta, Howard #66984 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/12/07 10:16:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > To my understanding of the texts, crying, like laughing, can only be > akusala. Likewise, dreams are generally akusala (only the arahant > does not dream at all). > ======================= Jesus, Jon! You seem to think that it is good to be a dried out, emotionless robot? If I thought that the Dhamma was opposed to joy, I'd go elsewhere. There is nothing at all wrong with delight, Jon. There is delight in jhana, delight in all kusala, delight and utter joy. There is delight in metta, karuna, mudita, and uppekha. There is delight in wisdom. With metta, Howard #66985 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:08 pm Subject: Re: Meditation (again) ken_aitch Hi James -------- J: > I really like this post! I think it is so beautifully stated. I know that we disagree on the meditation issue, but it is nice to share dialogue with someone so passionate about the Dhamma! -------- Thanks James, I agree it is nice to share dialogue with people who are passionate about the Dhamma. That's why I spend so much time here at DSG. Better still than nice experience is the opportunity to acquire meaningful understanding. E.g., what, in the ultimate sense, is "nice" what is "sharing" what is "dialogue" "someone" "passion" and so on. Here we can have both the experiences and the right understanding of those experiences. What more could we ask for? :-) Ken H #66986 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 5:57 pm Subject: Re: 'We are here to learn the dhamma' scottduncan2 Dear Dreamers, This is an interesting discussion. A dream is pa~n~natti is it not? Sincerely, Scott. #66987 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) scottduncan2 Dear Jon, This makes sense, and I tend to agree with your take on this interesting issue: J: "In the teachings, 'kusala' refers to consciousness rooted in the mental qualities of non-attachment and non-hatred (with or without a 3rd root of panna). It is described in the suttas as being 3-fold: dana, sila and bhavana (samatha or vipassana)." In other words, 'kusala' is used in relation to citta rooted in either alobha or adosa. And so, technically a 'dream', which is not citta but only object of citta, cannot be either kusala or akusala in the sense of the word which applies to jaati; the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness is a quality of citta. Is this correct? J: "To my understanding of the texts, crying, like laughing, can only be akusala. Likewise, dreams are generally akusala (only the arahant does not dream at all)." And this is because these emotional reactions are conditioned by cittaa either rooted in lobha or dosa, is this correct? J: "The idea that 'the value of an event is in its consequences' is a purely conventional idea of 'good'. Plus there are many mental states that do not have any ascertainable 'consequences', so it would not serve to explain whether such moments were kusala or akusala. In any event, 'consequences' can be construed to mean a wide variety of things. All in all, I don't think it's safe to rely on that as a criteria for assessing our own kusala/akusala." And, technically again, 'our own' is not quite correct (although I'm clear you are using the conventions of speech) since we are still dealing with the impersonal qualities of citta. And it is citta which cognises an object and the accompanying cetasikas which add emotional tone to the complex. A dream, for example, is not inherently kusala or akusala - this designation would of necessity have to apply to the citta which takes 'dream' as object. 'Dream' hasn't been defined or described precisely enough from the point of view of Dhamma either, in my opinion, for the purposes of reasonable discussion. When you have time could you please amend what I've suggested or suggest how my understanding can be improved? Sincerely, Scott. #66988 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:50 pm Subject: Re: 'We are here to learn the dhamma' scottduncan2 Dear Dreamers, I thought of something else. All groan now, please. From long experience, dreams come in all forms. There are those so mundane as to be beyond consideration, and those so numinous as to seem marvelous and important. Conventionally and psychologically this is almost a truism. The analysis of a given dream is, obviously, a purely intellectual endeavour. All elements of a dream come under scrutiny, including its affective tone. Some dreams, it is true, have great depth and meaning. I think, though, the above notwithstanding, that this is of a totally conventional and mundane nature. Strong affect is no real proof of anything other than that there is strong affect. Since the whole aim of this group is to study Dhamma, psychodynamics, however accurately or inaccurately portrayed, are simply not relevant, in my opinion. Significant experience - experience that effects change in the flux of consciousness, change that accumulates kusala - is intense, momentary, and can come as a shock. The main problem with such events is that they become subject to clinging and can condition reams of wrong view, the most devastating, in my opinion, being to claim it as one's own and to identify with it: 'This is my experience and, because of it, I am a certain kind of individual.' I