#67400 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, --- ken_aitch wrote: > I seem to recall that the Buddha and his chief disciples attained > enlightenment by jhana-and-vipassana in tandem. .... S: I'm not sure that this was always so. Certainly all the great disciples had attained jhanas, but like Sariputta, I'm not sure that they were necessarily attained 'in tandem'. ... >And I had the > impression that this gave them powers greater than the powers of > ordinary arahants (flying through the air etc). But maybe I am > confusing those powers with those of ordinary (non-Buddhist) > jhana masters. How were they different? ... S: Yes, you are referring to the abhinnas (and no, I don't believe it's clear that all anagamis attained mundane jhanas- accumulations again!). And yes, without skill in the highest jhanas, even arahants could not achieve these powers you refer to. Maha Mogallana had extraordinary supernatural powers (disappearing through key-holes, visiting other realms and so on), but this wasn't so for most arahants. .... > KH: > > Therefore, I think those arahants in the sutta who told the > monk, "We > do not have supernatural powers because we were freed by > wisdom > > alone," probably were jhana meditators by that stage. ,...> > S: > but regardless, I wouldn't assume they were 'jhana meditators by > that stage'unless it said so. > -------------------------------------------- > > This goes back to my opening [questionable] assumption - that all > arahants would find mundane jhana a piece of cake. .... S: I think we'll see in our reading of the 'Sisters' how very different accumulations were for those who became arahants. > ----------------------------- > S: > Of course, accumulations are so varied that (as we read > in AN, Yuganaddha Sutta), some attain jhanas before insight has > developed, some after, some together with and some not at all. > ------------------------------ > > Had I been more motivated to learn these jhana details I would > probably have remembered more of them from previous discussions. As it > is, I am totally confused. The Buddha mentioned 'vipassana followed by > jhana' as one of the four ways. But how would jhana after vipassana > affect anything? Don't answer that; I am only sidetracking the thread > even more! :-) .... S: It's a valid question none-the-less. Again, conditions! Why do some arahants spend their time teaching dhamma while others live quietly in the forest? ... <...> > Point taken! But, of course, jhana is just as much a conditioned > dhamma as any other. Wouldn't it be the kind of citta that would > naturally (and inevitably) develop in the mind of an arahant? .... S: Again, I think it would depend on accumulations, prior attainments and so forth. Good points and great discussions with others while we were away.... Metta, Sarah ======= #67401 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letters on Vipassana 5, no 5. nilovg Dear Matheesha, thank you for your interest. The intention is not a problem. There is kusala cetanaa with the jhaanacitta. There is also kusala cetanaa with the development of vipassanaa. Through vipassanaa we learn not to take cetanaa , or viriya or any other reality for self. This is very difficult for us worldlings, because unknowingly the idea of a self doing things creeps in. By listening and considering there will be more understanding that whatever one intends to do is conditioned, non-self. To return to your question: the person who has accumulated skills for jhaana and also has the masteries, can, when emerging from jhana be aware of the jhanafactors or the jhanacitta, and in this way he learns to see it as conditioned dhammas, non-self. This is not possible without the masteries. The fact whether one is jhanalabhi or sukkha vipassaka all depends on accumulated conditions. Does this answer your question? Nina. Op 23-jan-2007, om 22:45 heeft matheesha het volgende geschreven: > Vasi means mastery ie- adverting to the jhana when one wishes - > there is intention there. Why this is a qualification for doing > vipassana, when even without jhana, vipassana is possible, is not > clear. #67402 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 sarahprocter... Hi James (& Scott), Thanks for quoting many good passages from suttas in #66810. I agree that reading such passages, it would be easy to come to the definite conclusion that jhana attainment was a pre-requisite for the path. This was one: --- buddhatrue wrote: > James: <...>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. > ************** .... S: We had some discussion on this Dhammapada verse before. (see #31767, a post of Suan's for example. I can't quickly find others). At moments of lokuttara citta when nibbana is experienced, the lokuttara citta is referred to as being lokuttara jhana citta on account of being appannaa(absorption)concentration (equivalent to first jhana level when no prior jhana was obtained). In this letter of Jon's (#3539), he quotes from B.Bodhi's CMA guide and adds a few notes of his own. I wonder if you'd agree with it or have any further comments from your recent Abhidhamma studies, perhaps: Jon: >"The passage that follows is directly from the book (CMA Ch. I, Guide to ##30-31). The numbers in square brackets are markers to my own comments/summary at the end. =============================== All meditators reach the supramundane paths and fruits through the development of wisdom (panna) – insight into the three characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and non-self. [1] However, they differ among themselves in the degree of their development of concentration (samadhi). Those who develop insight without a basis of jhana are called practitioners of bare insight (sukkhavipassaka). [2] When they reach the path and fruit, their path and fruition cittas occur at a level corresponding to the first jhana. [3] Those who develop insight on the basis of jhana attain a path and fruit which corresponds to the level of jhana they had attained before reaching the path. ... For bare insight meditator and jhana meditator alike, all path and fruition cittas are considered types of jhana consciousness. They are so considered because they occur in the mode of closely contemplating their object with full absorption, like the mundane jhanas, and because they possess the jhana factors with an intensity corresponding to their counterparts in the mundane jhanas. [4] The supramundane jhanas of the paths and fruits differ from the mundane jhanas in several important respects. [5] First, whereas the mundane jhanas take as their object some concept, such as the sign of the kasina, the supramundane jhanas take as their object Nibbana, the unconditioned reality. [5.1] Second, whereas the mundane jhanas merely suppress the defilements while leaving their underlying seeds intact, the supramundane jhanas of the path eradicate defilements so that they can never again arise. [5.2] Third, while the mundane jhanas lead to rebirth in the fine material world and thus sustain existence in the round of rebirths, the jhanas of the path cut off the fetters binding one to the cycle and thus issue in liberation from the round of birth and death. [5.3] Finally, whereas the role of wisdom in the mundane jhanas is subordinate to that of concentration, in the supramundane jhanas wisdom and concentration are well balanced, with concentration fixing the mind on the unconditioned element and wisdom fathoming the deep significance of the Four Noble Truths. [5.4] =================================== Notes: 1. It is the development of understanding of the characteristics of reality that leads to the attainment of the path/enlightenment/8-fold path citta (magga citta). 2. Development of concentration to the level of jhana is not necessary for attaining magga citta. 3. However, even for the sukkhavipassaka the concentration accompanying the moment of path citta ‘corresponds to’ the first level of jhana. 4. The concentration accompanying magga citta is said to ‘correspond to’ jhana because the magga citta experiences its object with same full absorption and intensity of other factors as the jhana citta. 5. There are, however, 4 important differences between jhana citta and the path citta – 5.1. The object of jhana citta is a concept , while the object of the moment of path citta is Nibbana. 5.2. Jhana cittas merely suppress kilesa, while magga citta eradicates kilesa. 5.3. Jhana cittas are a condition for future rebirth, whereas magga cittas result in liberation from the cycle of birth and death. 5.4. The primary attribute of a moment of jhana citta is the degree of concentration on the object at that moment, whereas the attribute of a moment of magga citta is the wisdom that pierces the Truths."< ***** Metta, Sarah ======= #67403 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation (was shoulder biceps surgery0 sarahprocter... Dinesh & all I meant to include Dinesh who also quoted the same verse recently from Dhp.(372) S. --- sarah abbott wrote: > > 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. > > ************** #67404 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smiles & Laughs (was: Meditation (again)) sarahprocter... Dear Joop, --- Joop wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > > Here's a more complete extract of the one I re-quoted earlier. This > is > > from: Shwe Zan Aung, The Compendium of Philosophy, a translation of > the > > Abhidhammattha-Sangaha ... > Dear Sarah > > Thanks for this information. But a quote ending with "Of these, the > first two classes [of laughter] are indulged in by cultured persons, > the next two by the average man, and the last two by the lower > classes of being." cannot be taken serious. .... S: I'd be interested to see the originial textual quote that this was taken/translated from as well.... .... > > S (some hours ago): I'll go with the akusala and very natural for > most of what arises in a day theory:-) " > > J: Between all the joking it's good to explain this serious one: do > you mean that most what is very natural=akusala. That akusala arising > realities (for a wordling) is the rule and kusala the exception? .... S: Yes ... >Do > you mean that the human nature is akusala? ... S: Whenever the (javana) cittas are not concerned in a wholesome way with dana, sila or bhavana, then they are akusala, i.e most the time. .... >In that case I prefer no > longer calling myself a theravadin but prefer to be a mahayanist. .... S: Perhaps we don't need to call ourselves any particular name/label but just explore and understand what arises as we go about our daily life - laughing, crying, having fun and so on. Perhaps you can explain why this is disturbing? Isn't better to know than to kid ourselves that kusala is arising most the time? Metta, Sarah ======= #67405 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:30 am Subject: Dinesh & metta (was: Digest Number 3849) sarahprocter... Dear Dinesh, You ask about metta, compassion and anapanasati in your daily life. When you focus on these as objects of meditation for yourself, I don't believe there is any goodness involved. In you work, you're mixing with other people all the time. Can there not be a development of metta and compassion when you are friendly and help them, for example? I rather like your expression: " Hands are holier than lips that pray" S: I don't believe metta is developed when we are alone trying to have this quality, but when we reach out to others in little or big ways. For example, we can be friendly to each other here, sharing the little Dhamma we understand. Let me know if you'd like me or others to say more. (Btw, for anyone who receives mail in 'digest' form, remember to change the subject heading and most importantly, trim all the digest posts!!). Metta, Sarah --- jayasinghe.mudiyanse@... wrote: > can I ask a question, what is most beneficial between maithree > (compassion) and anapanasathi (breath) meditation. > I see maithree meditation while helping myself, helping others, by > chanting goodness for all. (altruistic) > Anapanasathi is for my-self alone ! > I remember an interesting religious saying " Hands are holier than lips > that pray" it means those serve others are true spiritualists than those > pray for them-selves. > have a good day with blesses of triple gems ! > dinesh #67406 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:41 am Subject: Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation buddhatrue Hi Robert, Andrew, Phil, et. All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear Phil and James, > I not sure why this question is considered wrong. Earlier this month > Howard said he doesn't consider Buddhanusati to be meditation. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/66455 > The more I think I about it, the more suspect I am of the > > >"recollection of the Buddha" as a practice that can itself lead > > >to awakening or as a form of meditation. It sounds an awful lot > > >like a later Brahmanical influence, an importing of devotionalism. > > And yet James said > >>I am a little lost also because Recollection of the Buddha is a form > >>of meditation. From the Vism.: > > And of course Buddhanusati is one of the objects for samatha detailed > in the Visuddhimagga. We are talking about going from the general to the specific. Robert, I am glad that you keep such a close eye on the posts. In the instance you quote, Howard was unsure if Recollection of the Buddha could qualify as meditation and I was sure that it would qualify as meditation. Notice, neither one of us was questioning "What is meditation?"- we both know the general meaning of "meditation". We were questioning specific instances as to if they fit the general category. Allow me to use a simple analogy. There are many different flavors of ice cream: chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, mint, walnut, etc. However, no matter how many different flavors exist, they all fall under the category of "ice cream". Howard and I were discussing if Recollection of the Buddha is one of the possible flavors of ice cream (meditation), we weren't discussing if ice cream exists or not. When someone knowledgeable in the dhamma comes along and asks, "What is meditation?" it is about as bizarre as a school kid asking "What is ice cream?" And then when you try to define meditation to that person and they won't accept any definition unless it covers all cases of the specific, it is doubly bizarre. It is like someone refusing to acknowledge the existence of ice cream unless it can be described in such as way as to include a detail of every single possible flavor! In the world there are many different types of meditation, but we need only concern ourselves with those types the Buddha taught. Refusing to recognize the general category of meditation is really not helpful in that regard. Metta, James #67407 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:46 am Subject: Dreaming and Seeming [Re: [dsg] Meditation (again)] buddhatrue Hi Sarah and Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: I don't have the dates to hand (I'm a bit tied up as have a patient > (Jon) just home after v.minor surgery) My best wishes for a speedy recovery!! Metta, James #67408 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] existence precedes essence (abhidhammicly) egberdina Hi Larry, > L: Right, all conditioned arising is dukkha. My thought was that the > realisation of dukkha is purifying in the sense of relinquishing > misconceptions. Therefore resentment isn't the realisation of dukkha > because there is the thought, "I'm not getting my due". > Are you suggesting that a realisation of dukkha will result in the suspension of wanting? Kind Regards Herman #67409 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation egberdina Hi Larry On 24/01/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > Hi Herman, > > H: "I could be wrong, but it almost sounds like you are equating all > consciousness with mindfulness? Perhaps I am off on a non-Buddhist > tangent, but for me mindfulness includes an awareness of the voluntary > nature of the act of attending to whatever is being attended to. As > opposed to what I would call non-mindfulness, where one is on > auto-pilot, as a bunch of unconsidered reactivity, much like a > conditioned response a la Pavlov and his canines :-)." > > L: Yes, I am. My only quibble is that I would say mindfulness > (consciousness) is unconsidered in the sense that it couldn't care less. I think we see things rather differently. It reads like you are saying that consciousness takes ANYTHING for an object, while I am of the view that consciousness takes SOMETHING for an object. (sorry about the CAPS, it's just to draw attention to the difference). Consciousness to me is selective, in accordance with it's fundamental project. To you, consciousness is unselective. > As a vehicle for all kinds of considerations there are problems, but > they aren't consciousness's problems. They're problems' problems. This > is obviously an unconventional view so feel free to chuck it into the > circular filing cabinet. > I don't have a problem with unconventional views as such :-) Kind Regards Herman #67410 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is "genuine sati ?" egberdina Hi RobK, On 24/01/07, rjkjp1 wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > > > > The word mindfulness may make people think that when they are very > aware of what they are doing that this is sati. However it is usually > only sanna. Sati of the path is always wearing away the idea of self > and control, it is different from what we usually mean by 'being > aware'. To me, this would preclude genuine sati from being known as it happens, if it can only be known by it's effect. These sorts of qualifications of genuineness and the like always end up as appeals to authority of some kind, as is borne out in this post as well, where genuine sati is only in the domain of wayfaring disciples. Who is a wayfaring disciple? Well, someone who knows genuine sati. Who knows genuine sati? Well, a wayfaring disciple, of course. Of course. Kind Regards Herman . #67411 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:41 am Subject: Re: Dreaming and Seeming [Re: [dsg] Meditation (again)] egberdina Hi Jon, > ... > S: I don't have the dates to hand (I'm a bit tied up as have a patient > (Jon) just home after v.minor surgery) I am sorry that Sarah thinks your surgery was only v minor :-) Be well Herman #67412 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The arahant- and the bodhisattva-ideal The End egberdina Hi Joop, > > Your question forced me to reflect on my position. Thanks. > It's about path, compassion and anatta. > > "Path" is a general term for "spiritual development", more specific > is it in "The Noble Eightfold Path" Is that the same as saying that spiritual development is seeking an end to suffering? If it is, then a worhwhile question would be, can an individual become free from suffering while surrounded by others who are suffering? To my way of thinking, no. The only way to pursue an individual path of liberation is to pursue a state of mental non-association. In which case there is no individual and there are no others, and compassion has no role to play there, because compassion is towards others. On the other hand, can one pursue the end of suffering for someone else? . > My central topic was not "path" but "compassion" > You remember a week or so ago the DSG-dicussion about laughing and > crying, one of the aspect was that arahants don't laugh (they can > smile) or cry. > The arguments for that statement braught me to the conclusion: > arahants don't have compassion. > But the Buddha did have compassion ! > Many on DSG, many Theravadins do have being an arahant as (far) > ideal; but I have the Buddha as ideal. > "Anatta" can in my opinion only be understood in relation to anicca > and dukkha; for some reason many on DSG don'nt mention the other two. > "Anatta" primary means: having no (transmigrating) soul, no self, no > core. > "Anatta" doesn't mean: be passive, don't want anything. > "Anatta" and "compassion" can be combined very good; an aspect > of "anatta" is: being altruistic, UNSELFISH. > > I hope this does help you on your path. > I hope so too. Kind Regards Herman #67413 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:26 am Subject: Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (1) scottduncan2 Dear Sisters Enthusiasts, "Then, one day in the kitchen, while the curry was cooking, a mighty flame of fire shot up, and burnt all the food with much crackling. She, watching it, made it a basis for rapt meditation on the utter impermanence of all things. Thereby she was established in the Fruition of the Path of No-Return." "Pruitt's translation might help: << Then one day, a great flame arose when the curry was being cooked in the kitchen. That great flame burnt up the whole dish with a hissing sound. She observed it, and making this her support [for contemplation], she thoroughly considered the arising of the characteristic of impermanence. Then she established there the concept of misery, impermanence, and no-self. She made her insight grow, eagerly practised, and in due course was established in the paths, one after the other, including the fruition stage of a Non-Returner. >> The Paali (hopefully accurately rendered): "Athekadivsa.m mahaanase bya~njane paccamaane mahati aggijaalaa u.t.tahi. Saa aggijaalaa sakalabhaajana.m ta.tata.taayanta.m jhaayati. Saa ta.m disvaa tadevaarama.na.m katvaa su.t.thutara.m aniccata.m uppa.tahanta.m upadhaaretvaa tato tattha dukkaaniccaanata~nca aaropetva vipassana.m va.d.dhetvaa aukkamena usskaapetvaa maggapa.tipaa.tiyaa anaagaamiphale pati.t.thahi." I'm sorry to be so short of time lately. I'll want to study this further. At first glance, I like Pruitt's version for thouroughness. Also, it seems as if, although the event whereupon the meal was burnt up occured quickly, the contemplation seems to have been based on recollecting the event and using the recollection to develop insight. Sincerely, Scott. #67414 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Nina, I'm glad to see you back. N: "Since I was away I do not know whether you had further discussions on this subject? I am interested to discuss this subject. But I need some time." I'll look forward to discussing this further with you. Please take your time (I'm finding myself a bit short of it lately as well). Sincerely, Scott. #67415 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:08 am Subject: Re: Dreaming and Seeming [Re: [dsg] Meditation (again)] upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Phil) - In a message dated 1/24/07 3:00:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Sanna has its own khandha because of its great importance in marking and > remembering all the time what has been experienced, felt, found important > and so on. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I think sa~n~na is central. ------------------------------------------ > ... > > As regards the recording, I did listen to one or two from > >February. > >Please tell me again, which exact date and which number wree you > >particularly > >suggesting I listen to. > ... > S: I don't have the dates to hand (I'm a bit tied up as have a patient > (Jon) just home after v.minor surgery) - but remember it was either the > very last or last but one track that Betty reads out from one of your > posts (2nd week, Feb 2006). Each track is only 20mins, so if you listen to > an extra one, no harm:-). > > The other set I think you'd enjoy/find interesting (probably more so) are > the controversial tracks with Vince about mid-way through the 2nd week. > Perhaps if KenH or Connie or Scott remember where this starts, they can > let you/us know. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'll just start listening to a bunch of them and make notes on whatever I want to bring up, if anything. As for controversy, well, I'm tiring of that. ====================== With metta, Howard #67416 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:35 am Subject: A Meaningful Sense of Me and Mine Re: [dsg] Identifying Wrong Views? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Antony) - In a message dated 1/24/07 3:12:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Don't we take any mindfulness or wisdom for being mine or in me? Don't we > take the worries and anxieties, the hopes and regrets, the likes and > dislikes for mine in some way or other? I think it's very common to do so, > but of course, when we say 'I was/am so miserable/happy', only right > understanding can know at the time whether there is any wrong view of self > or not. > ========================= Nothing is owned, and, in the sense that when the conditions (including the conditions that go into conventional volition) are in place for it, a dhamma must appear, but without even one of the requisite conditions, it cannot appear, and the same is true of each of the requisite conditions. Moreover, no aggregate exists independently of its constituents or of the namic operation(s) constituting viewing it as a unity, and no paramattha dhamma exists independently, as a self-existent entity, even for an an instant. So, there is no self, no self-existent identity or core to be found in anything, anywhere. All that having been said, the words 'I'. 'me', 'my', and 'mine' are meaningful. How are they meaningful? Your thinking is not my feeling. Your emotions are not my emotions. The warmth you feel is not the warmth I feel. The sights you see are not the sights I see. Different mindstreams, while interdependent and interacting and not self-existent, are yet not one and the same. They are distinguishable. It is common in Buddhist discussions to speak of "the" khandhas. But the aggregates comprising one namarupic stream are not the same as those comprising another. So, as I see it, if independent existence, self-existence and/or substantial core, is read into such usage as "I", "me", "my", and "mine", that is reification of the person, that is atta-view, but if that is not read into this usage, and the usage pertains only to distinguishing namarupic streams, it is a valid usage. With metta, Howard #67417 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (1) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Herman) - In a message dated 1/24/07 3:52:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard and Herman, > > > Yes, it was very nicely said. I just hope no one is going to > intentionally burn food in the name of vipassana practice. > > Ken H > ====================== Yes, that would be sooo wrong! LOLOL! With sizzling metta, Howard #67418 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:15 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, Ch 22, no 7. aruupajhaana. nilovg Dear friends, The fourth arúpa-jhåna is the ``Sphere of Neither Perception Nor Non- Perception'' (n'eva-saññå-n'åsaññåyatana). The object of this jhåna is the four nåmakkhandhas (citta and the accompanying cetasikas) which attained the Sphere of Nothingness,(at the third stage of arúpa- jhåna.) We read in the Visuddhimagga (X, 49): The word meaning here is this: that jhåna with its associated states neither has perception nor has no perception because of the absence of gross perception and presence of subtle perception, thus it is ``neither perception nor non-perception'' (n'eva-saññå-n'åsañña.m). Further on (X, 50) we read: ... Or alternatively: the perception here is neither perception, since it is incapable of performing the decisive function of perception, nor yet non-perception, since it is present in a subtle state as a residual formation, thus it is ``neither-perception-nor- non-perception''... It is also explained that the feeling arising with this jhånacitta is ``neither-feeling-nor-non-feeling (since it is present in a subtle state as a residual formation); the same applies to consciousness, contact (phassa) and the other cetasikas arising with the jhånacitta. Since there are four stages of arúpa-jhåna, there are four types of arúpåvacara kusala cittas. They can produce vipåka in the form of rebirth in the happy planes of existence which are the arúpa-brahma planes. The four types of arúpåvacara kusala cittas produce four types of arúpåvacara vipåkacittas. When the paìisandhi-citta is arúpåvacara vipåkacitta, all bhavanga-cittas and the cuti-citta of that life are of the same type of arúpåvacara vipåkacitta. Arúpåvacara vipåkacitta can only perform the functions of paìisandhi, bhavanga and cuti. There are four types of arúpåvacara kiriyacittas which are the cittas of the arahat who attains arúpa-jhåna. Thus, there are twelve arúpåvacara cittas in all. Summarizing them, they are: 4 arúpåvacara kusala cittas 4 arúpåvacara vipåkacittas 4 arúpåvacara kiriyacittas ******* Nina. #67419 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:19 am Subject: Letters on Vipassana 5, no 6. nilovg Dear friends, In the beginning we cannot yet have clear understanding of nåma as nåma and of rúpa as rúpa. Beginning is beginning. Generally people cannot accept that, they want to stress exertion, volitional control, doing this or that special technique first, before developing awareness of nåma and rúpa. Any reality appearing in daily life can be the object of satipatthåna. From the beginning one should understand that realities are anattå. Seeing is anattå; it arises because kamma produces it, nobody can produce his own seeing. In its train there are immediately javana cittas which are either kusala or akusala, but mostly akusala. They have already arisen before one realizes it. They are beyond control, anattå. We have to begin now being aware of nåma and rúpa, they are not abstractions. We know that seeing sees, hearing hears, but what about this moment? We learn about processes of cittas, but do these not occur now? Different things appear, but they could not appear if there were no cittas arising in processes. When we are fast asleep we do not know who we are or where we are, there is no house, no book, nothing appears. All these things appear as soon as we wake up. Realities appear already, we should not try to do anything about them. Some people say, "I had to break off my meditation because of sickness, stress of circumstances or work." No, when vipassanå is being naturally developed in daily life one will not break off its development. I believe we should have more understanding of this moment, and then of a next moment, and that we should consider the intricacy of citta which is so variegated in the life of each one of us. There is no use of thinking, "when shall I attain this or that stage of insight or enlightenment", it depends on paññå and the other sobhana cetasikas which have been accumulated; they can condition the arising of insight knowledge, vipassanå ñåùa, when it is the right time. The writer of the letter thought that one should not say that realities are "beyond control" and that one should not say that it depends on one's accumulations whether kusala citta or akusala citta arises. He is inclined to stress volitional control. He said that, although one cannot have absolute control, there must be effort and a certain amount of control, otherwise one would be a victim of fate, one could not do anything. ******** Nina. #67420 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:43 pm Subject: Re: A Meaningful Sense of Me and Mine Re: [dsg] Identifying Wrong Views? egberdina Hi Howard, On 25/01/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and Antony) - > > So, as I see it, if independent existence, self-existence and/or > substantial core, is read into such usage as "I", "me", "my", and "mine", that is > reification of the person, that is atta-view, but if that is not read into this > usage, and the usage pertains only to distinguishing namarupic streams, it is > a valid usage. > You are very correct, and very precise, and it is not hyperbole to say that you are very precisely correct :-). What you write above also pertains to discussions at citta levels. When citta is referred to as "it" or the object's relation to the citta as "its", there is the opportunity for atta-view to be present. But, of course, these pronouns, whether first-person, second-person or third person, are only meant to indicate the relationship of one thing to another, not the self-existence of any constituent. Kind Regards Herman #67421 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Roots ken_aitch --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" > wrote: > > > >. There can be no sage in > > the conventional sense. > .... > > > > Ken H > > > > Ken, is there anything that connects any member of DSG to any other > member? > Is there any sentient being that had to do with any other sentient > being in the universe? > > Joop > Hi Joop, Having read your other thread I know your question relates to compassion. Do you see the ultimate unreality of sentient beings as a barrier to compassion? You wrote to Herman: ------------------- > "Anatta" can in my opinion only be understood in relation to anicca and dukkha; for some reason many on DSG don't mention the other two. "Anatta" primary means: having no (transmigrating) soul, no self, no core. "Anatta" doesn't mean: be passive, don't want anything. ------------------- I agree that anatta does not mean, "Be passive, don't want anything." But nor does it mean, "Be active; want something." Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are saying there *is* a sentient being. And I think you are saying anatta simply means that sentient beings lack an immortal soul. You seem to be agreeing with James who sometimes tells us that anatta does not affect the path or how we follow it. He says it is only at the end of the path that anatta becomes relevant. In fact, anatta exists now in every conditioned dhamma. And that is what we need to understand. Ken H #67422 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Letters on Vipassana 5, no 6. egberdina Hi Nina, Nice to see you are still around. It is always a little bit scary coming back after a long while. One cannot be sure about who is still here, and why some may no longer be here. Just some comments. On 25/01/07, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear friends, > > In the beginning we cannot yet have clear understanding of nåma as > nåma and of rúpa as rúpa. > From the beginning one should > understand that realities are anattå. Seeing is anattå; it arises > because kamma produces it, nobody can produce his own seeing. I wonder why you think it impossible to understand nama/rupa in the beginning, yet quite possible to understand anatta? One may well be able to memorise what different people say about anatta, or what one thinks about anatta, but this has nothing to do with understanding. And such activity, the activity of memorising, and bringing to the fore what we have remembered about anatta, is very much a volitional activity, and all part of the project of being a certain kind of being. "I am going to be this and that kind of Buddhist, I am going to be the Buddhist who understands anatta". Further, nobody will ever see kamma produce anything. Kamma is one of many explanations for what is experienced, and it is never possible to experience an explanation. What one understands to be the causes/conditions for what is happening at the moment will always be in the form of a footnote to the page, or a narration to an event. No that there is anything wrong with explanations, I just think it very useful to discern between description and explanation. Because if these two are confused, one may well attempt to explain what is thought to be a description, without realising that the description is in fact already an explanation. If I start of by saying "I am very angry with Peter" and consider that to be a description of an event to be explained, I'm going to end up quite mistaken about what's going on. Because it is a thought I have had a propos of the events of Peter being in the room, the words he said, and angry feelings, it is already an explanation of what's gone on. And likewise, if I say "This seeing is produced by past action", this is not a description of anything that has happened, other than a thought I have had. The explanatory thought and the seeing have no necessary connection, unless they are seen as my thought. Because the thought is only an expression of who I intend to be. Kind Regards Herman #67423 From: connie Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:19 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (3) nichiconn III -- Pu.n.naa. The following verse is that of a student named Pu.n.naa. *84 She, heaping up good of age-enduring efficacy under former Buddhas in this and that state of becoming, was born - when the world was empty of a Saviour Buddha - as a fairy, by the River Candabhaagaa. *85 One day she worshipped a certain Silent *86 Buddha with a wreath of reeds. Thereby gaining heaven, she was, in this Buddha-dispensation, reborn as the child of a leading burgess of Saavatthi and named Pu.n.naa. When she had so dwelt for twenty years, her destiny then being fully ripe, she heard the Great Pajaapatii teach the doctrine, and renounced the world. Becoming a student, she began to practise insight. And the Master from the 'Fragrant Chamber' shed a glory, and spake this verse: Fill up, Pu.n.naa, *87 the orb of holy life, E'en as on fifteenth day the full-orb'd moon. Fill full the perfect knowledge of the Path, And scatter all the gloom of ignorance. *88 (3) Hearing this, her insight grew, and she attained Arahantship. This verse is the expression of her exultation and the affirmation of her A~N~NAA. *89 ***** *84 Cf. Ps. lxv., note. *85 Ca = Cha. The word is equivalent to 'moonlight.' Cf. Ps. xxix., xxxii. *86 A free rendering of Pacceka-Buddha - one enlightened for himself alone, not a world-Saviour. *87 Pu.n.naa = 'full.' *88 The words 'holy life,' 'of the path,' 'of ignorance,' are from the Commentary. *89 Pronounce Anyaa = literally, her having come to know. A subjective synonym of Arahantship. ::::::::::::::::: Pruitt: 3. "Pu.n.ne puurassu dhammehi, cando pannaraseriva; paripu.n.naaya pa~n~naaya, tamokhandha.m padaalayaa"ti.