#71400 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 4:22 pm Subject: Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta kenhowardau Hi Howard, ----------------- H: > The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta, SN 12.67, is another sutta that, like the Kaccayanagota Sutta, presents the middle-way mode of existence of all conditioned Dhammas. <. . .> ------------------- Yes, it does. But your point has always been that the mode of existence it presents is different from the mode of existence presented by the ancient commentaries (and, therefore, by K Sujin). You haven't elaborated on that difference here. Reading between the lines, I think you are saying that dhammas rely on other dhammas and, therefore, they lack "self existence." As the sutta explains, there is no nama and rupa without rebirth consciousness, and there is no rebirth consciousness without nama and rupa. But that doesn't affect the existence of those dhammas, does it? We say there can be no egg without a chicken and no chicken without an egg, but no one denies the existence of chickens and eggs 'in their own right.' The sutta also refers to the way co-arisen namas and rupas depend on each other for support - just like two sheaves of reeds. But each of those sheaves still exists, doesn't it? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a sheave of reeds is only a sheave while it is standing. Even so, it still exists while it is being propped up! The question that you don't like me to ask is, "Why is this [imagined] difference between the suttas and the commentaries so important to you?" I won't ask it this time. You know my theory on the matter, and I will to keep it to myself for now. Ken H #71401 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue May 1, 2007 5:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Scott, Here's some more stuff from the Buddhist Dictionary: sakkáya-ditthi: 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters (samyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (sotápatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.): (1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be contained in them; (11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them (M. 44; S. XXII. 1). See prec., ditthi, upádána 4. L: This makes me think "atta" is about the personal self and not ontology, what is real or not. How do you see it? Larry #71402 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 5:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements buddhatrue Hi Howard, > > I meant to write: > > > > "The jhanas are indispensable for riding the mind of the defilements. > > > > But, you probably knew what I meant. ;-)) > > > > Metta, > > James > ======================= > LOLOL! You ARE tenacious, James. (Yes, I knew you meant to write > "ridding".) Yeah, I did mean "ridding" also. ;-)) Tenacious? Yeah, I would say so. So was the Buddha about the subject of jhana: "Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html#false Metta, James #71403 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue May 1, 2007 5:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Herman, H: "My reply meant to clarify that it is not an I that in is in search of an experience, it it is consciousness in search of an experience." L: Right you are. I is just a word. I thought you meant something else. I is a concept in search of an experience in the sense that it isn't an experience but there is craving for it to be an experience. "I vant to BE!" Larry #71404 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue May 1, 2007 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Collette, C: "I will say that actually EXPERIENCING hatred, knowing it's characteristics, and such, is a very good way of transcending it," Larry: Satipatthana. The Buddha said it is the only way. Larry #71405 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 1, 2007 1:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/1/07 7:24:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ----------------- > H: >The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta, SN 12.67, is another sutta that, > like the Kaccayanagota Sutta, presents the middle-way mode of > existence of all conditioned Dhammas. <. . .> > ------------------- > > Yes, it does. But your point has always been that the mode of > existence it presents is different from the mode of existence > presented by the ancient commentaries (and, therefore, by K Sujin). ------------------------------------ Howard: Actually, I don't think I talk about the old commentaries as passed on by Buddhaghosa or about KS all that much. I talk more about the issues, I think. In any case, if what I see in that sutta is the same, then that's just super! :-) ------------------------------------- > You haven't elaborated on that difference here. Reading between the > lines, I think you are saying that dhammas rely on other dhammas and, > therefore, they lack "self existence." ------------------------------------- Howard: Clearly. Forget about what I say. Look at the sutta. ------------------------------------ > > As the sutta explains, there is no nama and rupa without rebirth > consciousness, and there is no rebirth consciousness without nama and > rupa. But that doesn't affect the existence of those dhammas, does > it? > --------------------------------------- Howard: You mean it still exists, right? (That is until it has ceased.) Yeah, sure! Nonexistence is not asserted in that sutta, and it isn't asserted by me.The Buddha wasn't a nihilist, and neither am I. What is asserted in that and other suttas is that there is no self-existence. Nothing exists as a thing-in-itself. But why do I have to keep on going over this. If the Buddha had been challenged again and again and again about this sutta, he would have ..., oh, well, not the Buddha! ;-) --------------------------------------- We say there can be no egg without a chicken and no chicken > > without an egg, but no one denies the existence of chickens and > eggs 'in their own right.' ------------------------------------- Howard: They do *not* exist in their own right. Their existence is contingent. A chicken is utterly dependent on all its constituents and all the conditions permitting the arising of those constituents, and on the interrelations holding among those constituents, and on being perceived as an individual. There is no self in a chicken or in any of the conditions it is dependent on. -------------------------------------- > > The sutta also refers to the way co-arisen namas and rupas depend on > each other for support - just like two sheaves of reeds. But each of > those sheaves still exists, doesn't it? -------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, but not on its own. That is the point. ---------------------------------------- > > Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a sheave of reeds is only a > sheave while it is standing. Even so, it still exists while it is > being propped up! ---------------------------------------- Howard: C'mon, Ken. The Buddha gave a clear analogy. The "standing up" of is their existence. And the existence is mutually dependent. Yes, they stand up, but NOT ON THEIR OWN. That is the Buddha's point. If you think he should have made a different pont, then perhaps you would find another teacher more suitable. ----------------------------------- > > The question that you don't like me to ask is, "Why is this > [imagined] difference between the suttas and the commentaries so > important to you?" I won't ask it this time. You know my theory on > the matter, and I will to keep it to myself for now. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, I couldn't care less. I don't know the commentaries, and I rarely talk about them. The suttas, I am convinced, are very largely the word of the Buddha, and I value them enormously. If any commentaries, ancient or modern can assist me in understanding suttas that I find unclear, I would appreciate them. That is their purpose, to assist in that understanding. BTW, you raise this non-issue again and again, alluding to your "theory" on the matter. Here you say that I *know* your theory, but you will keep it to yourself - rather contradictory, it seems to me. Be that as it may, I do *not* know your theory, nor do I care what it might be. The way you talk about it suggests that it would reveal some deep, dark shame of mine. Ken, at best this is just becoming silly. ------------------------------------------- ======================= With metta, Howard #71406 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 1, 2007 2:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 5/1/07 8:22:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Yeah, I did mean "ridding" also. ;-)) Tenacious? Yeah, I would say > so. So was the Buddha about the subject of jhana: > > "Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, > out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are > the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, > monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our > message to you." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html#false > ======================== Yep! :-) With metta, Howard #71407 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 6:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a question buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, (Swee Boon, Robert A, Howard & all), > > You wrote (#70894): > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > The statement "There are only dhammas" implies existence, and the > > Buddha taught against existence. Instead the Buddha taught dependent > > origination which demonstrates that nothing really "exists" but > > rather just arises temporarily. It is not beneficial to think of > > things existing or not existing, but rather arising temporarily. > > Dhammas are fleeting phenomenon, not self-existent entities. > .... > S: Dhammas arise temporarily and at such times they *exist*. How else is > there any seeing of visible objects, hearing of sounds and so on? > > I liked the quote Swee Boon gave recently which is directly relevant, I > think: > > >'Name-&-form exists when what exists? From what as a requisite > condition is there name-&-form?' From my appropriate attention there > came the breakthrough of discernment: 'Name-&-form exists when > consciousness exists. From consciousness as a requisite condition > comes name-&-form.' Then the thought occurred to me, 'Consciousness > exists when what exists? From what as a requisite condition comes > consciousness?' From my appropriate attention there came the > breakthrough of discernment: 'Consciousness exists when name-&-form > exists. From name-&-form as a requisite condition comes > consciousness.' > > "Then the thought occurred to me, 'This consciousness turns back at > name-&-form, and goes no farther. It is to this extent that there is > birth, aging, death ... > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html > -------------------------------------------------------------------< I just threw that comment out for thought. I happen to agree with the teachings of Nagarjuna, the Indian philosopher/monk who reformed the substantialist teachings of the Abhidhamma commentaries with the teaching of Middle Way Emptiness. However, this is just my perspective and I don't expect you to agree with it. To be arguing against the Abhidhamma commentaries in this group would be real "dojo busting" and I don't wish to do that. Thank you for the sutta quote anyway. (It all hinges on how you define "existence"). Metta, James #71408 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 7:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > The question that you don't like me to ask is, "Why is this > > [imagined] difference between the suttas and the commentaries so > > important to you?" I won't ask it this time. You know my theory on > > the matter, and I will to keep it to myself for now. > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > Ken, I couldn't care less. The way you talk about > it suggests that it would reveal some deep, dark shame of mine. Ken, at best > this is just becoming silly. Oh yes, why is this "imagined" difference between the commentaries and suttas so important to you, Howard??? What is the deep, dark secret?? Ken just isn't going to say, so there must be something really sinister lurking there!! Come on, spill the beans!! We are all friends here....you don't have to be ashamed... Regardless, I am here at work and I am bored silly—I want some drama! I want some dirt! ;-)) Metta, James #71409 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 7:46 pm Subject: Problems scrolling? buddhatrue Hi All, I seem to be experiencing some problems scrolling through the messages from Yahoo Groups. There used to be a link that would read "Next" or "Previous" that would take me to the next message or the previous message posted. Now that link is gone. Instead I have links for "Next message" and "Previous message" which takes me to the messages in a particular thread, not the messages posted. Is anyone else having this problem? Any suggestions for solutions? Metta, James #71410 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 7:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Larry, Great question, makes me really think and clarify. L: "Here's some more stuff from the Buddhist Dictionary: "sakkaaya-ditthi: 'personality-belief', is the first of the 10 fetters (samyojana). It is entirely abandoned only on reaching the path of Stream-winning (sotaapatti-magga; s. ariya-puggala). There are 20 kinds of personality-belief, which are obtained by applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.): (1-5) the belief to be identical with corporeality, feeling, perception, mental formations or consciousness; (6-10) to be contained in them; (11-15) to be independent of them; (16-20) to be the owner of them (M. 44; S. XXII. 1). See prec., ditthi, upaadaana 4." L: This makes me think "atta" is about the personal self and not ontology, what is real or not. How do you see it? Scott: According to one source, found by simply googling 'ontology: "...The oft-quoted definition of ontology is 'the specification of one's conceptualization of a knowledge domain.'" Scott: You define ontology, loosely, as '[considerations of] what is real or not'. So, if by 'personal self' you mean that which a) I'm embedded in, b) is my experience, c) is my this or that, then atta is, in my opinion, meant to refer to this entity. It is not, as I see it, meant as a conceptualisation, in the sense of being part of a categorisation of things (while being pa~n~natti), that is, atta is not meant in the abstract (ontologically). Is this what you mean? When I say 'real', however, I refer to the phenomenological or experiential outcome of "applying 4 types of that belief to each of the 5 groups of existence," and believing to one's self that this is 'me'. This belief is that 'I am real', and that what occurs within me is 'mine', or that which I see etc., is also real in the same way. Things which one subsumes under the 'self' umbrella can still be 'real' while self is not. The self is not 'real' in the sense that it does not exist as an ultimate. The concept 'self' is 'real' in the sense that concepts are 'real', and concepts are only real in a certain way. The 'experience of self-view' is real in the sense of being available to experience and in the sense that the dhammas out of which this self-view arise, due to craving and ignorance, are ultimately real: There is seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, sensing, and mind. I think this is supported to some extent by PTS PED definitions (for what they are worth): "Atta1 [aa + d + ta; that is, pp. of aadadaati with the base form reduced to d. Idg *d -- to; cp. Sk. aatta] that which has been taken up, assumed." "Attan (m.)2. Oneself, himself, yourself...Instr. attanaa S i.57 = Dh 66; S i.75; ii.68; A i.53; iii.211; iv.405; Dh 165. On one's own account, spontaneously S iv.307; v.354; A i.297; ii.99, 218; iii.81; J i.156; PvA 15, 20..." Scott: This seems more than abstract, it seems 'personal'. But one 'takes up' all that contributes to experience and calls it 'oneself' (and one's own). One assumes 'self' is as real as are those elements which are its constituents. I'm unsure of all this, so please make me look hard at it. Sincerely, Scott. #71411 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue May 1, 2007 3:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a question / Three Realities? TGrand458@... Hi Sarah, James, Herman, Howard, Nina, Robert, All In a message dated 5/1/2007 7:44:25 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > > The statement "There are only dhammas" implies existence, and the > > Buddha taught against existence. Instead the Buddha taught dependent > > origination which demonstrates that nothing really "exists" but > > rather just arises temporarily. It is not beneficial to think of > > things existing or not existing, but rather arising temporarily. > > Dhammas are fleeting phenomenon, not self-existent entities. > .... > S: Dhammas arise temporarily and at such times they *exist*. How else is > there any seeing of visible objects, hearing of sounds and so on? > TG: Actually, from a deeper viewpoint IMO, and as James indicated, there are no separate states that arise. Phenomena are just continually changing. It is only from a subjective/self perspective that objects are identified as separate existing realities/things...no matter how short a duration is implied. The formations that arise and cease only have "made-up" meaning from our point of view. There is nothing inherently existing as "things of themselves" or of "own characteristics" in regards to phenomena. To think of arisen phenomena as existing or not existing are both wrong views. Whatever arises is merely a byproduct of "other conditions." Those "other conditions" are merely byproducts of "other conditions" too. That's why some of us keep saying there is nothing with its own characteristic. A byproduct has no power or control to be anything that exists as its own thing. The byproduct is an empty apparition formed by something else. But that "something else" is just the same...an empty byproduct. We cannot "pin things down" as existing because what they are is always something else. To call something "existing" is to pin it down and to say..."this thing is here." But where ever and however you look for it, its always something else that's the source. There are three types of realities as I see it. An ultimate reality, a conditional reality, and a subjective reality. 1) Ultimate reality = No-self (This reality always applies.) 2) Conditional Reality = Impermanence (This reality applies to conditions / conditionality.) 3) Subjective Reality = Affliction/Dukkha (This reality applies to unenlightened consciousness.) Just made the above up during this post. I think I like it. LOL Comments? The "dhammas" that arise, listed by abhidhamma, neither exist or not exist. They are important "qualities" or "relativities" to use as reference points when developing mindfulness. They are not realities. TG #71412 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 8:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 29/04/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > I'm looking at my 10 year old daughter now. We are making cupcakes. > She is singing to herself. She likes when we do things together. I > like it when she's happy. She's a motherless girl now. I'm not a > mother. She misses her mother. She sees her brother and I and feels > jealous and left out. She attacks her brother once in awhile. I > speak harshly to her once in awhile. I know she worries she is not > loved as much as her brother. I try to show love when I can because I > know she needs it. I do my best as a parent and I fail to achieve > what I consider to be 'my best' over and over. This is just the way > it is. > You have described a situation here, your situation with your children. This is your experience. > If kindness arises, it does so because of conditions. Now you hop across to explaining experience. The experience of explaining is thinking. You will never ever experience conditions producing kindness, you will only ever experience kindness if it arises. I wonder why feel you must insert this belief about causation here? And a child or > a father is an object. A brick is an object, and so is a cupcake. A sentient being is, however, both an object and a subject. A very important difference. If anger arises it does so because of > conditions. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not, it still is a theory of causation. > And a child or father is object. Being angry with a brick does not influence the brick. Being angry with a child does influence the child. In our cupcake making I > spoke kindly and was helpful while mixing ingredients, etc., and I > spoke harshly after she stepped on her brothers arm and hurt him > (don't ask me how his arm came to be in a position to be stepped on). > No matter how this is difficult to accept, child is concept. Actions > 'I' do stay with 'me', for good or ill. Experiences Rebecca has, good > or ill, are results of 'her' own past actions. > Rebecca did not imagine you, and she did not imagine saying whatever you did. Likewise for you. You are someone she has to deal with. And vice versa. It takes two to tango. Let's say she bruised her brother's arm in stepping on it. Is the bruise solely the result of his past actions? That would lean towards solipsism. > This seems to cause ire. If the Buddha truly taught ultimates, as you > assert above (and I agree), then making cupcakes with Rebecca is > ultimately only 'conceptual relations'. Making cupcakes with Rebeccah is anatta, anicca and dukkha. That is the ultimate reality of the situation. I don't need to be told that > the cupcakes are real or that Rebecca really mixed them or that we > really put them into a real oven. I know that all these things > occured. These things though, are also the result of thinking. > Yes, it is true. And the thoughts of a householder are very different to the thoughts of someone in the 4th jhana, say. Yet both are anatta, anicca and dukkha. The Buddha taught the way to their cessation. > H: "The reality of the flux of experience can be known. You don't have > to do anything to know it. It fact, you *must* do nothing. You just > have to be present to it. And the ultimate reality that the Buddha > taught can be known in this way too. He called it anicca, anatta, and > dukkha. You don't even have to know the words. But if you think the > words, that is what will be reality at that time." > > Scott: 'Flux of experience' is a concept. There are levels of knowing > and this relates to the development of pa~n~na. 'Must' is not the > point, in my opinion. 'Can't' is the point. One can't do anything. > You seem here to side with the 'there is no practise' school, but I > won't hold you to it. The flux of experience or consciousness continues because it is being fed. And it continues to be fed, because there is no understanding that it is being fed. It is fed by contact with name-and-form. The diminuition of consciousness occurs through not feeding it. If read in a book, that is just an explanation, but it can also be an experience. My focus is on the experience, not the theory / explanation of it. > > H: "Again, a theory of learning is not a prerequisite for learning. > Perhaps you will have less resistance to the idea of learning if I > called it that natural decisive support thingy, but then in Pali? :-) > Learning happens, Scott. It is a possibility for most human beings. I > don't know what else to say." > > Scott: Yes, good call - now that you mention decisive support thingy > you suddenly make so much more sense. Again, the Buddha taught that > things are a certain way and not another. Yes, learning happens, but > according to certain processes and none other. > Yes, for sure. And processes have experiential correlates. So the development of the path feels a certain way. The path is an experience, not an explanation. Herman #71413 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 8:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta egberdina Hi KenH, On 02/05/07, kenhowardau wrote: > > > As the sutta explains, there is no nama and rupa without rebirth > consciousness, and there is no rebirth consciousness without nama and > rupa. But that doesn't affect the existence of those dhammas, does > it? We say there can be no egg without a chicken and no chicken > without an egg, but no one denies the existence of chickens and > eggs 'in their own right.' > > The sutta also refers to the way co-arisen namas and rupas depend on > each other for support - just like two sheaves of reeds. But each of > those sheaves still exists, doesn't it? No, those sheaves do not both exist independently. One sheaf is knowing, the other sheaf is the object of knowing. There is no knowing in the absence of known object. Knowing is not an existent. And in the absence of knowing characteristics, nothing can be said about the existence of characteristics. There simply is no hearing without object, no seeing without object etc Herman #71414 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 1, 2007 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 5/1/07 10:08:31 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Oh yes, why is this "imagined" difference between the commentaries > and suttas so important to you, Howard??? What is the deep, dark > secret?? Ken just isn't going to say, so there must be something > really sinister lurking there!! Come on, spill the beans!! We are > all friends here....you don't have to be ashamed... Regardless, I am > here at work and I am bored silly—I want some drama! I want some > dirt! ;-)) > ======================== LOLOL! Okay, I'll spill it. I secretly believe that Buddhaghosa was a Republican!! With metta, Howard #71415 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 1, 2007 8:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Problems scrolling? sarahprocter... Hi James, No problem as far as I can see. It sounds to me as if you inadvertently clicked on 'group by topic' on the home-page under 'Most recent messages' (left side). Try going back to the home-page and now click on 'list as individual messages' under 'Most recent topics'. Then if you click on any message, you should see the links for 'previous' and 'next' at the top right of the screen. Also, if you click on 'view all' on the left side, you will see a 'sheet' of messages. 