think, in truly adverting to and 'analysing' such 'events', it can take months and months if not years of Dhamma study, moment after moment of akusala and wrong view, and, finally, only through the 'intervention' of pa~n~na - a true kusala dhamma - to sort out what had arisen. Sincerely, Scott. #66989 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 11:12 pm Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na ken_aitch Hi Scott, I've just had look into my "too hard" basket and found this B. Bodhi article you posted a couple of days ago. At first, I had trouble following it. It seemed to be classifying pannatti as the opposite of wisdom: --------- BB: > " The pathways for designation, language, and descriptions are not all that the vortical interplay of consciousness and mentality-materiality makes possible. The Buddha says that it also makes possible a sphere for wisdom (pa~n~naavaccara). ---------- Pannatti is neither wise nor unwise and it is neither kusala nor akusala. And so it is not pannatti, but ignorance (moha), that is the opposite of wisdom (amoha). However, there is a common link: moha does not recognise dhammas as dhammas. It prefers to work with pannatti. Even when it is experiencing a dhamma its nature is to prefer pannatti. ------------------ <. . .> BB : > "Wisdom works with the same set of referents as deluded conceptualisations" ------------------ So BB is not suggesting pannatti is the opposite of wisdom. He is contrasting wisdom with "deluded conceptualisations." That is another term for "a citta that is accompanied by moha and has pannatti as its object." (So moha is the crucial factor.) --------------- <. . .> BB: > "but exhibits them from a new point of view, one which leads to the abolition of all conceivings: 'Whatever material form there is, whatever feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness - past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near - all that one sees with perfect wisdom as it really is --------------- Needless to say, the article is a good one. My only qualm (which might not be a valid one) is that I would like to see some acknowledgement of the fact that "conceivings" can occur when moha has a conditioned dhamma as its object - not only when it has pannatti as its object. Just to digress a little: I notice the terms "internal" and "external" appear. Bill and others have been discussing those terms as found in the Satipatthana Sutta. I think their meaning (or one of their meanings) is made clearer here (or in the Mahaanidaana Sutta) by their being grouped with "past, future, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near." Past and future (for example) are not directly known, are they? (Except by an omniscient Tathagata.) But when a monk practises direct knowing he knows the present conditioned arammana to be the same as all other conditioned dhammas (anicca dukkha and anatta, not mine, not I, not self). He knows they are the same as the feelings that have arisen in the past and those that will arise in the future. He knows they are the same as the (external) feeling that some other person is experiencing. ------------- Scott: > I like that a 'sphere of wisdom' is made possible and that it is only natural that it arises out of the common 'soil' of all the deluded conceptualising. I think this puts into perspective the whole notion of what is 'real' and what is 'not real'. -------------- Yes, the common soil - the five khandhas - gives rise to rocket science, the theory of evolution and lots of other useful pannatti. But only satipatthana - direct knowledge of the five khandhas - leads to the end of suffering. Ken H #66990 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 3:16 am Subject: Re: "Forget About Satipatthana!" jwromeijn Hallo Sarah, all --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear All, > > Lots of deep dhamma & controversial comments from K.Sujin and good > discussion topics raised by Lodewijk and others(including 'What is Sati?" > and "Meditation Again":-))..... > Here's a taste:- > 1.KS:"Forget About Satipatthana!" > "Don't try to understand satipatthana without any understanding of > realities right now! For example, [if we say] 'Be aware of visible > object!' - it's impossible without the understanding of what is visible > object right now, [how it's] different from dreaming about people and > things after seeing.........So forget about satipatthana....so begin with > understanding reality." > A bad suggestion, I think You know there have been discussions about Satipatthana and the S- Sutta the last two weeks. Trying to understand this Sutta is a good means to practice satipatthana and thus to understand reality. Metta Joop #66991 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 12, 2007 10:37 pm Subject: Joy and It's Fruits: From DN 21 upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and all) - With regard to why I evaluated my dream as wholesome, I had written that "one reason is that this dream has served as encouragement for me, spurring my effort at practice, not only in meditating, but practice in its entirety. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, and the value of an event is in its consequences." In the matter of evaluating phenomena, whether laughter, crying, dreaming, or whatever, the specific conditions involved need to be looked at, and not just a general categorization, and it is very important to see what fruits follow. In that regard, i.e., evaluating a phenomenon by its consequences, and with regard to joy, in particular, I draw your attention to the following material from the Sakka-Pa~nha Sutta: 'Joy is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of a feeling of joy, 'As I pursue this joy, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,' that sort of joy is not to be pursued. When one knows of a feeling of joy, 'As I pursue this joy, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,' that sort of joy is to be pursued. With metta, Howard #66992 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 12:07 am Subject: Right Effort and Proliferation Re: [dsg] Joy and It's Fruits: From DN 21 upasaka_howard Hi again, Jon (and all) - The following is a fuller quote from DN 21 that involves guarding the senses, pursuing what should be pursued, not pursuing what should not be pursued, and evaluating what is worthy of pursuit and what is not on the basis of what the phenomenon leads to: ______________________ "But what, dear sir, is the cause of desire, what is its origination, what gives it birth, what is its source? When what exists does it come into being? When what doesn't exist does it not?" "Desire has thinking as its cause, has thinking as its origination, has thinking as what gives it birth, has thinking as its source. When thinking exists, desire comes into being. When thinking is not, it doesn't." "But what, dear sir, is the cause of thinking, what is its origination, what gives it birth, what is its source? When what exists does it come into being? When what doesn't exist does it not?" "Thinking has the perceptions & categories of complication1 as its cause, has the perceptions & categories of complication as its origination, has the perceptions & categories of complication as what gives it birth, has the perceptions & categories of complication as its source. When the perceptions & categories of complication exist, thinking comes into being. When the perceptions & categories of complication are not, it doesn't." "And how has he practiced, dear sir: the monk who has practiced the practice leading to the right cessation of the perceptions & categories of complication?" "Joy is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued. Grief is of two sorts: to be pursued & not to be pursued. Equanimity is of two sorts: to be pursued & not to be pursued. "'Joy is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of a feeling of joy, 'As I pursue this joy, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,' that sort of joy is not to be pursued. When one knows of a feeling of joy, 'As I pursue this joy, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,' that sort of joy is to be pursued. And this sort of joy may be accompanied by directed thought & evaluation or free of directed thought & evaluation. Of the two, the latter is the more refined. 'Joy is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. "'Grief is of two sorts, I tell you: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of a feeling of grief, 'As I pursue this grief, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,' that sort of grief is not to be pursued. When one knows of a feeling of grief, 'As I pursue this grief, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,' that sort of grief is to be pursued. And this sort of grief may be accompanied by directed thought & evaluation or free of directed thought & evaluation. Of the two, the latter is the more refined. 'Grief is of two sorts, I tell you: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. "'Equanimity is of two sorts, I tell you: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of a feeling of equanimity, 'As I pursue this equanimity, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,' that sort of equanimity is not to be pursued. When one knows of a feeling of equanimity, 'As I pursue thi s equanimity, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,' that sort of equanimity is to be pursued. And this sort of equanimity may be accompanied by directed thought & evaluation or free of directed thought & evaluation. Of the two, the latter is the more refined. 'Equanimity is of two sorts, I tell you: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said."This is how he has practiced, deva-king: the monk who has practiced the practice leading to the right cessation of the perceptions & categories of complication." Note1. Complication = papañca. The tendency of the mind to proliferate issues from the sense of "self." This term can also be translated as self-reflexive thinking, reification, falsification, distortion, elaboration, or exaggeration. In the discourses, it is frequently used in analyses of the psychology of conflict. The categories of complication stem from the self-reflexive thought, "I am the thinker," (see Sn 4.14), and include the categories of inappropriate attention (see MN 2): being/not-being, me/not-me, mine/not-mine, doer/done-to. The perceptions of complication include such thoughts as "This is me. This is mine. This is my self." These perceptions and categories turn back on the person who allows them to proliferate, giving rise to internal conflict & strife, which then expand outward. For more on these terms, see MN 18. A bit later in the sutta, Sakka