- Ima.m gaathamaaha. 3. Pu.n.naa, be filled with good mental states, as full as the moon on the fifteenth day. With fulfilled wisdom tear asunder the mass of darkness [of ignorance]. 3. Here, the word Pu.n.naa is a vocative. Be filled (puurassu) with good mental states means: be filled (paripu.n.naa hohi) with the thirty-seven requisites of awakening. In as full as the moon on the fifteenth day (cando-pannaraso-r-iva ti), the letter r makes a euphonic combination of [two] words. The fifteenth day [means:] the full moon with all its digits. With fulfilled wisdom means filled (paaripuuriyaa) because of the state of being full (paripu.n.naaya) of the sixteen functions, of the wisdom of the path of Arahatship. Tear asunder the mass of darkness [of ignorance] (tamo-kkhanda.m) means: utterly break up, completely split the mass of delusion (moha-kkhandha.m): through tearing asunder the mass of delusion, all the defilements are torn asunder together with it. Having heard that verse and having increased her insight, she attained Arahatship. #67424 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] existence precedes essence (abhidhammicly) lbidd2 Hi Herman, H: "Are you suggesting that a realisation of dukkha will result in the suspension of wanting?" L: Yes, of course. The realisation (thorough understanding) of dukkha is the end of dukkha. Larry #67425 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation lbidd2 Hi Herman, H: "I think we see things rather differently. It reads like you are saying that consciousness takes ANYTHING for an object, while I am of the view that consciousness takes SOMETHING for an object. (sorry about the CAPS, it's just to draw attention to the difference). Consciousness to me is selective, in accordance with it's fundamental project. To you, consciousness is unselective." L: Correct. In my view volitions make choices and have an agenda. We could say in a loose sort of way a consciousness rooted in dosa, for example, is selective. But it seems to me that consciousness itself isn't selective. It's a medium. Larry #67426 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:21 pm Subject: Re: The Roots buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: You seem to be agreeing with > James who sometimes tells us that anatta does not affect the path or > how we follow it. He says it is only at the end of the path that > anatta becomes relevant. Hi Ken H., I don't think that this is a very good summary of my position. Ken, must you see everything in black and white terms?? I don't believe that anatta is irrelevant when one is following the path, but I also don't believe that it is everything (especially at the beginning) . One may very well start the path with conceit, "I want to be a better person." "I want to be like the holy ones.", but as one follows the path such comparisons become irrelevant. Anatta ties in with all the wholesome qualities the Buddha wanted us to cultivate: renunciation, dana, lovingkindness, compassion, and wisdom. But these wholesome mind states lead us to the understanding of anatta, not the other way around. KS teaches that by understanding anatta, wisdom will arise; but how can an unwholesome, self-centered, delusional mind understand anatta? By studying the Abdhidhamma? Not likely. But listening to dhamma talks? Not likely. By following the Noble Eightfold Path? YES! The Noble Eightfold Path allows one to slowly build up wholesome mind states so that wisdom will arise and anatta can be directly known. Ken, answer me this simple question: Do you know anatta? Metta, James #67427 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience lbidd2 Hi Sarah, S: "Sense objects such as visible object can definitely be known directly for what they are - just that which is seen etc." L: What about the case of someone who is color blind? Is there a true red external to the eye which is not directly known to one who is color blind? Larry #67428 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] existence precedes essence (abhidhammicly) egberdina Hi Larry, On 25/01/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > Hi Herman, > > H: "Are you suggesting that a realisation of dukkha will result in the > suspension of wanting?" > > L: Yes, of course. The realisation (thorough understanding) of dukkha is > the end of dukkha. > It seems to me that a realisation of dukkha would therefore result in a suspension of all doing/action, because all doing/action is goal oriented. And it is in the having of goals that dukkha is found. For it is the nature of any goal to bring about change to a somehow unacceptable status quo. So the realisation of dukkha ought to result in acceptance of whatever is the case, and no activity is undertaken to change anything. And this, to my way of thinking, is a description of a state of affairs that does not arise. Because there is no being who does not act to maintain his being. In the absence of a being who is, yet doesn't act, what basis have I, or anyone else, to assume the truth of the Third Noble Truth, that BEING free from dukkha is a possibility? Kind Regards Herman #67429 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:36 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,127 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga) Ch. XVII [2. (a) In the Course of an Existence] 127. Firstly, in one who has been reborn by means of either profitable result or unprofitable result: according as his faculties mature, so the five profitable-resultant eye-, etc., consciousnesses occur accomplishing the respective functions of 'seeing', 'hearing', 'smelling', 'tasting', and 'touching' ((d)-(h)), contingent respectively upon a desirable or desirable-neutral visible datum, etc., as object that has come into the focus of the eye, etc., and having the sensitivity of the eye, etc., as [material] support. And likewise the five unprofitable-resultant consciousnesses; the only difference being this, that the visible data, etc., as object for these are undesirable or undesirable-neutral. And these ten are invariable as to their door, object, physical basis, and position [in the cognitive series], and invariable as to their functions. ******************** 127. kusalavipaakaani taava cakkhuvi~n~naa.naadiini pa~nca kusalavipaakena akusalavipaakena vaa nibbattassa yathaakkama.m paripaaka.m upagatindriyassa cakkhaadiina.m aapaathagata.m i.t.tha.m i.t.thamajjhatta.m vaa ruupaadiaaramma.na.m aarabbha cakkhaadipasaada.m nissaaya dassanasavanaghaayanasaayanaphusanakicca.m saadhayamaanaani pavattanti. tathaa akusalavipaakaani pa~nca. kevala~nhi tesa.m ani.t.tha.m ani.t.thamajjhatta.m vaa aaramma.na.m hoti. ayameva viseso. dasapi cetaani niyatadvaaraaramma.navatthu.t.thaanaani niyatakiccaaneva ca bhavanti. #67430 From: "m. nease" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (1) m_nease Hi Scott, Connie and All, > At first glance, I like Pruitt's version for thoroughness. > Also, it seems as if, although the event whereupon the meal was burnt > up occured quickly, the contemplation seems to have been based on > recollecting the event and using the recollection to develop insight. This was my impression too, that insight followed concentration (since the object would have been 'the event', a concept). This would hardly be unusual in the texts. Of course, the conclusion that, because the insight was dependent on the prior concentration (assuming this to have been the case), the notion that insight is dependent on prior concentration would be a serious error in my opinion. I think this opinion is well-supported in the texts. mike #67431 From: "Joop" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Roots jwromeijn Hallo Ken, James (second part of the message), all Ken, you not only are an intelligent reader but also a nice one because my letter to you had some agression in it what you wisely neglected. KenH: "Having read your other thread I know your question relates to compassion. Do you see the ultimate unreality of sentient beings as a barrier to compassion?" J: Yes, I see the concept (in the mind of some people) ultimate unreality of sentient beings as a barrier (of those people) to compassion. Because compassion - here used in a conventional way - to other sentient beings is a response of the being touched by the dukkha of those sentient beings; and I cannot imagine that that 'being touched' is not combined by the idea that that being exists. KenH: "Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are saying there *is* a sentient being. And I think you are saying anatta simply means that sentient beings lack an immortal soul." J: Yes, except that 'simply', I meant to say that this is the starting point of our understanding 'anatta' KenH: "You seem to be agreeing with James who sometimes tells us that anatta does not affect the path or how we follow it. He says it is only at the end of the path that anatta becomes relevant." J: I don't think that James is telling this, but he already reacted. My opinion is that anatta (but combined with dukkha and anicca) is relevant everywhere anytime. KenH: "In fact, anatta exists now in every conditioned dhamma. And that is what we need to understand." J: I will not say it in this way. You use 'anatta' as a property (a characteristic), a negative property but still as something a dhamma 'has'. I think the Buddha did not use it in this ontological way but as a permanent warning that we should not think that there is a 'I', a 'me', a 'mine'. A conditioned dhamma will not think this (a conditioned dhamma does not think) so that is not the level at which the danger exists. It's possible you perceive a inconsequence in what I say: other sentient beings exist and I don't exist. Two remarks on this problem; - the danger is the illusion that I exist, the idea that another beings exists does not have this danger - in the Kaccayanagotta-sutta, " 'Everything exists' - this, Kaccayana, is one extreme 'Everything does not exist' - this, Kaccayana, is the second extreme Kaccayana, without appoaching either extreme, the Tathagata teaches you a doctrine by the middle." Metta Joop #67432 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Sarah) - In a message dated 1/24/07 7:38:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Sarah, > > S: "Sense objects such as visible object can definitely be known > directly > for what they are - just that which is seen etc." > > L: What about the case of someone who is color blind? Is there a true > red external to the eye which is not directly known to one who is color > blind? > > Larry > ========================= As a radical phenomenalist, I like that sort of question! ;-) My answer, BTW, is that what a person sees is the visual object that s/he sees, and nothing else. That, and only that, is the object of her/his awareness. With metta, Howard #67433 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 1:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] existence precedes essence (abhidhammicly) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/24/07 7:44:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > >H: "Are you suggesting that a realisation of dukkha will result in the > >suspension of wanting?" > > =========================== This depends on what "the realization of dukkha" means. If it is the realization *only* of the first noble truth, perhaps your idea of no acting being the consequence is valid. But if the realization is of the first *and* second noble truth, then the more natural result would be a shifting into a selfless, craving-free, natural mode of action based upon what is useful and motivated by the brahma viharas. Just a thought. With metta, Howard #67434 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:56 pm Subject: Re: Meditation philofillet Hi Andrew and all OK, I stand corrected. Just makes more sense to me to discuss it as it is universally understood in this day and age (and everybody knows how it is universally understood in this day and age, if "universally" is meant to be the Theravadin commmunity except Acharn Sujin and perhaps some other teacher whom I have yet to come across - I count the Venerable Dhammadaro as a student of Acharn Sujin) and try it as it is universally understood, and then draw one's own conclusioins based on that experience and then if one wants offer constructive criticism based on that. That's what I'm doing (except for the last part, but maybe I will someday) and it's bearing good fruit. I can see the shortcomings of the method I am practicing even as I benefit from the mindfulness it brings to daily life. I think for Acharn Sujin and her students there *might* be a littl too much wanting to enjoy the fruits of meditation in daily life. For example, the currently posted anecdote of the sister who had an insight moment while cooking, and NIna's shattered over door, which she mentioned a few years ago and really inspired me as an example of meditative experience in daily life. Now I think it is contemplation. (Well, the sister in the kitchen is a different story) Ayya Khema has a very good talk on the difference between contemplation and meditation. If I find it someday, I will post a link. When I was a student of Acharn Sujin I was always grasping for meaning in all kinds of incidents in daily life. Too much grasping for meaning, there was for me. The self that was doing that was less easy to see than the self that gently and non-coercively brings attention back to the meditation object - at least it was for me. I came to see it at work, that daily life insight seeking self. "Meditation" (generous quotation marks) helps there, for some reason. I can much more clearly see what my mind is up to during daily life. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Hi James & Phil > > Your criticisms of Jon's request for a definition of "meditation" are > IMO unfair. All he is doing is repeating the words of Socrates: "if > you will converse with me, first define your terms." Pretty > sensible, wouldn't you say?? To quote another ancient Greek, > Demosthenes: "A definition is the beginning of knowledge". > > #67435 From: "Phil" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:58 pm Subject: Re: What is "genuine sati ?" philofillet Hi Robert Thank you - this is a very clear explanation. I appreciate the patient help you're giving me these days. "It is usually only sanna" I will reflect on that some more. Metta, Phil > __________ > Dear Phil > The Venerable Dhammadharo was talking about sati of the eightfold > path, leading out of samsara. This type of sati, even at the very > beginning, is the province only of the Buddhas and their disciples. .... > #67436 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:10 pm Subject: Re: The Roots ken_aitch Hi James, --------------- <. . .> J: > I don't think that this is a very good summary of my position. Ken, must you see everything in black and white terms?? ----------------- That is a rhetorical question, I know, but I'd like to answer it anyway. In Abhidhamma terms, everything certainly is black and white. There are no grey areas. Every action is either kusala (with alobha and adosa cetasikas), or it is akusala (with moha and maybe dosa or lobha). In a way, this knowledge has had a reverse effect on my daily life. It has meant no more black and white and a lot more in-between, unknowable, areas. Voting conservative, for example, is no longer the heinous (black) crime I used to think it was. I can see that, even while putting a conservative slip into a ballot box, a person may have kusala cittas. Conversely, even while performing the glorious (white) act of voting socialist, a person may have selfish, cruel and ignorant thoughts. --------------------------------- J: > I don't believe that anatta is irrelevant when one is following the path, but I also don't believe that it is everything (especially at the beginning). --------------------------------- Hmm, it's hard to argue against that. But, in a way, anatta is everything. Certainly, everything is anatta. --------------------------------------------- J: > One may very well start the path with conceit, "I want to be a better person." "I want to be like the holy ones.", but as one follows the path such comparisons become irrelevant. --------------------------------------------- Here you are contradicting the texts, aren't you? According to the texts, neither conceit nor any other unwholesome cetasika could ever be part of the path. The way I see it, there is no need for such contradiction. The texts present us with a perfectly satisfactory version of the Dhamma. ------------------------------------------------------------ J: > Anatta ties in with all the wholesome qualities the Buddha wanted us to cultivate: renunciation, dana, lovingkindness, compassion, and wisdom. But these wholesome mind states lead us to the understanding of anatta, not the other way around. ------------------------------------------------------------ There are Christians (for example) who are far more kind and generous than I am, and yet they have no idea of anatta. ----------------------------------------- J: > KS teaches that by understanding anatta, wisdom will arise; but how can an unwholesome, self-centered, delusional mind understand anatta? ------------------------------------------ It can't. In the black and white terms of the Abhidhamma, cittas with attachment and ignorance can never have right understanding. What you have attributed to KS is not what she teaches at all. According to her understanding of the texts, wisdom can arise to understand anatta, but ignorance and conceit can't. Wisdom can be a component of the path, but ignorance and conceit can't. ---------------------------- J: > By studying the Abdhidhamma? Not likely. But listening to dhamma talks? Not likely. ---------------------------- I am in complete agreement. Wrong view, attachment, aversion and ignorance can pretend to study the Dhamma, but they might as well be 'whistling dixie' for all the good it will do. ----------------- J: > By following the Noble Eightfold Path? YES! The Noble Eightfold Path allows one to slowly build up wholesome mind states so that wisdom will arise and anatta can be directly known. ------------------ NO! The path is, admittedly, a gradual one, but it is kusala all the way. With the development of right understanding, moments of kusala become stronger and more frequent, but the akusala moments in between have nothing to do with the path. ------------------------------ J: > Ken, answer me this simple question: Do you know anatta? ------------------------------ Yes, in my way, but I'm not sure what you mean. What exactly do you mean by 'know anatta?' Ken H #67437 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (1) scottduncan2 Dear Mike et al, M: "This was my impression too, that insight followed concentration (since the object would have been 'the event', a concept). This would hardly be unusual in the texts. Of course, the conclusion that, because the insight was dependent on the prior concentration (assuming this to have been the case), the notion that insight is dependent on prior concentration would be a serious error in my opinion. I think this opinion is well-supported in the texts." Yeah, I notice that the translator uses 'contemplated' and it did seem that concept was object. I think this would have been a contemplation of the event; a recollection of burning of the curry. I suppose this was an everyday example of the 'kasina' work found in the instructions for the attainment of jhaana, where the recollection of the event took a 'visual' form as mind-object. One can think of times when one 'recollects' things one has seen, and there is this sort of mental image which does seem somewhat 'cleaned-up', as it were. I recall seeing a very strange and fleeting interaction while standing in line for a coffee one day in the large mezzanine of the hospital where I work. An old asian fellow was walking behind a much younger asian girl pushing an old asian woman in a wheelchair. Suddenly he rushed forward and struck the girl severely on the back, knocking her aside, and took control of the wheelchair, turning it and reversing direction. It happened so quickly and was so violent. I was stunned. I was struck by the speed with which this occured. I could bring the event to my mind over and over, 'contemplating' its impermanence and thinking of just how quickly akusala-kamma can be accumulated. The memory is clear, cleaned up, and quite 'kasina-like'. I think this may be a much more mundane example of the process described in the Theriigaathaa. Now the 'contemplation' was thinking about impermanence but the experience of impermanence had already passed and the 'insight' was in relation to that which I had already experienced, that brought to mind over and over. Sincerely, Scott. #67438 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] existence precedes essence (abhidhammicly) lbidd2 Hi Herman, ---------------------------- H: "Are you suggesting that a realisation of dukkha will result in the suspension of wanting?" L: "Yes, of course. The realisation (thorough understanding) of dukkha is the end of dukkha." H: "It seems to me that a realisation of dukkha would therefore result in a suspension of all doing/action, because all doing/action is goal oriented. And it is in the having of goals that dukkha is found. For it is the nature of any goal to bring about change to a somehow unacceptable status quo. So the realisation of dukkha ought to result in acceptance of whatever is the case, and no activity is undertaken to change anything. And this, to my way of thinking, is a description of a state of affairs that does not arise. Because there is no being who does not act to maintain his being. In the absence of a being who is, yet doesn't act, what basis have I, or anyone else, to assume the truth of the Third Noble Truth, that BEING free from dukkha is a possibility? ------------------------------- L: Well, technically 'being' free from dukkha isn't the third noble truth. As you say, it is a state that does not arise. But these are just semantic quibbles. Can't you imagine living without hope and fear? My impression is that it is very similar to tranquility. The characteristic of nibbana is peace. Larry #67439 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: What is "genuine sati ?" rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > These sorts of > qualifications of genuineness and the like always end up as appeals to > authority of some kind, as is borne out in this post as well, where > genuine sati is only in the domain of wayfaring disciples. Who is a > wayfaring disciple? Well, someone who knows genuine sati. Who knows > genuine sati? Well, a wayfaring disciple, of course. Of course. __________ Dear Herman, I think so, that is why it is a great advantage to be a disciple of a Sammasambuddha. It is a rare chance in samsara. Robert #67440 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Roots upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and James) - In a message dated 1/24/07 10:14:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > In Abhidhamma terms, everything certainly is black and white. > There are no grey areas. Every action is either kusala (with alobha > and adosa cetasikas), or it is akusala (with moha and maybe dosa or > lobha). > ====================== Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it was my impression that Abhidhamma countenenced degrees. Certainly mild dislike is mildly akusala, while extreme hatred is extremely akusala. Certainly an inkling of compassion is mildly kusala, while great compassion is extremely kusala. The inclination to pick up and use a pencil that isn't yours and the inclination to rob a poor old lady of her life savings are not both to be described as just unwholesome. And feeling that killing is wrong, but not feeling it sufficiently to shout a warning or call the police when someone is threatened, is somewhat kusala and very much akusala. Either/or morality is not meant for living in reality, but only for parlor discussions. With metta, Howard #67441 From: "colette" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Identifying Wrong Views? ksheri3 Good Day TG, I do not know how this will work out. I have not attempted magik using nothing greater than a hypothectical Lets give it a shot and see what happens. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote:> > > > Hi > > 1) Wrong Views are merely views that will generate or potentially generate > affliction. colette: can you show me the EXACT DOCUMENT of the "4 Noble Truths" that you are using, applying, here? I'm only going to try to deal with "Sight" which is seeing. It requires two good eyes. These "views" as you state that are potentially part of the manifestation of affliction, THEN ARE: 1)ABSOLUTE [I am working the 6 yogas of naropa and am learning the Yogacara system. I, as a confirmed mage in the Western systems, cannot wait to apply YOUR PSYCHOLOGY. <...> You speak of Right Actions and Not Right Views. > 2) Right Views are views that will not generate or potentially generate > affliction. colette: PaLease, go back and study the 4 Noble Truths of Buddhism <...> > View based on ignorance and attachment is Wrong View. <...> toodles, colette #67442 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience lbidd2 Hi Howard, --------------------- L: "What about the case of someone who is color blind? Is there a true red external to the eye which is not directly known to one who is color blind?" H: "As a radical phenomenalist, I like that sort of question! ;-) My answer, BTW, is that what a person sees is the visual object that s/he sees, and nothing else. That, and only that, is the object of her/his awareness." -------------------------- L: My view is that rupa is not directly known. A visual experience is consciousness only. We'll see what Sarah comes up with ;-) Larry #67443 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:28 pm Subject: Re: Meditation rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote > > Just makes more sense to me to discuss it as it is universally > understood in this day and age (and everybody knows how it is > universally understood in this day and age, if "universally" is > meant to be the Theravadin commmunity except Acharn Sujin and _______ Dear Phil I don't know if you read a recent exchange between Howard and James about two different interpretations of anapanasati- one from ven. Vimalaramsi and one from a Thai acharn (forget the name)and both ways seemed different from how it is explained in the Visuddhimagga. If meditation is universally understood by everyone except Sujin and her students why these differences? Robert #67444 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience TGrand458@... Hi Larry, Sarah and Howard, What we "see" is not an object out in space. What is seen is the energy that "contacts" the eye and is made aware due to the eye and brain mechanism. If a color blind eye or brain is unable to generate awareness of red, then red is not seen. There are lots of energies hitting/contacting the eye; only those that the eye is sensitive to have a chance of being seen...(based on whether the brain is also capable of transmitting corresponding energies into consciousness.) This again goes to show that things do not have "inherent characteristics", but rather are "non-essence relativities" ... arising merely due to on conditions. TG #67445 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 5:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/25/07 12:20:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > My view is that rupa is not directly known. ===================== How would you know????? With metta, Howard #67446 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Larry) In a message dated 1/25/07 1:00:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > What we "see" is not an object out in space. What is seen is the energy > that "contacts" the eye and is made aware due to the eye and brain > mechanism. > If a color blind eye or brain is unable to generate awareness of red, then > red > is not seen. There are lots of energies hitting/contacting the eye; only > those that the eye is sensitive to have a chance of being seen...(based on > whether the brain is also capable of transmitting corresponding energies > into > consciousness.) > ========================== We see neither. This is physics & biology theory, a theory of conjectured/presumed-but-unexperienced causal condition. It may or may not be a correct causal theory, but what we actually see is mere object of sight consciousness: a color palette or mosic, visual content. That content is rupa, and two people never, ever, see the exact same rupa at the same time. With metta, Howard #67447 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:17 pm Subject: The Power of Energy! bhikkhu5 Friends: How is the Energy that is utterly Unshakable? It is not shaken by indolent Laziness, thus is it the Power of Energy. It is the Power of Energy by stiffening & stabilizing other qualities. It is the Power of Energy by terminating the bad mental defilements. It is the Power of Energy by purifying penetration to understanding. It is the Power of Energy by calming, steadying, & focusing the mind. It is the Power of Energy by clearing, cleansing & purifying the mind. It is the Power of Energy in the sense of arrival at subtle distinction. It is the Power of Energy in the sense of penetration to even higher. It is the Power of Energy in the sense of convergence upon actuality. It is the Power of Energy in the sense of establishing in cessation! The energetic one has unflagging faith. The faithful one is energetic. The energetic establishes awareness. The aware one is energetic. The energetic one concentrates. The concentrated one is energetic. The energetic one understands. The understanding one is energetic. This and so is the Power of Energy... Mutually enhancing abilities! Source: Sariputta - The General of the Dhamma - The Canonical: Path of Discrimination: Patisambhidamagga. IV + XIX. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=133494 The Power of Energy! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <...> #67448 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Roots ken_aitch Hi Joop, Thank you for the kind words. I am not worried by a bit aggression especially if it helps us less-than-perfect people to express ourselves. It also provides a bit of spice, which is good in a not so good kind of way. :-) -------------------- J: Yes, I see the concept (in the mind of some people) ultimate unreality of sentient beings as a barrier (of those people) to compassion. Because compassion - here used in a conventional way - to other sentient beings is a response of the being touched by the dukkha of those sentient beings; and I cannot imagine that that 'being touched' is not combined by the idea that that being exists. ----------------------- I think (not sure) that the compassion we ordinary folk have for each other is just ordinary kusala citta (with concept as object). When we are talking about the compassion that Buddhas and other great beings have, we are referring to a divine state of consciousness (a divine citta) in which the rare karuna cetasika arises. In either case, compassion is a kusala paramattha dhamma, and as such, it is inherently beautiful. The story of one sentient being having compassion for another sentient being is secondary. As a mere story it is not inherently beautiful, we only think it is beautiful. The actual, ultimately real, beauty lies in the conditioned paramattha dhammas. Thinking about it in that (Abhidhamma) way helps me to appreciate compassion all the more. Paramattha compassion is pure compassion, and it can arise only because pure compassion has arisen in the past. In other words, it is not something that has developed from non-compassion (cittas with greed, hatred and delusion). Wisdom - either as samatha or vipassana - can know true compassion from false compassion and thereby ensure its continued development. Wrong view (belief in the ultimate reality of beings) could never ever play a role in the development of compassion - or of any other kusala dhamma. -------------------------- <. . . .> J: > You use 'anatta' as a property (a characteristic), a negative property but still as something a dhamma 'has'. I think the Buddha did not use it in this ontological way but as a permanent warning that we should not think that there is a 'I', a 'me', a 'mine'. A conditioned dhamma will not think this (a conditioned dhamma does not think) so that is not the level at which the danger exists. --------------------------- As I was saying, beauty is inherent in kusala dhammas - not in stories. It is the same with wisdom. Wisdom lies in panna cetasika, not in any stories about (or ideas of) wise sentient beings. Only dhammas know anything or think anything or perform functions of any real kind. Stories about people doing those things are just stories. So, if anatta is really known it is known at the paramattha level. Also, "danger" of any real kind exists only at the paramattha level. It exists in akusala consciousness - most notably in wrong view (micha-ditthi). ------------------ J: > It's possible you perceive a inconsequence in what I say: other sentient beings exist and I don't exist. Two remarks on this problem; - the danger is the illusion that I exist, the idea that another beings exists does not have this danger - in the Kaccayanagotta-sutta, " 'Everything exists' - this, Kaccayana, is one extreme 'Everything does not exist' - this, Kaccayana, is the second extreme Kaccayana, without appoaching either extreme, the Tathagata teaches you a doctrine by the middle." ------------------ As I understand the sutta, it is telling us that there is a reality, but it is not the reality known by run-of-the-mill ordinary folk. It is a reality of fleeting, conditioned paramattha dhammas - known only by the wise. Ken H #67449 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jan 24, 2007 11:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] re: Letters on Vipassana 5, no 6. nilovg Hi Herman, thank you for your interest. I have to wait reacting because I am still checking the Dutch translation of ADL someone is doing. It will come out in March, Asoka publishing.< info @asoka.nl > I am happy to see you back, Nina Op 24-jan-2007, om 23:26 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > Nice to see you are still around. #67450 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:03 am Subject: Re: The Roots buddhatrue Hi Ken H., You start to spread out into several different areas in this post, but I want to stick with the original subject: your interpretation of how I view anatta. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ken_aitch" wrote: > > Hmm, it's hard to argue against that. But, in a way, anatta is > everything. Certainly, everything is anatta. This is how you view the dhamma; but this isn't how I view the dhamma. And it really irritates me when I read the students of KS proclaiming that anatta is everything there is to the dhamma and that one must know anatta for liberation to occur. That isn't true! Let me draw your attention to this: (B) The sevenfold grouping of the noble disciples is as follows: (1) the faith-devotee (saddhānusārī), (2) the faith-liberated one (saddhāvimutta), (3) the body-witness (kāya-sakkhī), (4) the both-ways-liberated one (ubhato-bhāga-vimutta), (5) the Dhamma-devotee (dhammānusārī), (6) the vision-attainer (ditthippatta), (7) the wisdom-liberated one (paññā-vimutta). This group of seven noble disciples is thus explained in Vis.M. XXI, 73: (1) "He who is filled with resolution (adhimokkha) and, in considering the formations as impermanent (anicca), gains the faculty of faith, he, at the moment of the path to Stream-winning (A.1) is called a faith-devotee (saddhānusārī); (2) at the seven higher stages (A. 2-8) he is called a faith- liberated one (saddhā-vimutta). (3) He who is filled with tranquility and, in considering the formations as miserable (dukkha), gains the faculty of concentration, he in every respect is considered as a body-witness (kāya-sakkhī). (4) He, however, who after reaching the absorptions of the immaterial sphere has attained the highest fruition (of Holiness), he is a both- ways-liberated one (ubhato-bhāga-vimutta). (5) He who is filled with wisdom and, in considering the formations as not-self (anattā), gains the faculty of wisdom, he is at the moment of Stream-winning a Dhamma-devotee (dhammānusārī), (6) at the later stages (A. 2-7) a vision-attainer (ditthippatta), (7) at the highest stage (A. 8) a wisdom-liberated one (paññāvimutta)." http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/ariya_puggala.htm Not everyone achieves liberation by knowing anatta. Some achieve liberation by knowing anicca, or by knowing dukkha. For example, I would consider myself on the path of faith-devotee (with or without sotapanna; I don't really know). I have great, great, great faith in the Buddha and I lean toward viewing the world as impermanant (anicca). During my meditation, I strive to see impermanance. When I read the phrase "Everything is impermanent" I get goose-bumps; when I read the phrase "Everything is non-self" I yawn ;-)). I can see "Recollection of the Buddha" as a very valuable meditation because it will build faith, while Howard cannot because he isn't a faith-devotee. You see? To me, the Dhamma has the flavor of devotion and impermanence; while to you the Dhamma has the flavor of non-self. We are different types of people and we should allow for differences. I don't like it when KS declares that all Buddhists must be Dhamma-devotees, because that isn't who I am. The Buddha taught anatta, anicca, and dukkha- not just anatta. Metta, James #67451 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Roots ken_aitch Hi Howard, ---------- KH: > > In Abhidhamma terms, everything certainly is black and white. > There are no grey areas. Every action is either kusala (with alobha > and adosa cetasikas), or it is akusala (with moha and maybe dosa or > lobha). > ====================== H: > Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it was my impression that Abhidhamma countenenced degrees. Certainly mild dislike is mildly akusala, while extreme hatred is extremely akusala. ---------------------- You could be right. But then again, I could be right too. :-) Lobha is lobha, and alobha is alobha. There are no hybrids. So, in that way I think I am right; the Abhidhamma is a black and white teaching. ------------------------------------ H: > Certainly an inkling of compassion is mildly kusala, while great compassion is extremely kusala. ------------------------------------- Perhaps it would be better still to say that cetasikas can be strong or weak. Alobha might sometimes arise in a weak form, but it is always preferable to any kind of lobha. ------------------------------------------------ H: > The inclination to pick up and use a pencil that isn't yours and the inclination to rob a poor old lady of her life savings are not both to be described as just unwholesome. ------------------------------------------------ That's true, although the lobha in the former instance is a training ground for the lobha in the latter. Even our attachment for loved ones, or for freshly brewed coffee, has the potential to develop into something much worse. -------------------------------------- H: > And feeling that killing is wrong, but not feeling it sufficiently to shout a warning or call the police when someone is threatened, is somewhat kusala and very much akusala. -------------------------------------- You are delving into figments of the imagination (conventional reality) now, aren't you? Nothing that is real can be partly good and partly bad. We ordinary worldlings will have akusala motives for just about everything we do. When we call the police it is more out of aversion than non-aversion. At best, there will be a bit of both, but only one kind of motive can ever arise at any one mind-moment. ------------------------- H: > Either/or morality is not meant for living in reality, but only for parlor discussions. ------------------------- Steady on, that's the Buddha's Dhamma you're talking about! :-) Ken H #67452 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Roots jwromeijn Hallo Ken, all Your answer is - as far as I understand it - a good abstract of Abhidhamma according the Foundation. I totally disagree with it and I propose we agree to disagree. Still two remarks, and a question. K: "In either case, compassion is a kusala paramattha dhamma, and as such, it is inherently beautiful. The story of one sentient being having compassion for another sentient being is secondary." J: Partly I'm repeating myself but "compassion" without an object (from "one person" till "all sentient beings") or for the dukkha of them is worthless, is a naive idealistic illusion. K: "As I understand the [Kaccayanagotta] sutta, it is telling us that there is a reality, but it is not the reality known by run-of-the- mill ordinary folk. It is a reality of fleeting, conditioned paramattha dhammas - known only by the wise." J: This is not understanding but projecting something completely different in the text. And this is an elite-theory. Those "wise" of you is a construction, a concept. My question is: You said: "Wrong view (belief in the ultimate reality of beings)" If "beings" don't exist on an ultimate level, what is the problem with killing a being? Killing a concept can not be wrong? Metta Joop #67453 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Smiles & Laughs (was: Meditation (again)) Hallo Sarah Of the messages you send me yesterday. About the possibility of having compassion by arahants, based of my quotes of Bhikkhu Bodhi and James in #67224 and in way I view it (being touched by the dukkha of other beings) I have my doubts, see also my message of today to KenH. About (vipassana) meditation we better can agree to disagree; but I want to repeat it's a pitty we cannot have a serious good organised, good structured, good moderated discussion on this theme in DSG. (No, I will not try again to start it) There is one that really bothers me. >> J: do you mean that most what is very natural=akusala. That akusala arising >> realities (for a wordling) is the rule and kusala the exception? > S: Yes ... >> Do you mean that the human nature is akusala? > S: Whenever the (javana) cittas are not concerned in a wholesome way with dana, sila or bhavana, then they are akusala, i.e most the time. "Yes" and "Most the time" are crucial answers. I think it can not be proven that this answer is correct. And the opposite cannot be proven either. Perhaps we can agree on the statement that we (wordlings) have a mixture of wholesome and unwholesome tendencies. And the challenge in life is how to live and to handle this mixture. One way (protestant buddhism) is to stress and fight the unwholesome. The other (mine) is to stress and use the wholesome. Metta Joop #67454 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:42 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: The arahant- and the bodhisattva-ideal The End dacostacharles To all, This thread is interesting, I was once told that the bodhisattva-ideal was developed so that householders can also be accepted as "enlightened." Yours truly, Charles DaCosta #67455 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:51 am Subject: Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: >> We are talking about going from the general to the specific. Robert, > I am glad that you keep such a close eye on the posts. In the > instance you quote, Howard was unsure if Recollection of the Buddha > could qualify as meditation and I was sure that it would qualify as > meditation. Notice, neither one of us was questioning "What is > meditation?"- we both know the general meaning of "meditation". We > were questioning specific instances as to if they fit the general > category. > > Allow me to use a simple analogy. There are many different flavors > of ice cream: chocolate, vanilla, strawberry, mint, walnut, etc. > However, no matter how many different flavors exist, they all fall > under the category of "ice cream". Howard and I were discussing if > Recollection of the Buddha is one of the possible flavors of ice > cream (meditation), we weren't discussing if ice cream exists or not. _________ Dear James Thanks, I see the point. I don't think Jon was suggesting that there is no such thing as meditation: but the details are important they? Robert #67456 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:17 am Subject: Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (1) scottduncan2 Dear Sisters Enthusiasts, Pruitt: "Then one day, a great flame arose when the curry was being cooked in the kitchen. That great flame burnt up the whole dish with a hissing sound. She observed it, and making this her support [for contemplation], she thoroughly considered the arising of the characteristic of impermanence. Then she established there the concept of misery, impermanence, and no-self. She made her insight grow, eagerly practised, and in due course was established in the paths, one after the other, including the fruition stage of a Non-Returner." The Paali (corrected - sorry): "Athekadivasa.m mahaanase bya~njane paccamaane mahati aggijaalaa u.t.thahi. Saa aggijaalaa sakalabhaajana.m ta.tata.taayanta.m jhaayati. Saa ta.m disvaa tadevaarama.na.m katvaa su.t.thutara.m aniccata.m uppa.tahanta.m upadhaaretvaa tato tattha dukkaaniccaanata~nca aaropetva vipassana.m va.d.dhetvaa anukkamena ussukkaapetvaa maggapa.tipaa.tiyaa anaagaamiphale pati.t.thahi." Some of the key verbs suggest the process (PTS PED): dharati ('upadhaaretvaa'): 'to hold, bear, carry, wear, support, to bear in mind, know by heart'. aaropeti ('aarpetva vipassana.m'): 'to make ascend, to lead up to'. va.d.dhati ('va.d.dhetvaa'): 'to increase, multiply, to grow'. This event, as basis, and its ongoing consideration, lead to an increase in insight up to the Path. S. #67457 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:30 am Subject: Re: Lachen und Weinen (Was: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) jonoabb Hi Joop Joop wrote: > Joop (now): You are right. I was mixing two threads. (In the other, > that still runs, I explained that I prefer not to use the dichotomy > kusala-akusala) > Thanks for the clarification. You've been so busy on the list lately that any mixing up is excused! > So my answer on your question (about kusala crying) "What kind of > kusala do you have in mind here: dana or sila or bhavana?" should > have been: Neither of this three, but "karuna". > Karuna is reckoned as an aspect of samatha bhavana. The 4 'abidings' are among the 40 objects of samatha. > But perhaps my idea : crying can be based on karuna is not possible > in the Abhidhamma-system. > The characteristic of the mental factor that is karuna is the wholesome wish to alleviate the suffering of another. There is no aspect of pity for or 'empathy with' the other person, no 'feeling for' their suffering, and of course no dosa or unpleasant feeling accompanying the consciousness. So it is quite a different thing to the conventional idea of compassion. Jon #67458 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Buddha's Teaching Method - Further comments jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Jon, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > >> OK, OK, I'm giving you the last word; spare us the rest, please !! >> > > OMG! I actually got Mr. Roboto to show an emotion! (Irritation) This > is a banner day! ;-)) > Thought it was time I showed my emotional side ;-)) (Anxiety, actually.) Happy to make your day. Jon #67459 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:45 am Subject: Re: The dichotomy kusala versus akusala (Was:[dsg] Re: What is Meditation? jonoabb Hi Joop Joop wrote: > Hallo Jon > > My reasons are psychological, MY psychology; very subjective, so > rather atta and rather unimportant. > But I will try. > Not unimportant, at all. > First; I have studied now for some years the Abhidhamma-system for > describing realitiy and I recognize that the intellectual drive to > understand this genius system did play a big role in this study. I > don't hate my intellectual drive (that's why I'm not a Zen-buddhist) > but more important of course is to reach more and more altruism, > loving kindness and wisdom. > > Second; in that aim it doesn't work too well if I see it as if there > is a fight between the kusala and the akusala in me; this dichotomy > between good and evil doesn't attract me. > As I said to James some days ago: I don't fight the akusala > (Theravada-terminology is sometimes rather aggressive) but let the > kusala in me do his (or: her) work. > So you see, it is quite possible to observe the distinction but not to let it affect one in a negative way! Better still if we can appreciate at some level or other that it's not *my* akusala (nor *my* kusala, for that matter), but just (impersonal) akusala (and (impersonal) kusala). > Third (in fact the first reason reformulated) , you speak of "the 2 > classes of consciousness"; I sometime recognize an akusala > consciousness arising in me, this system really helps me in my > meditation. But in my daily life I'm more oriented on > the 'tendencies' in me (the famous 'accumulations' about which I > discussed with Nina and Sarah several times). And 'tendencies' are > conventional language. > The famous 'accumulations' are latent except when they manifest as kusala and akusala consciousness. If you want to know more about the accumulations, then you need to know more about the presently arising kusala and akusala! > Fourth (in fact the second reason reformulated); I'm not yet a > bodhisattva, I recognize the akusala tendencies in me but I don't > want to pay to much attention to them: that doesn't work. > This sounds a sensible approach. But this does not mean we need to avoid thinking in terms of kusala and aksuala. Thanks for explaining your personal reasons. Jon #67460 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Astral Plane jonoabb Hi Howard (and Scott) upasaka@... wrote: >> As I understand it, the body created by these powers has no consciousness. > > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm not sure where that idea came from. I haven't come across it. But > in the sutta I quoted, the Buddha described that mind-made body as "not > inferior in its faculties." The passage I had in mind is the one quoted by Scott (thanks, Scott). > > Also, in other suttas where the Buddha speaks of flying through the > air, touching the sun & moon, and so on, I've always suspected that if there is > anything to that at all it might well involve the action of a subtle body, the > mind-made body. > -------------------------------------------- In the sutta from which you quoted (DN 11) those powers are mentioned as well but in a separate section (described as the "miracle of psychic power"), which suggests to me that they are not related to the 'mind-made' body (not described as a miracle). Jon "And what is the miracle of psychic power? There is the case where a monk wields manifold psychic powers. Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, and mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting cross-legged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches and strokes even the sun and moon, so mighty and powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html #67461 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Buddha's Teaching Method - Further comments jonoabb PS Many thanks for the good wishes! Feeling fine (and all is clear medically). #67462 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Roots upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/25/07 4:25:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > -------------------------------------- > H: >And feeling that killing is wrong, but not feeling it > sufficiently to shout a warning or call the police when someone is > threatened, is somewhat kusala and very much akusala. > -------------------------------------- > > You are delving into figments of the imagination (conventional > reality) now, aren't you? Nothing that is real can be partly good and > partly bad. -------------------------------------------- Howard: 'Kusala' - 'akusala' is a conventional attribute that consists not of two separate "things" but are the relative directions of a single quality of "goodmess/badness". It is an attribute range. Insufficiently good is somewhat bad. ----------------------------------------------- > > We ordinary worldlings will have akusala motives for just about > everything we do. When we call the police it is more out of aversion > than non-aversion. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: In some cases yes, in others no. Again, you are making unconditional statements . ------------------------------------------------ At best, there will be a bit of both, but only one> > kind of motive can ever arise at any one mind-moment. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: There are not just kinds - there are also degrees. And a motive that is less than horrible is. to the extent that it is less, that much moral. I do not dispute the positive/negative distinction between mental factors. For a positive one, say compassion, the more of it the more wholesome the mindstate, and the less of it the less wholesome. For a negative mental factor, say ill will, the more of it the less wholesome the mindstate, and the less of it the more wholesome the mindstate. Actually, ill will - (metta, karuna, mudita) constitutes an emotional range, say from -1 (the extreme of ill will), up through lessening degrees of ill will to 0 (the neutral point), up through increasing degrees of loving emotion to 1 (perfect love). In the case of not shouting a warning or calling the police when someone is threatened, what I was pointing to as slightly kusala and very akusala was the degree of feeling that killing is wrong. The presence of some degree of it was slightly wholesome, but the insufficiency of degree to take action was unwholesome. If one doesn't consider degrees and resultant actions in considerations of morality (kusala versus akusala), then one is caught in a black/white world of conceptual theory that is without application in life. ----------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------- > H: >Either/or morality is not meant for living in reality, but only > for parlor discussions. > ------------------------- > > Steady on, that's the Buddha's Dhamma you're talking about! :-) > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Oh no it's not! (And "debates" won't be "won" by that strategy, Ken.) ======================= With metta, Howard #67463 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Roots jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken - > > Howard: > 'Kusala' - 'akusala' is a conventional attribute that consists not of > two separate "things" but are the relative directions of a single quality of > "goodmess/badness". It is an attribute range. Insufficiently good is somewhat > bad. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard, Ken Ken is right when using the Abhidhamma language of paramattha dhammas. In that 'theory' dhammas are like atoms, like particles that have either a positive or a negative charge Something else is what is the relation between this theory and reality. I think that if you are discussing you better first make an agreement if you use conventional or ultimate language I know Ken only uses the ultimate language and in this message Howard is using conventional one, something I prefer too but that makes discussions difficult (or impossible) Joop #67464 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:27 am Subject: Letters on Vipassana 5, no 7. nilovg Dear friends, Alan Weller wrote about this subject: "I think that time and again we need to be reminded of the uncontrollability of realities in order to develop awareness of whatever reality appears naturally. Otherwise there will be the idea of self having effort, energy, etc. When we hear the word uncontrollable it does not mean we are the victims of fate, but we have to carefully consider how to develop the Path. The understanding of the Dhamma is the condition for wholesomeness at different levels, not control. Each moment of being awake we accumulate either kusala or akusala. Considering the Dhamma more is the condition for accumulating more kusala, but that also depends on previous accumulation. It is better not to mind or care what reality is there, but to just understand it. This is for me the subtlety of the teachings. It is so necessary to consider a lot in order not to be misled by desire or the idea of self. The understanding of uncontrollability can help us to develop understanding and not to accumulate more ignorance. It can help us to be natural in our development of kusala. No matter how busy we are, kusala at whatever level can arise any time by its own conditions. This understanding can help us to be detached from our practice. We do not try. We can become patient with lack of results, with our akusala. The practice can become a very natural part of our daily life. We do not limit it by thinking of a certain place or situation, or by making effort now and then. Confidence in the Dhamma, a sense of urgency, concentration, these are different realities which work by themselves. They grow as the understanding of the Dhamma develops. There is no one besides these realities. This moment is either kusala or akusala, a keener understanding will realize this more and more deeply and this will lead to turning away from akusala. If we do not understand this moment as akusala, we shall accumulate more akusala. Seeing or hearing without understanding is dangerous. We should find out whether this moment is akusala or kusala. I learn to be more considerate in speech and actions, also as regards seemingly unimportant things, which are often overlooked in daily life, for example, not leaving dirty washing or cups around, since this is unpleasant for others. There are many examples like this so close at hand. Dhamma is in front of us all the time." (end quote) When I use the expression "beyond control" I do not mean a fate, I only want to explain that realities are anattå. People want to do so many things, instead of understanding realities just as they naturally appear. If one really scrutinizes oneself is there not an idea of "I do it, I want to make progress"? There must be, so long as we are not sotåpannas, and thus we need reminders all the time. There can be awareness even of such moments. ****** Nina. #67465 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:21 am Subject: Abhidhamma in Daily Life, Ch 22, no 8, abhi~n~naa nilovg Dear friends, Those who have cultivated jhåna can develop the various types of ``direct knowledge'' (abhiññå). They should attain the highest stage of rúpa-jhåna (the fourth according to the fourfold system and the fifth according to the fivefold system) in the kasina meditations, and they should exercise ``complete mind-control in fourteen ways'' (described in the Visuddhimagga, chapter XII). For example, they should, with the different kasina meditations, be able to attain the subsequent stages of rúpa-jhåna in order and in reverse order. In developing the kinds of ``direct knowledge'' or ``supernormal powers'', one's concentration will become more advanced. The ``supernormal powers'' (abhiññå) are the following: 1. Magical powers such as passing through walls, walking on water, travelling through the air. 2. Divine ear, by which one hears sounds both heavenly and human, far and near. 3 Knowledge of the minds of other people. 4. Divine Eye, by which one sees the deceasing and rebirth of beings. 5. Remembrance of one's former lives. These are the five ``mundane supernormal powers''. However, there is a sixth power, which is realized by lokuttara citta, namely, the eradication of all defilements, when arahatship is attained. The sixth power is the greatest and in order to realize it insight has to be fully developed. Those who have cultivated the right conditions can achieve ``marvels''. In the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Threes, chapter VI, §60, III, Sangårava) we read about the greatest ``marvel''. The Buddha asked the bråhmin Sangårava about the topic of conversation of the royal party, when they were together in the palace. The bråhmin Sangårava answered that they were talking about the fact that in former times the monks were fewer in number, but those possessed of supernormal powers were more numerous, and that now it was just the opposite. The Buddha said to him: ``Now as to that, bråhmin, there are these three marvels. What three? The marvel of more-power, the marvel of thought-reading, the marvel of teaching. And what, bråhmin, is the marvel of more-power? In this case a certain one enjoys sorts of more-power in various ways. From being one he becomes many, from being many he becomes one; manifest or invisible he goes unhindered through a wall, through a rampart, through a mountain, as if through the air; he plunges into the earth and shoots up again as if in water; he walks upon the water without parting it as if on solid ground; he travels through the air sitting cross-legged, like a bird upon the wing; even this moon and sun, though of such mighty power and majesty,--he handles them and strokes them with his hand; even as far as the Brahma world he has power with his body. This, bråhmin, is called `the marvel of more- power'. And what, bråhmin, is the marvel of thought-reading? In this case a certain one can declare by means of a sign `Thus is your mind. Such and such is your mind. Thus is your consciousness'...'' ********* Nina. #67466 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:10 am Subject: Frame-by-Frame Versus Continuity upasaka_howard Hi all - The Khun Sujin interpretation of Abhidhamma with regard to the "flow" of mindstates seems to be not that of a flow but of a sequence that is picturable as follows: o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ... . Each packet/frame/moment/mindstate is a point-state consisting of the knowing of an object supported by various other operations and qualities, each cetasika being complete within that single packet. The "continuity" interpretation would be pictured instead as _____________ ... . In this interpretation, a mindstate at any point in time (any point along that "line") would consist of the knowing of an object together with the various supporting operations and qualities in effect at that time. The same state may continue across an interval of time, with various cetasikas increasing or decreasing in intensity along the way, and the shift from one object to another not necessarily a sharp one. I far prefer the continuity interpretation, because nothing ever happens in zero time, which, IMO, is the defectiveness of the packet perspective. Every action of any sentient being occurs across a time interval. In fact, all action occurs across an interval of time, often with there being no sharply defined starting and ending points. Now, some may say that the continuity picture has the defect of not providing for impermanence. But that is not so at all. All that impermanence (of conditioned phenomena) requires is that whatever is currently present (or in effect) will no longer be so at some later time. That is, conditioned dhammas don't last. Sometimes the cessation is rapid, and sometimes slower. There is nothing whatsoever in the continuity picture contrary to the three characterit ics, the four noble truths, or dependent origination, and thus there is no reason for shunning that interpretation in favor ot the (flawed, IMO) stop-motion interpretation. With metta, Howard #67467 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:25 pm Subject: Lachen und Weinen (Was: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) jwromeijn Hallo Jon Jon: Karuna is reckoned as an aspect of samatha bhavana. The 4 'abidings' are among the 40 objects of samatha. … The characteristic of the mental factor that is karuna is the wholesome wish to alleviate the suffering of another. There is no aspect of pity for or 'empathy with' the other person, no 'feeling for' their suffering, and of course no dosa or unpleasant feeling accompanying the consciousness. So it is quite a different thing to the conventional idea of compassion. Joop: Thanks, now I know how 'compassion' (karuna) fits in the system of ultimate dhamms. I however prefer to talk about compassion in conventional language in which the wish to alleviate the suffering of another had to do with knowledge about the character of that suffering, with 'empathy' of this compassion in the Suttas, and in the Vinaya, cf the story about 'The monk with dysentery' ((Kucchivikara-vatthu : Mahavagga VIII.26.1-8) So this will also be an agree to disagree topic. But what surprises me is that you say the ultimate idea of compassion and the conventional one differ quite. Can you explain, I cannot belief there is no relation. Metta Joop #67468 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:04 pm Subject: Ghana corvus121 Good and Gentle DSG readers! Perhaps someone can help me? In Dr W F Jayasuriya's book, "The Psychology and Philosophy of Buddhism: An Introduction to the Abhidhamma", he refers to 4 "Densities or crowdings (Ghana)" and says that they give rise to the Vipallasa. Ghana isn't in the DSG glossary or Nyanatiloka's dictionary and the PTS Pali dictionary has just confused me - Ghana seems to mean dense or something to do with the sense of smell!? IF the good Doctor is correct, then this strikes me as a very important topic and I am amazed it doesn't seem to have been touched upon in the hallowed hollering halls of DSG! To fill you in a bit more, the Ghana obstruct "clear vision" and are: 1 the density of Continuity or unbrokenness (santati ghana) 2 the density of Whole (samuha ghana) 3 the density of Function (kriya ghana) 4 the density of Object (aramanna ghana) So, for example, we see things as continuous that are really momentary and we see things as whole that are really units and we see things as a function that are really lots of functions and we see things as being "oneness in kind" that are not really so. The good Doctor says the densities resemble the 4 patterning tendencies of Western psychology - continuity, closure, proximity and similarity. Apart from my own ignorance and lack of learning, why have I missed this topic? Anyone? Best wishes Andrew PS apologies to those who thought this thread was going to take them on safari in Africa. #67469 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:46 pm Subject: compassion of Arahants buddhatrue Hi Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Joop" wrote: > Hallo Sarah > > Of the messages you send me yesterday. > About the possibility of having compassion by arahants, based of my > quotes of Bhikkhu Bodhi and James in #67224 and in way I view it > (being touched by the dukkha of other beings) I have my doubts, see > also my message of today to KenH. I have only been somewhat following this thread, as I wasn't sure of the premise, but I believe that you are saying it is impossible to arahants to have compassion but that bodhisativattas have compassion in abundance? Am I reading you correctly? Anyway, I do believe that arahants have compassion for living beings. A realization of anatta doesn't result in a lack of compassion. Actually, it is quite the opposite- arahants have compassion in abundance. After the Buddha achieved enlightenment, he sent out the first sixty one arahants in different directions with the words: Go forth, bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of the many, out of compassion for the world, for the good, benefit, and happiness of gods and men. Let not two go by the same way. Those arahnats had already accomplished the task and yet they went wandering to teach the Dhamma, out of compassion for the world. Arahants have compassion. Metta, James #67470 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:53 pm Subject: Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation buddhatrue Hi Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear James > Thanks, I see the point. I don't think Jon was suggesting that there > is no such thing as meditation James: Well, then I am really off-base if that is the case! I thought that by Jon asking "What is meditation?" and stating that he has never heard a good enough definition, that is stating that meditation doesn't exist. Am I mistaken? Have I just entered The Twilight Zone?? ;-)) : but the details are important they? James: Sure, the details are VERY important. I have no problem with discussing the details of Buddhist meditation- but I am not going to discuss if there is such a thing as meditation. Metta, James #67471 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:59 pm Subject: Lachen und Weinen (Was: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) buddhatrue Hi Jon and Joop, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > The characteristic of the mental factor that is karuna is the wholesome > wish to alleviate the suffering of another. There is no aspect of pity > for or 'empathy with' the other person, no 'feeling for' their > suffering, and of course no dosa or unpleasant feeling accompanying the > consciousness. So it is quite a different thing to the conventional > idea of compassion. Very nicely stated! The arahant can recognize the suffering of another and want to alleviate that suffering, but he/she won't personally feel that suffering. Crying comes from self-pity, not compassion for others. Metta, James #67472 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Buddha's Teaching Method - Further comments buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > PS Many thanks for the good wishes! Feeling fine (and all is clear > medically). > Good to hear it! Take care of yourself. Metta, James #67473 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:13 pm Subject: Re: Frame-by-Frame Versus Continuity buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Now, some may say that the continuity picture has the defect of not > providing for impermanence. But that is not so at all. All that impermanence (of > conditioned phenomena) requires is that whatever is currently present (or in > effect) will no longer be so at some later time. That is, conditioned dhammas > don't last. Sometimes the cessation is rapid, and sometimes slower. Could you say a bit more about this, please? I think you might be on to something, but I don't see how continuity and impermanence fit together. Thanks. Metta, James #67474 From: "Joop" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The arahant- and the bodhisattva-ideal The End jwromeijn Hallo Herman, >> "Path" is a general term for "spiritual development", more specific is it in "The Noble Eightfold Path" > Is that the same as saying that spiritual development is seeking an end to suffering? J: Yes, the Path as fourth of the Four Noble Truths >If it is, then a worhwhile question would be, can an individual become >free from suffering while surrounded by others who are suffering? To >my way of thinking, no. The only way to pursue an individual path of >liberation is to pursue a state of mental non-association. In which >case there is no individual and there are no others, and compassion >has no role to play there, because compassion is towards others. J: I agree, but the responses of KenH (in 67448) and Jon (67457) were more or less denying the first part of your question. >On the other hand, can one pursue the end of suffering for someone else? J: A bit, by teaching the Dhamma. Metta Joop #67475 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ghana lbidd2 Hi Andrew, You can find ghana in Vism. where ~Nanamoli translates it as 'compact'. 'Compact whole' has been discussed here several times. There is some ambiguity as to whether a compact whole is concept or reality and whether rupa groups and cetasika groups are considered compact wholes. Larry #67476 From: connie Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (1) nichiconn Dear Sisters Enthusiasts, Scott: "Then one day, a great flame arose {....