'Newer' and 'older' then takes one to the next or previous 'sheet'. This is useful for scrolling through messages either in summary form or in expanded (full) form. In expanded form they can easily be copied, down-loade/printed like this. (The summary form shows a couple of lines under the subject heading, whilst the simplified form just gives the subject heading only.) While mentioning these technicalities, let me also repeat that the search function on the home-page to look for an old messages in the archives is really very good now. Greatly improved! James, if you're still having technical problems with this, pls contact Jon or I (off-list preferably) to see if we can help further. Metta, Sarah --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi All, > > I seem to be experiencing some problems scrolling through the messages > from Yahoo Groups. #71416 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 1, 2007 10:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conditions, to James. repost. sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, --- upasaka@... wrote: > > N: I do not think that it is good to begin to practise with an idea > > of self, since one accumulates more wrong view in that way. > > > ==================== > Then we cannot begin. It is a like a prisoner who is told that so > long > as s/he is imprisoned, s/he should not begin with making appeals, or a > sick > person who is told that so long as s/he is ill, s/he should not start > treatment. .... S: I just read B. Samahita's pst #71285* with the sub-heading 'The illusion of an Ego is the Strongest Prison'. I thought of this comment of yours. The wrong view of self is the prison. So while such wrong views have not been eradicated, we're in prison. If we cling steadfastly to these views or develop a practice based on them, then any 'escape' becomes harder and harder. However, whenever there is any right understanding or right view arising, however little, the 'appeal' support begins to grow *in spite* of the difficult predicament. If there was not a way out, the Buddha wouldn't have taught the Dhamma. The way out, the successful 'appeal' is the eightfold path or Middle Way. There is no wrong view of self at moment of path development! Metta, Sarah ...... *Ven Samahita's post: >>The illusion of an Ego is the Strongest Prison! The Blessed Buddha once said: 'I am' is an illusion. 'This I am' is an illusion. 'I shall be' is an illusion. 'I shall not become this or that' is an illusion. 'I shall be of form' is an illusion. 'I shall become formless' is an illusion. 'I shall become endowed with perception' is an illusion. 'I shall become without any perception' is an illusion. 'I shall become neither with nor without perception' is an illusion. Illusion is torture, illusion is a mind cancer, illusion is a thorn in the future. If, however, all illusion is overcome, one is called a stilled one, a sage. And the stilled one, the sage, is no more reborn, grows no more old, & does not cumulate future death.. Why not? That craving through which he could be reborn again does not exist anymore! If he is not reborn, how can he ever grow old? If he never grows old, how can he ever die? If he never dies again, how can he ever be in panic and urge? If neither in panic nor urge, how can he still experience any craving? Source Text (extract): Majjhima Nikaya 140: Analysis of the Elements: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html<< #71417 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 11:27 pm Subject: Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta kenhowardau Hi Howard, -------------------- KH: >> We say there can be no egg without a chicken and no chicken without an egg, but no one denies the existence of chickens and eggs 'in their own right.' >> Howard: They do *not* exist in their own right. ---------------------- OK, I should have been more specific. In the ultimate sense they do not exist, but my point is; in conventional reality chickens and eggs are said to exist in their own right even though they depend on each other. The same logic applies to ultimate reality; dependent origination does not mean dhammas do not exist absolutely (in their own right, independently of concepts, with "own being"). ------------------------ H: > Their existence is contingent. A chicken is utterly dependent on all its constituents and all the conditions permitting the arising of those constituents, and on the interrelations holding among those constituents, and on being perceived as an individual. There is no self in a chicken or in any of the conditions it is dependent on. ---- ------------------------- I strongly disagree that chickens are dependent on conditions. According to the Abhidhamma, person (and, therefore, chicken) is a concept (a word) that refers to another concept (a sentient being). Concepts are not conditioned (dependently arisen). Otherwise there would be no difference between concepts and realities. It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that this is where the conventional teaching method (found in most of the suttas) varies from the ultimate method (found in other suttas and in the Abhidhamma- pitaka). In the conventional method the Buddha used 'person' and other similar concepts to refer, not to other concepts (as in the ultimate method), but to realities. (!) This makes the suttas very hard to follow. Except, that is, for someone who has already mastered the ultimate teaching. (But that might be just my theory. Corrections welcome!) --------------------------------------- KH: > > The sutta also refers to the way co-arisen namas and rupas depend on each other for support - just like two sheaves of reeds. But each of > those sheaves still exists, doesn't it? >> Howard: Yes, but not on its own. That is the point. ---------------------------------------- No, that is not the point. The fact that something cannot exist on its own does not mean that it has a nebulous kind of existence. It is still self-existent. It still has "own being." To take another conventional example, a roof depends on walls to hold it up. It is still a roof! And the walls are still walls! We don't have to regard them as different aspects of "building content" the way you say we should regard dhammas as different aspects of "experiential content." This entire business about "not self existent" and "no own being" and "experiential content" is a red herring. If it wasn't for your need to justify formal vipassana practice we would never have heard of it. And I don't mean to single you out in this. Every Buddhist who adheres to the modern practice of formal meditation finds that he/she has to go against the ancient texts to some degree. Usually, they just say that the Abhidhamma is a later addition and needn't be taken as gospel when it conflicts with their interpretations. However, when they look deeply into the texts (as we do here at DSG) there are more and more things that need to be explained away. ------------------------ <. . .> Howard: > C'mon, Ken. The Buddha gave a clear analogy. The "standing up" of is their existence. And the existence is mutually dependent. Yes, they stand up, but NOT ON THEIR OWN. That is the Buddha's point. ------------------------ Yes, that is the point of dependent origination. Therefore, there is no need to go further the way you have done. There is no need to equate true existence with atta. No atta (according to your interpretatiion) means "no own being." Consequently, paramattha dhammas cannot be seen as the actual performers of functions. And the momentary cetasikas that are the eight path factors cannot be seen as the real practitioners of vipassana. That leaves the way open for an interpretation that favours formal meditation. It is a tangled web, but you (i.e., formal meditators in general) have no option but to weave it. I don't envy you . :-) -------- H: > Here you say that I *know* your theory, but you will keep it to yourself - rather contradictory, it seems to me. Be that as it may, I do *not* know your theory, nor do I care what it might be. The way you talk about it suggests that it would reveal some deep, dark shame of mine. Ken, at best this is just becoming silly ------- On several occasions, I have tried to suggest that nearly all of the disagreements at DSG are, directly or indirectly, about formal meditation. You have vehemently denied this, but it is quite obvious to me. The teaching of momentary, paramattha, reality must be either ignored or watered down before formal vipassana meditation can be defended. Ken H #71418 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 2, 2007 12:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Robert K, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > The gruff voice seems to me an example of vasana, some habits > accumulated since long which only a Buddha can eradicate. It is > possible that there are for the hearer kusala vipaakacittas > alternating with akusala vipaakacittas, but we can only guess. > Nina. > Op 28-apr-2007, om 13:56 heeft rjkjp1 het volgende geschreven: > > >R: If an arahant is speaking on Dhamma - but has a gruff voice? .... S: Yes, vasana. Only the Buddha is without such habits. Any conjecture about the hearer's vipaka cittas is just speculation about the 'situation' again! All we can say for sure is that kusala vipaka hears a desirable sound and akusala vipaka hears an undesirable sound. The other day Jon's flu was bad and his voice so weak and gruff that when he was kindly reading out some dhamma posts to me, I could hardly understand what he was saying! Metta, Sarah ====== #71419 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 12:27 am Subject: Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta buddhatrue Hi Ken H. and Howard, If I may jump into this discussion: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > On several occasions, I have tried to suggest that nearly all of the > disagreements at DSG are, directly or indirectly, about formal > meditation. You have vehemently denied this, but it is quite obvious > to me. The teaching of momentary, paramattha, reality must be either > ignored or watered down before formal vipassana meditation can be > defended. Ahhh....so this is supposedly the big secret Howard is hiding. What difference does it make if one views dhammas as having "own existence" or as having "empty existence" to meditation practice? Ken, this issue has been debated for centuries and the practice of meditation has never been central to the subject. Actually, I consider the issue so unimportant to meditation practice that I don't even want to debate it. I'm a pragamitist and I consider this simply a philosophical difference in viewpoint. Think what you will....as long as you practice the Noble Eightfold Path it all comes out with the wash. Metta, James #71420 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 2, 2007 12:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer is not a "thing" sarahprocter... Hi Antony, --- Antony Woods wrote: > S: For example, when we take the computer for being a 'thing' rather > than > visible object, hardness and so on that is experienced, there is > atta-belief - no understanding of dhammas as anatta - but 'self-view' is > mis-leading here, I think. > ++++ > Antony: Gee, I am an interested beginner in this topic! > My computer has a transparent case so I can begin to see how complex > it is inside. There is no individual expert in the world who > understands all of the computer's components. There are only > specialists. Therefore no-one in the world can satisfactorily describe > what a computer is! (let alone what the InterNet is!) But that's > beyond the scope of this list. .... S: Maybe not. I think the Buddha was the expert and specialist who pointed out that we live in a world of illusions, taking chariots and computers to exist, when really they are just figments of the imagination. What is seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched is never a computer, but based on various sense experiences, there are long, long proliferations and we end up with these various ideas which we take for being so much more than just ideas. .... >Maybe I'll start a new Yahoo Group, not > teaching but as a beginner collecting interesting articles. ... S: Be sure to add some of the Buddha's expertise! .... > Thanks for listening / Antony. .... S: Likewise! Metta, Sarah ======== #71421 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 2, 2007 1:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? sarahprocter... Hi Herman (TG and other wise 'heretics'), --- Herman Hofman wrote: > and more to thepoint, the Abhidhamma is not prefaced with evam me suttam. So, while I > am quite happy to accept that much of what is recorded in the Suttas > has been handed down as having been heard from the mouth of the > Buddha, it is a perversion of history, and reason, to claim that the > Abhidhamma has been heard from the Buddha's mouth. > > This is important to me. Because, to me, a willingness to pervert > history and reason, in order to give authority to a body of > commentaries, is a despicable act, in that it results in a > perpetuation of ignorance. .... S: So much has been written on this topic before, but see the following on the origins of the Abhidhamma as an example: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12658 Also, from the Atthasalini, introductory discourse: "But if the heretic should say, had Abhidhamma been taught by the Buddha, there would have been an introduction prefatory to it, just as in many thousands of the Suttas the preface generally runs as, 'One day the Blessed One was staying in Raajagaha,' etc., he should be contradicted thus: 'The Jaataka, Suttanipaata, Dhammapada, and so on, have no such introductions, and yet they were spoken by the Buddha.' Furthermore he should be told, 'O wise one, this Abhidhamma is the province of the Buddhas, not of others; the descent of the Buddhas, their birth, their attainment of perfect wisdom, their turning of the Wheel of the Law, their performance of the Twin Miracle, their visit to the devas, their teaching in the deva world...........Even so Abhidhamma is not the province of others; it is the province of the Buddhas only. Such a discourse as the Abhidhamma can be taught by them only;.....There is, O wise one, no need for an introduction to Abhidhamma.' When this is so stated, the heterodox opponent would be unable to adduce an illustration in support of his cause." .... S: Well heretics, wise ones and heterodox opponents, believe it's all a perversion of history if you wish....but you won't find any support for such a view amongst the teachings themselves, the accounts of the early Councils or the ancient commentaries! Metta, Sarah ========== #71422 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue May 1, 2007 11:20 pm Subject: Wesak 2007! bhikkhu5 Friends: At this Fullmoon Day do all Buddhas Awaken: Know that Helping Others helps Yourself! Know that Harmlessness is the prime Protection! Know that Meditation is the Way to Calmed Bliss! Know that Dhamma Study is the Way to Certainty! Know that the Noble 8-fold Way makes Deathless! Remember: At this Full Moon 2537 years ago the Blessed Buddha awakened by completely perfect and unsurpassable self-Enlightenment! At that time a girl named Sujata Senani lived in Uruvela . When adult, she prayed before a certain Banyan tree, that she might get a husband equal to herself in caste and that her firstborn may be a son. Her prayer was successful, since so indeed did it happen. At the full moon day of the Wesak month, she rose at early dawn & milked the cows. As soon as new buckets were placed under the cows, their milk poured forth in streams spontaneously all by itself. Seeing this miracle, she knew something special was going on. Now at that very night the Future Buddha had 5 specific dreams that made him conclude: Certainly, without doubt, today is the very day, I will reach Enlightenment! His 5 colored radiance illuminated the whole tree. Then Sujata came & offered the cooked milk rice in the hands of the Great Being. After that a grass-cutter came going with a bundle of grass just harvested from nearby. He offered the Great Being 8 handfuls of Kusa grass, when he saw that this Sage was a Holy Man. The Future Buddha accepted the grass and proceeded to the foot of the Bo- tree. Reaching the imperturbable Eastern side, where all Buddhas take their seat, he sat down saying to himself: This is indeed the immovable spot where all the Buddhas have planted themselves! This is the very place for destroying the net of desire! Then the Future Buddha turned his back to the trunk and faced east. Right there he then made this mighty decision: Let just blood & flesh of this body dry up & let skin & sinews fall from the bones. I will not leave this seat before having attained the absolute supreme Enlightenment! So determined did he seat himself in this unconquerable seat, which not a 100 strikes of lightning could make him waver from. At this very moment the rebel deity Mara -the Evil One- raised exclaiming: Prince Siddhattha will pass beyond my power, but I will never allow it! And sounding the Mara 's war shout, he prepared his army & went out for battle. Then Mara said to his militia: This Sakyamuni, son of Suddhodana , is far greater than any other man, so we will never succeed to fight him up front. We will therefore attack him from behind. Frustrated, being unable even to touch the Wielder of power with 9 mighty hurricanes of wind, rain, rocks, weapons, red coals, hot ashes, sand, mud, & darkness Mara somewhat in panic commanded his army: Why do you stand still? Seize, kill, & drive away this prince. Mara yelled: Siddhattha, leave this seat. It is not yours but mine! Hearing this the Well-gone One replied: Mara, neither have you fulfilled the 10 perfections to the third degree nor have you given the 5 great donations. Neither have you striven for insight, nor for the welfare of the world, nor for enlightenment! Therefore does this seat not belong to you, but indeed to me. Suddenly overpowered by fear Mara 's followers fled helter-skelter in all directions. Not two went the same way, but leaving their weapons in a chaos all behind, they fled terrified by panic. Seeing them flee, the great assembly of deities triumphantly shouted: Mara is defeated. Prince Siddhattha has Won! Let us celebrate the Victory! The deities then sang: The Victory has this illustrious Buddha Won. The Evil One, The End-maker is defeated & done. Thus they jubilantly circled the wisdom throne, the band of snakes singing their praises of the Seer, the flocks of birds singing their praises of the Sage, the assembly of Deities singing their praises of the Conqueror, the group of Brahmas singing their praises of the Worthy One. It was before the sun had set that the Tathagata thus conquered Mara & defeated his army. Then at the same night, after having bathed, while the Bo tree rained red sprigs on his robe, the Consummate One acquired knowledge of previous existences in the first watch of the night: With the mind thus concentrated, purified, bright, fixed, unified, focused, tractable, compliant, steady & imperturbable, I directed it to remembrance of my past lives. I recollected numerous past lives, i.e., one birth, two...five, ten...fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion: There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan & species, had such a body. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There I had such name, belonged to such a sort & family, had such a form. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here. Thus I remembered my various past lives in all their various modes & details. This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose as happens in one who is alert, aware, & determined. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind nor remain. With the mind thus still concentrated, purified, bright, intact, pliant, malleable, steady, & imperturbable, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human eye I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I realized how & why they are high & low, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate all in accordance with the intentions of their prior actions: 'These beings that were endowed with bad behaviour of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong views and acted under the influence of wrong views, with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of misery, the bad destination, the lower realms, even in hell. But these beings who were gifted with good behaviour of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the Noble Ones, who held right views and acted under the influence of right views -- with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in happy destinations, even in a divine world.' Thus -- by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human -- I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, all in accordance with their particular mixture of good & bad kamma. But the satisfaction that arose in this way did not invade my mind nor remain. With the mind thus concentrated, fully absorbed, I directed it towards understanding the ending of the mental fermentations. I realized how it actually comes to be, that: Such is Misery ... Such is the Cause of Misery... Such is the End of Misery... Such is the Way to End Misery... Such was the mental fermentations ... Such is the cause of fermentation ... Such is the end of fermentation ... Such is the way leading to the end of fermentation .' When my mind saw that, realized that, it was freed of the fermentation of sense-desire, released from the fermentation of becoming, unobstructed by the fermentation of ignorance. Fully & perfectly Enlightened - The Buddha - perceiving this immense glory, spoke these 2 solemn verses, which never has been omitted by any of countless thousands of prior Buddha s: Through this round of countless existences have I searched yet failed to find 'the Creator', who framed this formation: What Misery is indeed such Endless Birth, Ageing, Decay & Death! Now I see that 'the Constructor' of this structure is Craving ...!!! Never shall this construction be build again, as all the rafters are shattered and the main beam is busted & broken... At this stilling of all Craving , mind has finally calmed… Then, friends, this vision of certainty arose in me: This release is irreversible, this is the last birth, this endless reappearance is finally ended... See also: About Awakening! http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/b/buddha.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/g/gotama.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/s/sujaataa.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/b/bodhisatta.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/b_f/bodhi.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/b/bodhirukka.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/b/bodhimanda.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/sammaa_sambodhi.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <...> #71423 From: "gazita2002" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 2:32 am Subject: Re: Wesak 2007! gazita2002 Dear Bhikkhu Samahita, Thank you for this very moving post. Strange, it brought tears to my eyes. I like to be reminded of the Buddha's great compassion in taking on the job, so to speak, of teaching worldlings the great Dhamma. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > > > > Friends: > > At this Fullmoon Day do all Buddhas Awaken: > > Know that Helping Others helps Yourself! > Know that Harmlessness is the prime Protection! > Know that Meditation is the Way to Calmed Bliss! > Know that Dhamma Study is the Way to Certainty! > Know that the Noble 8-fold Way makes Deathless! > > Remember: > At this Full Moon 2537 years ago the Blessed Buddha awakened > by completely perfect and unsurpassable self-Enlightenment! .........snip..... > Friendship is the Greatest :-) > Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * > <...> > #71424 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina To anyone interested in reason, On 02/05/07, sarah abbott wrote: > > S: Well heretics, wise ones and heterodox opponents, believe it's all a > perversion of history if you wish....but you won't find any support for > such a view amongst the teachings themselves, the accounts of the early > Councils or the ancient commentaries! > When an ancient commentary tells you that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma to a bunch of devas and his deceased mother reborn in that heaven, over a period of three months, and at the end of each day repeated the instructions to Sariputta, then you have a good indication as to the worth of the commentary. Some comments on commentaries from Bill Brasington: "But even in the Theravadan countries, the views of the Visuddhimagga (the "Mother of All Commentaries") predominate over the suttas themselves." So how should a Western reader of the suttas approach the commentaries? ....... I suggest carefully reading a sutta before reading any introduction or commentary. Even read the the sutta several times; form your own opinion; then approach the commentarial material with an open mind and a very critical eye. If you find a seeming contradiction, go with the sutta until your practice experience tells you otherwise. Herman #71425 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 3:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Problem! egberdina Hi all, Replies are welcome, but not necessary. I'm only stating the obvious. On 01/05/07, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: > > FUTURE FALL > As in the morning one may fear > The falling of the ripened fruits, > So all mortals in this world > Live in constant fear of death. This is just a plain falsehood. > Since certain is their death! > Snp 576 > Herman #71426 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 3:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, Just something that came to mind. On 01/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > As far as 'other', I was thinking about the influence of culturally > imbedded post-Christian views regarding siila, which I may as well put > to you for your consideration. > > > > This doesn't, for me, extenuate loving kindness or any of these > dhammas. It removes from thinking about these notions a conceit which > imbues Western (read 'christian'?) ways of considering them. > > Please try this out and let me know of its flaws (and of course > accuracies). > I think you are possible being a little bit selective in your appraisal of Theravadan Buddhism. The following is from the Petavatthu. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/pv/pv.1.05.than.html Thanissaro's little intro: Some of your ancestors and deceased loved ones may have been reborn as hungry ghosts, no longer able to fend for themselves. In this poem the Buddha explains that it is to your long-term benefit — and to theirs — that you honor their memory with gifts. Outside the walls they stand, & at crossroads. At door posts they stand, returning to their old homes. But when a meal with plentiful food & drink is served, no one remembers them: Such is the kamma of living beings. Thus those who feel sympathy for their dead relatives give timely donations of proper food & drink — exquisite, clean — [thinking:] "May this be for our relatives. May our relatives be happy!" And those who have gathered there, the assembled shades of the relatives, with appreciation give their blessing for the plentiful food & drink: "May our relatives live long because of whom we have gained [this gift]. We have been honored, and the donors are not without reward!" For there [in their realm] there's no farming, no herding of cattle, no commerce, no trading with money. They live on what is given here, hungry shades whose time here is done. As water raining on a hill flows down to the valley, even so does what is given here benefit the dead. As rivers full of water fill the ocean full, even so does what is given here benefit the dead. "He gave to me, she acted on my behalf, they were my relatives, companions, friends": Offerings should be given for the dead when one reflects thus on things done in the past. For no weeping, no sorrowing no other lamentation benefits the dead whose relatives persist in that way. But when this offering is given, well-placed in the Sangha, it works for their long-term benefit and they profit immediately. In this way the proper duty to relatives has been shown, great honor has been done to the dead, and monks have been given strength: The merit you've acquired isn't small. Herman #71427 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 2, 2007 3:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > >S: In other words, the only really useful time and place to see dhammas > is > > now and here, no matter what the situation of our lives might be. So > if > > now we are sitting cross-legged under a tree, then the realities of > > seeing, hearing, thinking, likes, dislikes and so on can be known > when > > they appear. However, if now we are sitting at the computer or doing > the > > washing-up, the realities of seeing, hearing, thinking, likes, > dislikes > > and so on can still be known when they appear. .... H:> If the point that is being made is that there *is* only the present > moment, why do you then talk about the dhammas that *can* occur? That > is a reference to possibilities, to a future, a luxury which the > present moment does not afford you. .... S: Even thinking now is real and can be known as such. ..... H:> Also, I doubt very much that the point of the discussion is whether it > *is possible* that certain realities are knowable in all situations, > but whether *they are*. You have steadfastly implied ever since you > were a younger woman that the frequency of mindfullness for a > householder absorbed in their daily life is no different than for a > person who arouses effort to be mindful, and seeks out those > conditions that support that effort. I will steadfastly disagree with > you. .... S: The frequency of mindfulness for anyone will depend on numerous conditions including what has been heard about dhammas and whether there are any tendencies for such mindfulness. Any effort initiated with self-view will not be conducive to minfulness. Btw, in another post to someone, you mentioned that you consider awareness can only be aware of concepts. You also mentioned to Scott that intellectual analysis of dhammas is 'not very valuable in practice'. It seems to me that you don't consider pariyatti to be of benefit and that you don't consider patipatti (direct understanding of dhammas) can occur. So why bother with the Buddha's teachings at all? Let me know if I missed something along the way.... .... > >S: In other words, seeing consciousness and visible object have the same > > characteristics whether there or here. However, only the dhammas > which > > have arisen and which appear, one at a time, at the present moment > can > > ever be known. Anytime we think another situation, another reality > would > > be more useful for insight to develop, we 'lose' the present reality > -- > > there is no awareness of it. H:> If you would like to insist that standing at the sink thinking, oh, > that fork still has some dirt on it, and I must get to the shops > before 5, blah blah blah, is a case of being mindful of dhammas then > we are not on the same page, not even the same book. ... S: No that is not a case of being mindful. That is just thinking about concepts. However, even whilst thinking like that (or this now), there can be awareness. Herman, it can slip in anytime at all and be aware of any reality appearing. The examples at the start of this post are just examples. There's no need to stop thinking or think of a different topic. Even the Buddha thought about people and things, but no ignorance and lots of awareness whilst thinking. The only obstacle to the development of awarness is ignorance. Standing at the sink and thinking about the shops is not an obstacle:). Metta, Sarah ========= #71428 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 4:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Problem! buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi all, > > Replies are welcome, but not necessary. I'm only stating the obvious. > > On 01/05/07, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: > > > > FUTURE FALL > > As in the morning one may fear > > The falling of the ripened fruits, > > So all mortals in this world > > Live in constant fear of death. > > This is just a plain falsehood. > > I am really surprised that you would say that this is a falsehood. It is absolutely, 100% the truth! We all live in constant fear of death. This fear is sometimes obvious but usually subtle, but it is always present. This fear is present because of our craving for existence; we have a constant fear of the ending of that existence. We see death as the ending of the existence we cling to. Even scientists recognize this constant fear of death, but they call it the "survival instinct". Only arahants are free of this fear of death because they don't die (nibbana is the deathless). Metta, James #71429 From: connie Date: Wed May 2, 2007 7:31 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (53) nichiconn dear friends, the commentary on Sujata's verses in #71395: Tattha ala"nkataati vibhuusitaa. Ta.m pana ala"nkataakaara.m dassetu.m "suvasanaa maalinii candanokkhitaa"ti vutta.m. Tattha maaliniiti maalaadhaarinii. Candanokkhitaati candanaanulittaa. 145. There, ornamented means: adorned. But to show the manner of decoration, well dressed, wearing a garland smeared with sandalwood paste is said. There, wearing a garland (maalinii) means: bearing garlands (maala-dhaarinii). Smeared with sandalwood paste (candano-kkhitaa) means: anointed with sandalwood paste (candanaanulittaa). Sabbaabhara.nasa~nchannaati hatthuupagaadiihi sabbehi aabhara.nehi ala"nkaaravasena sa~nchaaditasariiraa. Covered with all my ornaments means: covering my body with all sorts of decorations and ornaments such as those going on my arms, etc. Anna.m paana~nca aadaaya, khajja.m bhojja.m anappakanti saali-odanaadi-anna.m, ambapaanaadipaana.m, pi.t.thakhaadaniiyaadikhajja.m, avasi.t.tha.m aahaarasa"nkhaata.m bhojja~nca pahuuta.m gahetvaa. Uyyaanamabhihaarayinti nakkhattakii.laavasena uyyaana.m upanesi.m. Annapaanaadi.m tattha aanetvaa saha parijanena kii.lantii ramantii paricaaresinti adhippaayo. 146. Taking food (anna.m) and drink (paana.m), hard food (khajja.m) and soft food (bhojja.m) in so small quantity means: taking a great deal of food such as rice and porridge, etc (saali-odanaadi-anna.m), drink such as mango juice, etc (ambapaanaadi-paanam), hard food such as pastries, etc (pi.t.tha-khaadaniiyaadi-khajja.m), and soft food, which is synonymous with the other types of food. I had [it] brought to the pleasure garden means: I brought [it] to the pleasure garden because of the astral festival. Having brought food and drink there, I amused myself, delighting myself and playing with my retinue. That is the meaning. Saakete a~njana.m vananti saaketasamiipe a~njanavane vihaara.m paavisi.m. Lokapajjotanti ~naa.napajjotena lokassa pajjotabhuuta.m. Phusayinti phusi.m, adhigacchinti attho. Sesa.m vuttanayameva. Sujaataatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. 147. Tha A~njana Wood (A~njana.m vana.m) at Saaketa (Saakete), means: I entered the monastery in the A~njena Wood (A~njena-vane) near Saaketa (Saaketa-samiipe). 148. The Light of the World (loka-pajjota.m) means: like the light of the world (lokassa pajjota-bhuuta.m) through being a light of knowledge (~naa.na-pajjota.m). 149. I attained (phusayi.m) means: I attained (phusi.m), I acquired. That is the meaning. The meaning of the rest has been explained. Here ends the commentary on the verses of Therii Sujaataa. === peace, connie #71430 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 3:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: conditions, to James. repost. upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 5/2/07 2:00:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard &all, > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > >>N: I do not think that it is good to begin to practise with an idea > >>of self, since one accumulates more wrong view in that way. > >> > >==================== > > Then we cannot begin. It is a like a prisoner who is told that so > >long > >as s/he is imprisoned, s/he should not begin with making appeals, or a > >sick > >person who is told that so long as s/he is ill, s/he should not start > >treatment. > .... > S: I just read B. Samahita's pst #71285* with the sub-heading 'The > illusion of an Ego is the Strongest Prison'. I thought of this comment of > yours. The wrong view of self is the prison. > > So while such wrong views have not been eradicated, we're in prison. If we > cling steadfastly to these views or develop a practice based on them, then > any 'escape' becomes harder and harder. > > However, whenever there is any right understanding or right view arising, > however little, the 'appeal' support begins to grow *in spite* of the > difficult predicament. > > If there was not a way out, the Buddha wouldn't have taught the Dhamma. > The way out, the successful 'appeal' is the eightfold path or Middle Way. > There is no wrong view of self at moment of path development! > > Metta, > > Sarah > ============================== Sarah, I don't know that you realize it, but you are making my point. It is, indeed, atta-view that is our prison. It is that prison that we need to be released from. There are steps to take while yet in prison, i.e., while still beset by atta-view, steps pointed out to us by our counsel, the Buddha. The irony is that the imprisonment is illusory. The cell door, old, rusted, heavy, and apprently immovable, is actually unlocked. As I have pointed out before with the prison metaphor, in the case of the most serious offenders, which includes a majority, namely the worldlings unfamiliar with the Dhamma and related teachings, there may not even be the realization that one is living in a prison, or, slightly better, there may be but it is thought there can be no escape, or that it is safer to remain imprisoned. By carefully listening to one's counsel and carefully considering what he says, the essential first step, the prisoner can change his/her understanding and orientation and commence the further steps his/her counsel urges to obtain release. Those steps are not based on the imprisonment in a way that furthers it, but are based on gaining a clear understanding of the nature of one's imprisonment, and on doing exactly what one's counsel has advocated to effect release. However, it is while yet imprisoned that these steps are taken! Basic logic and experience dictates that it couldnot be otherwise. With metta, Howard #71431 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 4:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Jon) - In a message dated 5/2/07 3:24:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > The other day Jon's flu was bad and his voice so weak and gruff that when > he was kindly reading out some dhamma posts to me, I could hardly > understand what he was saying! > ======================== I'm very sorry to hear that! (I've been going through a siege as well - one that seems to defy impermanence!) Is Jon better now? With metta, Howard #71432 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 4:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/2/07 2:27:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > -------------------- > KH: >>We say there can be no egg without a chicken and no chicken > without an egg, but no one denies the existence of chickens and > eggs 'in their own right.' > >> > > Howard: They do *not* exist in their own right. > ---------------------- > > OK, I should have been more specific. In the ultimate sense they do > not exist, but my point is; in conventional reality chickens and eggs > are said to exist in their own right even though they depend on each > other. The same logic applies to ultimate reality; dependent > origination does not mean dhammas do not exist absolutely (in their > own right, independently of concepts, with "own being"). ---------------------------------------------- Howard: It does, indeed, mean that: They do not exist absolutely, independently, and in their own right, but dependently, contingently. I'm not talking here about dependence on convention - I realized that the chicken-egg business was only analogical. The view, however, of dhammas existing as self-existent and separate things is dependent on mere convention and is without basis in fact. --------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------ > H: >Their existence is contingent. A chicken is utterly dependent on > all its constituents and all the conditions permitting the arising of > those constituents, and on the interrelations holding among those > constituents, and on being perceived as an individual. There is no > self in a chicken or in any of the conditions it is dependent on. ---- > ------------------------- > > I strongly disagree that chickens are dependent on conditions. > According to the Abhidhamma, person (and, therefore, chicken) is a > concept (a word) that refers to another concept (a sentient being). > Concepts are not conditioned (dependently arisen). Otherwise there > would be no difference between concepts and realities. --------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! Okay, no dependence on conditions. As you wish. So, there are no chickens at all, in any sense. I'll meet you later at Kentucky Fried Apparition for a rather unsatisfying lunch! LOL! Oh, BTW, what do you think about all those obvious lunatics who get upset about the chicken and turkey "farms" where imaginary birds are locked into tight, imaginary cages, and force-fed imaginary food and hormones stuffed down imaginary gullets? It is those those lunatics who should be locked up, instead, hmmm?. Or, on second thought, there are no lunatics, no mental hospital to put them in, and no one to do the putting. Well, that much better for the imaginary fowls. --------------------------------------------- > > It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that this is where the > conventional teaching method (found in most of the suttas) varies > from the ultimate method (found in other suttas and in the Abhidhamma- > pitaka). In the conventional method the Buddha used 'person' and > other similar concepts to refer, not to other concepts (as in the > ultimate method), but to realities. (!) This makes the suttas very > hard to follow. Except, that is, for someone who has already mastered > the ultimate teaching. (But that might be just my theory. Corrections > welcome!) > > --------------------------------------- > KH: >>The sutta also refers to the way co-arisen namas and rupas > depend on each other for support - just like two sheaves of reeds. > But each of >those sheaves still exists, doesn't it? > >> > > Howard: Yes, but not on its own. That is the point. > ---------------------------------------- > > No, that is not the point. The fact that something cannot exist on > its own does not mean that it has a nebulous kind of existence. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: It IS the point, and I said nothing of a "nebulous kind of existence". The mode of existence is quite precise. But the existence YOU want is substantial, self-existence, and that is exactly the "existence" denied in the Kaccayanagota Sutta by the Buddha. ---------------------------------------------- It > > is still self-existent. It still has "own being." > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Most assuredly not. Hey, Ken, this is getting silly - it's becomng a "Yes it is! No it isn't!" conversation, which is pointless. I say we drop it. ----------------------------------------------- To take another > > conventional example, a roof depends on walls to hold it up. It is > still a roof! And the walls are still walls! We don't have to > regard them as different aspects of "building content" the way you > say we should regard dhammas as different aspects of "experiential > content." > > This entire business about "not self existent" and "no own being" > and "experiential content" is a red herring. If it wasn't for your > need to justify formal vipassana practice we would never have heard > of it. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not a "vipassana meditator".My meditation practice is an in-tandem one. And I assure you, I haven't the slightest desire to "justify" anything to anyone. You may believe and do whatever you wish. I do hope, though, that some day you'll see matters differently, for your own good, not mine. ---------------------------------------------- And I don't mean to single you out in this. Every Buddhist who > > adheres to the modern practice of formal meditation finds that he/she > has to go against the ancient texts to some degree. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: I consider that to be nonsense. -------------------------------------------- Usually, they > > just say that the Abhidhamma is a later addition and needn't be taken > as gospel when it conflicts with their interpretations. However, > when they look deeply into the texts (as we do here at DSG) there are > more and more things that need to be explained away. > > ------------------------ > <. . .> > Howard: >C'mon, Ken. The Buddha gave a clear analogy. The "standing > up" of is their existence. And the existence is mutually dependent. > Yes, they stand up, but NOT ON THEIR OWN. That is the Buddha's point. > ------------------------ > > Yes, that is the point of dependent origination. Therefore, there is > no need to go further the way you have done. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Ah, you say then, that the sutta should stand on its own. Okay, no need for commentaries! As you often point out, the Buddha doesn't teach trivialties already well known by folks. So, in going over that sutta, there IS the need to "go further" to reveal its depth. ---------------------------------------- There is no need to > > equate true existence with atta. No atta (according to your > interpretatiion) means "no own being." Consequently, paramattha > dhammas cannot be seen as the actual performers of functions. And the > momentary cetasikas that are the eight path factors cannot be seen as > the real practitioners of vipassana. That leaves the way open for an > interpretation that favours formal meditation. It is a tangled web, > but you (i.e., formal meditators in general) have no option but to > weave it. I don't envy you . :-) -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I also find the Kaccayangota sutta clear, but I see as well how deep it is. BTW, you may or may not notice that I don't use the term "formal meditation". There is just meditation, of various sorts. The idea that that the Bud hha didn't teach it and urge it is one of the most hilarious ideas encountered on DSG. It is utterly absurd and manifestly false. -------------------------------------------------- > > -------- > > H: >Here you say that I *know* your theory, but you will keep it to > yourself - rather contradictory, it seems to me. Be that as it may, I > do *not* know your theory, nor do I care what it might be. The way > you talk about it suggests that it would reveal some deep, dark shame > of mine. Ken, at best this is just becoming silly > ------- > > On several occasions, I have tried to suggest that nearly all of the > disagreements at DSG are, directly or indirectly, about formal > meditation. You have vehemently denied this, but it is quite obvious > to me. The teaching of momentary, paramattha, reality must be either > ignored or watered down before formal vipassana meditation can be > defended. -------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, you are now engaging in a soliloquy. ---------------------------------------- > > Ken H > ==================== With metta, Howard #71433 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 4:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/2/07 6:11:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Some comments on commentaries from Bill Brasington ===================== Who is he, please? With metta, Howard #71434 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 4:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Ken) - In a message dated 5/2/07 3:27:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > Hi Ken H. and Howard, > > If I may jump into this discussion: ----------------------------------------- Howard: Good timing! You are entering the ring just as Iam exiting. ;-) ----------------------------------------- With metta, Howard #71435 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 4:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Problem! TGrand458@... Hi Herman When driving a car, the reason we follow the road and watch traffic is fear of death. We lock doors at night because fear of death. We stay out of bad neighborhoods because of fear of death. Ever watch animals? They are pretty much always on the lookout for danger. We basically are too, but we've developed certain types of securities which make us less vigilant then we would be otherwise. As for the quote below, the fear of falling fruit probably refers to falling coconuts which do kill people from time to time. I was told by Sri Lankans that a couple of people are killed every year in Sri Lanka from this. I would view the constant fear of death to mean that the fear is latently always there and arises to the surface to whatever degree an apparent danger appears. Arahats excluded. TG In a message dated 5/2/2007 4:15:20 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > FUTURE FALL > As in the morning one may fear > The falling of the ripened fruits, > So all mortals in this world > Live in constant fear of death. This is just a plain falsehood. > Since certain is their death! > Snp 576 > Herman #71436 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 6:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a question / Three Realities? upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and all) - In a message dated 5/1/07 11:02:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Sarah, James, Herman, Howard, Nina, Robert, All > > > In a message dated 5/1/2007 7:44:25 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > buddhatrue@... writes: > > > >The statement "There are only dhammas" implies existence, and the > >>Buddha taught against existence. Instead the Buddha taught > dependent > >>origination which demonstrates that nothing really "exists" but > >>rather just arises temporarily. It is not beneficial to think of > >>things existing or not existing, but rather arising temporarily. > >>Dhammas are fleeting phenomenon, not self-existent entities. > >.... > >S: Dhammas arise temporarily and at such times they *exist*. How > else is > >there any seeing of visible objects, hearing of sounds and so on? > > > > > TG: Actually, from a deeper viewpoint IMO, and as James indicated, there > are no separate states that arise. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Not separate or self-existent, but distinguishable nonetheless. There is no confusing of hardness with coldness, or at least not unless one is amazingly inattentive. ---------------------------------------------- Phenomena are just continually changing. > > It is only from a subjective/self perspective that objects are identified > as > separate existing realities/things...no matter how short a duration is > implied. The formations that arise and cease only have "made-up" meaning > from our > point of view. There is nothing inherently existing as "things of > themselves" > or of "own characteristics" in regards to phenomena. To think of arisen > phenomena as existing or not existing are both wrong views. > > Whatever arises is merely a byproduct of "other conditions." Those "other > conditions" are merely byproducts of "other conditions" too. That's why > some > of us keep saying there is nothing with its own characteristic. > ---------------------------------- Howard: Indeed - with the emphasis on "own". ----------------------------------- A byproduct > > has no power or control to be anything that exists as its own thing. The > byproduct is an empty apparition formed by something else. But that > "something > else" is just the same...an empty byproduct. We cannot "pin things down" > as > existing because what they are is always something else. ------------------------------------- Howard: Exactly. All dhammas are ungraspable. (Though I don't think that the issue is that of a dhamma's alleged alteration. They would be ungraspable even if they were literally zero-duration phenomena. It is their impermanence and their contingent existence, inseparably dependent on their conditions, that makes them ungraspable.) ----------------------------------- > > To call something "existing" is to pin it down and to say..."this thing is > here." But where ever and however you look for it, its always something > else > that's the source. > > There are three types of realities as I see it. An ultimate reality, a > conditional reality, and a subjective reality. > > 1) Ultimate reality = No-self (This reality always applies.) ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. ---------------------------------------- > 2) Conditional Reality = Impermanence (This reality applies to > conditions > / conditionality.) --------------------------------------- Howard: In a way, due to ultimate reality, nothing is impermanent! That paradoxical slogan requires explanation: Nothing is impermanent only in the sense that there is no separate, self-existent "thing" that ceases. If there were, that would be annihilation - a true something becoming nothing. Cessation is a reality only because what cease are phenomena whose existence is insubstantial and contingent. Typically, people think of impermanence as consisting of self-existent realities being destroyed, which is a view combining atta-perspective with annihilationism. It is easy to fall into that trap unless one keeps in mind what you call "ultimate reality". ------------------------------------------- > 3) Subjective Reality = Affliction/Dukkha (This reality applies to > unenlightened consciousness.) ------------------------------------------ Howard: Affliction/dukkha in the sense of suffering is a real element of experience in non-arahants (as you say). I suppose it can be called subjective in the sense that it is mental pain (the unnecessary "second dart"). Dukkha in the sense of not being a source of ultimate satisfaction is also a reality - one that applies to all conditions. I'm not sure that this is a "third reality". ------------------------------------------- > > Just made the above up during this post. I think I like it. LOL > Comments? > > The "dhammas" that arise, listed by abhidhamma, neither exist or not exist. > > They are important "qualities" or "relativities" to use as reference points > > when developing mindfulness. They are not realities. --------------------------------------------- Howard: They are not self-existent entities.They are, however, elements of experience, and, in fact, elements of experience independent of sankharic fabrication. In that sense they are not unreal. ------------------------------------------- > > TG > ===================== With metta, Howard #71437 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 3:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Problem! egberdina Hi TG and James, > I would view the constant fear of death to mean that the fear is latently > always there and arises to the surface to whatever degree an apparent danger > appears. Arahats excluded. > I think we must also exclude those people who actively seek their death, such as in euthanasia or suicide, those people who willingly participate in very dangerous activities knowing the risks full-well, and those people who happily accept that death will come in it's own time, but do not actively hurry it along because of their obligations to family and friends. For this last group it is not a fear of death that keeps them alive, it is their sense of duty to the living. Herman #71438 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 3:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Howard, > > > Some comments on commentaries from Bill Brasington > ===================== > Who is he, please? He is Leigh Brasington, the well-known meditation teacher, when I get my names all mixed up :-) Thanks for asking! Herman #71439 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 3:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable egberdina Hi Jon and Howard, On 03/05/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/2/07 3:24:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > > The other day Jon's flu was bad and his voice so weak and gruff that when > > he was kindly reading out some dhamma posts to me, I could hardly > > understand what he was saying! > > > ======================== > I'm very sorry to hear that! (I've been going through a siege as well > - one that seems to defy impermanence!) Is Jon better now? > If wishing for speedy recoveries was effective, this just would not be happening. Come on, guys, get better, if only to make a forgetful middle-aged man happy! Herman #71440 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta egberdina Hi KenH, On 02/05/07, Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi KenH, > > On 02/05/07, kenhowardau wrote: > > > > > > As the sutta explains, there is no nama and rupa without rebirth > > consciousness, and there is no rebirth consciousness without nama and > > rupa. But that doesn't affect the existence of those dhammas, does > > it? We say there can be no egg without a chicken and no chicken > > without an egg, but no one denies the existence of chickens and > > eggs 'in their own right.' > > > > The sutta also refers to the way co-arisen namas and rupas depend on > > each other for support - just like two sheaves of reeds. But each of > > those sheaves still exists, doesn't it? > > No, those sheaves do not both exist independently. One sheaf is > knowing, the other sheaf is the object of knowing. There is no knowing > in the absence of known object. Knowing is not an existent. And in the > absence of knowing characteristics, nothing can be said about the > existence of characteristics. There simply is no hearing without > object, no seeing without object etc > > Herman I wouldn't mind your comments on this, Ken, if you feel at all inclined. Does knowing exist without an object? As an analogy, does one side of a coin exist without the other? Herman #71441 From: "proud251" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 1:14 pm Subject: baby blessing ceremony proud251 Hi I am new here and to Buddha, I have a 12 month old baby girl I heard about these ceremonies, how does everyone feel about these. Like christains who have to be baptised, do Buddhist have certain beliefs for babies?? #71442 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 3:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a question / Three Realities? egberdina Hi TG, On 02/05/07, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > > TG: Actually, from a deeper viewpoint IMO, and as James indicated, there > are no separate states that arise. Phenomena are just continually changing. > It is only from a subjective/self perspective that objects are identified as > separate existing realities/things...no matter how short a duration is > implied. The formations that arise and cease only have "made-up" meaning from our > point of view. There is nothing inherently existing as "things of themselves" > or of "own characteristics" in regards to phenomena. To think of arisen > phenomena as existing or not existing are both wrong views. > Can't you write something contoversial so we can have a hearty disagreement? > > There are three types of realities as I see it. An ultimate reality, a > conditional reality, and a subjective reality. > > 1) Ultimate reality = No-self (This reality always applies.) > 2) Conditional Reality = Impermanence (This reality applies to conditions > / conditionality.) > 3) Subjective Reality = Affliction/Dukkha (This reality applies to > unenlightened consciousness.) > > Just made the above up during this post. I think I like it. LOL Comments? > I like it too. Ever thought of becoming a commentator? :-) :-) I still have my doubts about dukkha though. I do not think that enlightened consciousness is any less dukkha. It is the very nature of consciousness to be a hungry ghost, forever in search of becoming. For sure and for certain, consciousness may find wholesomely pleasant abodes, but the cessation of dukkha is not in enlightenment, it is in nibbana. Panna is dukkha, too. I had a thought too, the other day, which might run against the grain a bit, depending on what the orthodoxy is, but anatta does not apply to nibbana. Herman #71443 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 4:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Scott, S: "But one 'takes up' all that contributes to experience and calls it 'oneself' (and one's own)." L: Is this what you do? Is this dollar I'm holding Scott's? Larry #71444 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - > > > > >Some comments on commentaries from Bill Brasington > > ===================== > > Who is he, please? > > He is Leigh Brasington, the well-known meditation teacher, when I get > my names all mixed up :-) Thanks for asking! > > > Herman > ========================= Ah! Yes, I know him - or, rather, I took a brief course with him once, and we talked a bit. Of course, we can't depend on anything he might have to say - after all, he is a notorious meditator!!! Haven't you seen his"wanted poster"? LOLOL! With metta, Howard #71445 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 12:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/2/07 6:16:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > If wishing for speedy recoveries was effective, this just would not be > happening. Come on, guys, get better, if only to make a forgetful > middle-aged man happy! > ==================== Thank you! :-) With metta, Howard #71446 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 4:40 pm Subject: Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Ken H. and Howard, > > If I may jump into this discussion: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > > On several occasions, I have tried to suggest that nearly all of the > > disagreements at DSG are, directly or indirectly, about formal > > meditation. You have vehemently denied this, but it is quite obvious > > to me. The teaching of momentary, paramattha, reality must be either > > ignored or watered down before formal vipassana meditation can be > > defended. > > > Ahhh....so this is supposedly the big secret Howard is hiding. Hi James, I haven't mentioned the word "secret." and there is no secret involved. As I said in the paragraph quoted above, the matter has already been discussed several times. Howard is sick of it; he thinks it is going nowhere and he would rather not continue with it. But there is no secret. ----------------------------- J: > What difference does it make if one views dhammas as having "own existence" or as having "empty existence" to meditation practice? ----------------------------- That is a different issue, but since you ask; it makes all the difference in the world. The term "empty existence" is fine if it is understood to mean "empty of an abiding self." However, if it is taken to mean that dhammas are not existent in the full meaning of the word 'existent' then there is trouble. That is when the teaching of absolute, momentary, reality is being watered down to mean something nebulous. Nebulous existence applies to concepts; absolute existence applies to dhammas. The distinction between concepts and dhammas must not be blurred. When there is a blurring of that distinction, there is room to interpret some of the suttas in a way that might seem consistent with the modern practice of formal meditation. That, in my opinion is why people dispute the authenticity of various ancient Theravada texts. (Why else would they be motivated to do such a thing?) They are trying to water-down the distinction between concepts and realities - and, therefore, to water down the teaching of paramattha dhammas. --------------------------------------- J: > Ken, this issue has been debated for centuries and the practice of meditation has never been central to the subject. --------------------------------------- I haven't studied the history of Buddhist schisms, so I will take your word for that. Howard's interpretation of anatta is to see dhammas as less than absolutely existent. Therefore I would say the issue is now very "central to the subject." --------------------------- J: > Actually, I consider the issue so unimportant to meditation practice that I don't even want to debate it. I'm a pragamitist and I consider this simply a philosophical difference in viewpoint. Think what you will....as long as you practice the Noble Eightfold Path it all comes out with the wash. ---------------------------- The Eightfold Path is practised by Noble Ones - Ariyan learners - so it may be a long way off for me. In the meantime I would like to find out exactly what it is. Ken H #71447 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 5:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Problem! buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > I think we must also exclude those people who actively seek their > death, such as in euthanasia or suicide, James: People who commit suicide also have a fear of death, but their desire for cessation/annihilation outweighs that fear. There is a dissonance in the person's mind and the final decision toward suicide doesn't come easily (because of the contradictory fear of death). those people who willingly > participate in very dangerous activities knowing the risks full-well James: Those people also have a fear of death, that is what makes the activity exciting- the risk of death. , > and those people who happily accept that death will come in it's own > time, but do not actively hurry it along because of their obligations > to family and friends. For this last group it is not a fear of death > that keeps them alive, it is their sense of duty to the living. James: These people also have a fear of death, but they are a bit more wise than others. Herman, perhaps you would like to read this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.184.than.html Metta, James #71448 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 5:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Larry, L: Is this what you do? Is this dollar I'm holding Scott's? Scott: I'm sorry, Larry, I'm not following you. Sincerely, Scott. #71449 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 5:55 pm Subject: Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta kenhowardau Hi Herman, ---------- KH: >> The sutta also refers to the way co-arisen namas and rupas depend on > > each other for support - just like two sheaves of reeds. But each of > > those sheaves still exists, doesn't it? >> Herman: > No, those sheaves do not both exist independently. One sheaf is knowing, the other sheaf is the object of knowing. There is no knowing in the absence of known object. --------------- That is true, and it may be the way the simile was meant, I don't know. So far, you haven't disagreed with anything I had written. So I don't know why you began with "No,." :-) ------------------------ H: > Knowing is not an existent. ------------------------ As luck would have it, I have the following DSG quote (addressed to you) in front of me: "Now, you also wrote "Momentary sila is an absurdity, an outcome of dogmatic intellectual analysis," and I agree with that." So what am I to say to you? If you understand dhammas to be something other than momentary phenomena - and if I understand them to be precisely that - how can we have an intelligent conversation about the Buddha's teaching? Don't we need to go right back to basics? ---------------- H: > And in the absence of knowing characteristics, nothing can be said about the existence of characteristics. ---------------- Que? ------------------ H: > There simply is no hearing without > object, no seeing without object etc ------------------ That's right, but what is your point? When seeing-consciousness and visible object arise together, each of those dhammas is existent, isn't it? ------------------------- H: > I wouldn't mind your comments on this, Ken, if you feel at all inclined. Does knowing exist without an object? As an analogy, does one side of a coin exist without the other? -------------------------- As I have been saying to you and Howard and James, dhammas exist absolutely. The doctrine of anatta does not tell us that dhammas cannot be known one from the other - as separate entities. Perhaps you are asking if nama (seeing consciousness, for example) can become an object of consciousness on its own. Yes, it can. Ken H #71450 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 5:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "I think you are possible being a little bit selective in your appraisal of Theravadan Buddhism. The following is from the Petavatthu..." Scott: What do you mean, please? I accept completely that these realms exist literally. Sincerely, Scott. #71451 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 6:13 pm Subject: Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > As I have been saying to you and Howard and James, dhammas exist > absolutely. The doctrine of anatta does not tell us that dhammas > cannot be known one from the other - as separate entities. If something is present one second and gone the next second, what can be said of it's intrinsic existence? Nothing. Metta, James #71452 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 6:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, I want to slow down and step back for a moment, taking this carefully. This impasse is reached each time we discuss for awhile. I'd say we differ on the following: 1)Intersubjectivity: Is this taught by the Buddha? 2)The meaning of experience: What is your definition? 3)The interaction of experience and confidence. 4)The role of the teachings. What do you think? Sincerely, Scott. #71453 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 2:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a question / Three Realities? TGrand458@... Hi Howard I appreciate the comments. Just a couple of "fine tunings" below... In a message dated 5/2/2007 11:42:03 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG (and all) - In a message dated 5/1/07 11:02:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) writes: > Hi Sarah, James, Herman, Howard, Nina, Robert, All > > > In a message dated 5/1/2007 7:44:25 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > _buddhatrue@..._ (mailto:buddhatrue@...) writes: > > > >The statement "There are only dhammas" implies existence, and the > >>Buddha taught against existence. Instead the Buddha taught > dependent > >>origination which demonstrates that nothing really "exists" but > >>rather just arises temporarily. It is not beneficial to think of > >>things existing or not existing, but rather arising temporarily. > >>Dhammas are fleeting phenomenon, not self-existent entities. > >.... > >S: Dhammas arise temporarily and at such times they *exist*. How > else is > >there any seeing of visible objects, hearing of sounds and so on? > > > > > TG: Actually, from a deeper viewpoint IMO, and as James indicated, there > are no separate states that arise. > --------------------------------------- Howard: Not separate or self-existent, but distinguishable nonetheless. There is no confusing of hardness with coldness, or at least not unless one is amazingly inattentive. ---------------------------------------------- Phenomena are just continually changing. > > It is only from a subjective/self perspective that objects are identified > as > separate existing realities/things. separate existing realities/thi > implied. The formations that arise and cease only have "made-up" meaning > from our > point of view. There is nothing inherently existing as "things of > themselves" > or of "own characteristics" in regards to phenomena. To think of arisen > phenomena as existing or not existing are both wrong views. > > Whatever arises is merely a byproduct of "other conditions." Those "other > conditions" are merely byproducts of "other conditions" too. That's why > some > of us keep saying there is nothing with its own characteristic. > ---------------------------------- Howard: Indeed - with the emphasis on "own". ----------------------------------- A byproduct > > has no power or control to be anything that exists as its own thing. The > byproduct is an empty apparition formed by something else. But that > "something > else" is just the same...an empty byproduct. We cannot "pin things down" > as > existing because what they are is always something else. ------------------------------------- Howard: Exactly. All dhammas are ungraspable. (Though I don't think that the issue is that of a dhamma's alleged alteration. They would be ungraspable even if they were literally zero-duration phenomena. It is their impermanence and their contingent existence, inseparably dependent on their conditions, that makes them ungraspable.m ----------------------------------- > > To call something "existing" is to pin it down and to say..."this thing is > here." But where ever and however you look for it, its always something > else > that's the source. > > There are three types of realities as I see it. An ultimate reality, a > conditional reality, and a subjective reality. > > 1) Ultimate reality = No-self (This reality always applies.) ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. ---------------------------------------- > 2) Conditional Reality = Impermanence (This reality applies to > conditions > / conditionality. --------------------------------------- Howard: In a way, due to ultimate reality, nothing is impermanent! That paradoxical slogan requires explanation: Nothing is impermanent only in the sense that there is no separate, self-existent "thing" that ceases. If there were, that would be annihilation - a true something becoming nothing. Cessation is a reality only because what cease are phenomena whose existence is insubstantial and contingent. Typically, people think of impermanence as consisting of self-existent realities being destroyed, which is a view combining atta-perspective with annihilationism. It is easy to fall into that trap unless one keeps in mind what you call "ultimate reality". ------------------------------------------- TG: I completely agree with what you said above. Note that I said "impermanence is a conditional reality." I did not say that there were "things" that were impermanent. Such so called "things" would be subjective. (Now... given another context and another discussion, I might speak of "things" being impermanent but that is merely to appeal to another level of understanding. This discussion is above and beyond THAT level.) Also, your excellent point about the impossibility of annihilation (because there is no "thing" to be annihilated) is exactly my point when I discuss Nibbana and say that the complete end of consciousness/experience is not annihilation. These states have nothing of their own to begin with...so the lack of support (ignorance/craving) that leads to their end is merely one form of emptiness for another. There is no "thing" that comes to an end. I believe the Buddha says something to the effect that ... it is only suffering that ends. > 3) Subjective Reality = Affliction/Dukkha (This reality applies to > unenlightened consciousness. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Affliction/dukkha in the sense of suffering is a real element of experience in non-arahants (as you say). I suppose it can be called subjective in the sense that it is mental pain (the unnecessary "second dart"). Dukkha in the sense of not being a source of ultimate satisfaction is also a reality - one that applies to all conditions. I'm not sure that this is a "third reality". ------------------------ > Just made the above up during this post. I think I like it. LOL > Comments? > > The "dhammas" that arise, listed by abhidhamma, neither exist or not exist. > > They are important "qualities" or "relativities" to use as reference points > > when developing mindfulness. They are not realities. --------------------------------------------- Howard: They are not self-existent entities.They are, however, elements of experience, and, in fact, elements of experience independent of sankharic fabrication. In that sense they are not unreal. ------------------------------------------- TG: Yes, they are not unreal...(except perhaps in the sense that they are "thought about/conceptualized.") Nor are they realities. I'll stick with "qualities" of phenomena. "Relativities" or "resultants" works fine for me too. Thanks Howard. TG #71454 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 3:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a question / Three Realities? TGrand458@... Hi Herman In a message dated 5/2/2007 4:35:01 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi TG, On 02/05/07, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) <_TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) > wrote: > > > > TG: Actually, from a deeper viewpoint IMO, and as James indicated, there > are no separate states that arise. Phenomena are just continually changing. > It is only from a subjective/self perspective that objects are identified as > separate existing realities/things. separate existing realities/th > implied. The formations that arise and cease only have "made-up" meaning from our > point of view. There is nothing inherently existing as "things of themselves" > or of "own characteristics" in regards to phenomena. To think of arisen > phenomena as existing or not existing are both wrong views. > Can't you write something contoversial so we can have a hearty disagreement? TG: I'm sorry. I'll try harder. > > There are three types of realities as I see it. An ultimate reality, a > conditional reality, and a subjective reality. > > 1) Ultimate reality = No-self (This reality always applies.) > 2) Conditional Reality = Impermanence (This reality applies to conditions > / conditionality. > 3) Subjective Reality = Affliction/Dukkha (This reality applies to > unenlightened consciousness. > > Just made the above up during this post. I think I like it. LOL Comments? > I like it too. Ever thought of becoming a commentator? :-) :-) I still have my doubts about dukkha though. I do not think that enlightened consciousness is any less dukkha. It is the very nature of consciousness to be a hungry ghost, forever in search of becoming. For sure and for certain, consciousness may find wholesomely pleasant abodes, but the cessation of dukkha is not in enlightenment, it is in nibbana. Panna is dukkha, too. TG: I guess when I say "enlightenment" I always think I'm saying Nibbana. Anyway, that's how I mean it. Or do you mean Parinibbana? I had a thought too, the other day, which might run against the grain a bit, depending on what the orthodoxy is, but anatta does not apply to nibbana. TG: The way I see it, anatta is not a thing. It merely is a lack of something. So if there is "nothing" to Nibbana, saying no-self is still correct. You could also say "no-trees" but that would be ludicrous. ;-) I think the Buddha, teaching this subject, would need to clarify to listeners that Nibbana was not some union with atman or something. So there was purpose in showing that no-self covered the gammit. Since there was no-self to begin with, nothing is lost in Nibbana except suffering. Thanks for the comments Herman. TG #71455 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 7:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Scott, S: "But one 'takes up' all that contributes to experience and calls it 'oneself' (and one's own)." L: What does that mean? Larry #71456 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 7:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Larry, S: "But one 'takes up' all that contributes to experience and calls it 'oneself' (and one's own)." L: "What does that mean?" Scott: Oh, thanks, that's more clear. I was referring to the PTS PED definition: "Atta...that which has been taken up, assumed." 