further asked the Buddha "But how has he practiced, dear sir: the monk who has practiced for restraint in the Patimokkha?" The Buddha then replied as follows, detailing restraint of the senses as regards moment by moment contact, again with evaluation based on fruits: "Bodily conduct is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued. Verbal conduct is of two sorts: to be pursued & not to be pursued. Searching is of two sorts: to be pursued & not to be pursued. "'Bodily conduct is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of bodily conduct, 'As I pursue this bodily conduct, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,' that sort of bodily conduct is not to be pursued. When one knows of bodily conduct, 'As I pursue this bodily conduct, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,' that sort of bodily conduct is to be pursued. 'Bodily conduct is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. "'Verbal conduct is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of verbal conduct, 'As I pursue this verbal conduct, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,' that sort of verbal conduct is not to be pursued. When one knows of verbal conduct, 'As I pursue this verbal conduct, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,' that sort of verbal conduct is to be pursued. 'Verbal conduct is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. "'Searching is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? When one knows of a search, 'As I pursue this search, unskillful mental qualities increase, and skillful mental qualities decline,' that sort of search is not to be pursued. When one knows of a search, 'As I pursue this search, unskillful mental qualities decline, and skillful mental qualities increase,' that sort of search is to be pursued. 'Searching is of two sorts, I tell you, deva-king: to be pursued & not to be pursued.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said."This is how he has practiced, deva-king: the monk who has practiced the practice for restraint in the Patimokkha." With metta, Howard #66993 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:26 am Subject: Re: naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Ken, Thanks for taking the time: K: "I've just had look into my "too hard" basket and found this B. Bodhi article you posted a couple of days ago..." BB: " The pathways for designation, language, and descriptions are not all that the vortical interplay of consciousness and mentality-materiality makes possible. The Buddha says that it also makes possible a sphere for wisdom (pa~n~naavaccara)..." ---------- K: "Pannatti is neither wise nor unwise and it is neither kusala nor akusala. And so it is not pannatti, but ignorance (moha), that is the opposite of wisdom (amoha). However, there is a common link: moha does not recognise dhammas as dhammas. It prefers to work with pannatti. Even when it is experiencing a dhamma its nature is to prefer pannatti." This is how I see it as well. ------------------ BB : "Wisdom works with the same set of referents as deluded conceptualisations..." ------------------ K: "So BB is not suggesting pannatti is the opposite of wisdom. He is contrasting wisdom with "deluded conceptualisations." That is another term for "a citta that is accompanied by moha and has pannatti as its object." (So moha is the crucial factor.)" Yeah, that's the way I read it. Pa~n~natti is in a different 'class' of phenonema than pa~n~na. K: "Needless to say, the article is a good one. My only qualm (which might not be a valid one) is that I would like to see some acknowledgement of the fact that "conceivings" can occur when moha has a conditioned dhamma as its object - not only when it has pannatti as its object." The commentary: "...For it is said in the Pa.tisambhidaamagga: 'How is wisdom in the discernment of conditions and the knowledge of the structure of phenomena? Ignorance is the structuring factor for volitional formations at their arising, occurence, sign, accumulation, conjunct, impediment, origin, cause, and condition. Through these nine modes ignorance is the condition and volitional formations are conditionally arisen, etc." Bh. Bodhi, Note 19: "The commentaries divide full understanding (pari~n~na) into three consecutive stages. In the first, 'full understanding of the known' (~naatapari~n~na), mental and material phenomena are delimited by the defining of their particular characteristics and their conditioned origination is ascertained by the discernment of their conditions. In the second, 'full understanding by scrutinisation' (tiira.napari~n~na), those same phenomena are surveyed by way of the three general characteristics: impermanence, suffering, and non-self. In the third, 'full understanding by abandoning' (pahaanapari~n~na), erroneous conceptions are abandoned by the arising of successive insights leading up to the supramundane path. The insight knowledges proper begin at this third stage, with the first two stages serving as their foundation." Sincerely, Scott. #66994 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:28 pm Subject: What is Meditation? sarahprocter... Dear All, A great afternoon discussion yesterday. The small room was very full. Han is just back from Myanmar and kindly came along with Jon & I. I'm always impressed by his vigour, energy and keen interest