} Some of the key verbs suggest the process (PTS PED): dharati ('upadhaaretvaa'): 'to hold, bear, carry, wear, support, to bear in mind, know by heart'. aaropeti ('aarpetva vipassana.m'): 'to make ascend, to lead up to'. va.d.dhati ('va.d.dhetvaa'): 'to increase, multiply, to grow'. This event, as basis, and its ongoing consideration, lead to an increase in insight up to the Path. connie: The commentary on Therikaa's (or Sturdy's) process begins with Buddha Ko.naagamana and goes on thru her having having died an ordinary human after 20-thousand years of fulfilling the bhikkhunii moral practice in Kassapa's dispensation. In her last life, she'd (re?)gained faith and became a lay follower 'when the Teacher went to Vesaalii' but didn't decide to go forth until after she'd heard Mahaa-Pajaapatii. Then, even though her husband didn't agree to her going forth, << since she had done the prerequisite [work], she examined the Doctrine as she had heard it, grasped the phenomena of material form and immaterial form, and lived devoted to insight >> before the incident with the burning dish. I think this stresses that it's not just a straight-forward path/process at least for an ordinary being; ditto, the commentary on her 'name' meaning, << "O you, who have arrived at a firm state of being in the firm teaching," "O you, possessed of the firm states of virtuous conduct, etc." >> Commenting further on the verse itself, the text reads: << For your desire is stilled: the word for (hi) gives a reason. Since the desire for sensual pleasure connected with renewed birth for your continuation is stilled, burnt up by the fire of the knowledge of the path of a Non-Returner, now your remaining passion is burnt up by the fire of the knowledge of the highest path [of Arahatship]. This is what is meant by sleep happily. Like dried up vegetables in a pot: just as a little vegetable curry in a heated pot is burnt when it is being cooked by a very big flame, is dried up and becomes quiet, or just as vegetable curry mixed with water placed on the stove and being cooked sizzles and fizzles as long as there is water but is stilled when the water is boiled away, so too, your passion and desire for continuation is calmed; having calmed the other [desires] also, sleep happily. The therii, because of the fact she had brought to maturity her sense faculties, and because of the beauty of the Teacher's discourse, at the end of the verse attained Arahatship together with the [four] discriminations. >> When she herself repeated the verse << all her desire without remainder was restrained by virtue of its being calmed through the highest path >>. The final portion of the commentary for her reads: << The delusion that is thought of as being born together with agitation and doubt is as harmful as passion because they are both abandoned by the same state. And just as in that [case], the calming of all the groups of defilements is spoken of, in the same way, it is to be understood that their complete calming is also spoken of: (1) previously through the attainment of calming by the substitution of opposites, (2) at the moment of calm and insight through discarding, (3) at the moment of the path through cutting off, (4) at the moment of fruition through calming. Therefore, the gaining of the four types of abandoning is to be understood. In this connection, because of the attainment of the understanding of abandoning: (1) the attainment of being accomplished in virtuous conduct is shown through abandoning by substitution of opposites, (2) the attainment of being accomplished in concentration [is shown] through abandoning through discarding, and (3) the attainment of being accomplished in wisdom [is shown] through the other abandonings. Just as she brings to perfection her comprehension and her mental develpment when [the defilements] are absent, so too she brings to perfection her comprehension of realization and the attainment of full understanding. It is to be understood thus: it is revealed in this verse that the three trainings are fulfilled through the attainment of the four comprehensions and the seven purities [are fulfilled] through the practices that are good in three ways. The meaning is: a certain therii, who is unknown (a~n~nataraa therii apa~n~naataa), not known because of her ancestry, etc., a single therii, a bhikkhunii with the right characteristics, spoke this verse. Here ends the commentary on the verse of a certain therii. >> All that to say, yeah, a process (and just to share more of what I think is beautiful). But what do you make of this: << As was his custom, the Teacher established for her a basis in what [she had] seen >> ? peace, connie #67477 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] existence precedes essence (abhidhammicly) egberdina Hi Howard, Thanks for your thoughts. They are always welcome. On 25/01/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Herman - > > This depends on what "the realization of dukkha" means. If it is the > realization *only* of the first noble truth, perhaps your idea of no acting > being the consequence is valid. But if the realization is of the first *and* > second noble truth, then the more natural result would be a shifting into a > selfless, craving-free, natural mode of action based upon what is useful and > motivated by the brahma viharas. Just a thought. > It may seem like a semantic quibble, but I believe that here your idea of what is "useful" can be very much a part of the structure of dukkha. There is nothing that is useful in itself, but things become useful as means to ends. And if what is useful in terms of achieving an end is made it's own goal by becoming useful in itself, then there is no freedom from dukkha. I am reminded of the relay-chariots sutta (MN24), where chariots number one to six are useful only because they allow one to reach and thus catch a ride in chariot number seven. None of the intermediary chariots have any use, unless chariot seven is borne in mind. And in the Buddhist scheme of things, chariot number seven is total unbinding through lack of clinging/sustenance. As an example, one could be forgiven for thinking that kusala is it's own good, going by the central place this category holds at dsg. And folks here will straight out assert that kusala is it's own good, without need to refer to the effect of what was supposedly kusala in it's own right. But in terms of MN24 that is clearly not so. If the realisation of the First Noble Truth propels one to only a different mode of being, then dukkha will remain a companion, if less pronounced. The promise of the Third Noble Truth is an ending/cessation of dukkha, and this must entail an ending of phenomenal being. Personally, the brahma viharas sound like a great place to be. Kind Regards Herman #67478 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 1/25/2007 12:20:42 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: We see neither. This is physics & biology theory, a theory of conjectured/conjecturconjectured/presume TG: If no light source contacting the eye there is no sight. There must be contact. To me this isn't physics/biology theory. The Buddha says so. Its Buddhism. It may or may not be a correct causal theory, but what we actually see is mere object of sight consciousness: a color palette or mosic, visual content. That content is rupa TG: Isn't this a "rupa theory?" Any discription of "actuality" is bound to miss the mark to some extent. I don't throw out anything useful for understanding... understanding conditionality and its factors of impermanence, no-self, and affliction. I think the Buddha would be the first to accept the usefulness of certain aspect of modern science!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! , and two people never, ever, see the exact same rupa at the same time. TG: Agreed because two people can never be at the same place at the same time. With metta, Howard Best wishes, TG #67479 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] existence precedes essence (abhidhammicly) egberdina Hi Larry, Thanks again for your post. > L: Well, technically 'being' free from dukkha isn't the third noble > truth. As you say, it is a state that does not arise. But these are just > semantic quibbles. Can't you imagine living without hope and fear? My > impression is that it is very similar to tranquility. The characteristic > of nibbana is peace. > Yes, you are quite right. The 3NT is not about being. It is about cessation. The following may well be a semantic quibble also, but, yes, I can imagine living without fear or hope. But there is a realisation that the very act of imagining thusly is not itself free from fear or hope. I do however infer from time to time that there has been absence of fear or hope. And I can't tell you anything about those moments, other than they appear with hindsight as seeming lapses in time. Which seems a bit nibbana-ish, to me, becase I do not think that there is anything phenomenal about nibbana. The tranquility and peace of nibbana is not a phenomenal one, it is not peace or tranquility that is experienced. But it is peaceful and tranquil because it was not experienced. The absence of phenomena is nibbana. Kind Regards Herman #67481 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience egberdina Hi fellas, (that includes gals), > As a radical phenomenalist, I like that sort of question! ;-) My > answer, BTW, is that what a person sees is the visual object that s/he sees, and > nothing else. That, and only that, is the object of her/his awareness. > Very interesting discussion. And I think that there is implicit in all sensing, that the sensing and the object are not one. The seeing is not the visual object, and the visual object is not seeing. So apart from the sensing of the object, there is also the sensing of sensing, else the object and the seeing could never be differentiated. Does that sound reasonable? Kind Regards Herman #67482 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:21 pm Subject: Re: Ghana scottduncan2 Dear Daniel, Another word for ghana is 'compact': D: "4 'Densities or crowdings (Ghana)' and says that they give rise to the Vipallasa... "...1 the density of Continuity or unbrokenness (santati ghana) 2 the density of Whole (samuha ghana) 3 the density of Function (kriya ghana) 4 the density of Object (aramanna ghana)" Visuddhimagga XXI,n.3(Pm. 824): "...'Resolution of the compact' [ghana] is effected by resolving [what appears compact] in this way, 'The earth element is one, the water element is another' etc., distinguishing each one; and in this way, 'Contact is one, feeling is another' etc., distinguishing each one. 'When the resolution of the compact is effected' means that what is compact as a mass and what is compact as a function or ans an object has been analysed. For when material and immaterial states have arisen mutually steadying each other, [mentality and materiality, for example,] then owing to misinterpretating that as a unity, compactness of mass is assumed through failure to subject formations to pressure. And likewise compactness of function is assumed when, although definite differences exist in such and such states' functions, they are taken as one. And likewise compactness of object is assumed when, although differences exist in the ways in which states that take objects make them their objects, those objects are taken as one. But when they are seen after resolving them by means of knowledge into these elements, they disintegrate like froth subjected to compression by the hand. They are mere states (dhamma) ocurring due to condtions and void. In this way the characteristic of not-self becomes more evident" Sincerely, Scott. #67483 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:01 pm Subject: Re: The Roots ken_aitch Hi James, ------------------------ J: > You start to spread out into several different areas in this post, but I want to stick with the original subject: your interpretation of how I view anatta. > > Hmm, it's hard to argue against that. But, in a way, anatta is > everything. Certainly, everything is anatta. This is how you view the dhamma; but this isn't how I view the dhamma. And it really irritates me when I read the students of KS proclaiming that anatta is everything there is to the dhamma and that one must know anatta for liberation to occur. That isn't true! ----------------------------- You will see that I wrote "in a way" anatta is everything. All dhammas (cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana) have anatta as their inherent characteristic. In other words everything is anatta. So, *in that way* anatta is everything. I know you are using poetic licence, but I should point out that KS has *never ever* said that anatta is "everything there is to the dhamma." However, the rest of your statement is accurate. I am sure she has said one "must know anatta" for liberation to occur. ------------------------------------------ .... J: Not everyone achieves liberation by knowing anatta. Some achieve liberation by knowing anicca, or by knowing dukkha. ---------------------- Everyone achieves liberation in essentially the same way. They all see the conditioned world as it really is - impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self. Seeing it as it really is, they lose attachment for it, and renounce it. It is much easier to understand this in terms of paramattha dhammas. Otherwise - if we try to understand it in conventional ways - our first reaction might be, "I see the world as impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self! I have renounced the world! Several times! Why aren't I enlightened?" But getting back to the point; those classifications can only be matters of degree. All ariyans travel the same eightfold path. -------------------------------------- J: > For example, I would consider myself on the path of faith-devotee (with or without sotapanna; I don't really know). -------------------------------------- We are very far from seeing things the same way. I wouldn't even say, "I am a Buddhist," let alone say, "I am a faith-devotee" or, "I am a Dhamma-devotee." Judging from the quote you have given, a faith-devotee has reached the stage of Stream-entry. This means he or she is a truly great being. An unimaginably great and wonderful being! You say you have tremendous faith in the Buddha, but if you did you would be totally in awe of an ariyan disciple. However, you were saying just the other day that many of the teaching monks we have today - the Dalai Lama for example - must be sotapannas. I wouldn't think that for a moment! ------------------------------------ J: > I have great, great, great faith in the Buddha and I lean toward viewing the world as impermanant (anicca). During my meditation, I strive to see impermanance. When I read the phrase "Everything is impermanent" I get goose-bumps; when I read the phrase "Everything is non-self" I yawn ;-)). ----------------------------------- Ah, I notice you put in a smiling face. I missed that on the first reading and I thought, "James says he has great faith, and yet he yawns when he hears the Buddha's teaching!" :-) ------------------------ J: > I can see "Recollection of the Buddha" as a very valuable meditation because it will build faith, while Howard cannot because he isn't a faith-devotee. You see? To me, the Dhamma has the flavor of devotion and impermanence; while to you the Dhamma has the flavor of non-self. -------------------------- My advice is to immediately stop this nonsense of identifying types of disciples. That sort of power is a function of panna - great panna. You and I and Howard should regard ourselves with all the humility we can muster. ------------------------------------- J: > We are different types of people and we should allow for differences. I don't like it when KS declares that all Buddhists must be Dhamma-devotees, because that isn't who I am. ------------------------------------- All ariyans - whether they are faith-devotees, Dhamma-devotees or one of the other five types - have heard, considered and applied the Dhamma over and over and over again - year after year, lifetime after lifetime. They all know more Dhamma than you or I could even begin to imagine. We can't compare our knowledge to theirs. It is far, far too early for us to be thinking we are 'this' or 'that' kind of devotee. -------------------------------------------------- J: > The Buddha taught anatta, anicca, and dukkha- not just anatta. ------------------------------------------------- Agreed; thank you. :-) Ken H #67484 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Roots ken_aitch Hi Joop, ---------------- J: > Your answer is - as far as I understand it - a good abstract of Abhidhamma according the Foundation. I totally disagree with it ----------------- What do you totally disagree with? My answer? The Abhidhamma? The Foundation's interpretation of the Abhidhamma? Are you sure you understand what those things are before you disagree with them? --------------------------- J: > and I propose we agree to disagree. Still two remarks, and a question. K: "In either case, compassion is a kusala paramattha dhamma, and as such, it is inherently beautiful. The story of one sentient being having compassion for another sentient being is secondary." J: Partly I'm repeating myself but "compassion" without an object (from "one person" till "all sentient beings") or for the dukkha of them is worthless, is a naive idealistic illusion. --------------------------- All consciousness, including compassion, has an object. Sometimes the object is a reality (paramattha dhamma); sometimes it is a concept (pannatti). Pannatti is not real - it is just a thought (sometimes a logical thought, sometimes not) - but it can still be an object of consciousness. -------------------------- K: "As I understand the [Kaccayanagotta] sutta, it is telling us that there is a reality, but it is not the reality known by run-of-the- mill ordinary folk. It is a reality of fleeting, conditioned paramattha dhammas - known only by the wise." J: This is not understanding but projecting something completely different in the text. And this is an elite-theory. Those "wise" of you is a construction, a concept. -------------------------- That is your opinion, and your opinion is completely at odds with the Dhamma as I understand it. You believe that, according to the Dhamma, you do not exist but other people do exist. That is so far from my understanding of the Dhamma that I don't even know how to discuss it. I don't know where to begin! ------------------------- J: > My question is: You said: "Wrong view (belief in the ultimate reality of beings)" If "beings" don't exist on an ultimate level, what is the problem with killing a being? Killing a concept can not be wrong? ------------------------- I am happy to answer your question as best I can, but I doubt it will mean anything to you. If, after all your years of study, you believe the Buddha taught the ultimate reality of "other people," nothing I can say will change that belief. Killing is a conventional word we apply to certain types of volition (kamma, cetana cetasika). No being dies as a result of killing, but there is a death (or dying) citta that results. That death citta represents the vinnana-khandha of the five khandhas (momentary namas and rupas) conventionally known as "another sentient being." Ken H #67485 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation egberdina Hi Larry, On 25/01/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > Hi Herman, > > L: Correct. In my view volitions make choices and have an agenda. We > could say in a loose sort of way a consciousness rooted in dosa, for > example, is selective. But it seems to me that consciousness itself > isn't selective. It's a medium. > I think this is a very interesting perspective. Sartre holds that consciousness is a nothing (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist). It is the distance between the object, and knowing it. A distance there is, because the object and the knowing it are not one, but the distance is not itself apprehendable. Consciousnes is a dimensionless medium, a nothing that has being. Very interesting indeed. Kind Regards Herman #67486 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] compassion of Arahants upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Joop) - In a message dated 1/25/07 7:55:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > After the Buddha achieved enlightenment, he sent out the first sixty > one arahants in different directions with the words: > > Go forth, bhikkhus, for the good of the many, for the happiness of > the many, out of compassion for the world, for the good, benefit, and > happiness of gods and men. Let not two go by the same way. > > Those arahnats had already accomplished the task and yet they went > wandering to teach the Dhamma, out of compassion for the world. > Arahants have compassion. > ======================= Excellent proof, James! And fully knowing that 'person' is just a name for a stream of impersonal and empty namarupic events doesn't blind one to the suffering that is part of that stream, and doesn't blind one to the misery of that suffering. Moreover, with not an iota of selfishness left in an arahant to stand as an obstacleto his/her clarity of vision and generosity of spirit, there is every reason to expect in an arahant a heart that is open, loving, and dedicated to removing pain in the world. With metta, Howard #67488 From: connie Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:33 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (2) (was Lachen und Weinen) nichiconn Hi, Joop, Joop: "... what surprises me is that you say the ultimate idea of compassion and the conventional one differ quite. Can you explain, I cannot belief there is no relation." connie: I wonder whether you might have any thoughts on how the **following** from the commentary on Therii Mutta's verse (#67332) might be understood conventionally as being a compassionate act? << ...it is said in the Apadaana: As the Blessed One Vipasii, Supreme in the World, Unique, set out on the road, causing living beings to cross [the ocean of continued rebirths], I departed from my house, bowed down and lay [before him]. **The Sympathetic Saviour of the World stepped on my head. Having stepped on my head, the Leader of the World departed.** Because of the trust in my mind, I went to the Tusita [realm]. >> thank you, connie #67489 From: "colette" Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Identifying Views. ksheri3 CAUSE & EFFECT, does it play a part in a view? Where is that alaya-vijnana (storehouse-consciousness) when ya need it, huh? Touch, is touch concsious of either pleasure or pain or both? Is this consciousness a CAUSE or is it an EFFECT? Dirt will always be dirt and in garbage dumps not only do plants grow in garbage but they also grow in dirt. What gives birth to these plants? Is it the garbage or is it the dirt? Seeds you may consider, no? Now we get into TIME & PLACE (one may consider CAUSES & CONDITIONS). How long did the seed spend in the place either the dirt or the garbage before it began it's transformation, it's existence? Did it exist prior to the GERMAN- NATION in the dirt or the garbage? Is is pleasure or pain for this seed to germinate? Remember one cannot remove themselves from the singularity of bodhicitta and decide to view this seed, this dirt, and this garbage, as being something other than the SELF. Side note here: I was really into Nina's recent post from her vipisanna site. I recognized a few weeks ago that I cannot stomach the useless Western theological sites as I attempt to incorporate Buddhist phraseology, terminology, etc. since they have no desire to even consider a buddhist potential of existence. I've found that I cannot stand, inotherwords I have bad feelings about how the ignorance they possess, just frustrates me and eggs me on in a direction of negative emotions that I do not want. Nina's msg. was chock full of words & phrases I've heard and read but some are not as well internalized as others and CAUSED me to pause for a moment of consideration. Ah, but I've also begun, the other day, putting my buddhist material in a position where I can expand on it, it has to do with the mundane act of FILING. No, the cycular file is far from value here but I have gone in a circle, relatively and that is and absolute truth. I've gotta go. Glad that you're all still around and ready to walk a little further down the path of this painful existence, with me. toodles, colette #67490 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ghana, is ga.na nilovg Dear Andrew and Larry, it is ga.na: crowd, group, mass. Since the doctor is from Sri Lanka or India, he spells it with an extra h, I noticed this before. A very important subject. Think of Rob K's quote about the Elements from dhaatukathaa. Nina. Op 26-jan-2007, om 1:04 heeft Andrew het volgende geschreven: > Ghana isn't in the DSG glossary #67491 From: connie Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:41 pm Subject: Ghana nichiconn Andrew: PS apologies to those who thought this thread was going to take them on safari in Africa. Hi Andrew, You're probably more familiar with Jayasuriya's "Densities or crowdings (Ghana)" as something like 'compactness' or 'obstructions' or ditthi-ganthi - that seemingly impenetrable jungle of view, or possibly even the infamous cloud or veil of ignorance, which we could call abhaghana. What it does is keep us crowding onto the executioner's block (ganthika) as we wrongly grasp or assume (ga.nhati / gahana) things and acts as a bar (ga.n.di) or thick, impervious obstruction (also gahana) against our unravelling the knot (ga.n.thi) holding us there, as indicated by the suffix gha (= killing, destroying). This perception of compactness is abandoned by insight into destruction... khayaanupassanaa. If you have it, you might want to see Vsm chapter XX on the 18 Principal Insights and XVII on Dependent Origination. lovely trip! thank you, connie ps. the nose thingy is ghaana... see Dhs 443, 608, 628 (thanks, PED). Vsm XVII 302: [As to prevention:] the clause 'With ignorance as condition there are formations' prevents seeing a maker; the clause 'With formations as condition, consciousness' prevents seeing the transmigration of a self; the clause 'With consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality' prevents perception of compactness because it shows the analysis of the basis conjectured to be 'self'; and the clauses beginning 'With mentality-materiality as condition, the sixfold base' prevent seeing any self that sees, etc., cognizes, touches, feels, craves, clings, becomes, is born, ages and dies - So this Wheel of Becoming should be known 'as to prevention' of wrong seeing appropriately in each instance. #67492 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Frame-by-Frame Versus Continuity upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 1/25/07 10:16:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Could you say a bit more about this, please? I think you might be on > to something, but I don't see how continuity and impermanence fit > together. Thanks. > ========================= I really haven't developed this into a "theory", so there's not much that I could add. I simply see no need for a staccato view of a namarupic stream to justify impermanence. At the moment I feel coolness. Later, next to the space heater, I'll feel warmth. The coolness will not have remained. Actually, it will have diminished in a continuous fashion, and at some point it will no longer being present. A minute ago I heard my wife speaking, but now that is gone. Watching a show, interest may wain while calmness increases. While feeling a bodily pressure, aversion may build. There may well be an ebb and flow intead of a staccato series. But phenomena earlier in evidence are no longer in evidence later on. What I object to most of all is the tendency to make zero-duration "things", discrete packets, complete in themselves, with precise starting and ending points, out of mindstates. In fact, no activity occurs without passage of time. Activities require time. Every act of recognition requires passage of time, growing and waining. The same for feeling, willing, and knowing. No event takes literally zero time. But while at one point in time an operation of pleasant feeling is in process, at a later time that will not be so. That is all that is required for impermanence. Now something is happening, but that will not remain the case. With metta, Howard #67493 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Smiles & Laughs (was: Meditation (again)) sarahprocter... Dear Joop, --- Joop wrote: > Of the messages you send me yesterday. > About the possibility of having compassion by arahants, based of my > quotes of Bhikkhu Bodhi and James in #67224 and in way I view it > (being touched by the dukkha of other beings) I have my doubts .... S: So you don't think great arahants such as Sariputta showed compassion? I find this quite bizarre. If we ignorant worldlings can and do experience compassion on a daily basis, how extraordinary must be the compassion of those who had eradicated all defilements. .... > About (vipassana) meditation we better can agree to disagree; ... S: Yes, I'm sure it'll come up again. It's an issue we both feel is very important. I know you like 'on the edge' discussions , but I think my comments were too 'on the edge' for the occasion for which I apologise. .... > There is one that really bothers me. > > >> J: do you mean that most what is very natural=akusala. That > akusala arising > >> realities (for a wordling) is the rule and kusala the exception? > > S: Yes > ... > >> Do you mean that the human nature is akusala? > > S: Whenever the (javana) cittas are not concerned in a wholesome > way with dana, sila or bhavana, then they are akusala, i.e most the > time. > > "Yes" and "Most the time" are crucial answers. > I think it can not be proven that this answer is correct. And the > opposite cannot be proven either. .... S: In the end it can only be proven by direct experience of the present dhammas arising. Right now, we're discussing dhamma, but are all the cittas wholesome? .... > Perhaps we can agree on the statement that we (wordlings) have a > mixture of wholesome and unwholesome tendencies. And the challenge in > life is how to live and to handle this mixture. .... S: Yes, a mixture. I think the challenge is to understand these and the other dhammas appearing, such as seeing, hearing and so on for what they are - conditioned dhammas. They're going to be 'handled' in any case, even without any understanding. ... > One way (protestant buddhism) is to stress and fight the unwholesome. > The other (mine) is to stress and use the wholesome. ... S: I'd prefer to stress the understanding and the detachment than the 'fighting' or the 'using'. Both of the latter terms suggest a 'doing' by someone, I think. Metta, Sarah ======= #67494 From: "ken_aitch" Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] compassion of Arahants ken_aitch > > Those arahnats had already accomplished the task and yet they went > > wandering to teach the Dhamma, out of compassion for the world. > > Arahants have compassion. > > > ======================= > Excellent proof, James! Hi Howard and James, I don't think anyone anywhere has ever denied that the Buddha and his arahants had compassion. Or am I missing something? Ken H #67495 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience sarahprocter... Hi Larry & Howard, --- LBIDD@... wrote: > Hi Howard, > > --------------------- > L: "What about the case of someone who is color blind? Is there a true > red external to the eye which is not directly known to one who is color > blind?" > > H: "As a radical phenomenalist, I like that sort of question! ;-) My > answer, BTW, is that what a person sees is the visual object that s/he > sees, and nothing else. That, and only that, is the object of her/his > awareness." > -------------------------- > L: My view is that rupa is not directly known. A visual experience is > consciousness only. We'll see what Sarah comes up with ;-) .... S: I'm completely on-side with Howard on this kind of issue. I would change 'awareness' to 'consciousness' to avoid confusion for some not familiar with his use of the term, but otherwise, my answer is the same. I also liked his further response to TG (#67446). In other words, visible object seen is just that regardless of whether someone is color blind or anything else. As he said, no two people ever see the same rupa and furthermore, the same rupa is never seen in subsequent eye-door processes. There are so many factors affecting what is seen at any given moment - the eye-base, the age of the rupa, temperature, kamma, light, phassa etc etc Metta, Sarah ======== #67496 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:31 am Subject: Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (1) scottduncan2 Dear connie, Thanks for the added commentary - beautiful: connie: "The commentary on Therikaa's (or Sturdy's) process begins with Buddha Ko.naagamana and goes on thru her having having died an ordinary human after 20-thousand years of fulfilling the bhikkhunii moral practice in Kassapa's dispensation. In her last life, she'd (re?)gained faith and became a lay follower..." My vote goes to 'regained'. I think that its total proof that kusala accumulates and that the right conditions are necessary for it to arise and that this occurs in each successive lifetime. c: "I think this stresses that it's not just a straight-forward path/process at least for an ordinary being; ditto, the commentary on her 'name' meaning, << 'O you, who have arrived at a firm state of being in the firm teaching,' 'O you, possessed of the firm states of virtuous conduct, etc.' >>" Perhaps this 'arrived at' is the pithy short-hand for aeons of non-linear process, this 'possessed of' for the accumulated kusala. c: "...it is to be understood that their complete calming is also spoken of: (1) previously through the attainment of calming by the substitution of opposites, (2) at the moment of calm and insight through discarding, (3) at the moment of the path through cutting off, (4) at the moment of fruition through calming. Therefore, the gaining of the four types of abandoning is to be understood. In this connection, because of the attainment of the understanding of abandoning: (1) the attainment of being accomplished in virtuous conduct is shown through abandoning by substitution of opposites, (2) the attainment of being accomplished in concentration [is shown] through abandoning through discarding, and (3) the attainment of being accomplished in wisdom [is shown] through the other abandonings..." Visuddhimagga I,12: "Likewise the means for surmounting the states of loss is shown by virtue; the means or surmounting the element of sense desires, by concentration; and the means for surmounting all becoming by understanding. "And the abandoning of defilements by substitution of opposites is shown by virtue; that by suppression is shown by concentration; and that by cutting off is shown by understanding." c: "All that to say, yeah, a process (and just to share more of what I think is beautiful). But what do you make of this: << As was his custom, the Teacher established for her a basis in what [she had] seen >> ? Perhaps this relates to the abhibhaayatana - 'bases of mastery' or as preferred by ~Nyaa.namolili, 'bases for transcendence', I'm not sure. I'd say that the Teacher, capable of omniscience, comprehended that this 'having seen' could serve as a basis for her abandoning. I'm not sure about that either. MN 2,22 (Bodhi/~Naa.namoli): "Bhikkhus, when for a bhikkhu the taints that should be abandoned by seeing have been abandondoned by seeing; when the taints that should be abandoned by restraining have been abandoned by restraining; when the taints that should be abandoned by using have been abandoned by using; when the taints that should be abandoned by enduring have been abandoned by enduring; when the taints that should be abandoned by avoiding have been abandoned by avoiding; when the taints that should be abandoned by removing have been abandoned by removing; when the taints that should be abandoned by developing have been abandoned by developing - then he is called a bhikkhu who dwells restrained with the restraint of all the taints. He has severed craving, flung off the fetters, and with the complete penetration of conceit he has made an end of suffering." Note 43: "If abandonment of the taints is understood in the strict sense as their ultimate destruction, then only two of the seven methods mentioned in the sutta effect their abandonment - seeing and development - which between them comprise the four supramundane paths. The other five methods cannot directly accomplish the destruction of the taints, but they can keep them under control during the preparatory stages of practise and thereby facilitate their eventual eradication by the supramundane paths." Sincerely, Scott. #67497 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:58 am Subject: Re: Lachen und Weinen (Was: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) egberdina Hi Jon, Joop, James et al, > > The characteristic of the mental factor that is karuna is the wholesome > wish to alleviate the suffering of another. There is no aspect of pity > for or 'empathy with' the other person, no 'feeling for' their > suffering, and of course no dosa or unpleasant feeling accompanying the > consciousness. So it is quite a different thing to the conventional > idea of compassion. > It seems to me that if anyone has a wish to alleviate the suffering of others, that means that person is affected by the suffering of others. They are moved to act. It means that the person so moved to act, is seeking to change the way things are. But wait, no, that cannot be. That would put certain understandings of anatta at risk. Therefore, the Buddha is not affected by the suffering of others. And even when he teaches, he is not doing it to achieve a goal, and he is totally unattached to the outcome of his purposeless teaching. Because if there was purpose, that purpose could fail, and he would be prone to dukkha, and we can't have that. So even if he wishes to alleviate the suffering of others, and he tries, and it doesn't work, that leaves him indifferent/unaffected. So, in fact, he was indifferent to the suffering of others all along. So you see, it is all quite clear, and makes perfect sense, no matter how you look at it :-) Kind Regards Herman #67498 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:32 am Subject: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing upasaka_howard Hi, all - I've been thinking about the matter of the replacement of one object of consciousness by another. (I only believe there can be one at a time.) It seems to me that an object of consciousness has wave-like behavior, starting out with an increasing intensity until leveling off, and then decreasing, which can be pictured as an upslope of a hill (from left to right), leveling off at the top, and then a downslope on the other side. It also seem to me that there cannot be a discernible beginning point or ending point: If there were a beginning point, the prior object would have no ending point, and if there were an ending point, the subsequent object would have no starting point. What I am considering is the following picture, where "<" denotes increasing, "---" leveling off, ">" decreasing, "..." continuation of the same, and o denotes a momentary gap in conciousness, a zero/nothingness moment which is consciousness of absence of object: ...>>>>>>....o...<<<<<<---------->>>>>>>...o...<<<<<<... It is the zero points that are of particular interest to me and that are also likely to be found controversial to Abhidhammikas. I have read some Buddhist meditators as saying that they have been able to detect object-gaps that are a kind of spike in consciousness which represents a moment of absence of object, and that is in fact a "nibbanic moment". Mathematically the o-gaps make sense. If we think of the diagram as occuring on the real line, each o is the boundary point joining a preceding open interval (one object) with a succeeding open interval (the succesor object). So, another simpler, and probably better, picture could be ...)o(..........)o(... In this interval picture, a new object waxes, levels off, and wains within each open interval [between a pair of matching parentheses], and the zero-duration moment between intervals represented by the "o" is a moment of "nothingness". Note: An open interval, though finite in length, includes an infinity of points, and with no first and no last, because the endpoints are excluded from the interval. One thing that interests me about this theory is that it accords with a kabbalistic idea put forward by Dov Baer, the famous chief student of the founder of Chassidism, the Baal Shem Tov. He is the most "Buddhist" of the founders of Chassidic thought, in my opinion. Dov Baer maintained that no change is possible except by passing through nothingness ("ayin"), which he viewed as no-thing-ness. With metta, Howard #67499 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] compassion of Arahants upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and James, and Joop) - In a message dated 1/26/07 9:10:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, ken_aitch@... writes: > Hi Howard and James, > > I don't think anyone anywhere has ever denied that the Buddha and his > arahants had compassion. Or am I missing something? > > Ken H > ======================= Two days ago Joop had written the following to Herman: "My central topic was not "path" but "compassion" You remember a week or so ago the DSG-dicussion about laughing and crying, one of the aspect was that arahants don't laugh (they can smile) or cry. The arguments for that statement braught me to the conclusion: arahants don't have compassion. But the Buddha did have compassion ! Many on DSG, many Theravadins do have being an arahant as (far) ideal; but I have the Buddha as ideal." Is Joop's sentence "The arguments for that statement braught me to the conclusion: arahants don't have compassion" not a denial of arahants having compassion? With metta, Howard #67500 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience lbidd2 Hi Sarah and Howard, Since you both agree on the nature of rupa am I correct in saying your view is that the visible data we see is not external to the eye? If so, what is the function of the eye? Larry #67501 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:44 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,128 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 128. After that, next to the profitable-resultant eye-, etc., consciousness, the profitable-resultant mind element (39) occurs accomplishing the function of 'receiving' (i), contingent upon the same object as that of the former, and having the heart-basis as support. An next after the unprofitable-resultant eye-, etc., consciousness, the unprofitable-resultant mind element occurs likewise. But these two, while variable as to door and object, are invariable as to physical basis and position, and invariable as to function. ************************ 128. tato kusalavipaakaana.m cakkhuvi~n~naa.naadiina.m anantaraa kusalavipaakaa manodhaatu tesa.myeva aaramma.na.m aarabbha hadayavatthu.m nissaaya sampa.ticchanakicca.m saadhayamaanaa pavattati. tathaa akusalavipaakaana.m anantaraa akusalavipaakaa. ida~nca pana dvaya.m aniyatadvaaraaramma.na.m niyatavatthu.t.thaana.m niyatakicca~nca hoti. #67502 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 5:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience egberdina Hi Sarah, > > > > H: "As a radical phenomenalist, I like that sort of question! ;-) My > > answer, BTW, is that what a person sees is the visual object that s/he > > sees, and nothing else. That, and only that, is the object of her/his > > awareness." > > -------------------------- > > L: My view is that rupa is not directly known. A visual experience is > > consciousness only. We'll see what Sarah comes up with ;-) > .... > S: I'm completely on-side with Howard on this kind of issue. I would > change 'awareness' to 'consciousness' to avoid confusion for some not > familiar with his use of the term, but otherwise, my answer is the same. > > I also liked his further response to TG (#67446). > > In other words, visible object seen is just that regardless of whether > someone is color blind or anything else. As he said, no two people ever > see the same rupa and furthermore, the same rupa is never seen in > subsequent eye-door processes. There are so many factors affecting what is > seen at any given moment - the eye-base, the age of the rupa, temperature, > kamma, light, phassa etc etc > While you liked Howard's response to TG, you have yourself digressed into a series of explanations for seeing, none of which can be the subject of experience. One cannot see the eye seeing, one cannot see kamma seeing, one cannot see phassa seeing etc Why would your explanations be preferable to to TG's? Kind Regards Herman #67503 From: connie Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:14 pm Subject: Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (1) nichiconn hi Scott, just to carry on from #67496 -- nowhere particular in mind, just talking: c: "... But what do you make of this: << As was his custom, the Teacher established for her a basis in what [she had] seen >> ? scott: Perhaps this relates to the abhibhaayatana - 'bases of mastery' or as preferred by ~Nyaa.namolili, 'bases for transcendence', I'm not sure. I'd say that the Teacher, capable of omniscience, comprehended that this 'having seen' could serve as a basis for her abandoning. I'm not sure about that either. the text: Atha mahaapajaapatigotamii ta.m pabbaajetvaa upasampaadetvaa vihaara.m netvaa satthaara.m dassesi. Satthaapissaa pakatiyaa di.t.thaaramma.nameva vibhaavento "sukha.m supaahii"ti gaathamaaha. Pruitt: Then Mahaa-Pajaapati Gotamii had her go forth and take full ordination, led her to the [Teacher's] lodgings, and presented her to the Teacher. As was his custom, the Teacher established for her a basis in what [she had] seen, and spoke the verse [starting], "Sleep happily..." cafRD: And Pajaapatii did so, and showed her the Master; and the Master, emphasizing, as was his custom, the visible basis whereby she had attained, spoke the verse above. connie: why this order / emphasis, as ever repeated: eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind. what's so special about visual object? open eyes, visual object the size of my field of vision. close eyes, dream vision. they look the same. what gives? evidently i don't quite get what visual object is before it's buried in conceptualization. even the foggy periphery as you come out of another off elsewhere moment, the blur comes to focus with names, locale... 'in the seen, just the seen'? no, for me, in the seen, the scene. lone star and rahu rise again. Since you quoted MN 2,22 (Bodhi/~Naa.namoli): "Bhikkhus, when for a bhikkhu the taints that should be abandoned by seeing have been abandondoned by seeing; ..." etc ... I read another bhikkhu the other day: <<(1) Dasana: "vision" is explained as man's patence of selection in regard to which kind of objects one should concern with and which kind of objects one should not. The text runs: "...(he) does not comprehend the things which should be wisely attended to, does not comprehend the things which should not be wisely attended to. He, not comprehending the things that should be wisely attended to, not comprehending the things that should not be wisely attended to, wisely attends to those things which should not be wisely attended to, does not wisely attend to those things which should be wisely attended to"[MS i 10]. In research term, the variable here is not wise attention but is the recommendable kind of object which attention is to be made to. The passage seems to suggest on the one hand that 'wisely attending' is not enough, if 'wisely attending' is applied to the undesirable things, asavas still have good chance. On the other hand, 'Wisely attending' as standing for yoniso manasikaram implies 'attention to the means, the Way'; the opposite ayoniso manasikaram is meant for not attending to the means, or attending to (or, in) the wrong way, turning the mind against the truth so that you think permanence is in the impermanent, happiness in suffering, self in what is not-self, and the fair in the foul[137] and since a lack of yoniso manasikaram one 'wisely attends to those things which should not be wisely attended to'. In fine, yoniso manasikaram seems to have double meaning: On one hand, it is characteristically good in nature; on the other hand, as to the selection of which that should be attended it in effect is helpful and decisive. This double meaning is also suggested by the modern psychologist William James who argues in The Principle of Psychology that attending to an idea is identical with believing it, which, in turn, is identical with willing that it be realized[138]. >> end quote later, c. #67504 From: "Andrew" Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 7:58 pm Subject: Re: Ghana corvus121 Dear Larry, Scott, Nina & Connie I sent a thank you note before which seems to have vanished into the ether. So (again) thank you for your responses. I will have to spend more time on the Visuddhimagga! Connie, it's "ga.na" not "Ghana". The safari has been cancelled. Sorry about that. ;-)) Thanks again and Best wishes Andrew #67505 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience upasaka_howard Hi. Larry - In a message dated 1/26/07 7:38:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Sarah and Howard, > > Since you both agree on the nature of rupa am I correct in saying your > view is that the visible data we see is not external to the eye? If so, > what is the function of the eye? > > Larry > =========================== Two answers: 1) The physical eye - that is, the organ with cornea, iris, etc, is what the good folks here call pa~n~natti. 2) For me, the "physically external" is a mode of experience. With metta, Howard #67506 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience lbidd2 Hi Howard, If you don't recognize the eye or eye sensitivity as a reality what did the Buddha mean when he said contact is the coming together of visible data, eye, and eye consciousness? Larry #67507 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:35 pm Subject: Ballanced Energy! bhikkhu5 Friends: Ballanced Energy does not stir up Restlessness! Laziness overcomes one strong in concentration and weak in energy, since concentration favours idle inaction. Agitation and restlessness overpowers one strong in energy and weak in concentration, because energy stimulates agitation. But concentration coupled and ballanced with energy cannot lapse into laziness, & energy coupled & ballanced with concentration cannot provoke distracted & restless agitation... Therefore should these two abilities be ballanced, since absorption comes with the even ballancing of the mental abilities. Source: Path of Purification: Visuddhimagga: Buddhaghosa 5th century AC. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 Ballanced Energy! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #67508 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:25 pm Subject: Yahoo Glitch dsgmods All, In case anyone hasn't realised by now, there's a yahoo glitch which means long delays. Some posts we sent 24hrs ago still haven't shown up inc. a yahoo apology and explanation message we were forwarding. (See yahoo note at top of DSG homepage for more details). We suggest you post as normal but be sure to keep a copy of anything sent. If posts in cyber-space still haven't shown up by tomorrow, try re-posting then. Jon & Sarah p.s Any other problems with this, ask us off-list, thx! #67509 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina Hi Howard, I hope you will not find agreement tedious. Agreement tends to end discussion. So I will add something, not because I think you'll disagree with it, but because it may shed further light on the being of nothingness, which is fundamental to consciousness, as you point out. On 27/01/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, all - > > I've been thinking about the matter of the replacement of one object > of consciousness by another. (I only believe there can be one at a time.) > It seems to me that an object of consciousness has wave-like behavior, > starting out with an increasing intensity until leveling off, and then > decreasing, which can be pictured as an upslope of a hill (from left to right), > leveling off at the top, and then a downslope on the other side. It also seem to > me that there cannot be a discernible beginning point or ending point: If there > were a beginning point, the prior object would have no ending point, and if > there were an ending point, the subsequent object would have no starting point. > What I am considering is the following picture, where "<" denotes increasing, > "---" leveling off, ">" decreasing, "..." continuation of the same, and o > denotes a momentary gap in conciousness, a zero/nothingness moment which is > consciousness of absence of object: > ...>>>>>>....o...<<<<<<---------->>>>>>>...o...<<<<<<... > It is the zero points that are of particular interest to me and that > are also likely to be found controversial to Abhidhammikas. I have read some > Buddhist meditators as saying that they have been able to detect object-gaps > that are a kind of spike in consciousness which represents a moment of absence of > object, and that is in fact a "nibbanic moment". > Mathematically the o-gaps make sense. If we think of the diagram as > occuring on the real line, each o is the boundary point joining a preceding open > interval (one object) with a succeeding open interval (the succesor object). > So, another simpler, and probably better, picture could be > ...)o(..........)o(... > In this interval picture, a new object waxes, levels off, and wains > within each open interval [between a pair of matching parentheses], and the > zero-duration moment between intervals represented by the "o" is a moment of > "nothingness". Note: An open interval, though finite in length, includes an > infinity of points, and with no first and no last, because the endpoints are excluded > from the interval. One thing that interests me about this theory is that it > accords with a kabbalistic idea put forward by Dov Baer, the famous chief > student of the founder of Chassidism, the Baal Shem Tov. He is the most "Buddhist" > of the founders of Chassidic thought, in my opinion. Dov Baer maintained that > no change is possible except by passing through nothingness ("ayin"), which he > viewed as no-thing-ness. > What I'll write here is an opposing view to nothingness, just for perspective. It is taken from a university handout, and summarises the views of Parmenedis the Eleatic (around 500 BC), who believed that reality was completely positive, affirmative, and ought to be able to be described without using the word "not" or any other form of negation. " 1) There is nothing negative about being. 2) There is no change in being, in reality. In order for something to change, it would have to change from what it is, to what it isn't, or vice versa. And that involves negation. 3) There is no coming to be. There is never anything new, no generation. Being could only come to be from non-being, and there isn't any such thing. Being could not come to be from being, since it is already being - that would not be coming to be at all. 4) By the same token, there is no destruction, no annihilation. Destruction would be a kind of change from being to non-being, and there's no such thing as non-being. 5) There is no time. Time is made up of past present and future. But the past doesn't exist - any longer. And the future doesn't exist either - not yet. They would be non-being. But there isn't any such thing. And the present is just the limiting point separating the past and the future. 6) There is no differentiation in being. Being is not divided up into this being and that being, so that this being is not that being. If x is not y, then that is a kind of non-being, not-being-y. And non-being is not. Thus for Parmenides, reality is just one unchanging, timeless, undifferentiated, featureless blob of being." Which sounds pretty much like nibbana to me. And it shows pretty well that any differentiation requires the being of nothing as a necessary condition. Which is completely lacking in the Abhidhamma scheme of analysis (which is in effect an analysis of differences). Kind Regards Herman #67510 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:22 am Subject: Arahants and compassion jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Joop, > ... Dear Sarah S: So you don't think great arahants such as Sariputta showed compassion? I find this quite bizarre. If we ignorant worldlings can and do experience compassion on a daily basis, how extraordinary must be the compassion of those who had eradicated all defilements. J: I don't know what you mean by "experience compassion on a daily basis". My main question is: do we talk about the same concept (yes: concept) "compassion"? I use it included the aspect "being touched be the suffering of another sentient being" Jon states this ability (named also "empathy") is not needed. Do you? I can also say: Sariputta is a concept. But if you find my words to harsh, then I can more subjective say: To me the Buddha is more an example, an ideal, than an arahant is. See again my Bhikkhi Bodhi quote: " The formula for the arahant … Now all these epithets are true for the Buddha as well, but the Buddha is not described in this way; for these terms emphasize the attainment of one's own liberation, and the Buddha is extolled, not primarily as the one who has attained his own liberation, but as the one who opens the doors of liberation for others. That is, even in the archaic suttas of the Nikayas, an "other- regarding" significance is already being subtly ascribed to the Buddha's status that is not ascribed to the arahant." My first aim is not eradicating defilements (that's an to negative and aggressive expression for me) but perfect my compassion. Metta Joop #67511 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Arahants and compassion egberdina Hi Joop, > > My first aim is not eradicating defilements (that's an to negative > and aggressive expression for me) but perfect my compassion. > To be honest, I can not make head or tail out of Buddhist compassion. Take the following from MN 04, towards the end. "Now, brahman, if the thought should occur to you, 'Perhaps Gotama the contemplative is even today not free of passion, not free of aversion, not free of delusion, which is why he resorts to isolated forest & wilderness dwellings,' it should not be seen in that way. It's through seeing two compelling reasons that I resort to isolated forest & wilderness dwellings: seeing a pleasant abiding for myself in the present, and feeling sympathy for future generations." I read this as saying that the Buddha resorts to isolated forests and wilderness out of compassion for future generations. If you can make sense out of that, would you kindly explain it to me? Thanks and Kind Regards Herman #67512 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:06 am Subject: Re: Meditation philofillet Hi Herman > > I guess my answer would be that if you "found what the Buddha says > > about the nature of reality is exactly true" there would by > > necessity also be an understanding of why this knowledge is > > liberating. There would be a joyful sense of liberation, or a taste > > of that liberation. > > Does that translate into the following? > The Third Noble Truth is true. Therefore, if there is no liberation > from dukkha, you're doing something wrong. "If there's no liberation from dukkha, you're doing something wrong." Hmm. Well, despite the emphasis on experience/confirmation etc there is still a large faith element in the Dhamma. It is one of the spiritual faculties. I don't think all faith can be confirmed through experience. Faith propels us, motivates us. The Burmese Sayadaws I listen to say that it is faith>energy>???. So I have faith taht there is an ultimate liberation. But it doesn't motivate me, to tell the truth. I want to be a happier, more wholesome person who does less harm to others, and helps them more. I uesd to think there was something wrong with this, that it was an exploitation of the Dhamma for personal satisfaction but now I see I was wrong about that. In Anguttara Nikaya there are suttas that say without a sense of well being (as in freedom from remorse), without moral firmness, without a sense of duty to others, without these very mundane and common-sense things there can be no further progress on the path. That's crystal clear to me now. Being an emotional-intelligent, co- operative member of society (if one is a layperson) must come before anything else. So that takes away the desire to develop a lot of penetrative insight. It takes away any aspiration for greater liberation. I have heard that in Asian countries, most Buddhists practice in the hopes of profitable rebirth. (I think you don't beleive in rebirth, that's fine.) So they concentrate on doing good deeds and probably don't get tied up in knots about whether self is involved. Personally, I think that is a sensible approach for busy lay people. Do we miss an opportunity to get at the heart of Dhamma, to get deeper? Possibly. I've gone off topic. My point is that I don't think much about the Third Noble Truth, to be honest. > > I don't have a problem with the suggestion, it is just that reasoning > like that stands or falls on the validity of the initial premise. I > would be very happy indeed if the Third Noble Truth was true, but it > isn't, for me, and I would certainly like to hear from anyone for who > it is true. Ph: I think Buddhists are discouraged from speaking publically about attainments. If there were anyone here who had had a "path moment" I don't think they would tell us about it. There are some people kicking around on the internet who make public claims of being sotapanna but I think it's a bit of a dubious thing to do. > > > > So I would guess that you are being a little overconfident about > > having "found what the Buddha says about the nature of reality is > > exactly true." > > I did restrict myself to anicca, and anatta and dukkha in what I said. Ph: OK, I think the "perfectly" threw me. I had a very "good" meditation this morning in which something happened that quite beautifully demonstrated these characteristics in a very mundane but very helpful way, so I know what you mean. We can find that what the Buddha says about these things are hmm-that's-interesting-true without finding out that they are direct-insight-true. What's "direct insight?" I don't know. I once suddenly looked up at Naomi, my wife, and had this very clear insight that "she" was just nama and rupa, in ultimate terms. It has stuck with me, gave me a hint of what direct insight might be like. That was about 3 years ago, soon after I came to DSG. > > > I see nothing anywhere that suggests that a life without craving is > even remotely possible. So, the end of craving must coincide with the > end of existence. To be honest, I don't see any Buddhists keen on > being liberated from craving, and all that that implies. Ph: I posted about this once - I don't want out of samsara, I just want to keep being reborn in pleasant human circumstances! I think if we are honest with ourselves, we might think this at times. But really, don't we develop understanding of how craving always leads to dissatisfaction? I know my experience of life has become a lot more sober in that when there is a joyful experience, a very happy day, there is always a "this too shall pass" reminder, as there is on the bad days. Much less swinging too and fro in response to the vagaries of life. Something like that. So assuming that this sober experience of life could deepen to a more profound disillusionment..yes, I am sure there are Buddhists who truly aspire to be liberated from craving. I ain't there yet, but I've had hints of movement in that direction. Metta, Phil p.s sorry for any typos, just writing off the top of my head as usual. #67513 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:35 am Subject: Re: Meditation philofillet Hi Robert Certainly there are differences in approaches, in the meditation objects that are chosen. I would say what they all have in common, that which is universally understood, is that there is a meditation object, that is intentionally chosen, or given by a teacher, and that one attends to that meditation object in a purposeful way. I would guess that for Acharn Sujin the notion of a meditation object is that certain meditation objects arise due to conditions, and when they do, there can be meditation wherever one is. Maybe I have misrepresented her. I don't think that is what the Buddha meant by meditation, because he said "go to the root of a tree, sit with your spine erect and place mindfulness in front of you" or something like that. Acharn Sujin says he was just "pointing out" that there are the roots of trees and monks who sit there with erect spine and mindfulness place in front of them. I've never understood what she meant by "pointing out." Unless the translation is very, very poor, it sounds very much like an exhortation, but I'm sure you've been through this hundreds of times at DSG. No need to go through it again. I don't think anyone will ever change there view on that passage. Even when I was a student of Acharn Sujin I never had any doubt that the Buddha was telling monks to meditate in a purposeful way. What I doubted was that it could be done if there is lobha, a desire for results, self-view etc. Studying Anguttara Nikaya is ridding me of that concern, but if I ever hear Bhikkhu Bodhi, Nanamoli THera ("Heart of Buddhist Meditation") or the Burmese Sayadaws warn of something like that, I will remember what Acharn Sujin taught and pay renewed attention to it. But I have not yet heard anything from those sources that sounds like Acharn Sujin. I know it is absolutely possible that their understanding is deficient and her dismissal of modern approaches to meditation are justified. Sincerely, I believe that is possible. But I feel those other teachers motivate me in ways that have to do with developing healthy habits of body, mind and speech and that's what I am more interested in these days than in development of insight, which I believe can only come when one has healthy habits of body, mind and speech. Sorry, another ramble there. Last word on this to you if you want to add anything. Metta, Phil > I don't know if you read a recent exchange between Howard and James > about two different interpretations of anapanasati- one from ven. > Vimalaramsi and one from a Thai acharn (forget the name)and both ways > seemed different from how it is explained in the Visuddhimagga. > > If meditation is universally understood by everyone except Sujin and > her students why these differences? > Robert > #67514 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:00 am Subject: Re: Meditation philofillet Hi again > But I have not yet heard anything from those sources that sounds like > Acharn Sujin. An afterthought - I have heard Bhikkhu Bodhi and read N. Thera say that, as Acharn Sujin and Nina often say, the breath is a very difficult object of meditation, despite what one would think. Metta, Phil #67515 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/27/07 12:33:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > If you don't recognize the eye or eye sensitivity as a reality what did > the Buddha mean when he said contact is the coming together of visible > data, eye, and eye consciousness? > > Larry > ========================= I knew that would be your next question, Larry. I do recognize "eye" as in the coming together of the three that you mention. I have commented on my view of it before. I consider it to be what I call a "locational rupa". It is experientially "where" sight is experienced. Likewise for body, ear, nose, and tongue. In that sense, I am aware of eye, body, ear, nose, and tongue. They are experiential realities for me. As for an alleged infinitesimal speck of "matter" that arises and ceases at breathtaking speed at some place within areal eye organ with iris and cornea lying within an actually existing eye socket, and that is called "eye sensitivity", I consider that no more than a story that is a mix of stories by ancient biologists cum commentators and modern biologists. Look, Larry - let me be clear about this: As far as I'm concerned, all that is knowable or that I care to presume as existent is what is experiential. Anything beyond that I consider to be nothing more than an element of a useful, conceptual, model/scheme that describes relations among actual and potential experiences in terms that help in making practical predictions of future experience. Also, for the record, I don't intend to run away from a particular understanding of the Dhamma or anything else, for that matter, due to being accused of not accepting what the Buddha is purported to have asserted. Every one of us here has is/her own take on the Buddha's teachings, including me. Also, I don't claim to be a lock-step believer in every word ever claimed to be the Buddha word. I will accept much on a tentative basis, pending experiential confirmation, but I will not adopt a belief merely on the basis of authority, not even the Buddha's, but certainly not on the claimed authority of particular interpreters of his. I listen to all sources, and then decide for myself, on the basis of experience, what makes enough sense at the time to tentatively accept as plausible. With metta, Howard #67516 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience upasaka_howard Hi again, Larry- In a message dated 1/27/07 9:08:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: > Also, for the record, I don't intend to run away from a particular > understanding of the Dhamma or anything else, for that matter, due to being accused > of not accepting what the Buddha is purported to have asserted. > ====================== In the foregoing, please replace "being accused of" by "the possibility of my". I know you weren't "accusing" me of anything, That was a poor choice of word - inappopriately harsh, and off the mark. I understand that you were merely discussing Dhamma and seeking to determine whether my perspective is in harmony with it as you understand it. With metta, Howard #67517 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience lbidd2 Hi Howard, Actually my purpose was to draw out your view for the benefit of Sarah. I don't think she realizes what she is agreeing with. As it happens I agree with this view completely. I would just rephrase it. For example, what you call rupa I call consciousness because it has nothing to do with physical materiality. When the Buddha talks about the coming together of visible data, eye, and eye consciousness this is all conventional usage. But what I am really interested in is turning Sarah toward the light. So let's see what she has to say. Larry #67518 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - I think that the Dhamma is a middle-way emptiness perspective that is neither a nihilistic nothingness nor a perspective-of-being. And I think that Nagarjuna was correct in identifying nibbana with samsara provided that he meant that nibbana is the reality of things, with samsara being the despoiled, reified view of that reality. Even when a conditioned phenomenon arises, no self-existent entity has arisen. Whether a condition is present or not, no entity (i.e., self-existent thing) is present, and, thus, no-thing-ness is neither a nihilism nor a substantialism, and it is always in effect. Actually, if phenomena were not empty of own being, the cessation of phenomena - the passing from something to nothing, and the arising of phenomena - the passing from nothing to something would be impossible. It is the contingent status of phenomena that permits of their cessation, and it is lack of self-existence that permits of their arising. The passing through a momentary cessation point (a passing through "nothingness"), if it is so, is only possible because of the empty (no-self-existent-thing) nature of dhammas. As I see it, the absence that is nibbana is a no-thing-ness, not a nothingness. It is the free, open, ungraspable nature of reality. "There" no 'entities' ever arise or cease, but I think a dead, undifferentiated blob view of nibbana is not what I expect to be the reality. With metta, Howard #67519 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Arahants and compassion jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > > ... > To be honest, I can not make head or tail out of Buddhist compassion. > Take the following from MN 04, towards the end. > Hallo Herman, I don't understand this exactly But I have no doubts on the bening compassionate of the Buddha: in daily life (cf The monk with dysenterie) and in teaching the Dhamma Metta Joop #67520 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience TGrand458@... Hi Howard and Larry In a message dated 1/27/2007 7:11:30 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/27/07 12:33:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, _LBIDD@..._ (mailto:LBIDD@...) writes: > Hi Howard, > > If you don't recognize the eye or eye sensitivity as a reality what did > the Buddha mean when he said contact is the coming together of visible > data, eye, and eye consciousness? > > Larry > ========================= I knew that would be your next question, Larry. I do recognize "eye" as in the coming together of the three that you mention. I have commented on my view of it before. I consider it to be what I call a "locational rupa". It is experientially "where" sight is experienced. Likewise for body, ear, nose, and tongue. In that sense, I am aware of eye, body, ear, nose, and tongue. They are experiential realities for me. As for an alleged infinitesimal speck of "matter" that arises and ceases at breathtaking speed at some place within areal eye organ with iris and cornea lying within an actually existing eye socket, and that is called "eye sensitivity"sensitivity", I consider that no more than a story that is a m ancient biologists cum commentators and modern biologists. Look, Larry - let me be clear about this: As far as I'm concerned, all that is knowable or that I care to presume as existent is what is experiential. Anything beyond that I consider to be nothing more than an element of a useful, conceptual, model/scheme that describes relations among actual and potential experiences in terms that help in making practical predictions of future experience. Also, for the record, I don't intend to run away from a particular understanding of the Dhamma or anything else, for that matter, due to being accused of not accepting what the Buddha is purported to have asserted. Every one of us here has is/her own take on the Buddha's teachings, including me. Also, I don't claim to be a lock-step believer in every word ever claimed to be the Buddha word. I will accept much on a tentative basis, pending experiential confirmation, but I will not adopt a belief merely on the basis of authority, not even the Buddha's, but certainly not on the claimed authority of particular interpreters of his. I listen to all sources, and then decide for myself, on the basis of experience, what makes enough sense at the time to tentatively accept as plausible. With metta, Howard Jumping in to comment on Howard's statement. I like and agree with most of what's said above here Howard. My only reservation is that there is a sentiment here that ... understanding actuality can be done without conceptual models. I don't think so. Conceptual models are also necessary in understanding actuality. The conceptual model should not be seen as "truth," but should be seen as a factor in "getting to the point" of " realizing the truth. Actually, in my opinion, you do this all the time as well in your own way with your own scheme. Pure experientiality knows NOTHING ... it only experiences. A worm can do that. IMO, after all is known/learned/thought about/and realized through experience, then "pure experientiality" KNOWS. But conceptual understand must grow in order to reach that point. In my own view, I only look at states through the eyes of "principles of interaction." I may talk about photons and eye rods and cones for explaining conditionality, yet because I do so, I don't hold that these things are ultimately real...nor do I even understand their make-up. But as principles of inter-action I sometimes use these models to explain what sight requires. If you can give me an example of sight arising without rods or cones or without light, then I'll change my model or my thinking. But until then, common sense explanations are quite legitimate IMO. It is in fact the over-riding way the Buddha taught. If I merely said, all I know regarding sight is a "palate of color" and I don't know anything beyond that experience ... I don't see any insight or growth in that. Since you obviously have insight and growth, either you have done it in a way I don't understand or you have used conceptual models to get there. Thanks for making me think about these issues. TG #67521 From: "Joop" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Identifying Views. jwromeijn Hallo Colette Nice to see you back, although I don't know exactly what you mean (What that must be my problem) Can you explain to a simple mind? Metta Joop --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > CAUSE & EFFECT, does it play a part in a view? > .... #67522 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 1/27/07 6:02:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: > Hi again > > >But I have not yet heard anything from those sources that sounds like > >Acharn Sujin. > > An afterthought - I have heard Bhikkhu Bodhi and read N. Thera say > that, as Acharn Sujin and Nina often say, the breath is a very > difficult object of meditation, despite what one would think. > > Metta, > > Phil > ====================== I agree that it is a difficult subject, due to its subtlety and the fact that the greater the calm, the more subtle the breath object becomes. However, that is also it's virtue, with the ever-more-subtle breath leading one on into ever deeper and clearer states. I have found that the breath mediation subject is worth sticking with. With consistency of practice, it typically doesn't take long during a "sitting" for calm and clarity to develop. At times, however, when mental conditions are not so auspicious, meditating on the breath is difficult in the sense that it is easy to get distracted or to fall into a state of torpor. When that happens I sometimes leave the breath for a while and attend instead to bodily sensations (a la Goenka), which helps me gain some energy, alertness, and mindfulness, and then I return to the breath with improved mental functioning. With metta, Howard #67523 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Sarah) - In a message dated 1/27/07 10:41:56 AM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Actually my purpose was to draw out your view for the benefit of Sarah. I > don't think she > realizes what she is agreeing with. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that where Sarah and I differ is in the nature of rupas, she viewing them as phenomena that arise and cease independent of being experienced, and my viewing them merely as objects of experience, as experiential, material qualities. So, Sarah's view is an "objectivist" one [No, Ayn Rand reference intended], and mine is a radical phenomenalist view. But I think we agree on two things with regard to rupas: 1) Even corresponding rupas experienced in different mindstreams are not the *same* rupa, and 2) Rupas are not atom-like elements of conventional objects "in the world"; that is, rupas are not little pieces of matter that are parts of conventional material objects. A felt hardness is not a constituent of a table. On the contrary, the hardness and a multitude of other experienced rupas, whether existing independent of being experienced or not, are related in ways that, when experienced, enable the construction of the table percept. ------------------------------------------------- > > As it happens I agree with this view completely. I would just rephrase it. > For example, what > you call rupa I call consciousness because it has nothing to do with > physical materiality. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I think it is the only materiality there is. I don't conceive of matter, but I do countenance experienced physical qualities such as hardness, warmth, sights, and sounds. This is the way I understand the Buddha when he instructed Bahiya "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself." Here I believe he speaks of the mere knowing and the mere known. There is the mere knowing, with no underlying knower, and there is the mere known, with no "thing" underlying the content of consciousness - the "object". Likewise, in the Sabba Sutta, the Buddha taught "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." This last sentence is the giving of a pragmatic reason. What is the "beyond range" he refers to? I believe it is exactly a matter of being beyond the range of experience. The all is only what lies within experience. A proposed unexperienced thing underlying an experienced visual form, sound, aroma, flavor, or tactile sensation is pragmatically beyond range. But I hasten to add that I think it is an error to identify the object of consciousness itself as consciousness. Consciousness is a mental activity - the activity of knowing, and not "stuff". It never occurs except as the knowing of an object of consciousness, but that object is not the knowing - it is the known. Co-occurrence and interdependence of knowing & known is not the same as identity. ------------------------------------------------ > When the Buddha talks about the coming together of visible data, eye, and > eye consciousness > this is all conventional usage. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I think so too! ---------------------------------------------- But what I am really interested in is turning Sarah toward the > > light. So let's see what she has to say. > > Larry > > =========================== With metta, Howard #67524 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience upasaka_howard Hi, TG - I admit my utter dependency on concept for practical functioning. I consider all conceptual schemes as devices for prediction of experience, and we non-arahants could not function without them. I suspect that an arahant could, though such shared schemes would still be needed for communication. With metta, Howard #67525 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/27/2007 10:35:48 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Likewise, in the Sabba Sutta, the Buddha taught "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." This last sentence is the giving of a pragmatic reason. What is the "beyond range" he refers to? I believe it is exactly a matter of being beyond the range of experience. The all is only what lies within experience. Hi Howard I disagree with this take. (As we have probably discussed before.) I believe The All is indeed just that ... i.e. The All. I believe the Buddha to say that The All is everything that there is. Both in the sense of actual experience and in the sense of potential experience or arising states. Your interpretation limits The All within a specific framework. But I think the Buddha is saying ... this is everything there is, there is nothing other than this. Hence ... THE ALL. TG #67526 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience scottduncan2 Dear Experiencers, I was reading the following in the commentaries to the Discourse on the Root of Existence and thought of this thread (and thought they'd be interesting to you): "HAVING PERCEIVED EARTH AS EARTH "CY. Having perceived earth thus with a perverted perception, the worldling afterwards conceives it, i.e. construes or discriminates it, through the strengthened proliferating tendencies of craving, conceit, and views, which are here called 'conceivings' (appabhaage thaamappattehi ta.nhaamaanadi.t.tipapa~ncehi idha ma~n~nanaanaamena vuttehi ma~n~nati kappeit vikappeti). This accords with the statement: 'Concepts due to proliferation are grounded upon perception' (sa~n~naanidaanaa hi papa~nca.nkhaa, Sn.v.874). He apprehends it in diverse ways contrary (to reality) (naanappakaarato a~n~nathaa ga.nhaati); hence it is said: 'He conceives earth'..." "SUB.CY. ...'He apprehends it...contrary (to reality)': like the conceiving of views, the conceivings of craving and conceit also apprehend things contrary to reality - craving assuming the repulsive to be beautiful, conceit the inferior to be superior, etc....are all forms of conceiving in so far as they occur in the common mode of misconstruing the object (aaramma.naparikappanaakaarena pavatti)..." Sincerely, Scott. #67527 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina Hi Howard, Thanks for your comments. On 28/01/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Herman - > > > > ============================ > I think that the Dhamma is a middle-way emptiness perspective that is > neither a nihilistic nothingness nor a perspective-of-being. And I think that > Nagarjuna was correct in identifying nibbana with samsara provided that he > meant that nibbana is the reality of things, with samsara being the despoiled, > reified view of that reality. I see nibbana as non-conscious being, which is simply what it is, and then there is consciousness, which is a negation of nibbana. But consciousness is contingent on being, it does not have it's own ground. Consciousness brings determinations, essence and relationships into the world, which includes the relationship of nothingness. Things and no-things are so only in relation to consciousness. I'm not sure if that is in agreement or not with Nagarjuna, but it doesn't sound very different. Even when a conditioned phenomenon arises, no > self-existent entity has arisen. I don't fully understand this, if nibbana is said to be self-existent. But perhaps that is not Nagarjuna's position? What I do not understand is how determinations can be made about the ontological status of the objects of consciousness, if it is consciousness that fleets hither and thither at the rate of knots it does. IMO, because of the fleeting nature of consciousness nothing can be said about the coming or going of the objects. If nibbana co-incides with samsara, then it seems reasonable that consciousness gives a glimpse of what isn't conscious, but is there/present. > As I see it, the absence that is nibbana is a no-thing-ness, not a > nothingness. It is the free, open, ungraspable nature of reality. "There" no > 'entities' ever arise or cease, but I think a dead, undifferentiated blob view of > nibbana is not what I expect to be the reality. > The way I see it is that absence is dependent on consciousness, so nibbana is absence only to consciousness. But nibbana itself is fully present. And certainly dead or alive wouldn't apply to it. But nibbana doesn't know anything, let alone itself. And any experiential knowing of nibbana is a negation, a denial of nibbana. Kind Regards Herman #67528 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience egberdina Hi Scott, I was just reading the sutta two days ago. On 28/01/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Experiencers, > > I was reading the following in the commentaries to the Discourse on > the Root of Existence and thought of this thread (and thought they'd > be interesting to you): > > "HAVING PERCEIVED EARTH AS EARTH > > "CY. Having perceived earth thus with a perverted perception, the > worldling afterwards conceives it, i.e. construes or discriminates it, > through the strengthened proliferating tendencies of craving, conceit, > and views, which are here called 'conceivings' (appabhaage > thaamappattehi ta.nhaamaanadi.t.tipapa~ncehi idha ma~n~nanaanaamena > vuttehi ma~n~nati kappeit vikappeti). This accords with the > statement: > > 'Concepts due to proliferation are grounded upon perception' > (sa~n~naanidaanaa hi papa~nca.nkhaa, Sn.v.874). > > He apprehends it in diverse ways contrary (to reality) > (naanappakaarato a~n~nathaa ga.nhaati); hence it is said: 'He > conceives earth'..." > > "SUB.CY. ...'He apprehends it...contrary (to reality)': like the > conceiving of views, the conceivings of craving and conceit also > apprehend things contrary to reality - craving assuming the repulsive > to be beautiful, conceit the inferior to be superior, etc....are all > forms of conceiving in so far as they occur in the common mode of > misconstruing the object (aaramma.naparikappanaakaarena pavatti)..." > I am not sure of what point you wished to make, but in the sutta an "uninstructed run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma" is juxtaposed against a trainee, an arahant, and a tathagata. The main difference, besides the formulaic uninstructedness, seem to be perception versus direct knowing. Having perceived, our dumbass friend, conceives, and conceives of concepts as being "mine". The suggestion seems to be that there is a real reality underlying the perverted reality. Is that your reading as well? Kind Regards Herman #67529 From: connie Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:06 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (4) nichiconn Sister Readers, IV -- Tissaa. RD: The following verse is that of Tissaa, a student. Heaping up merit under former Buddhas, Tissaa was, in this Buddha-dispensation, reborn at Kapilavatthu in the noble clan of the Saakiyas. Made a lady of the Bodhisat's court, she renounced the world with Great Pajaapatii the Gotamid, and practised herself in insight. To her the Master appeared as to the foregoing Sisters, and said: O Tissaa! train thyself in the trainings three. See that the great conjuncture *90 now at hand Pass thee not by! Unloose all other yokes, And fare thou forth purged of the deadly Drugs. *91 (4) And she, when she heard the verse, increased in insight, and attained Arahantship. Thereafter she was wont to repeat the lines. ***** *90 There is more in this little poem than is at first sight apparent. Tissaa - i.e., (a girl) born under the lucky star or constellation of Tissa, a celestial archer (partly identical with Cancer) - suggests a word-play on tisso sikkhaayo, the three branches of religious training (morals, mind, 'insight'). Again, that a word-play on yoga is intended is intelligible even without the Commentary. 'Let the lucky yoga (conjuncture) - to wit, your rebirth as human, your possession of all your faculties (read indriya-avekalla.m), the advent of a Buddha, your getting conviction - not slip; for by this yoking of opportunities you can free yourself from the Four Yokes - viz., sense, renewed existence, opinion, ignorance - which bind you to the Wheel of Life. *91 The Four AAsavas, or Intoxicants (another metaphor for the Four Bonds, or Yokes). ::::::::::::::::: text/verse: "Tisse sikkhassu sikkhaaya, maa ta.m yogaa upaccagu.m; sabbayogavisa.myuttaa, cara loke anaasavaa"ti. Pruitt: Tissa, be trained in the training. May the opportune occasions not pass you by. Unfettered from all ties, live in the world without taints. further commentary: << ... may the opportune occasions not pass you by, that is to say: (1) human existence, (2) faculties without deficiency, (3) the appearance of a Buddha, (4) the attaining of faith. May these opportune occasions (yogaa) and conditions, the right times that are hard to obtain, not pass you over. Or, taking [the meaning to be] the fetters of sensual pleasures (kaama-yogaadayo), may the four fetters (yogaa) not overcome you, they should overpower you. Unfettered from all ties, freed from all the ties (yogehi) beginning with the fetters of sensual pleasures (kaama-yogaadiihi), then being without taints (anaasavaa), live in the world; may you live faring well in this world. >> c. #67530 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 1/27/07 3:54:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: > > In a message dated 1/27/2007 10:35:48 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > Likewise, in the Sabba Sutta, the > Buddha taught "What is the All? Simply the eye &forms, ear &sounds, nose & > aromas, tongue &flavors, body &tactile sensations, intellect &ideas. > This, > monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I > will > describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for > his > statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to > grief. > Why? Because it lies beyond range." This last sentence is the giving of a > pragmatic reason. What is the "beyond range" he refers to? I believe it is > exactly a > matter of being beyond the range of experience. The all is only what lies > within experience. > > > Hi Howard > > I disagree with this take. (As we have probably discussed before.) I > believe The All is indeed just that ... i.e. The All. I believe the Buddha > to say > that The All is everything that there is. Both in the sense of actual > experience and in the sense of potential experience or arising states. > Your > interpretation limits The All within a specific framework. But I think the > Buddha > is saying ... this is everything there is, there is nothing other than > this. > Hence ... THE ALL. > > TG > > ========================= I also believe he's saying that's all there is, and that is what I think as well. Howver, when the Buddha says "Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." I believe that he is saying that such a claimant has no experiential basis for making the claim. The Buddha was quite pragmatic, and when there *cannot be* a basis for the claim he considers the claim dead in the water. With metta, Howard #67531 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/27/07 5:37:45 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Thanks for your comments. > ===================== Thank you for yours. I must apologize, though, as I don't know where to begin to reply. I can't understand what you said. (Not blaming you!) With metta, Howard #67532 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:42 pm Subject: Re: Meditation philofillet Hi Howard Thanks for your explanation. I'm starting (or re-starting) with movement-of-the-abdomen, which the sources I mentionned (B. Bodhi, N. Thera and of course the Burmese Sayadaws) agree is quite suitable for beginners because the object of meditation, the movement/pressure element is coarser and easier to observe than the breath, while being just as natural and subject to observable rising and falling. But I certainly appreciate the importance of being able to develop breath meditation, and that it's essential if one is to develop jhanas. We'll see what happens down the road. No aspirations towards jhanas at this time, the hindrances are still so coarse and obstructive. (which makes them fascinating to work with inn meditation, relating to them, getting to know them with a friendly spirit!) Metta, Phil #67533 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 10:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na nilovg Dear Scott, We believe that we have understood intellectually the difference between nama and rupa, but I find that I have not considered enough their characteristics as they appear now. That is why I found it very beneficial to listen again to the many discussions we had about this subject in Thailand. Each time I listen I hear things I had not heard before. Or I heard things that are repeated but seem always new. Colours are so different, so are sounds. There is a reason for this. Colour arises in a group of rupas, consisting of the four Great Elements and other rupas. The composition of the rupas in such a group is different all the time: the solidity or hardness may be stronger, or the heat may be stronger and this conditions the other rupas such as colour in that group to be such or such. These details remind me that there are conditions for colour to be different all the time. All these details help to cling less to an idea of my colour, or I own the colour, or colour lasts. Colour could not appear now if there were no citta. Citta can only experience it if colour impinges on the eyesense. We may try to find out the difference between nama and rupa but then we are on the wrong way: there is clinging. The notion of nimitta helps very much not to try to fix one's attention on a specific nama or rupa. Each nama and rupa arises and falls away very rapidly and what remains is the sign, nimitta. We learn that it is impossible to try to be aware of a specific nama or rupa in order to know the difference of nama and rupa, they fall away so rapidly. Nina. Op 24-jan-2007, om 14:29 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > I'll look forward to discussing this further with you. Please take > your time (I'm finding myself a bit short of it lately as well). #67534 From: "colette" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:29 am Subject: Warm Welcomes from/to CRAZY WISODOM ksheri3 Good Morning Joop, A staunch proliferater of the buddha's teachings. Glad to have your enquirery. :-) "What do you mean" is such an enorous task to translate such as may be considered in the YOGACARABHUMI-SASTRA. Yet, I feel your querrey is given in the sense, context, of good faith, thus I will "take a little walk with ya baby and tell ya who do I love", an american play on word from George Theorogood and the Delaware Destroyers' song Who Do Ya Love. I refer to the EXTANT reality, the phenoninal reality which exists: 1) which came first the realization, as for instance, that a Hebrew student named Jesus came about and began sputting these gang related behaviors or was is this CREATIONIST PHALLACY? This is how I work. I am certainly known in the Amrican esoteric community for ELLIMINATING ALL PHALLICIES. I do not accept delusions or hallucinations, I have had more than enough experience doing hallucinegens such as LSD, Mushrooms, Psylisipen (major mispelling), etc. back in the 70s, and I know for a fact, to my own consciousness, that there are unfortunate deviations that the status quo has taken, in their existence and desire for power, and fear of death, etc., that THEY HAVE MANUFACTURED FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL BENEFIT, that I have I no use for in my study and that I cannot see any value for in allowing to exist without recognition of THEIR actual existance as a phallacy as being reality. This brings us to the ACTUAL REALITY of the Buddhist examination of a "thing" being ETERNAL OR TEMPORAL, much better said in the TRUTHS as being ETERNAL or RELATIVE. I look forward to your continued support, wisdom, acknowledgement, etc. since I CANNOT DO THIS ALONE. I am forced to do this in the lowest and most servere forms of life since it is the supposed "aristocracy" (our Hindu and Indian friends can define that for us by their obedience to a class structure or stratification, but is also illuminated by our friends Karl Marx & Joseph Engels in their Communist Manifesto. I believe you are familiar with sucg problems with Maoist Rebels and Tamil Tigers, no? A buddhist on the path of Boddhisatva would naturally see that a stratified aristocrat found in New Dehli or in the Tas Mahal only does to themselves what they do the the rest of the people of Dehli (New Dehli) etc. which certainly removes the ability to apply the universality of the Bodhisatva, much like a George W.Bush sees with an Osama Bin Laden, but then again G.W.Bush may see his equality to OBLaden and only wish to miss lead his servants as a means of obtaining greater wealth while impoverishing every other competitor for his wealth. We can look at that as Possession, which stems from Craving or Obsession. Desire, now where did I hear that in a supposedly Noble Truth? Look what I've given you here. Lets not be ungrateful, no? toodles, colette #67535 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience TGrand458@... Hi Scott The sutta you reference explains three modes of perceiving. The first is that of a mind taking things to be self, i.e., ordinary ignorant perspective. The second is that of a mind learning not to take things as self. The third is that of an arahat. The arahat example is the only one that does not involve conceiving as I recall. Therefore, this sutta supports a case that conceiving is a necessary part of a learner. I believe the commentaries you listed below only deal with the first case. TG In a message dated 1/27/2007 3:08:19 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Experiencers, I was reading the following in the commentaries to the Discourse on the Root of Existence and thought of this thread (and thought they'd be interesting to you): "HAVING PERCEIVED EARTH AS EARTH "CY. Having perceived earth thus with a perverted perception, the worldling afterwards conceives it, i.e. construes or discriminates it, through the strengthened proliferating tendencies of craving, conceit, and views, which are here called 'conceivings' (appabhaage thaamappattehi ta.nhaamaanadi.thaamappathaamappattehi ta.nhaamaanadi. As I see it, the absence that is nibbana is a no-thing-ness, not a > nothingness. It is the free, open, ungraspable nature of reality. "There" no > 'entities' ever arise or cease, but I think a dead, undifferentiated blob view of > nibbana is not what I expect to be the reality. > The way I see it is that absence is dependent on consciousness, so nibbana is absence only to consciousness. But nibbana itself is fully present. And certainly dead or alive wouldn't apply to it. But nibbana doesn't know anything, let alone itself. And any experiential knowing of nibbana is a negation, a denial of nibbana. Kind Regards Herman Hi Herman and Howard Nice stuff too. I think I'm closer to Herman on this one. IMO, nihilism is only a factor of those with self view. For those beyond self view, nihilism is a non-sequitur. With the no-self mentality of an arahat, how or why would a mind be concerned with non-existence or existence? Is not the opposition to non-existence a form of grasping after existence, i.e., self? Buddha describes Nibbana as the end of consciousness... “By the utter destruction of delight in existence, By the extinction of perception and consciousness, By the cessation and appeasement of feelings, It is thus, friend, that I know for beings – Emancipation, release, seclusion.â€? (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 1, pg. 90) and.... The Buddha describes the “death resultâ€? of an enlightened (arahat) monk, Ven.Dabba Mallaputta… The body disintegrated, perception ceased, All feelings became cool, Mental activities were calmed, And consciousness came to an end. (The Buddha . . . The Udana & The Itivuttaka, pg. 116, 8.9) In the above descriptions it doesn't sound like a whole lot is going on. ;-) That said, I don't know if Howard's right or not. TG #67538 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 1:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 1/27/07 6:44:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: > But I certainly appreciate the importance of being able > to develop breath meditation, and that it's essential if one is to > develop jhanas. ====================== No, actually it's not necessary for jhanas. There are numerous meditation subjects for that. In fact, a mantra (Pali 'manta') will work. I know that for sure. With metta, Howard #67539 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:36 pm Subject: Re: elements of experience scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "I was just reading the sutta two days ago." Cool. Its a good one. S: "'Concepts due to proliferation are grounded upon perception' (sa~n~naanidaanaa hi papa~nca.nkhaa, Sn.v.874). "He apprehends it in diverse ways contrary (to reality) (naanappakaarato a~n~nathaa ga.nhaati); hence it is said: 'He conceives earth'..." H: "I am not sure of what point you wished to make..." Mainly the above, I guess, that perception is the ground of conceptual proliferation. I also think its cool that perception can also be a basis for development of the Path. H: "...The suggestion seems to be that there is a real reality underlying the perverted reality. Is that your reading as well?" I read that it is perception that is perverted, not that there are two realities. I could be missing something though. Sincerely, Scott. #67540 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience scottduncan2 Hi TG, There is also a section on the Tathaagatha. TG: "...The arahat example is the only one that does not involve conceiving as I recall. Therefore, this sutta supports a case that conceiving is a necessary part of a learner." From the commentary of The Section On The Cankerless One: "BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN FULLY UNDERSTOOD BY HIM (pari~n~naata.m tassa) "CY. What is meant is that the arahat has fully understood the bases of conceiving through the three kinds of full understanding. Therefore he neither conceives the base nor does he conceive the conceiving..." TG: "I believe the commentaries you listed below only deal with the first case." That is correct. Sincerely, Scott. #67541 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 4:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] elements of experience TGrand458@... Hi Scott Thanks for the information and explanations. TG #67542 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: elements of experience egberdina Hi Scott, To say that perception is perverted does not deny the reality of perception, it rather suggests that perception is real enough. Kind Regards Herman #67543 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:18 pm Subject: Fixed Immutable Law! bhikkhu5 Friends: The Inflexible Law of Nature: Action & Reaction! The Blessed Buddha once said: There are 4 things, Bhikkhus & Friends, nobody can change, no recluse, priest, divine being, no god nor devil, nor anyone in this or any other world. What are these 4 things? That what is subject to decay may not decay... That what is subject to sickness may not fall sick... That what is subject to death may not die... That those evil, immoral, impure, terrible, and pain-producing actions, which ever and again lead to rebirth, ageing, & death, may not bring results, may not produce their inviolable fruit... These four things, Bhikkhus & Friends, neither recluse, priest, divine being, neither gods nor devils, nor anyone in this or any other world can stop... Source: Anguttara Nikaya. Numerical Sayings: AN 4:182 http://what-buddha-said.net/Canon/Sutta/AN/Index.Numerical.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <...> #67544 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:14 pm Subject: Re: Lachen und Weinen (Was: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) jonoabb Hi Herman My last message to you (and also a message to Joop) has been caught in the Yahoo Groups delay. However, new messages are coming through to the list again, so here goes with another one ;-)) Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon, Joop, James et al, > > >> The characteristic of the mental factor that is karuna is the wholesome >> wish to alleviate the suffering of another. There is no aspect of pity >> for or 'empathy with' the other person, no 'feeling for' their >> suffering, and of course no dosa or unpleasant feeling accompanying the >> consciousness. So it is quite a different thing to the conventional >> idea of compassion. >> > > It seems to me that if anyone has a wish to alleviate the suffering of > others, that means that person is affected by the suffering of others. > They are moved to act. It means that the person so moved to act, is > seeking to change the way things are. This reminds me of an earlier post of yours where you wrote something to the effect that the person who has extinguished all craving would lack the motivation to do anything at all (including, I believe, to feed and support themselves -- I think you were suggesting they would just lie there in a motionless lump! ;-)). I thought it was a very interesting point. I suppose it is not wrong to characterise every action as effecting a change the way things are, but I think it misses the point. Change is part and parcel of samsara, since it occurs regardless of human intervention anyway. Merely to be alive is to be changing things ;-)) More importantly, though, the state of consciousness is different from the vegetative state ;-)). Consciousness comes with intention, feeling, memory and other factors of experiencing, and the enlightened being's consciousness is conditioned by these factors in the same way that yours or mine is (but without the presence of unwholesome roots). The consequence of not acting to support and maintain the body would be most unpleasant, not to mention painful for the person concerned, and even an arahant finds pain unwelcome (but without having aversion towards it). And then there is the force of accumulated tendencies. To get back to the subject of this thread (compassion), I take it that you would accept that there is such a thing for us worldlings as action (in the form of giving of assistance to another) that is motivated primarily by consideration for the other's well-being and not by either attachment (to the person) or aversion (to the circumstances of their suffering). This I would call the *wholesome* wish to alleviate the suffering of another. Now if this wholesome tendency is accumulated, developed and purified (by the contemporaneous development of insight) by an ordinary person as part of the path, why would the same person as an enlightened being suddenly cease to act in that (beneficial) way? It has become part of his/her nature. Heavy stuff for a Sunday afternoon, especially after a morning at the beach. Hope I'm making sense. Jon #67545 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:27 pm Subject: Re: Lachen und Weinen (Was: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) jonoabb Hi Joop (and James) Joop wrote: > Jon: Karuna is reckoned as an aspect of samatha bhavana. The > 4 'abidings' are > among the 40 objects of samatha. > … > The characteristic of the mental factor that is karuna is the > wholesome wish to alleviate the suffering of another. There is no > aspect of pity for or 'empathy with' the other person, no 'feeling > for' their suffering, and of course no dosa or unpleasant feeling > accompanying the consciousness. So it is quite a different thing to > the conventional idea of compassion. > > Joop: Thanks, now I know how 'compassion' (karuna) fits in the system > of ultimate dhamms. > > I however prefer to talk about compassion in conventional language in > which the wish to alleviate the suffering of another had to do with > knowledge about the character of that suffering, with 'empathy' of > this compassion in the Suttas, and in the Vinaya, cf the story > about 'The monk with dysentery' ((Kucchivikara-vatthu : Mahavagga > VIII.26.1-8) > Even in the conventional language of the suttas, 'karuna' is a reference to kusala mind-states. Of course, except for the arahant, there will inevitably be mixed kusala and akusala mind-states when acting compassionately; but any merit in the act comes from the kusala moments, not the akusala ones. (As James would put it: Natural, yes; wholly kusala, no.) It's surely important to appreciate the difference, so that the kusala can be more developed instead of the aksuala. To the extent that any "compassionate act" is performed with aksuala mind-states, it is not to be aspired to, and does not form part of the Buddha's exhortation to us, as I see it. > But what surprises me is that you say the ultimate idea of compassion > and the conventional one differ quite. Can you explain, I cannot > belief there is no relation. I am not saying there is no relation between the conventional and the ultimate. What I meant in that post was that the conventional idea of 'having compassion' includes what in Dhamma terms would be akusala mind-states. Generally speaking, the distinction between kusala and akusala is not understood, and this leads to the unwitting development of akusala. I thought James again put it nicely when he said: "The arahant can recognize the suffering of another and want to alleviate that suffering, but he/she won't personally feel that suffering. Crying comes from self-pity, not compassion for others." Jon #67546 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letters on Vipassana 5, no 5. jonoabb Hi Mateesha (and Nina) matheesha wrote: > Hi Nina, > > >> We read in the Visuddhimagga that jhåna can be a base for the >> development of vipassanå. However, we should stress again and again >> that this can only be so when someone has the five masteries (vasís, >> Vis. XXIII, 227): mastery of adverting and of entering jhåna at any >> time, at any place, resolving on its duration, emerging at any time, >> at any place and reviewing the jhåna-factors, at any time, at any >> place. Only then the jhånacitta can arise so naturally, that it is a >> reality of one's life and can thus be object of awareness. >> > > M: Vasi means mastery ie- adverting to the jhana when one wishes - > there is intention there. Why this is a qualification for doing > vipassana, when even without jhana, vipassana is possible, is not > clear. A good observation. Nina answered you by saying: <> Just to add to that. The key here is that jhana becomes a base for vipassana by reason of panna being developed to the degree that, after the person emerges from jhana, the panna is able to take the just-fallen away jhana-citta or one of its jhana-factors as object. Now it seems to me difficult to conceive how this skill could be acquired unless the person had mastery such that he could enter (and leave) jhana at will, otherwise the opportunities for panna to take the immediately past jhana citta as its object would be extremely limited. But the 'will' involved in entering and leaving jhana is not itself a factor in the development of the panna we are talking about. By that I mean that a person who had mastery of jhana but (hypothetically) no developed insight would be in exactly the same position as anyone else who (hypothetically) had not developed insight (i.e., he wouldn't have a head start in developing panna by virtue of his mastery of jhana ;-)). Jon #67547 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation jonoabb Hi Phil'07 (and Phil'05) Since it was one of my messages that prompted Phil'05's ridiculous, misguided comments ;-)), I feel a sense of responsibility here. Phil wrote: > ph07: Yes, everything there is rises due to conditions, phil'05, > that's true. But thankfully, conditions can become very consistent > and reliable. This is the only way the first baby steps toward > liberation can be taken. And you should take note that the Buddha > *never* warned (as far as I know - perhaps someone will point it out > where he did) about the danger of having too much mindfulness. I > have nbever seen any sutta or heard any teaching other than Acharn > SUjin and her students warn about attachment involved in > mindfullness. > Ah, but just a minute. I think Phil'05 saw a clear distinction between the two: the importance of developing mindfulness, and the danger of attachment to having more mindfulness. He was able to appreciate that the latter was the more immediate concern for those of us who are interested in the teachings, because the former is there already; the problem is that it is there at a rather basic level and is only dimly grasped. So he was cool on all that. > The Buddha taught that energy, concentration, wisdom > and faith, the other four spiritual faculties, can be excessive at > times and need to be balanced (and he *did* teach to do so, > explicitly, you were misled into thinking that he didn't.) YOu've > been reading suttas in Samyutta Nikaya 35, I know, so you know about > the suttas in which he warned about the "calamity" that ensues when > the senses are not guarded. So how could you fail to see the danger > of having a relaxed attitude toward the danger of conceptual > thinking that runs free where it goes? Wake up, Bud. Don't become > uptight about it, no one need know but you, but at any moment in > which you are not mindful of where your thoughts are running, you > are inviting calamity. > Again, Phil'05 could see that the danger of unguarded sense-doors and of akusala in general is one thing, and one's present level of accumulated sati and other kusala that perform the guarding function is another. He did not see it as a relaxed attitude towards those dangers; rather as a matter of being realistic about his present accumulated tendencies. As I recall, he viewed the idea that there could be constantly-guarded sense-doors as being driven by the desire for immediate results in progress along the path. > The Buddha's last words were to be heedful, appamada. Is appamada > something that arises now and then when the conditions are right for > it? If that's what you think, you're leaving yourself open to > disaster. > But Phil'05 also appreciated the fact that while directed mindfulness might give the impression of less akusala in a day, it did nothing to change the mass of accumulated aksuala tendencies that are in fact the source of one's arising akusala. He accepted that in the long run only developed panna could effect any eradication of those accumulated tendencies. Perhaps he also thought that if by following a 'practice' of heedfulness one came to the view that one's akusala were somehow more in check than before, that could lead to some ugly stuff later. Not so naive, that Phil'05 ;-)) Jon #67548 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What is "genuine sati ?" jonoabb Hi RobK (and Phil) rjkjp1 wrote: > Dear Phil > The Venerable Dhammadharo was talking about sati of the eightfold > path, leading out of samsara. This type of sati, even at the very > beginning, is the province only of the Buddhas and their disciples. > > Anguttara Nikaya Chapter XIII > Suttai(124)p 165 Gradual sayings V > "Monks these ten states not yet arisen, arise not save in the > discipline of the Wayfarer. What ten? > Right view, ..RIGHT MINDFULNESS..." > > Sutta (127) Ending in Restraint > Monks these ten states end in restraint of lust, malice and delusion, > but only in the discipline of the Wayfarer.What ten? > Right view, ..RIGHT MINDFULNESS..." > > Sutta v(127)CONDUCIVE > Monks these ten states conduce to downright revulsion, to fading, > ending, calming, comprehension..to nibbana. But only in the disciplne > of the Wayfarer. What ten? > Right view, ..RIGHT MINDFULNESS..." > Thanks for the sutta quotes from AN (and there's a somewhat similar set of suttas in SN 45's (Maggasamyutta) - see CDB p.1533). What these suttas make very clear is, as you say, that the factors of the NEP cannot arise outside the dispensation of a Buddha. Thus, for example, concentration (including jhana) developed outside the context of the development of insight cannot be the path factor of Right Concentration. Jon #67549 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Astral Plane sarahprocter... Re-post ========= Dear Scott, James, Howard, Jon & all This is a very difficult topic to understand, I find. --- Scott Duncan wrote: > From Bh. Bodhi's translation of the Saama~n~naphala Sutta and > Commentaries (pp.171-172): > > "Knowledge of the Mind-made Body > (manomay'iddhi-~naa.na) > > 87. He creates another body having material form, mind-made, complete > in all its parts, not lacking any faculties. > > CY. 