in dhamma. Together we raised several knotty issues that have come up before on DSG such as the seeming conflict between the conceptual world of houses and bank accounts and the world of paramattha dhammas. (Han, if you have time, pls give one or many of your good reports on any of the topics - I can list them if it helps, but I'm sure you'll remember them). Who else familiar to DSG? Ven Dhammanando, Nina, Lodewijk, Sukin, Betty, Matt(Ivan), Azita, Michael Kalyanno (was Michael Jackson)...I was particularly glad to meet Michael for the first time. (Hopefully a pic will be loaded by someone...). Michael is just back from a long meditation retreat in Myanmar and we discussed the meaning of quiet and peace. Is there more mindfulness in a 'quiet' environment without books and talk? (Michael, pls add more of your thoughts with us sometime - i know you weren't quite satisfied with the answers:-))....) Lodewijk raised more on meditation and Vince (with Nancy en route to Myanmar too!!)were asking K.Sujin why she discourages sitting meditation or retreats as such....'What is meditation?', she asked several times... Who else? The Canadian contingent, also Shakti, Tom C with keen questions on anatta.... I was trying to help raise Han's good questions, but also brought up the awareness of internal and external cittas in the Satip sutta - more later. Other friends, other topics, but at the end, it came back to understanding vs attachment to calm and pleasant feelings, back to this moment vs dreaming of another time or moment..... K.Sujin (on her 80th birthday) had been with people all day from early morning, holding a long session in Thai in the morning, followed by various presentations and offerings and then after a short break, patiently explained dhamma to us for nearly 3 hrs, sitting perfectly quietly the whole time. More heart-felt shows of gratitude by everyone present..... Through it all, her patience, metta and tireless energy for assisting anyone present with understanding the dhamma are quite outstanding imho. Metta, Sarah p.s We're on our way back to Hong Kong today....look f/w to getting back to various threads here. ============== #66995 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 5:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Forget About Satipatthana!" lbidd2 Hi Joop, J: "Trying to understand this Sutta is a good means to practice satipatthana and thus to understand reality." L: I think Khun Sujin is saying forget the concepts, the suttas, and the commentaries and relate to what is happening now. I would say, in particular focus on rupa. That's the beginning for most people, and once there is a well esablished awareness of rupa it stays with you. It's like wearing anatta. Larry KS:"Forget About Satipatthana!" "Don't try to understand satipatthana without any understanding of realities right now! For example, [if we say] 'Be aware of visible object!' - it's impossible without the understanding of what is visible object right now, [how it's] different from dreaming about people and things after seeing.........So forget about satipatthana....so begin with understanding reality." #66996 From: han tun Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 6:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is Meditation? hantun1 Dear Sarah, First of all, please allow me to express my sincere gratitude to you and Jon for taking me along to attend the meeting at the Foundation. You asked me to give one or many of my reports on any of the topics that were discussed. I would very much like to oblige, but I have some problems. Since middle of last year I have developed some hearing difficulties. I can hear sounds but sometimes I cannot make out what one is saying. You might have noticed that I leaned towards the one who was speaking, and also I asked you a few times what others were saying. So, although I remember the topics we had discussed, I did not have a correct and complete account of what others were saying. I would therefore like to request you to report on my behalf whatever you think might be useful for other members. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #66997 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 7:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) jonoabb Hi Scott --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: ... > In other words, 'kusala' is used in relation to citta rooted in either > alobha or adosa. And so, technically a 'dream', which is not citta > but only object of citta, cannot be either kusala or akusala in the > sense of the word which applies to jaati; the wholesomeness or > unwholesomeness is a quality of citta. Is this correct? Yes. Let's distinguish between a dream and dreaming (the same distinction as between a thought and thinking): citta dreams (this is the dreaming, the experiencing of a dream), and its object is a concept (the dream). It is just a kind of thinking. As we know, the citta that thinks is either kusala or akusala. > J: "To my understanding of the texts, crying, like laughing, can only > be akusala. Likewise, dreams are generally akusala (only the arahant > does not dream at all)." > > And this is because these emotional reactions are conditioned by > cittaa either rooted in lobha or dosa, is this correct? Yes. > J: "The idea that 'the value of an event is in its consequences' is a > purely conventional