'Mind-made' (manomaya): produced by mind. 'Not lacking any > faculties': not deprived of any faculties by way of figure. For if > the possessor of supernormal power is white, then the form he creates > will also be white. If his earlobes are unpierced, the form will also > have earlobes which are unpierced. Thus it is similar to him in all > respects. > > N. SUB. CY. 'Not deprived of any faculties by way of figure > (sa.nthaana): it is completely by way of figures of the eyes, ears, > etc. For the created form has no sensitivity (to sense objects). > This statement shows that there is also no life faculty, etc. in the > created form. 'By way of figure': by way of the mere figure (in the > case of the eye) is similar to a lotus petal, not by way of the sense > faculty which (in the case of the eye) is the sensitivity capable of > receiving the impact of forms. .... Sarah: I remember being told that these powers/abilities such as divine eye, flying and so on are carried out by kamaavacara (sensuous plane) cittas conditioned by abhi~n~naa (supernormal powers)jhana citta. ... > 88. CY. ...But he method of creation here and the following five > kinds of direct knowledge - the modes of supernormal power etc. - have > been explained in full detail in the Visuddhimagga (Chapters XII and > XIII)..." > > I can add the Visuddhimagga if you are interested. ..... Sarah: Pls add anything else of particular relevance to this discussion - that would be interesting, if it doesn't involve too much typing! TIA. Metta, Sarah ======== #67550 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ghana sarahprocter... Re-post of message sent on Friday - ignore any duplicate if it appears! ================================= Hi Andrew (Scott& Larry), As Larry & Scott said, 'ghana' means 'compactness'. I've never heard of the four ghanas referred to below*. The fact that one is called 'kriya ghana' rather than 'kiriya', makes me wonder if it is a Pali textual source for this division? (certainly nothing to do with smell or ghaana:-)). The following is the closest that comes to mind: .... "But it is owing to not keeping what in mind, owing to non-penetration of what and owing to concealment of what that these characteristics [S: 3 characteristics of realities] do not appear? Firstly the characteristic of impermanence does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating rise and fall owing to its being concealed by continuity (santati). The characteristic of pain does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating continuous oppression and owing to its being concealed by the postures (iriyaapatha). The characteristic of no-self does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating the resolution into the various elements (naanaadhaatu-vinibbhoga) owing to its being concealed by compactness[S: GHANA]......... ....When resolving of the compact (ghanavinibbhoga) is effected by resolution into the various elements, the characteristic of no-self appears in accordance with its true essential nature." (Sammohavinodani. transl as 'Dispeller of Delusion', Class. of Bases, 243). **** S: I agree that it is on account of not 'resolving the compact', not understanding dhammas as elements that the various vipallasa arise -especially those connected with ditthi (wrong views). Thx for the interesting question. Metta, Sarah *--- Andrew wrote: >In Dr W F Jayasuriya's book, "The > Psychology and Philosophy of Buddhism: An Introduction to the > Abhidhamma", he refers to 4 "Densities or crowdings (Ghana)" and says > that they give rise to the Vipallasa. <...> > To fill you in a bit more, the Ghana obstruct "clear vision" and are: > 1 the density of Continuity or unbrokenness (santati ghana) > 2 the density of Whole (samuha ghana) > 3 the density of Function (kriya ghana) > 4 the density of Object (aramanna ghana) > > So, for example, we see things as continuous that are really > momentary and we see things as whole that are really units and we see > things as a function that are really lots of functions and we see > things as being "oneness in kind" that are not really so. <...> #67551 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (1) sarahprocter... Re-post (all from Friday) ============================= Hi Howard, Scott, Mike, Connie & all, --- upasaka@... wrote: > > .... > > S: As I said above, it's always an understanding of the > > anicca/dukkha/anatta *of dhammas* currently appearing. <...> Howard: > I've thought a bit more about this material, and I've decided > that I > was considering it wrongly. As I think about it, what happened to this > bhikkhuni was exactly what happened to many seasoned practitioners upon > hearing a > certain word of Dhamma, a "turning phrase" as the Zen folks call it. > Pa~n~natti > can serve as a trigger for the arising of a wisdom that is a deep, > transformative insight into the general truth of impermanence (or of > dukkha, or of anatta). > The wisdom induced was a profound knowing that any and every reality > underlying an appearance of solidity is, in fact, evanescent, without > stability, and > ungraspable. The burning food was but a trigger for a ready mind to be > turned > topsy-turvy, a breeze that shook the ripe fruit off the tree. ... S: (Like others), I think that what your wrote here was good and very much as I understand the text. As we know, by natural decisive-support condition, anything (here the burning curry)can be a condition for insight if all the right factors are in place. Scott, many thanks for the Pali and help with terms, given with Pruitt's translation. Very useful. With regard to your other note to Mike, I don't see any suggestion of kasina or jhana involved. I also don't see it as a matter of bringing an 'event to mind over and over' - I think it's all much more natural without any special recollecting and so on. Just 'my take', of course! It's very interesting to see the different contributions and a good team-effort I think. Connie, many thanks for the latest Sister(3) with helpful notes. I need to digest it first. Guys, do you have anything to add to it meanwhile? Metta, Sarah ======= #67552 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Astral Plane sarahprocter... RE-post ======== Dear potential Astral travellers, To add to what I just wrote, Nina's recent extract from ADL, ch22(#67465) adds a helpful summary of what we read about in Vism. about abhi~n~naas: "Those who have cultivated jhåna can develop the various types of ``direct knowledge'' (abhiññå). They should attain the highest stage of rúpa-jhåna (the fourth according to the fourfold system and the fifth according to the fivefold system) in the kasina meditations, and they should exercise ``complete mind-control in fourteen ways'' (described in the Visuddhimagga, chapter XII). For example, they should, with the different kasina meditations, be able to attain the subsequent stages of rúpa-jhåna in order and in reverse order. In developing the kinds of ``direct knowledge'' or ``supernormal powers'', one's concentration will become more advanced. The ``supernormal powers'' (abhiññå) are the following: 1. Magical powers such as passing through walls, walking on water, travelling through the air. 2. Divine ear, by which one hears sounds both heavenly and human, far and near. 3 Knowledge of the minds of other people. 4. Divine Eye, by which one sees the deceasing and rebirth of beings. 5. Remembrance of one's former lives. These are the five ``mundane supernormal powers''. However, there is a sixth power, which is realized by lokuttara citta, namely, the eradication of all defilements, when arahatship is attained. The sixth power is the greatest and in order to realize it insight has to be fully developed." Metta, Sarah --- sarah abbott wrote: > Sarah: I remember being told that these powers/abilities such as divine > eye, flying and so on are carried out by kamaavacara (sensuous plane) > cittas conditioned by abhi~n~naa (supernormal powers)jhana citta. #67553 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:20 pm Subject: Bill Z - re 'just joined' sarahprocter... RE-post ======== Hi Bill Z, When I replied about the reading, I had meant to also make a brief comment on what you wrote here: --- Bill wrote: > I will probably be somewhat quiet here at first. I plan on reading > through > some of the files, and past archives to get a feel for the type of > discussions the have occurred already. I don't want to be a burden > asking > questions that have already be covered or interrupt the flow of current > discussions. I just thought it would be rude of me to join and not say > hello. :) ... S: You're very considerate, but please don't ever consider it any kind of 'burden' to ask questions, interrupt or butt into any discussions. It's what we all do all the time :). Lots of topics come up repeatedly, but always with a slightly different focus or slant, depending on who's talking. I also understand if any newcomers prefer to 'listen in' for a while. Thank you again for letting us know of your presence and look f/w to talking more whenever. Metta, Sarah ======= #67554 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:21 pm Subject: Re: A Meaningful Sense of Me and Mine Re: [dsg] Identifying Wrong Views? sarahprocter... Re-post from Friday ======= Hi Howard (& Antony), --- upasaka@... wrote: > sarahprocterabbott@... writes: <..> > > but of course, when we say 'I was/am so miserable/happy', only right > > understanding can know at the time whether there is any wrong view of > self > > or not. > > > ========================= Howard: <..> > So, as I see it, if independent existence, self-existence and/or > substantial core, is read into such usage as "I", "me", "my", and > "mine", that is > reification of the person, that is atta-view, but if that is not read > into this > usage, and the usage pertains only to distinguishing namarupic streams, > it is > a valid usage. ... S: Agreed. As I said, only rt understanding at the time can know if there's any atta-view involved. Sometimes, it can be quite subtle. Metta, Sarah ====== #67555 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The arahant- and the bodhisattva-ideal The End jonoabb Hi Joop Could you please clarify what you mean by the 'Bodhisatta path'. Do you mean *being* a Bodhisatta, or do you mean *working towards becoming* one? Thanks. Jon Joop wrote: > Hallo all, interested in the path > > One of the sources I used in 67224, 67232 and 67333 was: > A few good men > The Bodhisattva path accoording 'The inquiry of Ugra' > by Jan Nattier (University of Hawai Press, 2003) > > ... > > I have been looking for a path in which compassion does play a > central role and have created my bodhisattva path. Of course I have > just started it. > > There is much more to say about this topic; I hope so because it's > the only one I want to discuss about now, beginning with the Bhikkhu > Bodhi essay. > > Metta > > Joop > #67556 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:26 pm Subject: Re-What is Meditation? sarahprocter... Re-post ======== Dear Joop, --- Joop wrote: > Dear Sarah, all > > Perhaps I forgot something in my answer to 'what is meditation': > > "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to > the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his > legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the > fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; > mindful he breathes out. " (DN 22) ... S: Do you understand that all 'meditators' need to do the same as this? What do you think of Herman's definition of meditation (#67377)? - "Under meditation I would include any act that is a deliberate holding of and attending to any objects in mind." Metta, Sarah ======= #67557 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] whatever sarahprocter... Re-post ======= Dear Joop, --- Joop wrote: > Sarah, > > Do you know that you have not yet responded on this message? ... S: Oops! Let's see: J:> > Every competent meditation teachers realizes that the objects of > > vipassanå and samatha are different. > > What I understood but perhaps I'm not competent: object of > vipassana > > is a ultimate reality (I'm not so happy with the term'object' as if > > one choses it; it happens) .... S: Yes. As you suggest, it's not chosen but has to be whatever nama or rupa is appearing at the present moment. It is appearing by virtue of being the object of the present cittas. ... J:>> is and STARTING-object of samatha is a > > conceptual reality. .... S: I don't know why you stress 'STARTING-object'. (Except for a couple of exceptions concerning objects of arupa jhanas), the object in the development of samatha is ALWAYS a concept. Metta, Sarah p.s You asked a question about Nina's aim which I've left because you can ask her directly now she's back. I referred to her post because I thought it was relevant to the discussion, that was all. =============================== #67558 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The arahant- and the bodhisattva-ideal The End sarahprocter... last re-post from Friday ======================== Dear Joop & Herman, I think Herman raised some good general questions about reconciling 'the belief in paths they are able to choose, and beliefs in anatta....'. The same occurred to me when reading a couple of your interesting installments. A little more: --- Joop wrote: > Hallo all, interested in the path > > One of the sources I used in 67224, 67232 and 67333 was: > A few good men > The Bodhisattva path accoording 'The inquiry of Ugra' > by Jan Nattier (University of Hawai Press, 2003) > > 'The inquiry of Ugra' is a text composed after the Tipitaka was > completed but before the first Mahayana Sutta appeared. > It suggests that in monasteries there were monks who 'did' the > arahant-path and a few monks who 'did' the arahant-path. > Of special interest however is that in 'The inquiry of Ugra' it's > also described how a layman could go this path; that was not easy > because the lay bodhisattva should be detached from people and things. ... S: This would conflict with some of the Theravada texts which clearly indicate the very special stipulations/conditions for the path of bodhisatta. (See under 'bodhisatta' in U.P. or ask me to re-post if interested). For a start, the particular vow has to be made in the presence of a live Samma-sambuddha. .... > I have been looking for a path in which compassion does play a > central role and have created my bodhisattva path. Of course I have > just started it. .... S: For me, compassion also plays a very important role in the teachings and development of the path. For example, you find it very negative to read about the great amount of akusala accumulated or about the latent tendencies for such. For me, I find it a condition for greater understanding and compassion towards others. No wonder we all act badly at times, no wonder there is so much ignorance, hatred and greed around all the time. Everyone, like us, is lost in samsara, occasionally touching on a right path, but most the time following a wrong path. And when we appreciate that these are just different cittas performing according to conditions, I think it inspires greater compassion still. On and on, cittas producing new kamma which will bring its own results without any escape except through the development of the path. By developing the path, we help others too in our own ways. I don't think it matters what name we give to the path - the important thing is the understanding of present dhammas in order that the path is followed. ... > There is much more to say about this topic; I hope so because it's > the only one I want to discuss about now, beginning with the Bhikkhu > Bodhi essay. .... S: I did have a (quick) look at the essay and I understand how and why he is approaching the topic in this way and the conclusions he's reached. In any case, I'm grateful to you for having introduced the essay and raised this topic so sincerely. I don't mind discussing it further, but I doubt you'll like my comments:). Metta, Sarah p.s On 'Merit', lots in U.P. under 'Merit - bases of (Punna Kiriya Vatthu)'. I think compassion can be included in many of these such as under dana, sila, bhavana, service, sharing of merit, expounding the Dhamma. If 'Merit' has come to have other connotations, then of course, it's not what is meant here and in the texts. Again, happy to discuss further. ======= #67559 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ghana sarahprocter... Hi Andrew (& Scott), --- sarah abbott wrote: > As Larry & Scott said, 'ghana' means 'compactness'. I've never heard of > the four ghanas referred to below*. The fact that one is called 'kriya > ghana' rather than 'kiriya', makes me wonder if it is a Pali textual > source for this division? .... S: I hadn't read the quote Scott posted (#67482) when I wrote this (on Friday). Clearly the Pm quote distinguishes the ghanas as the Dr referred to. I also notice that in both the Vism and the Sammohavinodani (which I quoted from), 'ghana' is spelt in this way. Also, see more under 'Posture' (Iriyaapatha) in U.P. for more on the topic of the 'covering up' of the ti-lakkana. Metta, Sarah ========= #67560 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:21 am Subject: Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing upasaka_howard Hi, all - Just a brief follow-up disclaimer: I'm not presenting the semi-formal interval theory I discussed as something I accept as sure fact. It is just that the "passing through nothingness" element of change has great appeal to me. What I *do* tend to believe is that 1) the freeze-frame theory has significant problems to it, due to actions requiring (more than zero-duration) time for their execution, and that 2) impermanence does not require a freeze-frame setup and precise starting points and ending points, but only requires that nothing remains forever; i.e., whatever is will eventually not be. With metta, Howard #67561 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:14 am Subject: Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation philofillet Hi Jon > Since it was one of my messages that prompted Phil'05's ridiculous, > misguided comments ;-)), I feel a sense of responsibility here. Ph '07: You shouldn't. It could've been any student of Acharn Sujin. > > > > Ah, but just a minute. I think Phil'05 saw a clear distinction between > the two: the importance of developing mindfulness, and the danger of > attachment to having more mindfulness. He was able to appreciate that > the latter was the more immediate concern for those of us who are > interested in the teachings, because the former is there already; the > problem is that it is there at a rather basic level and is only dimly > grasped. Ph '07: I still haven't heard or read a strong warning against wanting to have too much mindfulness. Perhaps I don't understand what mindfulness means, and am confusing it with appamada. But while I appreciate what Rob posted the other day about genuine sati and see that it is important for people of advanced understanding, for this beginner there is no concern about being attached to sati. I think the day I hear my current sources of Dhamma guidance say something about it, or read something about it in a sutta, I will become more concerned. I guess that could happen any day now. > . > > > > Again, Phil'05 could see that the danger of unguarded sense-doors and of > akusala in general is one thing, and one's present level of accumulated > sati and other kusala that perform the guarding function is another. He > did not see it as a relaxed attitude towards those dangers; rather as a > matter of being realistic about his present accumulated tendencies. Ph '07: I think Phil '05 thought it was very sexy and exciting to be tapping in to such a refined understanding of the way dhammas are experienced by people of developed understanding. This interest overwhelmed his attention to the suttanta, in which it is ever-so- clear that mundane factors of mindfulness. He believed that it was of no great import if there was a moment of akusala, as long as it was understood that that akusala was a conditioned dhamma, rising due to conditions, not-self, etc. That was very sexy to Phil '05. Now I have paid more attention to Anguttara Nikaya. It is laid out there in an indisputably clear way (I certainly won't get in any debates about it) that before one tries to see into "one's present level of accumulated sati and other kusala that perform the guarding function" there is guarding to be done. The guarding to be done is heightened by daily intentional activities such as meditation and daily recollections. It is not subtle, or refined, or sexy. You just do it. And as a result of the wholesome (whether technically "kusala" or not) habits that form from these intentional activities urged by the Buddha in the suttanta (there are so many, the discrimination between wholesome and unwholesome thoughts in MN 19 was one that got me started, now there are dozens that I turn to on different days) the guarding develops. As the guarding develops, one's behaviour becomes more morally sound. This leads to concentration developing, which leads to insight. This is not a disputable point, as far as Phil '07 is concerned. It may be too difficult to understand a single sutta, but to assume that modern people are unable to understand a dozen suttas that all say the same thing is a bit of a stretch that Phil '07 won't make anymore, for better or worse! :) As > I recall, he viewed the idea that there could be constantly- guarded > sense-doors as being driven by the desire for immediate results in > progress along the path. Ph: As I think I posted yesterday, he was wrong - crystal clear wrong. Now he knows that the Buddha did *not* warn about wanting results. In the short term, one becomes a more emotionally-stable, virtuous person, a happier person. And from there comes the development that Phil '05 found so sexy. It was too soon for him to be interested in panna that penetrates the characteristics of realities. > > > The Buddha's last words were to be heedful, appamada. Is appamada > > something that arises now and then when the conditions are right for > > it? If that's what you think, you're leaving yourself open to > > disaster. > > > > But Phil'05 also appreciated the fact that while directed mindfulness > might give the impression of less akusala in a day, it did nothing to > change the mass of accumulated aksuala tendencies that are in fact the > source of one's arising akusala. He accepted that in the long run only > developed panna could effect any eradication of those accumulated > tendencies. Ph: See above. To believe that panna can developed without following the training laid out by the Buddha is a fantasy. A very nice and sexy one, one that had Phil '05 in a sleepless frenzy the first night he came across Abhidhamma. This is Phil's story. Other people are at different stages on the path. There are beginners on the path. > Perhaps he also thought that if by following a 'practice' of heedfulness > one came to the view that one's akusala were somehow more in check than > before, that could lead to some ugly stuff later. > > Not so naive, that Phil'05 ;-)) Ph: Jon, and all, I have a real doozy of an anecdote. I can't get into it tonight. Something that happened two weeks ago, something really horrific. A horrific transgression. I guess it'll be the most horrible confessional post in the storied history of DSG!!!! I knew that something like that would happen some day. I'm not an idiot. It strengthened my faith in the checking power of appamada, though, for reasons that I will expand on when I post about it. (Oooooh! What a preview!!!!!) I'll probably post on it in a couple of weeks when the intentional practice that emerged from it has been going on long enough to give a report on. I'll leave the last word to you, Jon. Thanks for your post, and the interest you show in me. Metta, Phil #67562 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditation philofillet Hi Howard > No, actually it's not necessary for jhanas. There are numerous > meditation subjects for that. In fact, a mantra (Pali 'manta') will work. I know that > for sure. Oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification. I don't know very much about jhanas. But of course now that I think of it, there are the brahma- vharas, foulness of the body, the kasinas, so many.....40 in all? The idea of mantra scares me a little bit because here in Japan there are the so-called Buddhist sects like Soka Gakkai who place crazy faith in the power of chanting sutras. But if you have done it, as you suggest above, I know it is with far better understanding than those misguided folks have. Metta, Phil #67563 From: "matheesha" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Letters on Vipassana 5, no 5. matheesha333 Hi Jon, Nina, Yes, that does clarify the situation. The reasoning behind my question was that someone may be going into jhana without much control for many years even if he does not develop the masteries. So he could potentially gain insight without having the masteries. It is a bit like the person who wakes up in the morning every day and the person who has trained himself to wake up at a particular time every morning. Both have the same experience - the latter has mastered it. So I was left wondering why intention was an important ingrediant for vipassana (without mastery the jhana experience happens without intention). with metta Matheesha #67564 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:36 am Subject: Thinking about Dhamma ( was Re: An Interesting Meditation philofillet Hi again Let me clarify a bit > As > > I recall, he viewed the idea that there could be constantly- > guarded > > sense-doors as being driven by the desire for immediate results in > > progress along the path. Ph: Just to clarify that I understand what the Buddha meant when he taught guarding the sense doors, usually. Except for some passages in the vinaya (?) or commentaries in which the monk is told to keep his gaze an ox-plough's length, guarding the sense doors is referring to what happens after the sense door has already been stimulated in a way that tends to lead towards proliferation. So guarding the sense doors is more about cutting off proliferation (in more modern terms "not going there") than trying not to see certain objects, for example. That is not what I'm talking about. And I don't think I have said that "there could be constantly-guarded sense-doors" for a worldling. I'm not that foolish. The Buddha urges us to strive in that direction, that's all, and I will. Metta, Phil > Ph: As I think I posted yesterday, he was wrong - crystal clear > wrong. Now he knows that the Buddha did *not* warn about wanting > results. In the short term, one becomes a more emotionally-stable, > virtuous person, a happier person. And from there comes the > development that Phil '05 found so sexy. It was too soon for him to > be interested in panna that penetrates the characteristics of > realities. > #67565 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina Hi TG, It's good to see that you are still posting, and thanks for these comments. On 28/01/07, TGrand458@... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/27/2007 3:38:09 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > As I see it, the absence that is nibbana is a no-thing-ness, not a > > nothingness. It is the free, open, ungraspable nature of reality. "There" > no > > 'entities' ever arise or cease, but I think a dead, undifferentiated blob > view of > > nibbana is not what I expect to be the reality. > > > > The way I see it is that absence is dependent on consciousness, so > nibbana is absence only to consciousness. But nibbana itself is fully > present. And certainly dead or alive wouldn't apply to it. But nibbana > doesn't know anything, let alone itself. And any experiential knowing > of nibbana is a negation, a denial of nibbana. > > Kind Regards > > Herman > > > > Hi Herman and Howard > > Nice stuff too. I think I'm closer to Herman on this one. IMO, nihilism is > only a factor of those with self view. For those beyond self view, nihilism > is a non-sequitur. With the no-self mentality of an arahat, how or why > would a mind be concerned with non-existence or existence? Is not the opposition > to non-existence a form of grasping after existence, i.e., self? > > Buddha describes Nibbana as the end of consciousness... > > > "By the utter destruction of delight in existence, > By the extinction of perception and consciousness, > By the cessation and appeasement of feelings, > It is thus, friend, that I know for beings – > Emancipation, release, seclusion." > (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 1, pg. 90) and.... > The Buddha describes the "death result" of an enlightened (arahat) monk, > Ven.Dabba Mallaputta… > The body disintegrated, perception ceased, > All feelings became cool, > Mental activities were calmed, > And consciousness came to an end. > (The Buddha . . . The Udana & The Itivuttaka, pg. 116, 8.9) > In the above descriptions it doesn't sound like a whole lot is going on. > ;-) That said, I don't know if Howard's right or not. > TG > If I'm not mistaken, in the Buddha's description of the All, which is being discussed in another thread, Nibbana is conspicuous by it's absence. Which also confirms what you are saying here. Nibbana is not experienced. Kind Regards Herman #67567 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 1/28/07 4:19:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: > Hi Howard > > > > No, actually it's not necessary for jhanas. There are numerous > >meditation subjects for that. In fact, a mantra (Pali 'manta') will > work. I know that > >for sure. > > Oh, ok. Thanks for the clarification. I don't know very much about > jhanas. But of course now that I think of it, there are the brahma- > vharas, foulness of the body, the kasinas, so many.....40 in all? > > The idea of mantra scares me a little bit because here in Japan there > are the so-called Buddhist sects like Soka Gakkai who place crazy faith > in the power of chanting sutras. But if you have done it, as you > suggest above, I know it is with far better understanding than those > misguided folks have. > > Metta, > > Phil > > ========================== It happens that a mantra once worked beautifully for me. It might not do so now. Also, I do suspect that a poor choice of mantra (perhaps with a sound combination inappropiate in some way for one's particular mentality or biosystem, or one which inadvertently suggests a meaning, even subliminally, that is not appropriate for one in some way) could be something to be concerned about. The breath as subject, I believe, is universally harmless except I suppose for someone with breathing problems (COPD or asthma) of for the rare person for whom there is some psychological association with it that is upsetting. Attending to general bodily sensations and/or bodily deportment (as primary category of attention) seems eminently harmless as well. I generally use the breath as primary object during sitting meditation and mindfulness of the body as primary object at other times. In that regard, I like the Anapanasati Sutta and Kayagata-sati Sutta as my "meditation manuals". They fit my in-tandem preference perfectly, and they are "complete" approaches. With metta, Howard #67568 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:07 am Subject: First mindfulness of the body? ( was [dsg] Re: Meditation) philofillet Hi all (and Howard) I heard Bhikkhu Bodhi refer to a sutta in which the Buddha says that mindfulness of the body must be established for the other three foundations to be established, or something like that. i.e the pre- eminence of mindfulness of the body. Does anyone know what sutta that might be? Does the satipatthana sutta state or imply that? (I will go and look now.) Thanks in advance. Metta, Phil > I generally use the > breath as primary object during sitting meditation and mindfulness of the body > as primary object at other times In that regard, I like the Anapanasati Sutta > and Kayagata-sati Sutta as my "meditation manuals". They fit my in- tandem > preference perfectly, and they are "complete" approaches. #67569 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and TG) - In a message dated 1/28/07 6:00:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > If I'm not mistaken, in the Buddha's description of the All, which is > being discussed in another thread, Nibbana is conspicuous by it's > absence. Which also confirms what you are saying here. Nibbana is not > experienced. > ==================== Notice that samsara isn't mentioned in the Sabba Sutta either. As I see it, the actual nature of the all, the interdependency and emptiness and ungraspability and vast openness, is nibbana, and its defiled and mistaken appearance as a collection of independent, substantial, self-existent entities is samsara. Nibbana is not experirnced by us, but that is because we are under the thrall of illusion. With metta, Howard #67570 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:27 am Subject: Re: First mindfulness of the body? ( was [dsg] Re: Meditation) upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 1/28/07 9:11:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, philco777@... writes: > Hi all (and Howard) > ====================== Ah, see? There *is* something beyond "the all"! It's me! LOLOL! With metta, Howard #67571 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: elements of experience scottduncan2 Hi Herman, Hmmm. H: "...The suggestion seems to be that there is a real reality underlying the perverted reality. Is that your reading as well?" H: "To say that perception is perverted does not deny the reality of perception, it rather suggests that perception is real enough." Perhaps you could elaborate the distinction you are making between 'real reality' and 'perverted reality' because this is what I find problematic, in particular the notion that one 'reality' underlies another 'reality'. I don't think that there are two realities in operation at the same time. I think that that which is 'real' (one reality) can be occluded or obscured or hidden. I think the factors whose function is occulsion, obscuration, or hiding (aviijaa, tanhaa, manaa) are real. This level of 'reality' is one and not two. I guess one could say that there is illusion and what is real, but I'm not sure if this is what you are saying. In your second statement I think you've shifted the focus off two realities and on to perception itself. I'd say 'perception' is 'real' since citta and the mental factors whose function is 'perception' (say sa~n~na cetasika, for one) are real (that is, are paramattha dhammas). I'd still say there is only one 'reality'. I think that later philosophical offshoots of 'Buddhism' use this notion (of two realities) to substantiate the idea that Nibbaana, for example, is always present and just needs to be uncovered or some such - I'm not sure. Sincerely, Scott. #67572 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for the reply. I'm happy to be able to discuss this with you. N: "We believe that we have understood intellectually the difference between nama and rupa, but I find that I have not considered enough their characteristics as they appear now." Can you say more about this? I want to understand this more completely. I'm likely mislead by the pedagogical device of 'stages' to be wondering as I am. Can you say more about 'stages'? I'm sure that the first 'stage' of insight is not merely an intellectual understanding, although I think this is likely part of it. A willingness to accept the distinction between naama and ruupa as taught by the Buddha must be conditioned since, for example, some might understand it intellectually and not accept it. Of course, this 'understanding' is obviously limited. I guess it would not actually even be 'understanding' would it? N: "Colours are so different, so are sounds. There is a reason for this. Colour arises in a group of rupas, consisting of the four Great Elements and other rupas. The composition of the rupas in such a group is different all the time: the solidity or hardness may be stronger, or the heat may be stronger and this conditions the other rupas such as colour in that group to be such or such. These details remind me that there are conditions for colour to be different all the time. All these details help to cling less to an idea of my colour, or I own the colour, or colour lasts." Or even that this colour apearing now has a particular name (say 'red'). The concepts proliferate quickly. Can you say more about how one ruupa in a composite at a given moment can be stronger than others at that same moment? What constitutes more or less in this case? N: "Colour could not appear now if there were no citta. Citta can only experience it if colour impinges on the eyesense. We may try to find out the difference between nama and rupa but then we are on the wrong way: there is clinging. The notion of nimitta helps very much not to try to fix one's attention on a specific nama or rupa. Each nama and rupa arises and falls away very rapidly and what remains is the sign, nimitta. We learn that it is impossible to try to be aware of a specific nama or rupa in order to know the difference of nama and rupa, they fall away so rapidly." So what might the experiential aspect of this knowledge be like (the perennial question of amateurs)? Its not based on 'inside/outside' or 'far/near' or any such dichotomy. Its not assisted by sub-vocal commentary, 'This is naama, that is ruupa'. It doesn't include a determination to act such that it becomes clear. I'd guess its just seeing and the seen, hearing and the heard, etc. now, although in writing this I'm imagining hearing Kh. Sujin's voice saying so (naama or nimitta?). Sincerely, Scott. #67573 From: connie Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:55 am Subject: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing nichiconn Howard: Notice that samsara isn't mentioned in the Sabba Sutta either. Connie: What is samsara then, apart from the nama and rupa mentioned in the sutta? peace, c. #67574 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Astral Plane sarahprocter... Dear potential Astral travellers, To add to what I just wrote, Nina's recent extract from ADL, ch22(#67465) adds a helpful summary of what we read about in Vism. about abhi~n~naas: "Those who have cultivated jhåna can develop the various types of ``direct knowledge'' (abhiññå). They should attain the highest stage of rúpa-jhåna (the fourth according to the fourfold system and the fifth according to the fivefold system) in the kasina meditations, and they should exercise ``complete mind-control in fourteen ways'' (described in the Visuddhimagga, chapter XII). For example, they should, with the different kasina meditations, be able to attain the subsequent stages of rúpa-jhåna in order and in reverse order. In developing the kinds of ``direct knowledge'' or ``supernormal powers'', one's concentration will become more advanced. The ``supernormal powers'' (abhiññå) are the following: 1. Magical powers such as passing through walls, walking on water, travelling through the air. 2. Divine ear, by which one hears sounds both heavenly and human, far and near. 3 Knowledge of the minds of other people. 4. Divine Eye, by which one sees the deceasing and rebirth of beings. 5. Remembrance of one's former lives. These are the five ``mundane supernormal powers''. However, there is a sixth power, which is realized by lokuttara citta, namely, the eradication of all defilements, when arahatship is attained. The sixth power is the greatest and in order to realize it insight has to be fully developed." Metta, Sarah --- sarah abbott wrote: > Sarah: I remember being told that these powers/abilities such as divine > eye, flying and so on are carried out by kamaavacara (sensuous plane) > cittas conditioned by abhi~n~naa (supernormal powers)jhana citta. #67575 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 1/28/07 10:57:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, connieparker@... writes: > Connie: What is samsara then, apart from the nama and rupa mentioned in > the sutta? > ======================= Samsara is the state of dominance by the three poisons, attempting to cling to what is ungraspable, to chase after what is unattainable, to hold in place what will not remain, and generally being tossed about on an ocean of ignorance, craving, and aversion. It's primary basis lies in ignorance - seeing permanence, independence, and substance when the reality is one of impermanence, interdependence, and emptiness. With metta, Howard #67576 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 'We are here to learn the dhamma' scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, This seems hard to respond to for some reason. S: "I think this understanding is very 'brave' (for lack of a better word). Having clung so dearly to our experiences for aeons and aeons (or even just in this life-time), to appreciate the insignificance, 'the bubble', and the strong attachment as being unhealthy rather than healthy takes a lot of courage. Anumodana (mudita) in this!" Thanks. This was an ongoing process and it seemed fraught with conceptualisation - actually more dreaming about things. The more studying and consideration, the more clearly an understanding of things. This waxed and waned. S: "...or rather 'has' arisen now? I was listening to a reminder about how 'firm remembrance' (sa~n~naa) of dhammas is the proximate condition for sati (of satipatthana) to arise. Now there are dhammas, is the (kusala) sanna firm enough to condition sati? I understand there has to be such firm remembrance of dhammas on and on and on, otherwise there's more forgetfulness and we're back to taking this moment for someone or something, rather than just visible object or whatever is appearing." Yeah, I appreciate this clarification. How do you think that the 'firm remembrance' that arises now relates to an 'original' arising? Is this along the same lines as, say, the kasina as it relates to the actual clay device the perception of which leads to the mental object? S: "This is why talking more about seeing, visible object and other dhammas can condition sati now. As we read in the Atth. and Vism (XIV, 141), sati has 'the characteristic of not wobbling' and the function 'not to forget'. '...like a pillar because it is firmly founded, or as like a door-keeper because it guards the eye-door, and so on.' note 64: "'Apilaapana' ('not wobbling') is the steadying of an object, the remembering and not forgetting it, keeping it as immovable as a stone instead of letting it go bobbing about like a pumpkin in water'(Pm 487)." This is like the discussion in Sisters where the event of the burning of the curry becomes object of sa~n~naa and sati 'on and on'. Anyway, I'd like to hear more about this. Sincerely, Scott. #67577 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/28/2007 8:57:02 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, connieparker@... writes: Howard: Notice that samsara isn't mentioned in the Sabba Sutta either. Connie: What is samsara then, apart from the nama and rupa mentioned in the sutta? peace, c. Hi Connie I think you're exactly right. TG #67578 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 4:51 am Subject: Fwd: [yg-alerts] Yahoo! Groups Mail Delivery Issues, January 25 sarahprocter... Dear All, Just to let you know that there has been a yahoo problem today resulting in long delays, so if your posts aren't showing or have been very delayed, you're not alone! For a start I wrote several up to 6 hrs ago and none have come through yet. Patience! We rec'd the yahoo message below. Metta, Sarah --- Carole McManus wrote: > Subject: [yg-alerts] Yahoo! Groups Mail Delivery Issues, January 25 > > Due to a database-related issue earlier today, we are experiencing a > Groups email backlog. Delivery of messages posted between 7 a.m. and 4 > p.m. (Pacific time) today, January 25, may be delayed several hours. > > Messages posted now are being processed through our backup mail > servers, so they will be delivered immediately. While our primary > servers catch up, Groups users may see messages that were posted > earlier today delivered out of order. > > We apologize for the inconvenience this may cause you and your group > members. > > The Yahoo! Groups Team #67579 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 7:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/28/2007 9:35:06 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: > Connie: What is samsara then, apart from the nama and rupa mentioned in > the sutta? > ======================= Samsara is the state of dominance by the three poisons, attempting to cling to what is ungraspable, to chase after what is unattainable, to hold in place what will not remain, and generally being tossed about on an ocean of ignorance, craving, and aversion. It's primary basis lies in ignorance - seeing permanence, independence, and substance when the reality is one of impermanence, interdependence, and emptiness. With metta, Howard Both Howard and Connie are right. But Howard seems to be trying to somehow bypass Connie's simple and clear statement. Indeed... nama and rupa is the framework for what Howard is describing. TG #67580 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:41 pm Subject: study with friends nilovg Hi Howard, Here I am again, just opened the link. I like this very much: sharing, mutual respect. That is how I feel it. Nina. #67581 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Roots jwromeijn Hallo Ken, Your answer does mean anything to me! An advantage of our discussion is that I don't try to convince me and you don't try (or does less and less) to convince me. We help each other in formulating as good as possible our ideas. K: "What do you totally disagree with? My answer? The Abhidhamma? The Foundation's interpretation of the Abhidhamma? Are you sure you understand what those things are before you disagree with them?" J: My answer will surprise you, it is: No, I'm not sure I understand those things. I'm sure they don't help me in this period in my spiritual life. So better than saying "I don't agree with your answers" I can say: "The ideas of Abhidhamma, Foundation-variant are not relevant to me" K: "Pannatti is not real". J: That's not correct, I think, from discussions with for example Jon and Sarah I understand the idea is: there are two kind of realities: ultimate and conventional (conceptual) realities. K: "You believe that, according to the Dhamma, you do not exist but other people do exist. That is so far from my understanding of the Dhamma that I don't even know how to discuss it." J: I will try to help you. I did not say that "I do not exist"; I intented to say: the idea that there exists an "I" is a dangerous illusion. The difference is my reasoning is not ontological but soteriological. The Buddha did not (in my view) made absolute statements how "things are" but tried to help in the only topic that is important: the ending of suffering. That's why I say: other beings exist, of course, that 's a conventional reality but my idea that other beings exist is not dangerous for my path to awakening; it's even wholesome because it insipres me to be compassionate (only idiots have compassion for illusions) In the certainty that I have not convinced you, With metta Joop #67582 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] study with friends upasaka_howard Hi, Nina, and all - My original post to you was offlist, so folks probably don't know what you are addressing. Folks, what I had sent Nina was an article from the Jewish perspective about the Jewish equivalent of kalyanamitta. I didn't send my post on DSG, becuase I thought it might be slightly off-topic. With metta, Howard -----Original Message----- From: vangorko@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 3:41 PM Subject: [dsg] study with friends Hi Howard, Here I am again, just opened the link. I like this very much: sharing, mutual respect. That is how I feel it. Nina. #67583 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: elements of experience egberdina Hi Scott, Thanks for your reply. On 29/01/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > Hi Herman, > > Hmmm. > > H: "...The suggestion seems to be that there is a real reality > underlying the perverted reality. Is that your reading as well?" > > H: "To say that perception is perverted does not deny the reality of > perception, it rather suggests that perception is real enough." > > Perhaps you could elaborate the distinction you are making between > 'real reality' and 'perverted reality' because this is what I find > problematic, in particular the notion that one 'reality' underlies > another 'reality'. I also don't for a moment believe there are two realities in operation. I was simply drawing out the implications of MN01. > > I don't think that there are two realities in operation at the same > time. I think that that which is 'real' (one reality) can be occluded > or obscured or hidden. I think the factors whose function is > occulsion, obscuration, or hiding (aviijaa, tanhaa, manaa) are real. > This level of 'reality' is one and not two. I guess one could say > that there is illusion and what is real, but I'm not sure if this is > what you are saying. According to MN01, there is perception and direct knowing. I don't know if the suggestion is that there is "one" "external" reality, and that the difference is in the mode of being conscious of it, or that one who perceives lives in a different reality to the one who knows directly. (Personally, I don't buy the notion of an external reality, reality is simply what is experienced.) > > In your second statement I think you've shifted the focus off two > realities and on to perception itself. I'd say 'perception' is 'real' > since citta and the mental factors whose function is 'perception' (say > sa~n~na cetasika, for one) are real (that is, are paramattha dhammas). > I'd still say there is only one 'reality'. > Do you then think that two people can experience the same rupa? > I think that later philosophical offshoots of 'Buddhism' use this > notion (of two realities) to substantiate the idea that Nibbaana, for > example, is always present and just needs to be uncovered or some such > - I'm not sure. Neither am I. Thanks and Kind Regards Herman #67584 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina Hi Howard, On 29/01/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Herman (and TG) - > > In a message dated 1/28/07 6:00:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > If I'm not mistaken, in the Buddha's description of the All, which is > > being discussed in another thread, Nibbana is conspicuous by it's > > absence. Which also confirms what you are saying here. Nibbana is not > > experienced. > > > ==================== > Notice that samsara isn't mentioned in the Sabba Sutta either. As I > see it, the actual nature of the all, the interdependency and emptiness and > ungraspability and vast openness, is nibbana, and its defiled and mistaken > appearance as a collection of independent, substantial, self-existent entities is > samsara. Nibbana is not experirnced by us, but that is because we are under the > thrall of illusion. Samsara is a collective noun for any configuration of namas and rupas. Nibbana is neither nama nor rupa in the Theravadan scheme of things IMO. Kind Regards Herman #67585 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:05 pm Subject: Re: Warm Welcomes from/to CRAZY WISODOM jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Good Morning Joop, > > A staunch proliferater of the buddha's teachings. Glad to have your > enquirery. :-) > >... Hallo Colette I'm sorry this is really to much for me. Metta Joop #67586 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:08 pm Subject: Lachen und Weinen (Was: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) jwromeijn Hallo Jon, (James) Jon: Even in the conventional language of the suttas, 'karuna' is a reference to kusala mind-states. … To the extent that any "compassionate act" is performed with aksuala mind-states, it is not to be aspired to, and does not form part of the Buddha's exhortation to us, as I see it. Joop: Of course not; a compassionate act performed with akusala mind- states is a controdictio in terminis (English: contradiction in terms) Jon: I am not saying there is no relation between the conventional and the ultimate. What I meant in that post was that the conventional idea of 'having compassion' includes what in Dhamma terms would be akusala mind-states. Generally speaking, the distinction between kusala and akusala is not understood, and this leads to the unwitting development of akusala. Joop: Now I understand and we nearly agree ! The only thing is that also in conventional language akusala compassion does not exist. Jon: I thought James again put it nicely when he said: "The arahant can recognize the suffering of another and want to alleviate that suffering, but he/she won't personally feel that suffering. Crying comes from self-pity, not compassion for others." Joop: Yes, James can put things nice (sometimes). But apart of the 'crying' theme (anathema now) I want to know what the term "recognize" means exactly, is there a sense with which one recognizes? I will call that: empathy, being touched by. Metta Joop #67587 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The arahant- and the bodhisattva-ideal The End jwromeijn Hallo Jon Jon: Could you please clarify what you mean by the 'Bodhisatta path'. Do you mean *being* a Bodhisatta, or do you mean *working towards becoming* one? Thanks. Joop: I mean: working towards Mahayana texts are not always clear (to me); sometime it is: A bodhisattva is somebody who works towards becoming a Buddha. But it is my humbleness that I hesitate to say straight: I want to get a Buddha. Metta Joop #67588 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] whatever jwromeijn Dear Sarah, Thanks for your messages (plural) about 'meditation' to me. This moment I think: meditation can better be done than discussed. I don't want to repeat what I said before on this topic. Perhaps a fresh start, with an useful entry, later. Metta Joop #67589 From: "Joop" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 1:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The arahant- and the bodhisattva-ideal The End jwromeijn Dear Sarah >> Of special interest however is that in 'The inquiry of Ugra' it's >> also described how a layman could go this path; that was not easy >> because the lay bodhisattva should be detached from people and things. ... S: This would conflict with some of the Theravada texts which clearly indicate the very special stipulations/conditions for the path of bodhisatta. (See under 'bodhisatta' in U.P. or ask me to re-post if interested). For a start, the particular vow has to be made in the presence of a live Samma-sambuddha. J: I know you. Of course I have looked in UP before approaching you. I'm afraid that wehen you say 'Theravda texts' you partly or totally think on commentaties? And of course 'The inquiry of Ugra' is not a orthodox Theravada text: neither Jan Nattier nor I states that; still this path is attractive to me. S: I did have a (quick) look at the (Bhikku Bodhi) essay and I understand how and why he is approaching the topic in this way and the conclusions he's reached. In any case, I'm grateful to you for having introduced the essay and raised this topic so sincerely. I don't mind discussing it further, but I doubt you'll like my comments) J: Why not; maybe they give me a good chance to make some sweeping statements against orthodoxy? S: p.s On 'Merit', lots in U.P. under 'Merit - bases of (Punna Kiriya Vatthu)'. I think compassion can be included in many of these such as under dana, sila, bhavana, service, sharing of merit, expounding the Dhamma. If 'Merit' has come to have other connotations, then of course, it's not what is meant here and in the texts. J: I know you, of course I have looked in UP before approaching you. My conclusion, after reading them is: I prefer to be a buddhist without the "merit"-concept. The disadvantage of it is: expecting something (good kamma, better rebirth) back; I prefer to be compassionate for its own sake without expecting a reward. Metta Joop #67590 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/28/07 4:03:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Samsara is a collective noun for any configuration of namas and rupas. > ========================= I don't think so. Samsara, or wandering, is a realm of defilement. The Buddha, IMO, prior to his death, was already beyond samsara. With metta, Howard #67591 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:11 pm Subject: Re: Lachen und Weinen (Was: Re: [dsg] Meditation (again) egberdina Hi Jon, On 28/01/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi Herman > > This reminds me of an earlier post of yours where you wrote something to > the effect that the person who has extinguished all craving would lack > the motivation to do anything at all (including, I believe, to feed and > support themselves -- I think you were suggesting they would just lie > there in a motionless lump! ;-)). I thought it was a very interesting > point. > > I suppose it is not wrong to characterise every action as effecting a > change the way things are, but I think it misses the point. Change is > part and parcel of samsara, since it occurs regardless of human > intervention anyway. Merely to be alive is to be changing things ;-)) > > More importantly, though, the state of consciousness is different from > the vegetative state ;-)). Consciousness comes with intention, feeling, > memory and other factors of experiencing, and the enlightened being's > consciousness is conditioned by these factors in the same way that yours > or mine is (but without the presence of unwholesome roots). > Presumably the enlightened person lacks the craving for existence, and non-existence. It was my understanding that enlightenment results in SOD (sudden onset death) unless they join the sangha (which qualification seems a bit magical, at least I certainly don't understand it). > The consequence of not acting to support and maintain the body would be > most unpleasant, not to mention painful for the person concerned, and > even an arahant finds pain unwelcome (but without having aversion > towards it). > Is it reasonable to say then that an arahant still acts to avoid pain? It seems that the avoidance of pain is guided by an aversion to pain, and that they go hand in hand. > And then there is the force of accumulated tendencies. To get back to > the subject of this thread (compassion), I take it that you would accept > that there is such a thing for us worldlings as action (in the form of > giving of assistance to another) that is motivated primarily by > consideration for the other's well-being and not by either attachment > (to the person) or aversion (to the circumstances of their suffering). No, I cannot conceive of such a state. If the circumstances of whoever I am trying to assist do not arouse aversion in me, why would I think that they are suffering? Empathy is the capacity to change your point of view, and put yourself in someone else's shoes. Empathy, sympathy, compassion, is a suffering WITH that person. An autistic person lacks that capacity, and they consequently do not reach out to others to help them (a simplification, but I hope you take the point). Seeing suffering in others requires a capacity to suffer oneself. > > Heavy stuff for a Sunday afternoon, especially after a morning at the > beach. Hope I'm making sense. > I understand what you are saying, but I does not make a coherent argument IMO :-) Kind Regards Herman #67592 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing egberdina Hi Howard, On 29/01/07, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 1/28/07 4:03:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > Samsara is a collective noun for any configuration of namas and rupas. > > ========================= > I don't think so. Samsara, or wandering, is a realm of defilement. The > Buddha, IMO, prior to his death, was already beyond samsara. > No doubt, in a state of cessation, there is no samsara. But any state which is not cessation, whether that be in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception or while wandering around, instructing others, one is not in a state of cessation. I have no interest in changing your mind, but it seems from the following from AN 9:34 that nibbana is an inference, not an experience, and that any experienced state is an affliction or stress. "Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of nothingness, enters & remains in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. If, as he remains there, he is beset with attention to perceptions dealing with the dimension of nothingness, *that is an affliction for him*. Now, the Blessed One has said that whatever is an affliction is stress. *So by this line of reasoning it may be known how pleasant Unbinding is*. "Furthermore, there is the case where a monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended. *So by this line of reasoning it may be known how Unbinding is pleasant*." Kind Regards Herman #67593 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:15 pm Subject: First mindfulness of the body? ( was [dsg] Re: Meditation) philofillet Hi Howard (and all) This reminds me of a verse from a children's poem I wrote. A man is imploring a disinterested flight attendant to do something about the beast who is out on the wing, devouring one of the engines. He wants her to do soemthing to prevent the great big splash of a plane in the sea and the death of us all - especially me! Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Phil - > > In a message dated 1/28/07 9:11:05 AM Eastern Standard Time, > philco777@... writes: > > > Hi all (and Howard) > > ====================== > Ah, see? There *is* something beyond "the all"! It's me! LOLOL! > > With metta, #67594 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 3:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: elements of experience scottduncan2 Hi Herman, H: "I also don't for a moment believe there are two realities in > operation. I was simply drawing out the implications of MN01." Right on. H: "According to MN01, there is perception and direct knowing. I don't know if the suggestion is that there is "one" "external" reality, and that the difference is in the mode of being conscious of it, or that one who perceives lives in a different reality to the one who knows directly. (Personally, I don't buy the notion of an external reality, reality is simply what is experienced.)" I just go with the standard visible object/eye base/seeing consciousness triad. 'Perception' and 'knowing directly' are two separate realities each with its own function. H: "Do you then think that two people can experience the same rupa?" The question is flawed. Two people are not real, while 'experience and ruupa are real. Sincerely, Scott. #67595 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing TGrand458@... In a message dated 1/28/2007 2:25:30 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, Herman - In a message dated 1/28/07 4:03:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, _hhofmeister@hhofmeist_ (mailto:hhofmeister@...) writes: > Samsara is a collective noun for any configuration of namas and rupas. > ============ ======== === I don't think so. Samsara, or wandering, is a realm of defilement. The Buddha, IMO, prior to his death, was already beyond samsara. With metta, Howard The Buddha had broken the bounds of samsara, but he was not free from the effects of samsara until he died. He still suffered physical pains. The Buddha suffered the residue of samsara. He was not completely free from samsara until death. In the case of an arahat, there does seem to be some "middle ground." But it seems to me for practical purposes, nama/rupa and samsara are co-generating and co-dependent. TG #67596 From: "Joop" Date: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:07 am Subject: Re: compassion of Arahants jwromeijn --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Joop, > ... > I have only been somewhat following this thread, as I wasn't sure of > the premise, but I believe that you are saying it is impossible to > arahants to have compassion but that bodhisativattas have compassion > in abundance? Am I reading you correctly? > > Anyway, I do believe that arahants have compassion for living > beings. A realization of anatta doesn't result in a lack of > compassion. Actually, it is quite the opposite- arahants have > compassion in abundance. Hallo James, Howard, all You stated, based on the Teachings: " Arahants have compassion." I based my idea on your quote from the Upatissa Sutta:. (Sariputta saying): 'There is nothing in the world with whose change or alteration there would arise within me sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair.' " I thought the arahant-ideal is well formulated in this quote. And I think that an arahant - who is "touched" be nothing, is also not touched by the suffering of another sentient being. BTW: being touched is possible without crying. And I based it on one of the newest essays of Bhikkhu Bodhi has the title: " Arahants, Buddhas, and Bodhisattvas", it can be found at: www.bodhimonastery.net/docs/Arahants_Bstvas_BuddhasV2.pdf Below I quote again a part of this essay. I'm glad you use "compassion" in conceptual way, not as Jon did who said: only karuna as a paramattha dhamma is important. A consequence of this and a question to you: Jon states that "empathy" is not needed to have compassion. Do you agree with that statement that is in my view the same as: condition for having compassion is the being touched by the suffering of that being? I realize this is a tricky topic. Because in fact it's about the question: were the Mahaynists right two thousand years ago in criticising the Theravadins ? In fact I say: well, they were not completely wrong. Metta Joop "There are nine epithets here [of the Buddha]. Of these nine, four are also used for arahant disciples: arahant, possessed of true knowledge and conduct, an exalted one, enlightened; five are used exclusively for the Buddha: perfectly enlightened one, knower of the world, unsurpassed trainer of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans, the Blessed One. Note that of these five, two (unsurpassed trainer of persons to be tamed, teacher of devas and humans) explicitly refer to the Buddha's significance for others … The formula for the arahant … Now all these epithets are true for the Buddha as well, but the Buddha is not described in this way; for these terms emphasize the attainment of one's own liberation, and the Buddha is extolled, not primarily as the one who has attained his own liberation, but as the one who opens the doors of liberation for others. That is, even in the archaic suttas of the Nikayas, an "other- regarding" significance is already being subtly ascribed to the Buddha's status that is not ascribed to the arahant." (p. 8, 9) #67597 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing scottduncan2 Wanderers, Herman: "Samsara is a collective noun for any configuration of namas and rupas." ========================= Howard: "I don't think so. Samsara, or wandering, is a realm of defilement. The Buddha, IMO, prior to his death, was already beyond samsara." Visuddhimagga,XV,4: "[As to meaning] in general, however, base (aayatana) should be understood as such (a) because of its actuating (aayatana), (b) because of being the range (tanana) of the origins (aaya), and (c) because of leading on (nayana) what is actuated (aayata). "Now the various states of consciousness and its concomitants belonging to such and such a door-cum-object among those consisting of the eye-cum-visible-datum, etc., (a) are actuated (aayananti), each by means of its individual function of experiencing, etc.; they are active, strive, and endeavour in these, is what is meant. And (b) these [doors-cum-objects] provide the range for (tanonti) those states that are origins (aaya); they give them scope, is what is meant. And (c) as long as this suffering of the round of rebirths, which has gone on occuring throughout the beginningless round of rebirths and so is enormously actuated (ayata), does not recede, so long they lead on (nayanti); they cause occurence is what is meant. "So all these things are called 'bases' because they actuate, because they are the range of the origins, and because they lead on what is actuated." I don't think sa.msaara is a place. It is the beginningless and unsevered chain of the five-fold khandhas. Sincerely, Scott. #67598 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:53 pm Subject: Re: Some Idle Thoughts on Nothing buddhatrue Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > Just a brief follow-up disclaimer: I'm not presenting the semi-formal > interval theory I discussed as something I accept as sure fact. It is just > that the "passing through nothingness" element of change has great appeal to me. > What I *do* tend to believe is that 1) the freeze-frame theory has > significant problems to it, due to actions requiring (more than zero-duration) > time for their execution, and that 2) impermanence does not require a > freeze-frame setup and precise starting points and ending points, but only requires that > nothing remains forever; i.e., whatever is will eventually not be. I am of the camp which doesn't believe that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma; however, the Buddha did say that the mind changes very, very, quickly. I don't have access to the quote now, but I think it was something about how he was hard pressed to come up with an analogy to describe how fast the mind changes. So, the impermanence of the mind must be very fast! The citta theory, however, does hold some problems for me because of the zero duration of the cittas and the `unaccounted for' gap between them which must exist for them to be separate. For example, there could be eye- ear- eye- nose- body- ear- taste- mind- mind- mind, etc. consciousness moments following one after the other very quickly, with no gap in-between. But wouldn't that make the entire consciousness stream permanent? Especially since the last consciousness results in a new birth somewhere else? (Okay, I think I am giving this too much thought- my cittas are in a twist! ;-)) Metta, James #67599 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:54 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,129 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 129. Then next to the profitable-resultant mind element, the root-causeless mind-consciousness element accompanied by joy (40) occurs accomplishing the function of 'investigation' (j), contingent upon the same object as that of the mind element, and having the heart-basis as support. And when the object is a vivid one in any of the six doors belonging to sense-sphere beings, usually as the end of impulsions associated with greed it holds up the [renewal of the] course of the life-continuum (b) by occurring either once or twice as 'registration' (m), having the same object as that apprehended by the impulsions--so it is said in the Majjhima Commentary.21 But in the Abhidhamma Commentary two turns of consciousness have been handed down with respect to 'registration'. This consciousness has two names, 'registration' (tad-aaramma.na--lit. 'having that object' that the preceding impulsions had) and 'aftermath life-continuum' (pi.t.thi-bhava"nga--see Ch. XIV,122). It is variable as to door and object, it is invariable as to physical basis, and it is variable as to position and function. This, in the first place, it should be understood, is how thirteen kinds of consciousness occur only in the course of an individual existence in the five-constituent kind of becoming. --------------------- Note 21. This refers to the old Sinhalese commentary no longer extant. ******************* 129. somanassasahagataa pana ahetukamanovi~n~naa.nadhaatu kusalavipaakamanodhaatuyaa anantaraa tassaa eva aaramma.na.m aarabbha hadayavatthu.m nissaaya santiira.nakicca.m saadhayamaanaa chasu dvaaresu balavaaramma.ne kaamaavacarasattaana.m yebhuyyena lobhasampayuttajavanaavasaane bhava"ngaviithi.m pacchinditvaa javanena gahitaaramma.ne tadaaramma.navasena ca saki.m vaa dvikkhattu.m vaa pavattatiiti majjhima.t.thakathaaya.m vutta.m. abhidhamma.t.thakathaaya.m pana tadaaramma.ne dve cittavaaraa aagataa. ida.m pana citta.m tadaaramma.nanti ca pi.t.thibhava"nganti caati dve naamaani labhati. aniyatadvaaraaramma.na.m niyatavatthuka.m aniyata.t.thaanakicca~nca hotiiti. eva.m taava terasa pa~ncavokaarabhave pavattiya~n~neva pavattantiiti veditabbaani.