idea of 'good'. Plus there are many mental > states that do not have any ascertainable 'consequences', so it would > not serve to explain whether such moments were kusala or akusala. In > any event, 'consequences' can be construed to mean a wide variety of > things. All in all, I don't think it's safe to rely on that as a > criteria for assessing our own kusala/akusala." > > And, technically again, 'our own' is not quite correct (although I'm > clear you are using the conventions of speech) since we are still > dealing with the impersonal qualities of citta. And it is citta which > cognises an object and the accompanying cetasikas which add emotional > tone to the complex. A dream, for example, is not inherently kusala > or akusala - this designation would of necessity have to apply to the > citta which takes 'dream' as object. Yes, well said. And furthermore, the quality of a citta as kusala or akusala can be known directly at the time it arises. It does not depend on any subsequent 'consequences', and so cannot be surmised from later analysis of the occasion. But unless it's a moment of dana, sila or bhavana, it must be akusala, this being an exhaustive classification of kusala found in the sutta pitaka. > 'Dream' hasn't been defined or described precisely enough from the > point of view of Dhamma either, in my opinion, for the purposes of > reasonable discussion. A rough definition of 'dream': Thoughts experienced during sleep. Thanks for coming in with your comments and observations. Jon #66998 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 1/12/07 10:16:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > > To my understanding of the texts, crying, like laughing, can only be > > akusala. Likewise, dreams are generally akusala (only the arahant > > does not dream at all). > > > ======================= > Jesus, Jon! You seem to think that it is good to be a dried out, > emotionless robot? If I thought that the Dhamma was opposed to joy, I'd go > elsewhere. Actually, I would say the Dhamma is neither opposed to nor in favour of joy - it simply tells us how things are. The mental factor of 'piti' is sometimes translated as 'joy'. It may accompany both kusala and akusala cittas. Likewise the mental factor of 'sukha', 'pleasant feeling'. I think the texts are clear that laughing is always motivated by attachment. But I don't see how the fact that I mention this gives you any insight into my personality ;-)) > There is nothing at all wrong with delight, Jon. Agreed ;-)) Kusala is to be developed, and akusala is to be abandoned. But we start from where we are, so we need not feel there's anything 'wrong' with aksuala joy. > There is delight in jhana, > delight in all kusala, delight and utter joy. I'm not sure what you mean by 'delight and utter joy'. As you will remember, the so-called jhana factors include both piti (joy) and sukha (pleasant feeling), and these must each be abandoned if the next higher stage of jhana is to be attained. So the jhana practitioner sees danger in even kusala joy and pleasant feeling. > There is delight in metta, > karuna, mudita, and uppekha. There is delight in wisdom. Are you referring to the accompanying feeling, or to subsequent thinking about the arisen kusala. If the latter, it might well be akusala (I'm speaking in general terms here and not about you, Howard, personally). Jon #66999 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sat Jan 13, 2007 8:37 pm Subject: Re: 'We are here to learn the dhamma' jonoabb Hi James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Jon (and Howard), > ... > James: Well, I seem to be doing that quite often with your posts- not > understanding your intended message. I'm not sure how to solve that > problem. Perhaps I should always assume that you don't mean what I > think you mean?? ;-)) ;-)) ;-)). > That's the problem with leading questions- there is > a lot of room for different interpretions. ?? ?? ?? > But since you simply want to discuss the kusala/akusala aspects of > Howard's experience, and leave Howard out of the matter, fine, I can > do that- it's kinda difficult, but I think I can do that. Sorry to say, but that wasn't it either ;-)) I wanted to discuss generally kusala and akusla. But OK, let's go on. > As I posted to Howard, there is sutta evidence that his dream was > kusala. The Buddha, in the Supine Sutta, also described dreams that > he had had before enlightenment. These dreams were of a fantastic > nature and where psychic to the extent that they foretold what the > bodhisattva was going to accomplish. Of course such dreams are > wholesome because they are the truth. The truth is always > wholesome. Additionally, the fact that the Buddha wanted to tell his > disciples about these dreams demonstrates that dreams of this nature > are wholesome. As regards your statement that the truth is always wholesome, we need to understand in what context the terms 'wholesome' and 'unwholesome' are used in the texts. To my understanding, they described different classes of consciousness, and the differentiation between the two is one of the accompanying roots (I'm sure you remember the previous discussion on this subject, led by you, and the article 'The Roots of Good and Evil'). A person may speak or think the truth but do so with akusala cittas. So 'truth' is not a determinant of kusala, as I understand it. Jon