'Experience' is a function of the rapid rise and fall of dhammas. Continuity is an illusion. The illusory continuity called self is 'taken up' and 'assumed' but is only conditioned dhammas, rising and falling away. Probably no better due to my lack of clarity. Sinerely, Scott. #71457 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed May 2, 2007 8:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Scott, S: "But one 'takes up' all that contributes to experience and calls it 'oneself' (and one's own)." L: This means everything you experience you call your self. Do you call everything you experience your self? If not, what do you call your self? Who are you? Larry #71458 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 8:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Larry, L: "This means everything you experience you call your self." Scott: Oh, darn it. Does it really mean that? No, it shouldn't mean that. That is not what I'm trying to say. Do you think of it this way? L:"...Do you call everything you experience your self?" Scott: I'm saying that experience is subsumed into an illusory structure known as self. Why would I call everything I experience my self? I think I exist (self) and I think other things exist too." L: "If not, what do you call your self? Who are you?" Scott: This isn't clear. It would help if you could make these questions into a statement of some kind and then I could respond to that. P.S. What about this attempted clarification: "'Experience' is a function of the rapid rise and fall of dhammas. Continuity is an illusion. The illusory continuity called self is 'taken up' and 'assumed' but is only conditioned dhammas, rising and falling away." Sincerely, Scott. #71459 From: "Leo" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 5:01 pm Subject: some things i can not put together leoaive Hi It says in Sattipathana about body in the ground and also body consist of four elements and one is like butcher dividing it mentally. In Parinibhanna Sutta, Buddha like to have 500 layers of cloth and body to be on a fire and sala flowers for a place of Parinibhanna. Now, I see a completely different kind of taste. To be honest, I believe that sala tree and burning body on fire is something original, but Sattipathana way for it I do not think it is very original. Also, Tathagatha worthy of Stuppa. In present life it is made a statue. It looks to me it is too much of other way. What do you think? With Metta Leo #71460 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 10:24 pm Subject: Suprahuman Force I bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the Effects of the 4 Feet of Spiritual Force? The Blessed Buddha once said: When a Bhikkhu develops The 4 Feet of Force quite enriched with concentrated desire, concentrated energy, concentrated thought & concentrated investigation constructed by effort thinking: In this way will my desire, energy, thinking and investigating neither be too slack nor too tense, and it will neither be constricted internally nor distracted externally, then he dwells experiencing both what is in front & what is behind, so above, so also below, so by day, so also at night! Thus, with a mind that is all open & unrestricted, he develops the unique and dazzling bright mind pervaded by own luminosity... When the 4 feet of suprahuman force have been developed, refined and cultivated in exactly this way, the Bhikkhu possesses the various kinds of suprahuman force: having been one, he becomes many; having been many, he becomes one; he appears & he vanishes; he goes fully unhindered through a wall, through a barricade, through a mountain as though through open space; he dives in and out of the earth at if it were water; seated cross-legged, he travels in space like a bird, he walks on water without sinking as though it were solid earth; with his hand he touches and strokes the moon and sun so powerful and mighty; he masters the body as far as the Brahma world... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:263-65] section 51: The 4 Forces. Thread 11: Shaking The Mansion. Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <.....> #71461 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 2:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 03/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > I want to slow down and step back for a moment, taking this carefully. I appreciate and accept the suggestion. I will give just a brief answer to one outstanding post, and I'll start afresh with this one in a day or two. How's that? Herman #71462 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 2:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 03/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Dear Herman, > > H: "I think you are possible being a little bit selective in your > appraisal of Theravadan Buddhism. The following is from the > Petavatthu..." > > Scott: What do you mean, please? You wrote: I don't think the Buddha teaches that my act of kindness can, in and of itself, literally have an effect on you. It only has an effect on me. The Buddha's enlightenment is only his own, and a result of aeons of action. He taught 4NT, but this has to arise in 'me'. I mean that there is no way I can see for anything contained within the 'stream' which is the 'flux' of actions known as 'Scott' to enter, mingle with and interact with that 'stream' known as 'Herman'. I cannot literally influence you. What we think is influence is really a function of dhammas in a 'separate stream'. I quoted the bit I did to demonstrate that Theravadan's do believe that their actions can influence others, even the dead. That's all. Herman #71463 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 3:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for: H: "I appreciate and accept the suggestion. I will give just a brief answer to one outstanding post, and I'll start afresh with this one in a day or two. How's that?" Scott: Sounds good. I'll briefly reply to the other post and wait, since it relates to 'intersubjectivity'. Sincerely, Scott. #71464 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 3:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "I quoted the bit I did to demonstrate that Theravadan's do believe that their actions can influence others, even the dead. That's all." Scott: Okay, got it. Thanks. I'll give it some thought. Sincerely, Scott. #71465 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed May 2, 2007 11:38 pm Subject: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! bhikkhu5 Hello Friend James: Well spoken: >Only Arahats are free of this fear of death because they don't die. Arahats do indeed die, but only 1 single more time…, which they do not fear! Why not? Because for them is this death the Ultimate ‘Party Time’ Hehehe ;-) and the Absolute Climax of the endless re-becoming since an unperceivable beginning of only this ever renewed process of Suffering = Samsara !!! Which the Bliss of Nibbana is wholly freed of! There only PERFECTLY PURE PEACE remains! Samahita PS: Far from all humans can be cured of wrong view… Take home: Perfectly Pure Peace! #71466 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 4:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Problem! egberdina Hi James, On 03/05/07, buddhatrue wrote: > > Herman, perhaps you would like to read this sutta: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.184.than.html > A very appropriate sutta, thanks James. It certainly proves the point that > So all mortals in this world > Live in constant fear of death is a bit of hyperbole at best. Herman #71467 From: connie Date: Thu May 3, 2007 5:16 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (54) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 1 of 2: Anopamaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa, The commentary on the verses of Therii Anopamaa -- Ucce kuleti-aadikaa anopamaaya theriyaa gaathaa. Ayampi purimabuddhesu kataadhikaaraa tattha tattha bhave viva.t.tuupanissaya.m kusala.m upacinantii anukkamena vimuttiparipaacaniiye dhamme paribruuhitvaa imasmi.m buddhuppaade saaketanagare majjhassa naama se.t.thino dhiitaa hutvaa nibbatti. Tassaa ruupasampattiyaa anopamaati naama.m ahosi. The verses beginning [I was born in] an exalted family are Therii Anopamaa's. She too performed meritorious deeds under previous Buddhas and accumulated good [actions] in various lives as [her] basis for release. She developed the characteristics leading to freedom and in this Buddha era, she was born in the town of Saaketa as the daughter of a wealthy merchant named Majjha. Because of the perfection of her beauty, she was named Anopamaa ("Incomparable"). Tassaa vayappattakaale bahuu se.t.thiputtaa raajamahaamattaa raajaano ca pitu duuta.m paahesu.m- "attano dhiitara.m anopama.m dehi, ida~ncida~nca te dassaamaa"ti. Saa ta.m sutvaa upanissayasampannataaya "gharaavaasena mayha.m attho natthii"ti satthu santika.m gantvaa dhamma.m sutvaa ~naa.nassa paripaaka.m gatattaa desanaanusaarena vipassana.m aarabhitvaa ta.m ussukkaapentii maggapa.tipaa.tiyaa tatiyaphale pati.t.thaasi. When she came of age, many merchants' sons, sons of kings' ministers, and kings sent messengers to her father, saying, "Give your daughter Anopamaa to me, and we will give you this and that." When she heard this, because she possessed the prerequisite [for attaining deliverance], she thought, "Household life is not for me." She went to the Teacher, heard the Doctrine, and since she had brought her knowledge to maturity, she developed insight as a result of the discourse. Eagerly practising that, she [realized] the paths one after the other and was established in the third fruition state. Saa satthaara.m pabbajja.m yaacitvaa satthu-aa.naaya bhikkhunupassaya.m upagantvaa bhikkhuniina.m santike pabbajitvaa sattame divase arahatta.m sacchikatvaa attano pa.tipatti.m paccavekkhitvaa udaanavasena- 151. "Ucce kule aha.m jaataa, bahuvitte mahaddhane; va.n.naruupena sampannaa, dhiitaa majjhassa atrajaa. 152. "Patthitaa raajaputtehi, se.t.thiputtehi gijjhitaa; pitu me pesayii duuta.m, detha mayha.m anopama.m. 153. "Yattaka.m tulitaa esaa, tuyha.m dhiitaa anopamaa; tato a.t.thagu.na.m dassa.m, hira~n~na.m ratanaani ca. 154. "Saaha.m disvaana sambuddha.m, lokaje.t.tha.m anuttara.m; tassa paadaani vanditvaa, ekamanta.m upaavisi.m. 155. "So me dhammamadesesi, anukampaaya gotamo; nisinnaa aasane tasmi.m, phusayi.m tatiya.m phala.m. 156. "Tato kesaani chetvaana, pabbaji.m anagaariya.m; ajja me sattamii ratti, yato ta.nhaa visesitaa"ti.- Imaa gaathaa abhaasi. She asked the Teacher for the going forth, and at the order of the Teacher, she went to the bhikkhuniis' monastery and went forth in the presence of the bhikkhuniis. On the seventh day, she realized Arahatship, and looking over her attainment, she spoke these verse as a solemn utterance: 151. I was born in an exalted family that had much property and much wealth. I possessed a [good] complexion and figure [being] Majjha's own daughter. 152. I was sought after by kings' sons, longed for by merchants' sons. [One] sent my father a messenger, [saying,] "Give me Anopamaa. 153. "However much that daughter of yours Anopamaa weighs, I will give you eight times that amount of gold and jewels." 154. I saw the Fully Awakened One, [who was] supreme in the world, unsurpassed. I paid homage to his feet and sat down on one side. 155. In pity, Gotama taught me the Doctrine. Seated on that seat I attained the third fruition state. 156. Then I cut off my hair and went forth into the homeless state. Today is the seventh night since my craving has dried up. ==== peace, connie #71468 From: connie Date: Thu May 3, 2007 6:23 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? nichiconn Hi Guys, H: I quoted the bit I did to demonstrate that Theravadan's do believe that their actions can influence others, even the dead. C: "I see dead people"... lol. Can we influence the past? Are 'the departed' "dead" if they are (relatively speaking) alive and well in their own world? Illustrator vii 25: So the Blessed One said Ida'm vo ~naatiina"m hotu, sukhitaa hontu ~naatayo. 'Then let this be for relatives; 'May relatives have happiness'. And when he had said this, showing in what way a gift should be given for relatives who have appeared in the Ghost Realm, he then uttered the second half of the fourth stanza, namely 'These ghosts of the departed kind foregathered and assembled there', and the first half of the fifth, namely, 'Will eagerly ... for plentiful rich food and drink', showing that although it may be said 'Then let this be for relatives', nevertheless it is not that action done by one gives fruit for another, [which is never so,] but simply that an object dedicated in this way is a [necessary] condition for [ghost] relatives [themselves to do] profitable action, [and he showed] how such profitable action with that as its object generates its fruit at that very moment. peace, connie #71469 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 6:46 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear connie, I like this: "And when he had said this, showing in what way a gift should be given for relatives who have appeared in the Ghost Realm, he then uttered the second half of the fourth stanza, namely 'These ghosts of the departed kind foregathered and assembled there', and the first half of the fifth, namely, 'Will eagerly ... for plentiful rich food and drink', showing that although it may be said 'Then let this be for relatives', nevertheless it is not that action done by one gives fruit for another, [which is never so,] but simply that an object dedicated in this way is a [necessary] condition for [ghost] relatives [themselves to do] profitable action, [and he showed] how such profitable action with that as its object generates its fruit at that very moment." Scott: This fits. These beings are like us in that they are living in their own, albeit different, sphere. We just think, "She was once my wife," for example. This 'wifeness' is no longer relevant. And, as well, that 'fruit can never be given to another' is the main point. An act of great kindness by one being with an other being as 'object' accrues to the being giving the kindness. How this kindness is experienced or taken or whatever follows next depends entirely on the 'recipient'. Is this how you see it? Sincerely, Scott. #71470 From: "sukinder" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 4:37 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A Meditation Tip 4 different types- the Path sukinderpal Dear Dieter, Sorry for the delay in responding, no free time. ====================== Sukin: ' No I don't agree with this idea of "different approach", ...Are you saying that all this is a matter of choice? D: No, I say that is a matter of type /character ... as you may know the Abhidhamma quite well , I wonder whether you studied the Puggalapannatti . There is a nice essay The Jhanas in Theravada .. by Bhikkhu Henepola Gunaratana..please see http://www.budsas. org/ebud/jhanas/jhanas06.htm S=> So you are saying that the practice of vipassana with or without accompanying jhana practice is a matter of accumulated inclination? If this is all that you are saying, then I agree. But then you also stress on the progression of the Path as being Sila-> Samadhi-> Panna and you do seem to equate samadhi with Jhana...? One reason why I asked your opinion about what constitutes the first steps in the development of samatha was to determine if whether your understanding of it was correct (as I see it). If not, then is it the case that this wrong idea/understanding has been tied with another idea, namely 'vipassana', which also is not correctly understood? And this is why at the beginning of our discussions I pointed out what I thought was the difference in objective between these two paths. I said that samatha/jhana was *not* part of the Path taught by the Buddha, though it could be developed side by side with vipassana. Vipassana being the goal, satipatthana is the *only* practice leading to it. So imo, any idea that these two must be developed together or even that jhana speeds up the process, seems to be misunderstanding not only of one or the other, but of "both"! I believe that if there is a correct understanding of what the N8FP is, then it will be seen that jhana has no place in it. I know that there are those who believe in just the opposite, namely that if one fails to see the role of jhana in the development of vipassana, then one is going wrong. But this is why I am interested in discussing what in fact jhana is, particularly what leads to its development. As I said, I believe that jhana is kusala of a very high degree and that it necessarily involves the ability to distinguish kusala from akusala. And this must have a beginning level development in normal everyday circumstances. Which is why one must then ask oneself, "how much do I know to distinguish kusala from akusala states "now"". Buddhists, in trying to fit the idea of "jhana" into the Buddhist Path, have in fact taken from it much of what it deserves. They make the development of Jhana more or less into mere matter of concentration on a meditation subject, ignoring that in fact its development takes many, many lifetimes, just as does the development of vipassana. Perhaps this is to a large extent influenced by "desire for results", for it is the same people who view the Satipatthana as a deliberate practice (with/without jhana), capable of producing dramatic results within one or more long retreats, let alone 'in one lifetime', some even go so far as to seeing Sotapatti as being not too far out of reach. All this seems to be a case of reducing both jhana and vipassana to being more or less a short cut/technique, away from the understanding that in fact they are the culmination of "loooong time development". ================================= Dieter: Seven Types of Disciples The sevenfold typology is originally found in the Kitagiri Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya (M.i,477-79) and is reformulated in the Puggalapannatti of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. This typology classifies the noble persons on the paths and fruits into seven types: 1. the faith-devotee (saddhanusari), 2. the one liberated by faith (saddhavimutta), 3. the body-witness (kayasakkhi), 4. the one liberated in both ways (ubhatobhagavimutta), 5. the truth-devotee ( dhammanusari), 6. the one attained to understanding (ditthipatta), and 7. the one liberated by wisdom (pannavimutta). S=> I am relieved that you brought this up with Sarah, I will wait for her response. As for me, I don't know how to interpret it. However as much as I see, this is describing types of people who have attained enlightenment with differing strengths/weaknesses. It does not change the fact that satipatthana is *the* practice and that prior to this one must have heard the Dhamma, does it? What do you think, does the "faith-devotee" say that, "I shall develop the Path by way of strong faith", or does the "truth-devotee" say, "I shall develop the Path by way of ascertaining the Truth"? Or is it that all the above aim at the understanding of the present moment by way of satipatthana/vipassana? ============================= Suk: Your understanding seems to be that the factors of the N8FP is about developing these eight limbs separately. D: No, I agree with Nyanatiloka , which I believe is what you see to be 'mainstream' view quote from his dictionary refering to 'Magga'......... S=> Yes I disagree with Ven. Nyanatiloka in this. When he says: << Regarding the mundane (lokiya) eightfold path, however, its links may arise without the first link, right view.>> I wonder what he has in mind. Is he referring to other forms of kusala, namely, dana, sila or even samatha bhavana? If not, then what is it? As far as I understand, the only difference in number of Path factors arising together is that when there is the virati there are six, otherwise only five, and that during Path and Fruit, there are all eight. He is correct when he says: << On the other hand, right view is not necessarily present in every wholesome state of consciousness. >> However when he says: << under all circumstances at least 4 links are inseparably bound up with any kammically wholesome consciousness, namely 2, 6, 7 and 8, i.e. right thought, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration. >> I wonder if he remembers to make the distinction between Samatha, Samatha Bhavana and Vipassana Bhavana and of "Right Concentration of jhana" and "Right Concentration of the Path"? The path is not the Path without Right View, how could it be!! ================================ Suk: The understanding that goes around here and which to me seems to be the correct one, is that these eight factors refer to "mental factors" arising at the moment of Path consciousness when Nibbana is the object, (perhaps the reason why they are referred to as 'Noble' to begin with?). D: you are talking about the Noble One's Path /state , which is not yet our 'field ', isn't it? S=> Yes, you are right. I don't know what I was thinking at the time. :-P ===================================== Suk: During mundane moments, which is when the 'practice'/satipatthana happens, five or six(including one of the three virati mental factors) of these arises, and *this* constitute Bhavana or development. I do not wish to go into more details about this at this point, but I would like to ask you this; "if to be taken separately, at the absence of Right View, how are the other factors developed? What determines that they do?" D: Repeating from above : ' Regarding the mundane (lokiya) eightfold path, however, its links may arise without the first link, right view.' S=> The Path is the Path by virtue of the object of awareness being viewed rightly. What would it mean to *not have any understanding* of the object, yet this be seen as an instance of the Path being treaded? If not "understanding", what then is being accumulated and developed that this might then lead to understanding at the level of insight? One implication it seems, of your and Ven. Nyanatiloka's position is that in fact one need not to have heard the Dhamma to be developing the Path at some level, no? ================================== This post seems slightly shorter than the others.. ;-) Metta, Sukinder #71471 From: "sukinder" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 4:37 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A Meditation Tip 5 student step - sukinderpal Hi Dieter, You wrote: the question you raised about the condition for tranquillity /Samatha ..etc. , seems to be of interest by other members too as I noticed when I read present postings .. hopefully you find my last comment regarding different approaches / 'The 7 types' useful After refering to the baby step of the condition (i.e. listening), I think we find a more advanced answer - which you probably expected anyway- in Samyutta Nikaya XII 23 (translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) : extract: snip .. craving is the supporting condition for clinging, clinging is the supporting condition for existence, existence is the supporting condition for birth, birth is the supporting condition for suffering), suffering is the supporting condition for faith, faith is the supporting condition for joy, joy is the supporting condition for rapture, rapture is the supporting condition for tranquillity, tranquillity is the supporting condition for happiness, happiness is the supporting condition for concentration, concentration is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are, the knowledge and vision of things as they really are is the supporting condition for disenchantment, disenchantment is the supporting condition for dispassion, dispassion is the supporting condition for emancipation, and emancipation is the supporting condition for the knowledge of the destruction (of the cankers)." Sukin: This is the Upanissa Sutta. I remember Jon discussing this with another member, Eric. So I hope you do not mind that I simply link you to two of Jon's responses.? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/58694 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/58971 Metta, Sukinder #71472 From: "colette" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 9:14 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? ksheri3 Good Morning connie, Scott, I like how the entire post flowed. I just have problems with the subject line. I'll get over it have no fear. It just starts a different kind of motion, spin, on "the ball" sortofspeak, but as the joyful juggler I've learned to deal with nothing but difference(s) since there are those that just seem to want me to juggle. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear connie, > > I like this: > > "And when he had said this, showing in what way a gift should be given > for relatives who have appeared in the Ghost Realm, he then uttered > the second half of the fourth stanza, namely 'These ghosts of the > departed kind foregathered and assembled there', and the first half of > the fifth, namely, 'Will eagerly ... for plentiful rich food and > drink', showing that although it may be said 'Then let this be for > relatives', nevertheless it is not that action done by one gives fruit > for another, [which is never so,] but simply that an object dedicated > in this way is a [necessary] condition for [ghost] relatives > [themselves to do] profitable action, [and he showed] how such > profitable action with that as its object generates its fruit at that > very moment." > > Scott: This fits. These beings are like us in that they are living > in their own, albeit different, sphere. colette: go to quantum physics and find different dimensions of reality where another type of life can occupy the exact same space that you and I are occupying at this very second. We are not aware of it because we have not learned the conditions of those other dimensions. We can give a dog commands and the dog will react to the best of it's ability: the dog is simply reacting to the tones and pitches of the words. For instance when I was very young I was with my parents and screamed the word "FUDGE" very loudly in response to a negative effect something else had on my body. My mom went nuts saying that I had said "FUCK" when I deliberately made sure that I said fudge. Thus my mom only heard what she wanted to hear based on conditions, et al, which is much like the dog that is trained. If you were actually speaking to the dog then you'd be able to ask the dog if her/his karma is what sent her/him back in this life as a dog and not a person. We could find out a lot of mysteries if we could hold conversations with dogs. But we cannot. We can only perceive, come into contact with what we want to come into contact with. Does personal gratification play a role? Then we get into the strange occurance of EDUCATION being abreviated as ED while ERECTILE DISFUNCTION happens to be a big seller in the drug world based upon the abreviation ED. TOODLES, COLETTE #71473 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu May 3, 2007 2:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable jonoabb Hi Herman > > If wishing for speedy recoveries was effective, this just would not be > happening. Come on, guys, get better, if only to make a forgetful > middle-aged man happy! > Thanks, Herman. Am doing my best! Starting to feel normal again. Jon #71474 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu May 3, 2007 2:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Agreeable and Disagreeable jonoabb Hi Howard > ======================== > I'm very sorry to hear that! (I've been going through a siege as well > - one that seems to defy impermanence!) Is Jon better now? > Thanks. Getting better now. A tough 2 weeks or so. Jon #71475 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu May 3, 2007 2:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] baby blessing ceremony jonoabb Hi Welcome to the list from me. proud251 wrote: > Hi I am new here and to Buddha, I have a 12 month old baby girl I > heard about these ceremonies, how does everyone feel about these. Like > christains who have to be baptised, do Buddhist have certain beliefs > for babies?? > This would be a matter of cultural tradition rather than the teachings of the Buddha as such. A person is a follower of the Buddha by virtue of taking refuge in the Buddha and his teachings, and not by virtue of any formal ceremony. Jon #71476 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 3:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta egberdina Hi KenH, On 03/05/07, kenhowardau wrote: > > > So what am I to say to you? If you understand dhammas to be something > other than momentary phenomena - and if I understand them to be > precisely that - how can we have an intelligent conversation about > the Buddha's teaching? Don't we need to go right back to basics? > This is from the Brahmajala Sutta. "Whereas some recluses and Brahmans, while living on food provided by the faithful, continue addicted to such low conversation as these: Tales of kings, of robbers, of ministers of state, tales of war, of terrors, of battles; talk about foods and drinks, clothes, beds, garlands, perfumes; talks about relationships, equipages, villages, town, cities, and countries; tales about women [8], and about heroes; gossip at street corners [56], or places whence water is fetched; ghost stories [57]; desultory talk [58]; speculations about the creation of the land or sea [59], or about existence and non-existence." Note point 59. The Buddha's teachings are not about existence, not even momentary existence. > ---------------- > H: > And in the absence of knowing characteristics, nothing can be > said about the existence of characteristics. > ---------------- > > Que? > Consciousness doesn't "exist". Consciousness is knowing an object, not being an object. Whether the objects that are known exist independently of knowing them is not something that can be known. All positions on that, including the 17 moment rupas of the Abhidhamma, are exactly that, the taking of a view. The Buddha did not teach the taking of ontological positions. > ------------------ > H: > There simply is no hearing without > > object, no seeing without object etc > ------------------ > > That's right, but what is your point? When seeing-consciousness and > visible object arise together, each of those dhammas is existent, > isn't it? Dhammas are known, by an act of knowing. To postulate their existence, independent of knowing, is just that, a postulation. Yet, we can say safely that knowing is only knowing, and that knowing is not being not . Knowing does not "exist". > > ------------------------- > H: > I wouldn't mind your comments on this, Ken, if you feel at all > inclined. Does knowing exist without an object? As an analogy, does > one side of a coin exist without the other? > -------------------------- > > As I have been saying to you and Howard and James, dhammas exist > absolutely. The doctrine of anatta does not tell us that dhammas > cannot be known one from the other - as separate entities. > > Perhaps you are asking if nama (seeing consciousness, for > example) can become an object of consciousness on its own. Yes, it > can. The absolute existence of dhammas is the taking of an ontological position. It requires making a commitment beyond what is known or knowable. The Buddha doesn't teach views on existence. He teaches dependent arising. And dependent arising is knowable. Seeing consciousness as an object of consciousness is an example of abstraction/thinking in action. Mindfully, there is no seeing consciousness without visible object. But one can think about seeing (which is not seeing). The characteristic of seeing is visible object, the characteristic of thinking is, well, just about anything, but all imagined (because it is not seen, felt, heard etc). Herman #71477 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 3:43 pm Subject: Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta kenhowardau Hi James, ---- J: > If something is present one second and gone the next second, what can be said of it's intrinsic existence? Nothing. ---- "Fleeting" can be said about it. Not only that; everything one has learnt from studying the Dhamma can be said about it with a degree of right understanding. Somewhere in the texts (as I recall from previous DSG discussions) it is said that, even outside a Buddha's sasana, anicca can be known with right understanding. That would only mean intellectual right understanding, of course, but even that is no mean feat. It is far more than idle speculation. It is a kind of knowing. Ken H #71478 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 4:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 03/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > Scott: What do you mean, please? I accept completely that these > realms exist literally. I accept that you accept that, and do you also think that the Buddha taught that these realms exist literally? Herman #71479 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 4:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] some things i can not put together egberdina Hi Leo, If you somehow ended up with the jaw bone of the Buddha, with teeth firmly implanted, of what value would it be to you, and why? Herman #71480 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu May 3, 2007 4:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Scott, S: " 'Experience' is a function of the rapid rise and fall of dhammas. Continuity is an illusion. The illusory continuity called self is 'taken up' and 'assumed' but is only conditioned dhammas, rising and falling away." L: Too abstract. Forget continuity. Who are you right now? You are your body. When you see your body as body that is a glimpse of anatta. It is not me. That's all I'm getting at. Larry #71481 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 5:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H:"I accept that you accept that, and do you also think that the Buddha taught that these realms exist literally?" Scott: Yes I do. For example, Sa.myutta Nikaaya 21,1: "...And how, great king, is a person one heading from light to light? Here some person has been reborn in a high family...He engages in good conduct of body, speech, and mind. After having done so, with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in a good destination, in a heavenly world." Sincerely, Scott. #71482 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 5:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Middle-Way Mode of Existence: The Sheaves of Reeds Sutta kenhowardau Hi Heman, --------- <. . .> H: > This is from the Brahmajala Sutta. "Whereas some recluses and Brahmans, while living on food provided by the faithful, continue addicted to such low conversation as these: Tales of kings, of robbers, of ministers H: Note point 59. The Buddha's teachings are not about existence, not even momentary existence. ------------------- I am always reluctant to interpret a sutta without guidance from the commentaries, or from someone who has read the commentaries. Even so, I feel confident that point 59 is referring to speculations about one's own existence and non-existence. Don't you suspect that too - after so many DSG discussions and explanations on similar points? ------------- H: > Consciousness doesn't "exist". Consciousness is knowing an object, not being an object. ------------- So you say, but why should I believe you? The Buddha said it does exist. It is clear from every word of his teaching that dhammas exist absolutely. We have even seen a sutta (quoted by Robert K) in which the Buddha is specifically asked about it. A questioner points out that some teachers say that things do exist, while other teaches say they do not. The Buddha answered that he was one of those teachers who say things do exist. He then went on to say: "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling ...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists." (SN22:94 Flowers) ------------------------ H: > Whether the objects that are known exist independently of knowing them is not something that can be known. All positions on that, including the 17 moment rupas of the Abhidhamma, are exactly that, the taking of a view. The Buddha did not teach the taking of ontological positions. > ------------------------- Maybe view-taking is what you and I are doing, maybe it isn't. Perhaps we should give that some more thought. But the fact remains that the Buddha taught the existence of paramattha dhammas and he described every one of them. ------------------- <. . .> H: > Dhammas are known, by an act of knowing. To postulate their existence, independent of knowing, is just that, a postulation. -------------------- Oh yes, this must be the theory that Sarah commented on recently. You say intellectual knowing is worthless and direct knowing is impossible. I think Sarah asked you why, then, should we bother with any of this (Dhamma)? I don't remember seeing your reply yet. ------------------------ H: > Yet, we can say safely that knowing is only knowing, and that knowing is not being not . Knowing does not "exist". ------------------------- No, we can't safely say that panna (knowing) is not a reality and that realities do not exist. In fact, it would be extremely *unsafe* to say that. (BTW, I left your typo untouched - just to be on the safe side.) :-) --------------- <. . .> The absolute existence of dhammas is the taking of an ontological position. ---------------- Herman, please think before you say these things. You said above that to postulate was just to postulate. No one will disagree with that. :-) But now you are jumping to the silly conclusion that the subject matter on which one postulates is also postulation. This kind of 'argument for the love of argument' is no help to anyone. ------------ H: > It requires making a commitment beyond what is known or knowable. The Buddha doesn't teach views on existence. He teaches dependent arising. And dependent arising is knowable. Seeing consciousness as an object of consciousness is an example of abstraction/thinking in action. Mindfully, there is no seeing consciousness without visible object. But one can think about seeing (which is not seeing). The characteristic of seeing is visible object, the characteristic of thinking is, well, just about anything, but all imagined (because it is not seen, felt, heard etc). -------------- I'm sorry Herman, after three readings I still can't follow that. And since you have said that it is contrary to the particular Dhamma I have chosen to study (the one that is found in all the ancient Theravada texts) I don't think I should try any harder, do you? Ken H #71483 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 5:29 pm Subject: Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! buddhatrue Venerable Samahita, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Bhikkhu Samahita" wrote: > > Hello Friend James: > > Well spoken: > >Only Arahats are free of this fear of death because they don't die. > > Arahats do indeed die, but only 1 single more time…, which they do not fear! > Why not? Because for them is this death the Ultimate ‘Party Time’ Hehehe ;-) > and the Absolute Climax of the endless re-becoming since an unperceivable > beginning of only this ever renewed process of Suffering = Samsara !!! > Which the Bliss of Nibbana is wholly freed of! > There only PERFECTLY PURE PEACE remains! Thank you for your post and kind explanation. I agree with everything you write except when you write "Arahants do indeed die, but only one single more time." I harp on this point a lot in this group, and some may think I am just trying to win debate points (hi Ken ;-)), but I think it is very important to Right View to NOT see the final passing away of an arahant or Buddha as death. Others may view the occurrence as death (on the surface it appears like death), but those who wish to have Right View should not view paranibbana as death. To view paranibbana as death (even one, final death) could create wrong view of the Four Noble Truths and Dependent Origination. The Buddha called nibbana "The Deathless" for a reason- because it is the deathless. Death is suffering, a very great suffering, and the arahant is free from that suffering. Additionally, to view the final passing of an arahant as death implies that he/she hasn't really been freed from the cycle of samsara. In Buddhist terms, with death comes birth- automatically-so to say that the arahant experiences death just one final time is a negation in terms. Also, to view paranibbana as the "final death" could confuse paranibbana with annihilation. This distinction may seem very nit-picky on my part, but I think it is important. For example, Mindfulness of Death is a very important meditation as taught by the Buddha, but one is not supposed to include the paranibbana of an arahant in this meditation! From the Vism.: "Now comes the description of the development of Mindfulness of Death, which is listed next. Definitions: Herein, death (marana) is the interruption of the life faculty included within [the limits of] a single becoming (existence). But death as termination (cutting off), in other words, the Arahant's termination of the suffering of the round, is not included here…" Vism. Chapter VIII, 1. The paranibbana of the arahant should not be viewed as "death". Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Metta, James #71484 From: Sobhana Date: Thu May 3, 2007 5:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is sati, to sobhana. shennieca Hello Nina, I have a few more questions reagarding sati. From your previous post:- N: It is not possible. But we can learn that akusala cittas are not us, that they arise because of their own conditions. As soon as we understand this, there is a moment of kusala citta and at such a moment there is no opportunity for akusala citta. Sobhana: How do we "learn that akusala cittas are not us"? Can we actually realize that "citta are not us" by "intellectualizing it"? Doesn't it need to be realized by direct understanding, i.e. through meditation? If people can learn anatta (or citta are not us) by reading the abhidhamma, wouldn't there be a lot of Ariya (sotapanna and above) by now since it can be learnt from merely book-reading? I know meditation is difficult to do. i have some difficulties because, first in order to start meditating, a person has to be somewhat calm and relaxed and lately i've been having a lot of pent-up sadness, anger, grief and i cannot meditate. actually, i've always had problems with stress and it is difficult to meditate with lots of stress. i've been so stressful that when i went to see my acupuncturist, she said my liver Qi is blocked due to these bottled-up emotions and it is beginning to manifest itself into physical health problems. So, my question is, by reading the abhidhamma, we can come to "direct understanding" of anatta and that the "citta is not us"? Is it true that we can realize nama-rupa pariccheda nyana by intellectually undertanding the abhidhamma? Is it really possible? Thank you for your response. With respect, Sobhana #71485 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 5:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 04/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Dear Herman, > > H:"I accept that you accept that, and do you also think that the Buddha > taught that these realms exist literally?" > > Scott: Yes I do. For example, Sa.myutta Nikaaya 21,1: > > "...And how, great king, is a person one heading from light to light? > Here some person has been reborn in a high family...He engages in > good conduct of body, speech, and mind. After having done so, with > the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in a good > destination, in a heavenly world." > Thank you for this. Yes, there's no shortage of Suttas about different destinations. There's also DN15 which enumerates 7 stations of consciousness and 2 spheres, as well as 8 emancipations. I assume then that there is something missing in the statement that there are only namas and rupas, that list ought to include lokas? Herman #71486 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Problem! buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi James, > > On 03/05/07, buddhatrue wrote: > > > > Herman, perhaps you would like to read this sutta: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.184.than.html > > > > A very appropriate sutta, thanks James. > > It certainly proves the point that > > > So all mortals in this world > > Live in constant fear of death > > is a bit of hyperbole at best. > I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion from that sutta. At the risk of breaking your "pithy" style, could you provide a bit more explanation? ;-)) Metta, James #71487 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Problem! egberdina Hi James, On 04/05/07, buddhatrue wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: > > > > > > A very appropriate sutta, thanks James. > > > > It certainly proves the point that > > > > > So all mortals in this world > > > Live in constant fear of death > > > > is a bit of hyperbole at best. > > > > I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion from that > sutta. At the risk of breaking your "pithy" style, could you provide > a bit more explanation? ;-)) > Because the sutta lists not one, not two, not three, but four types of people who are not in fear of death. Are you going to tell me they are four types of arahant? But what is the fear of death all about for one who believes in rebirth? What does death signify? I can understand fear of losing contact with loved ones, fear of pain, fear of the future, but none of those are death. And it cannot be fear of annihilation because there is belief in continuity after death. I think you notice, I don't get it. Herman #71488 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 3, 2007 2:24 pm Subject: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, all - This post represents a progression (some would say a downward spiraling towards hell) of thought starting with a rather Abhidhammic position, but ending up with something quite different. On another list, I had written that the word permanent just means "lasting", and 'impermanent' means "not lasting" (i.e., no longer existing at sometime in the future), and is noncommital as to whether phenomena are instantaneous or extended over time. I went on to say that the word 'constant', however, means "staying the same" or "unchanging," and, 'inconstant' means "not staying the same" or "altering" or "changing," which definitely imposes a sense of gradual alteration through time. I then said that I prefer the more neutral term 'impermanent', which literally means "not lasting forever." I followed up on my post about 'impermanent' versus 'inconstant' with a further point about the term 'inconstant'. (BTW, it is Thanissaro Bhikkhu who uses 'inconstant'.) My follow-up remark was as follows: __________________ Actually, 'inconstant', meaning "not staying the same" or "altering" or "changing," is even worse than I had indicated. The idea of "something" supposedly altering/changing while yet remaining "that thing" is a kind of substantialist, self-view. It suggests a core of identity/essence/self remaining in something while inessential qualities are replaced by others. So, in fact, the term 'inconstant' is not only worse than 'impermanent', but should really be avoided as it feeds right into our ignorance. --------------------------------- Now, pursuing this a bit further: If the commentarial idea of a rupa having three stages of rising, stasis, and decline is correct, that is alteration, and thus a basis for not treating rupas as separate realities. And if mental operations require change, as I think they surely do [no change, no activity], they also cannot rightly be considered as separate realities. If alteration of any sort is countenanced in any phenomenon, in particular, in any alleged paramattha dhamma, how would not grasping it as a separate reality not require conceptualization, and, in fact, a kind of substantialist, atta-view. This has led me yet further. Consider a sound: Has it no parts and no variation? I think it has both. So - is it paramattha dhamma or pa~n~natta? Consider a visible object: It is a mosaic of different colors, and hence has parts. So - is it paramattha dhamma or pa~n~natta? I'm beginning to think that all separateness is mentally imposed upon a flux of experience, that it is a carving out by mere convention serving convenience. It is starting to seem to me that, in terms of a single "being," what there actually "is" is a multifaceted phenomenal flux, a river of namarupic happening, only conventionally separable into elements, in which no separated-out element is lasting, graspable, intrinsically existent, or a source of satisfaction, or anything but conventional, nor is the river any "thing," but is, in fact, radically empty. In fact, that river, or, better, the confluence of all rivers is the one and only ultimate reality, but is inconceivable, ungraspable, and unconditioned. With metta, Howard #71489 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 6:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, What, you were setting me up? I didn't even see it coming. Mid-ice hip-check and my head was down... H: "I assume then that there is something missing in the statement that there are only namas and rupas, that list ought to include lokas?" Scott: You are, no doubt, being facetious, but there's no need. The below ought to help you clarify the above confusion. Check this out, man. Sa.myutta Nikaaya, 94,2: "There is a world-phenomenon (lokadhamma) in the world to which the Tathaagata has awakened and broken through...And what is that world-phenomenon in the world to which the Tathaagata has awakened and broken through? Form, bhikkhus, is a world phenomenon...Feeling... Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness is a world phenomenon in the world to which the Tathaagata has awakened and broken through... [I like this next part] "...Having done so he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it... [I really like this next part] "...When it is being thus explained...and elucidated by the Tathaagata, if anyone who does not know and see, how can I do anything with that foolish worldling, blind and sightless, who does not know and does not see?" Scott: And fro the commentary, as footnoted by Bh. Bodhi: "Lokadhamma. Spk: The five aggregates are called thus because it is their nature to disintegrate (lujjanasabhaavattaa). Loka is derived from lujjati at: Sa.myutta Nikaaya 35,82: "...'the world, the world.' In what way, Venerable sir, it is said, 'the world'? It is disintegrating, bhikkhu, therefore it is called the world. And what is disintegrating? The eye...forms... eye-consciousness...eye-contact...whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition...the ear...the mind...It is disintegrating, bhikkhu, therefore it is called the world" Sincerely, Scott. #71490 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Problem! buddhatrue Hi Herman, > > > > I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion from that > > sutta. At the risk of breaking your "pithy" style, could you provide > > a bit more explanation? ;-)) > > > > Because the sutta lists not one, not two, not three, but four types of > people who are not in fear of death. Are you going to tell me they are > four types of arahant? James: Goodness, this isn't the type of conclusion I was wanting you to gain from that sutta! First, read carefully the descriptions of those four types of people. Do you think you fit any of the descriptions. Do you think that anyone in this group fits those four descriptions? How many in the world do you think fit those four descriptions? Answer that and then determine if the statement "So all mortals in this world live in constant fear of death" is hyperbole or not? Secondly, this sutta is about the time when death is near, not the time leading up to death. We all have a fear of death until enlightened, but if we practice Mindfulness of Death then that fear can be greatly alleviated or overcome when the actual moment arrives. Often, the fear is a fear of the unknown. > > But what is the fear of death all about for one who believes in > rebirth? What does death signify? I can understand fear of losing > contact with loved ones, fear of pain, fear of the future, but none of > those are death. And it cannot be fear of annihilation because there > is belief in continuity after death. I think you notice, I don't get > it. Here is a quote from an article which may explain some: "We all fear death, but actually we should also fear the rebirth that follows. In practice, this does not always happen. Fear of rebirth is less strong than death. This is part of our usual short-sighted view (for those who do actually believe in rebirth), and the fact must be faced. Full Enlightenment will only be achieved when there is the will to transcend all forms of "rebirth" — even the pleasantest. Though as a first step then, acceptance of the fact of rebirth may help to overcome the fear of death, the attachment to rebirth itself must then also be gradually overcome." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/walshe/wheel261.html Metta, James #71491 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 8:07 pm Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? buddhatrue Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > although it may be said 'Then let this be for relatives', nevertheless it > is not that action done by one gives fruit for another, [which is never > so,] but simply that an object dedicated in this way is a [necessary] > condition for [ghost] relatives [themselves to do] profitable action, [and > he showed] how such profitable action with that as its object generates > its fruit at that very moment. This is not true. Those in the ghost realms can directly receive the merit done by others, if it is dedicated to them. They can receive this merit because they have no opportunity to perform the wholesome deeds themselves. Metta, James #71492 From: "Robert" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 8:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is sati, to sobhana. avalo1968 Hello Sobhana, I wanted to thank you for participating and asking excellent questions. Sobhana: What is the difference in the mind of a meditator who is meditating compared to a person who is walking and talking? Why is it that a meditator who focuses on the breath or the rising/falling of the abdomen able to "differenciate" the nama and rupa, compared to a person not meditating, it is difficult for him/her to "see/observe" the anicca nature of the mind and body? Is it because the meditator has more "concentration" and more "mindfulness"? Sobhana: How do we "learn that akusala cittas are not us"? Can we actually realize that "citta are not us" by "intellectualizing it"? Doesn't it need to be realized by direct understanding, i.e. through meditation? If people can learn anatta (or citta are not us) by reading the abhidhamma, wouldn't there be a lot of Ariya (sotapanna and above) by now since it can be learnt from merely book-reading? I hope the members of this group will help both of us by providing some opinions on these questions. I am sorry that life is sending you a lot of stress at the moment. I hope you can find a little relief soon. You sound like someone who is sincere about your study of Buddhism and I am sure that over time this will help you find the way to work with the stress of your life. With appreciation, Robert A. #71493 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu May 3, 2007 4:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' TGrand458@... Hi Howard I certainly like this progression! I'd like to comment on both paragraphs even though the first one is not necessarily something you are standing by at this point... In a message dated 5/3/2007 7:25:39 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Actually, 'inconstant'Actually, 'inconstant', meaning "not staying the "changing," is even worse than I had indicated. The idea of "something" supposedly altering/changing while yet remaining "that thing" is a kind of substantialist, self-view. It suggests a core of identity/essence/substantialist, se something while inessential qualities are replaced by others. So, in fact, the term 'inconstant' is not only worse than 'impermanent''inconstant' is not only wo as it feeds right into our ignorance. --------------------------------- TG: I think this is a problem of over analyzing the words and forgetting common sense. When the Buddha speaks of things rising, persisting while changing, and ceasing; I think he is just speaking to people who have the common sense to gather that he is just referring to the way we normally and generally gauge the things we perceive. I don't think he is trying to speak to some abhidhammic view of ultimate realities or the like. Now, pursuing this a bit further: If the commentarial idea of a rupa having three stages of rising, stasis, and decline is correct, that is alteration, and thus a basis for not treating rupas as separate realities. And if mental operations require change, as I think they surely do [no change, no activity], they also cannot rightly be considered as separate realities. If alteration of any sort is countenanced in any phenomenon, in particular, in any alleged paramattha dhamma, how would not grasping it as a separate reality not require conceptualization, and, in fact, a kind of substantialist, atta-view. This has led me yet further. Consider a sound: Has it no parts and no variation? I think it has both. So - is it paramattha dhamma or pa~n~natta? Consider a visible object: It is a mosaic of different colors, and hence has parts. So - is it paramattha dhamma or pa~n~natta? I'm beginning to think that all separateness is mentally imposed upon a flux of experience, that it is a carving out by mere convention serving convenience. It is starting to seem to me that, in terms of a single "being," what there actually "is" is a multifaceted phenomenal flux, a river of namarupic happening, only conventionally separable into elements, in which no separated-out element is lasting, graspable, intrinsically existent, or a source of satisfaction, or anything but conventional, nor is the river any "thing," but is, in fact, radically empty. In fact, that river, or, better, the confluence of all rivers is the one and only ultimate reality, but is inconceivable, ungraspable, and unconditioned. TG: This is right on the money! Excellent! Even the distinction between nama and rupa fade away into emptiness when taken to the end. All these categories are just for teaching purposes. To hang onto them as "realities" is the antithesis of the goal. But we do need the "raft"/categories/teachings until we cross the stream. Just need to make sure the raft is seaworthy. ;-) TG #71494 From: Sobhana Date: Thu May 3, 2007 9:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] what is sati, to sobhana. shennieca Hello Robert A, Thank you for your kind reply, I appreciate it. :) My health problem is not the serious life and death type, I hope it will not aggravate till that stage! The stress is due to a unsuccessful IVF cycle. I hope it is not too impropriate to talk about personal health problems in DSG. Stress does cause a lot of health problems; high-blood pressure, heart problems, mental problems and infertility. I'm not sure if stress causes infertility or the other way around, infertility causes stress!! Anyway, hoping to hear replies from Nina and other dsg members soon. May all beings be well and happy, be free from danger and enmity, be free from mental suffering, be free from physical suffering, and may all beings take care of themselves happily. :) With metta Elaine (aka Sobhana) #71495 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 3, 2007 10:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 04/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > What, you were setting me up? I didn't even see it coming. Mid-ice > hip-check and my head was down... > No, I don't think I'm the culprit here. You mentioned that you believed in the realms in a literal sense. Now I'm not sure what you meant by that, and I'm still not sure, but I do know it doesn't matter. So let's leave it, if that's alright with you? Herman #71496 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 4, 2007 12:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is sati, to sobhana. sarahprocter... Hi Elaine (aka Sobhana), Robert A & all, I hope Robert A also adds more of his own comments to the discussion. Nina is away for a couple of weeks, so let me give a few of my own as well in the meantime. I know she'll wish to add more too. (Btw, I see that you've now signed off as Elaine in your last message...) --- Sobhana wrote: > Sobhana: How do we "learn that akusala cittas are not > us"? Can we actually realize that "citta are not us" > by "intellectualizing it"? Doesn't it need to be > realized by direct understanding, i.e. through > meditation? .... S: As I'm sure you're familiar with the 3 stages of understanding - pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha. Pariyatti is intellectual right understanding. It is right understanding about 'the story' of dhammas, i.e namas and rupas. If there is not this right understanding by listening/reading and considering carefully what is true at this moment, then there cannot be the direct understanding of dhammas, i.e patipatti. By gradually developing the direct understanding of dhammas, eventually there will be the direct realization, pativedha. We can refer to all of this as bhavana(mental development or meditation, if you prefer). So now when akusala cittas arise, can any self be found in them? Do they belong to any self? .... >If people can learn anatta (or citta are > not us) by reading the abhidhamma, wouldn't there be a > lot of Ariya (sotapanna and above) by now since it can > be learnt from merely book-reading? .... S: Merly book-reading is merely book-reading. When there is right reflection on what we read, it is pariyatti. Unless there's direct understanding of the dhammas we've read about, then there won't be any development of satipatthana which leads to sotapatti magga and above. .... > > I know meditation is difficult to do. i have some > difficulties because, first in order to start > meditating, a person has to be somewhat calm and > relaxed and lately i've been having a lot of pent-up > sadness, anger, grief and i cannot meditate. .... S: First of all, as the Buddha taught, there is no 'I' to do anything. Just kusala and akusala dhammas. For patipatti or the development of satipatthana, it is clear in the teachings that any present dhamma can be the object. It's not a matter of waiting until we are free of sadness and so on. Under 'Satima - Mindful' in the Satipatthana Sutta, the commentary elaborates on the meaning of all circumstances (as I quoted the other day), 'Everywhere in the state of becoming, in every sluggish and unbalanced state of mind, it is desirable.'. We also read about the hindrances as objects of sati, about cittas rooted in attachment, cittas rooted in aversion and so on.......Any dhamma whatsoever appearing now. .......... >actually, > i've always had problems with stress and it is > difficult to meditate with lots of stress. ... S: The teachings are to know the present accumulations as they are, not the 'ideal' accumulations. If we think such states make it 'difficult to meditate', there will be no meditation at such times. There will be further stress about the stress instead! ..... > So, my question is, by reading the abhidhamma, we can > come to "direct understanding" of anatta and that the > "citta is not us"? Is it true that we can realize > nama-rupa pariccheda nyana by intellectually > undertanding the abhidhamma? Is it really possible? ..... S: First, let us be very clear that all these dhammas we are discussing, including the akusala ones, are anatta. It's not 'my' stress or 'my' meditation practice - just dhammas rolling on. We can begin to appreciate what namas and rupas are. Gradually awareness can develop which is aware of such dhammas as dhammas. Seeing consciousness is seeing, quite distinct from visible object. Many people think they have attained various stages of insight, but this is impossible without the clearly developed direct understanding of namas and rupas. (Btw, have a look at the first chapter of Nina's book, 'Abhidhamma in Daily Life' too). ... > Thank you for your response. .... S: These are all excellent and important questions. I'd like to read Robert A's further comments on mine or yours too! Metta, Sarah p.s >i've been > so stressful that when i went to see my acupuncturist, > she said my liver Qi is blocked due to these > bottled-up emotions and it is beginning to manifest > itself into physical health problems. .... S: I've put this at the end, because I saw your other comment about IVF and this one about acupuncture. Here in Hong Kong I've referred several friends who've had fertility and IVF difficulties to my acupuncturist and he's had really good results with them. Let me know off-list if you want me to ask him any qus. ============== #71497 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 12:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue egberdina Hi Sarah, On 02/05/07, sarah abbott wrote: > > > H:> If the point that is being made is that there *is* only the present > > moment, why do you then talk about the dhammas that *can* occur? That > > is a reference to possibilities, to a future, a luxury which the > > present moment does not afford you. > .... > S: Even thinking now is real and can be known as such. > ..... You don't get my point. You writing what you just did depends on your thinking about possible, future states. You are thinking about a future, yet you say all the time there is only the present moment. I don't get it, do you? > H:> Also, I doubt very much that the point of the discussion is whether it > > *is possible* that certain realities are knowable in all situations, > > but whether *they are*. You have steadfastly implied ever since you > > were a younger woman that the frequency of mindfullness for a > > householder absorbed in their daily life is no different than for a > > person who arouses effort to be mindful, and seeks out those > > conditions that support that effort. I will steadfastly disagree with > > you. > .... > S: The frequency of mindfulness for anyone will depend on numerous > conditions including what has been heard about dhammas and whether there > are any tendencies for such mindfulness. Any effort initiated with > self-view will not be conducive to minfulness. Is that something KS told you? > > Btw, in another post to someone, you mentioned that you consider awareness > can only be aware of concepts. You also mentioned to Scott that > intellectual analysis of dhammas is 'not very valuable in practice'. It > seems to me that you don't consider pariyatti to be of benefit and that > you don't consider patipatti (direct understanding of dhammas) can occur. > So why bother with the Buddha's teachings at all? > Why mention pariyatti and patipatti in the same paragraph as the Buddha's teachings? You need to go at least 800 years past anything I consider the Buddha's teachings to get to what you call the teachings. I bother with the Buddha's teachings for the peace and joy that the intentional cultivation of mindfullness and jhanas affords me. If you take the poison you prescribe to others ie your proclamation to the world that any effort initiated with self-view will not be conducive to mindfulness, why do *you* bother doing what you do? > Let me know if I missed something along the way.... You missed plenty. But I bet you never miss your flight to Bangkok :-) Herman #71498 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 2:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "...You mentioned that you believed in the realms in a literal sense." Scott: I do. H: "Now I'm not sure what you meant by that, and I'm still not sure, but I do know it doesn't matter. So let's leave it, if that's alright with you?" Scott: Sure, no problem. Sincerely, Scott. #71499 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 2:57 am Subject: Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' antony272b2 Dear Howard, I found the following quote: Anicca applies to everything that changes. Often translated as "impermanent," it's actually the negative of nicca, which means constant or dependable. Everything that changes is inconstant. Now, the difference between "impermanent" and "inconstant" may seem semantic, but it's crucial to the way anicca functions in the Buddha's teachings. As the early texts state repeatedly, if something is anicca then the other two characteristics automatically follow: it's dukkha (stressful) and anatta (not-self), i.e., not worthy to be claimed as me or mine. If we translate anicca as impermanent, the connection among these Three Characteristics might seem debatable. But if we translate it as inconstant, and consider the Three Characteristics in light of the Buddha's original question, the connection is clear. If you're seeking a dependable basis for long-term happiness and ease, anything inconstant is obviously a stressful place to pin your hopes — like trying to relax in an unstable chair whose legs are liable to break at any time. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/change.html with metta / Antony. #71500 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 3:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Larry, I think Socrates would have kicked me out for being impatient. Sorry, I recall now that Ken as much as told me that you prefer to ask questions. I'm afraid I must be too greedy, wanting you to just give up the goodies. I'll try to learn with you following the time-honoured socratic method. L: "Too abstract. Forget continuity. Who are you right now? You are your body. When you see your body as body that is a glimpse of anatta. It is not me. That's all I'm getting at." Scott: Okay. I'll take the 'you are your body' to be a 'for instance'. I'm reminded of the repeated phrase from the Satipa.t.thaana Sutta: body as body; feeling as feeling; mind as mind; etc. When I see 'body as body' and that 'it is not me' then this is, as you say, 'a glimpse of anatta'. Seeing it thus would be the opposite of what I was suggesting as a description of 'experience of self-view'. In this latter case one would say, 'I am my body (or feelings, or mind, etc.)'; or, 'my body is mine (or my feelings, or my mind, etc.). I was also suggesting that seeing or touching things would be similarily structured: These things are 'their own' and 'as they are', rather than just knowing that seeing is seeing or touching is touching. How is that? Sincerely, Scott. #71501 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 2:13 am Subject: Suprahuman Force II bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the Effects of the 4 Feet of Spiritual Force? The Blessed Buddha once said: When a Bhikkhu develops The 4 Feet of Force that is enriched with concentrated desire, concentrated energy, concentrated thought & concentrated investigation, all constructed by effort, by thinking: In this way will my desire, energy, thinking and investigating neither be too slack nor too tense, it will neither be constricted internally nor scattered externally, then he dwells experiencing both what is in front & what is behind, so above, so also below, so by day, so also at night! Therefore, with a mind that is all open & unrestricted, he develops the dazzling bright mind which is pervaded by luminosity... When the 4 feet of suprahuman force have been developed, refined and cultivated in exactly this way, the Bhikkhu possesses the various kinds of suprahuman force: With the divine ear element, which is purified and surpasses the human, he hears both divine and human sounds, both those that are far away as well as those that are near. Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:265] section 51: The 4 Forces: Thread 11: Shaking The Mansion. About AbhiññÄ?: The 6 suprahuman forces, higher powers, or supernormal knowledge's see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/a/abhinna.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <.....> #71502 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 4:19 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear colette, Good morning. colette: "...We can give a dog commands and the dog will react to the best of it's ability: the dog is simply reacting to the tones and pitches of the words...If you were actually speaking to the dog then you'd be able to ask the dog if her/his karma is what sent her/him back in this life as a dog and not a person. We could find out a lot of mysteries if we could hold conversations with dogs. But we cannot. We can only perceive, come into contact with what we want to come into contact with..." Scott: I like this. Animals are easy. We see them nearly everyday (if not everyday). When I look at my dog I am actually gazing at a being in another realm! You write above about LOKA - the dog's world, the dog's point of view. Were we to see devis or devas it would be the same, if we knew what we were looking at. Getting past the natural inclination to be AMAZED, ASSOMATED, INTOXICATED, and whatever else, we'd realise that this, just like looking at a dog, is a glimpse at another realm of existence by seeing a being that lives there. It tends to put things into PERSPECTIVE, but too often our own perspective disallows such an perspectivisation. c: "...For instance when I was very young I was with my parents and screamed the word "FUDGE" very loudly in response to a negative effect something else had on my body. My mom went nuts saying that I had said "FUCK" when I deliberately made sure that I said fudge. Thus my mom only heard what she wanted to hear based on conditions, et al, which is much like the dog that is trained. Does personal gratification play a role? Then we get into the strange occurance of EDUCATION being abreviated as ED while ERECTILE DISFUNCTION happens to be a big seller in the drug world based upon the abreviation ED." Scott: TUMESCENCE is not ESSENCE. And in this case I'd say, 'Yes, personal gratification indeed plays a role.' (Hence, not at all essential). While our living human mothers seem, at times such as you describe, to inhabit different realms they don't. This is merely lack of EMPATHY. Rather ALIENATING. See you next time, collette. Sincerely, Scott. #71503 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 4, 2007 4:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > > S: Even thinking now is real and can be known as such. > > ..... > H:> You don't get my point. You writing what you just did depends on your > thinking about possible, future states. You are thinking about a > future, yet you say all the time there is only the present moment. I > don't get it, do you? ..... S: I think you miss the point of what we repeat over and over again. Discussing various realities which may be arising now and can be known at such times is essential. If we don't ever listen/read/discuss what these realities are that the Buddha taught, they will never be known. You think there can only ever be awareness of concepts. Fine. Let me assure you, however, that in such an 'awareness', you are missing out on the entire teachings. Yes, there is only the present moment - now! Now there is a nama or rupa appearing and awareness can be aware of it. Is there seeing now? Is there visible object now? Is there hearing now? Is there sound now? Is there thinking now? If yes, then develop awareness (with sati, not self, of course!) ..... > >> > S: The frequency of mindfulness for anyone will depend on numerous > > conditions including what has been heard about dhammas and whether > there > > are any tendencies for such mindfulness. Any effort initiated with > > self-view will not be conducive to mindfulness. > > Is that something KS told you? ... S: Check out whether it's true or not now! When we find out that it's clearly true, it doesn't matter what the source is. The Dhamma is the teacher. Try making an effort with self-view to have mindfulness or be nice now. If it doesn't have the required result, perhaps it will become more apparent that it's not the right way.... ..... > Why mention pariyatti and patipatti in the same paragraph as the > Buddha's teachings? You need to go at least 800 years past anything I > consider the Buddha's teachings to get to what you call the teachings. .... S: Use any terms you like. Did the Buddha encourage us to listen to the truth about dhammas (realities) and to develop understanding of them or not? Where did the Buddha recommend in his teachings that there can only ever be awareness of concepts as you suggested? .... > I bother with the Buddha's teachings for the peace and joy that the > intentional cultivation of mindfullness and jhanas affords me. .... S: Why not any other teachings for your purpose, Herman? What do you think the purpose of teaching the very first discourse, the Dhammacakkhapavattana Sutta, was? Why not just let everyone enjoy their blissful states in peace? (As a side-point, are you really, honestly, so sure that you know what jhanas are? No need to respond.) ... > If you take the poison you prescribe to others ie your proclamation to > the world that any effort initiated with self-view will not be > conducive to mindfulness, why do *you* bother doing what you do? .... S: Effort with self-view is poison. Any wrong view is poison. It is what keeps us off the path. The truth as we've spelt out over and over again is that there is no 'me' or 'you' doing anything. To think that 'you' or 'I' can make an effort and should make an effort is to swallow this poison over and over again - to remain locked up in the illusory prison which Howard described so well. If no understanding develops which begins to learn about namas and rupas as anatta, then there's no purpose in studying the Buddha's teachings. Dhammas perform their functions. That's it! .... > > > Let me know if I missed something along the way.... > > You missed plenty. But I bet you never miss your flight to Bangkok :-) .... S: ;-) I think I've been extremely fortunate in this life to have had the teachings explained to me so clearly and patiently over and over again. The teacher, however, is the Dhamma. If there were no accumulations to consider and benefit from what was heard whether in Bangkok, on DSG or anywhere else, then it would be of no use. Don't waste this precious chance to listen/read/consider and understand more about the realities appearing right now, Herman. Pls don't rush to respond.....just consider at your leisure. With metta and friendship, Sarah ========== #71504 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 4:25 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear colette, Sorry. "See you next time, collette," should be: See you next time, colette. Sincerely, Scott. #71505 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 5:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is sati, to sobhana. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sobhana wrote: >> I know meditation is difficult to do. i have some > difficulties because, first in order to start > meditating, a person has to be somewhat calm and > relaxed and lately i've been having a lot of pent-up > sadness, anger, grief and i cannot meditate. actually, > i've always had problems with stress and it is > difficult to meditate with lots of stress. i've been > so stressful that when i went to see my acupuncturist, > she said my liver Qi is blocked due to these > bottled-up emotions and it is beginning to manifest > itself into physical health problems. > > ________ Dear Sobhana If we wait to have bhavana until we feel calm, content etc then we are heedless. This is an old letter I wrote to a friend: For myself although I sound like I give vipassana priority - and, at least in theory, do - I can't avoid having samatha. I find maranasati(mindfulness of death) can go hand in hand with vipassana . It is not an essential but it leans the mind in the direction of impermanence and gives urgency, it has been like my best friend over many years. Also all vipassana afficionados must develop Dhammanusati to some degree as this IS an essential prequisite. Nina has translated a book about Metta- (a type of samatha and also a perfection). There are others that we can do too. What seems to be the most common object peolple choose these days is anapanasati, the most difficult of all objects, according to the texts. This object does need special conditions - erect back, fixed posture, quiet, much application etc.; thus when on dsg we talk about vipassana in daily life it perhaps seems so different from what people are used to thinking of as bhavana(meditation). Yet many other types of samatha can be developed in daily life in any posture- (true though that more strigent conditions are needed if one wants to take them to the most advanced levels) Knowing that akusala- that desire or aversion etc are objects for awareness, that they are simply paramattha dhamma - if that understanding is firm - means that one can't be frightened by any of them. How can one feel bad - knowing that bad feeling is an object for vipassaan (of course I feel bad sometimes but these are times that I try to cherish as opportunities to understand that feeling or dosa or the conditions for dosa) In Buddhism "even the bad times feel good". They, unpleasant feelings etc., appear more as they really are. Knowing that-as the texts say- dhammas are changing so, so fast, one knows that even if one is in great fear ,for example, that fear is simply a conditioned dhamma and can't last even for an instant. It is because of nicca vippalasa- the perversion of permanence, that thinks it(the hindrance ) lasts, and so one is distracted by it and believes it has to be got rid of before insight can arise. Yet it has already gone even before one knows it is there - and then one is attached to a perception of it. Not realising that new conditions are creating new fear. This is what avijja(ignorance) does - clouds seeing these things. And one knows too that there are different processes such as seeing occuring that can't come with unpleasant feeling. These things can be seen for oneself - and so the teachings are being gradually tested and their truths seen. In fact, if understanding grows there are less opportunities for some types of akusala - because if there is insight into the hindrances then the conditions that create the hindrances are also being understood - at different levels. And this leads gradually to a turning away from those conditions (by panna, wisdom, not by self effort). Especially, though, insight is eliminating the idea of permanance and self and control. This is the first stage - that of the sotapanna. It is in later stages that craving for sense pleasures is eradicated. The sotapanna has all the hindrances except for doubt. This makes us realise that it is wrongview that is the real danger. I think we can spend much energy trying to stop the hindrances - and they will always come back . Understanding them is another way. However, we can't just expect this type of understanding to pop up out of the blue. There does have to be much consideration of the khandas and ayatanas and dhatus and other sublime teachings- and this is contemplation is all classified under Dhammnusati, one of the forty objects. It can be done at any time and so may not look like samatha but it is (with the proviso that one in this case is not aiming for high levels of samadhi but rather looking for understanding). Khun sujin is very helpful on explaining about seeing the present moment. She said that one can have subtle craving for kusala and that shifts one away from the present: "" if one thinks that one should rather have objects other than the present one, since these appear to be more wholesome, one will never study the object which appears now. And how can one know their true nature when there is no study, no awareness of them? So it must be the present object, only what appears now. This is more difficult because it is not the object of desire. If desire can move one away to another object, that object satisfies one's desire. Desire is there all the time. If there is no understanding of lobha as lobha, how can it be eradicated? One has to understand different degrees of realities, also lobha which is more subtle, otherwise one does not know when there is lobha. Seeing things as they are. Lobha is lobha. Usually one does not see the subtle lobha which moves one away from developing right understanding of the present object."endquote Nevertheless she does admit that satipatthana is not always going to occur. She often speaks about other ways of kusala. She writes in Deeds of merit "This is another level of kusala besides the levels of daana, generosity, and siila, morality. S. : The monks are accustomed to practise continuously, for a long time, four meditation subjects of samatha, in order to have calm of citta and to subdue defilements which can disturb them. Laypeople can also practise these four meditation subjects. The Dhamma and the Vinaya which the monks practise can also be applied by layfollowers in their own situation, as a means of subduing defilements. W. : What are these four meditation subjects? S. : Recollection of the excellent qualities of the Buddha, the development of mettaa (loving kindness), perception of repulsiveness and mindfulness of death. S. : The recitation we do every night before going to sleep is the paying of respect to the Buddha. This is a meritorious action of the level of siila, because it is kusala performed through body and speech. But for kusala citta with calm of the level of samatha it is not sufficient to merely recite words, but it is also necessary to recollect, to ponder over the excellent qualities of the Buddha." endquote She then explains a little more about Buddhanusati. I heard on a tape recently someone asking her why she places most stress on satipatthana and anatta, why not emphasize samatha or sila the most. Basically she said that for those who have the accumulations to understand that this is the rarest teaching, not easy to hear. When I heard and knew that any paramattha dhamma can be an object for insight I was elated (not discouraged). It took alot of stress away. Before that I had to be so careful to arrange my life in certain ways so as not to upset calm. Had to avoid confrontations and many other things (and still could never get things quite right.) I couldn't see how much clinging there was to what I took to be 'practice', it was actually increasing the spin of dependent origination even though I hoped and believed it to be doing the opposite. I still like to get away to quiet places and have more time to study and consider Dhamma; but now there is not the pressure of thinking I must be in such situations. It seems more natural now - a more relaxed life. That is a side effect only: what is more important is that now there are countless opportunities for awareness during each day. Instead of trying to avoid being 'distracted', the 'distraction' is the object . Robert #71506 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 5:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is sati, to sobhana. rjkjp1 Dear Sobhana I add some more. Every moment is new and it is all arising and falling away with great rapidity. However, each moment conditions the next moment and so there is continuity. Tkae the suttas where Buddha expounds Dhamma to his son. If that situation is analysed there was really no Buddha or Rahula. But there was sound, there was hearing; these disappeared as soon as they arose but they conditioned cittas that understood the concepts that were expressed by the myriad sounds. Cittas arise and fall away instantly too but they can - and do - take a concept and repeatedly examine it and so the cittas in succession may seem much the same, for split seconds, seconds or even longer. But by wise attention there can be the insight that begins to study the nature of citta and see how it is different, albeit similar, moment to moment. This wise attention can lead to seeing, so the texts say, that nama and rupa are very different types of reality - and continue on to know more. There is no self anywhere in this process, so the Dhamma ; but the unbroken continuity of rising and falling, deludes the unwise (i.e.us) into believing there is something substantial there , something somewhere that can direct, decide , that is doing this or that. RobM mentioned the term ayuhana, accumulating, ealier. And this process means that all the time there is new accumulating occuring, subtley altering, right now, what was accumulated from the past; so that in the future accumulations may be very different from what they are now. Wisdom may develop, or not; kindness or cruelty; patience or impatience; metta or anger. It can be studied, this process; while it happens, but usually there is a barrier, self view which distorts and stops us understanding. Robert #71507 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 5:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue egberdina Hi Sarah, On 04/05/07, sarah abbott wrote: > > ..... > S: I think you miss the point of what we repeat over and over again. > Discussing various realities which may be arising now and can be known at > such times is essential. If we don't ever listen/read/discuss what these > realities are that the Buddha taught, they will never be known. > > You think there can only ever be awareness of concepts. Fine. Let me > assure you, however, that in such an 'awareness', you are missing out on > the entire teachings. > > Yes, there is only the present moment - now! Now there is a nama or rupa > appearing and awareness can be aware of it. Is there seeing now? Is there > visible object now? Is there hearing now? Is there sound now? Is there > thinking now? If yes, then develop awareness (with sati, not self, of > course!) > ..... From the Radha-Samyuta Venerable sir, for what purpose is correct knowledge? Ràdha, it is for turning. Venerable sir, for what purpose is turning? Ràdha, it is for loosing interest. Venerable sir, for what purpose is loosing interest? Ràdha, it is for release. Venerable sir, for what purpose is release? Ràdha, it is for extinction. Venerable sir, for what purpose is extinction? Ràdha, it is not possible to answer that question. Extinction is the final end. The holy life is lived to reach extinction and it is the end. Herman #71508 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 5:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is sati, to sobhana. rjkjp1 Dear Sobhana While you are thinking about Abhidhamma and anatta here are some thoughts that may be a condition for more reflection. The idea of freewill , I believe, is the illusion that keeps the wheel of dependent origination(paticcasamuppada) forever spinning. It occurs and is repeatedly 'confirmed' because avijja , ignorance, runs among concepts and takes what are merely elements perfoming different tasks as wholes. When we think of wholes we do not see the nature of dhammas. It is by breaking down the wholes (the direct study of realities in the present moment)that insight grows. And especially the function of the Abhidhamma is to detail these dhammas to assist this investigation. "When they are seen (the khandhas) after resolving them by means of knowledge into elements, they disintergrate like froth subjected to compression by the hand. They are mere states (dhammas)occurring due to conditions and void. In this way the characteristic of not-self becomes more clear" Pm (visuddhimagga xxi n.4) It takes time to do this, a long time, cira kala bhavana. ) All dhammas, even votthapanna, are conditioned (not neccessarily by kamma - there are 24 paccaya explained in the Abhidhammma)and all have the characteristic of anatta, not self. All are as below: "It is not-self on account of the insusceptibility to the exercise of power,. It is not self for four reasons, that is, in the sense of voidness, of having no owner-master, of having no overlord, and of opposing self" (see vis. note 3 xxi) We can't stop seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, feeling, knowing, thinking; these dhammas are not ours and they arise by conditions. They oppress by continually arising and ceasing. The amazing thing is that the more we look into this, and the more obvious dukkha thus becomes, the happier we become. And paradoxically the more we see that there is no control the more freedom we have. The more we see that right effort is a conditioned phenomena the more vigor there is - because we are not wasting energy trying to have what can't yet be had. There is detachment from the idea of a self who is doing anything - there is the gradual elimination of attasanna (self perception), the paticcasamupadda is being dismantled. First it is known as theory but it can be known directly too: "First it has to be seen by inference acording to the texts. Afterwards it gradually becomes to be known by personal experience when the knowledge of development gets stronger" Pm Vis. xx n.20 Robert #71509 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 2:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, Antony - > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/change.html > =========================== Thanks for this, Antony. Of course, it reflects a very specific view, that of Ven T. Despite all that I ended up saying in my post, I am still very much wary of 'inconstant', because it suggests to me a lasting substance (literally sub-stance, "underlying") that changes in nature or quality, and that perspective is not compatible with anatta as I see it. So, I still prefer 'impermanent'. Even if one agrees that there is convention and artifice involved in "parsing" the flow of experience, it remains true that the way things are at one moment (for example, hardness being experienced as object with accompanying aversion), will no longer be that way at some point in the future, and this can be seen to be the case without any assumption of some underlying, altering/changing "thing". The meaning of "not lasting" for 'anicca' is, I still think, the least injurious to the idea of "anatta". I would say that the main (tentative) conclusion of my post is that what is a matter of convention is likely much more far-reaching than I had previously realized, and that the paramattha/pa~n~natta boundary is actually a ragged and porous one. However, there are still significant differences, though hard to pin down, to be observed among "kinds" of phenomena: Though a sight/visible object is an aggregate of colors in varying positions [Shapes aren't nothing at all!], making it far from a simple, irreducible phenomenon, it still has a more elementary character than, say, a tree, which is not just a carved out segment of experience, but is a mental construct built from "a little bit of this, and a little bit of that", and those "little bits" are trillions in number and widely varying in nature and time of occurrence, and some physical and some mental. A concomitant conclusion of my post is that "reality" is radically less accessible, and incomparably less familiar than I had imagined it to be. With metta, Howard P.S. If it seems to anyone that my thoughts on this matter go somewhat one way and somewhat another, you are correct. I am thinking out loud. I'm not communicating a fixed belief to which I am committed. I am communicating my personal investigations. #71510 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 4, 2007 6:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > > S: .... Yes, there is only the present moment - now! Now there is a nama or rupa appearing and awareness can be aware of it. Is there seeing now? Is there visible object now? Is there hearing now? Is there sound now? Is there thinking now? If yes, then develop awareness (with sati, not self, of course!) > > ..... > H:> From the Radha-Samyuta > > Venerable sir, for what purpose is correct knowledge? > > Ràdha, it is for turning. > > Venerable sir, for what purpose is turning? > > Ràdha, it is for loosing interest. > > Venerable sir, for what purpose is loosing interest? > > Ràdha, it is for release. > > Venerable sir, for what purpose is release? > > Ràdha, it is for extinction. > > Venerable sir, for what purpose is extinction? > > Ràdha, it is not possible to answer that question. Extinction is the > final end. The holy life is lived to reach extinction and it is the > end. .... S: Yes, the release/liberation is for the purpose of Nibbana without any continuation of the khandhas, i.e parinibbana. The final end! How? As we read in another sutta addressed to the bhikkhu Raadha (SN22:71, Raadha, Bodhi transl, Raadha asks exactly this: " 'Venerable sir, how should one know, how should one see so that, in regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external signs, I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit no longer occur within?' " 'Any kind of form whatsoever, Raadha, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near - one sees all form as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' '" (And so for any kind of feeling, perception, volitional formations or consciousness.) " 'When one knows and sees thus, Raadha, then in regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external signs, I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit no longer occur within.' "Then the Venerable Raadha ...became one of the arahants." .... S: In other words, all dhammas were clearly known for what they were, i.e as realities, as anatta. And while we're swapping suttas addressed to Raadha, in another earlier sutta,((SN35:76) Raadha asked the Buddha to teach him the Dhamma "in brief' so that he 'might dwell alone, withdrawn, diligent, ardent, and resolute." Was he told to go to the forest to learn to dwell alone and attain jhanas? No. This is how he was told to dwell alone: " 'Raadha, you should abandon desire for whatever is impermanent. And what is impermanent? The eye....Forms.....Eye-consciousness.....Eye-contact is impermanent...Whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition - whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant - that too is impermanent; you should abandon desire for it. " 'The ear.....The mind....Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact...that too is impermanent; you should abandon desire for it. Raadha, you should abandon desire for whatever is impermanent." .... S: In the ultimate sense, this is the only way to "dwell alone, withdrawn, diligent, ardent, and resolute" - by understanding all such realities (NOT concepts) as they are - anicca, dukkha and anatta. (Sobhana and others, this includes unwholesome states and painful feelings). Through such understanding, detachment is developed and attachment is abandoned for the final purpose of parinibbana and the ending of the rounds of samsara (as indicated in the sutta you quoted). The End! Metta, Sarah ====== #71511 From: connie Date: Fri May 4, 2007 6:55 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? nichiconn Hi Scott, Colette, Herman ... Scott: This fits. These beings are like us in that they are living in their own, albeit different, sphere. We just think, "She was once my wife," for example. This 'wifeness' is no longer relevant. And, as well, that 'fruit can never be given to another' is the main point. An act of great kindness by one being with an other being as 'object' accrues to the being giving the kindness. How this kindness is experienced or taken or whatever follows next depends entirely on the 'recipient'. Is this how you see it? Connie (tempted to fudge and just say yes) quotes: Illustrator vii 30 quoting Anguttara i: - But, Master Gotama, if that deceased relative has not reappeared in that place, and if other relatives and kin of his have not reappeared in that place, who makes use of that almsgiving? - It is impossible, Divine, it cannot happen, that that place should be empty of relatives of his in this long extent [of the round of rebirths]: and furthermore, no giver ever lacked the fruit'. Connie: As long as we're always thinking in terms of relations, whether with people (and who hasn't been our mother, father, etc) or things, it's still pretty much all just about me my self. Even down to thinking in terms of metta and the only child. Ouch. And yeah, some kids just kick and scream and bite and ... I know you're wrapping all 24 conditions in that 'recieving blanket' - that you aren't blaming the victim, etc. peace, connie #71512 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 4, 2007 6:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Daana Corner (49) Last Installment jonoabb Dear Han han tun wrote: > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > We have come to the last essay compiled by Bhikkhu > Bodhi: The Perfection of Giving (Acariya Dhammapala). > It is being presented in 7 parts. > The following is 7 of 7 parts, and the last > installment of Daana Corner. > Questions, comments and different views welcome:-) > ------------------------------ > > When the Great Man has made a mental determination to > completely relinquish whatever possessions come his > way, whether animate or inanimate, there are four > shackles to giving (which he must overcome), namely, > not being accustomed to giving in the past, the > inferiority of the object to be given, the excellence > and beauty of the object, and worry over the loss of > the object. > > ... > ------------------------------ > > This is the End of the presentation of “Dana”, a > collection of essays edited by Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi. > > I thank the Group for giving me their time and kind > attention. > Many thanks for presenting this series on Dana. I have benefited from it enormously. Jon #71513 From: connie Date: Fri May 4, 2007 6:55 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (54) nichiconn Dear Sisters Enthusiasts, Part 2 of 2 for Anopama ("Peerless"), daughter of the se.t.thi Majjha [aka Megha (the treasurer)] of Saketa -- RD: Asking the Master for admission, she was by his order admitted among the Bhikkhuniis. And on the seventh day thereafter, she realized Arahantship. Reflecting thereon, she exulted: Daughter of Treas'rer Majjha's famous house, Rich, beautiful and prosperous, I was born To vast possessions and to lofty rank. (151) Nor lacked I suitors - many came and wooed; The sons of Kings and merchant princes came With costly gifts, all eager for my hand. And messengers were sent from many a land With promise to my father: 'Give to me (152) Anopamaa, and look! whate'er she weighs, Anopamaa thy daughter, I will give Eightfold that weight in gold and gems of price.' (153) But I had seen th' Enlightened, Chief o' the World, The One Supreme. In lowliness I sat And worshipped at his feet. He, Gotama, (154) Out of his pity taught to me the Norm. And seated even there I touched in heart The Anaagaami-Fruit, Third of the Paths, And knew this world should see me ne'er return. (155) Then cutting off the glory of my hair, I entered on the homeless ways of life. 'Tis now the seventh night since first all sense Of craving drie'd up within my heart. (156) Tattha ucce kuleti u.laaratame vessakule. Bahuvitteti ala"nkaaraadipahuutavittuupakara.ne. Mahaddhaneti nidhaanagatasseva cattaariisako.tiparimaa.nassa mahato dhanassa atthibhaavena mahaddhane aha.m jaataati yojanaa. Va.n.naruupena sampannaati va.n.nasampannaa ceva ruupasampannaa ca, siniddhabhaasuraaya chavisampattiyaa vatthaabhara.naadisariiraavayavasampattiyaa ca samannaagataati attho. Dhiitaa majjhassa atrajaati majjhanaamassa se.t.thino orasaa dhiitaa. 151. There, in an exalted family (kule) means: in a most noble merchant's family (vessa-kule). Much property means: having the means of procuring many riches, such as ornaments, etc. Much wealth (maha-ddhane) means: having accumulated [wealth]. Much wealth through the existence of great wealth (mahato dhanassa) measuring forty ko.ti, and I was born is the connection. I possessed (sampannaa) a [good] complexion (va.n.na-sampannaa), and I also possessed a [good] figure (ruupa-sampannaa). Possessed of a perfection of skin that was sleek and resplendent and of perfection in the limbs of my body, my ornaments, and my clothing. That is the meaning. [Being] Majjha's true daughter (dhiitaa Majjhassa atrajaa) means: I was the true daughter (orasaa dhiitaa) of the merchant named Majjha (Majjha-naamassa). Patthitaa raajaputtehiiti "katha.m nu kho ta.m labheyyaamaa"ti raajakumaarehi abhipatthitaa. Se.t.thiputtehi gijjhitaati tathaa se.t.thikumaarehipi abhigijjhitaa paccaasiisitaa. Detha mayha.m anopamanti raajaputtaadayo "detha mayha.m anopama.m detha mayhan"ti pitu santike duuta.m pesayi.msu. 152. I was sought after (patthitaa) by kings' sons (raaja-puttehi) means: I was longed for (abhipatthitaa) by kings' sons (raaja-kumaarehi) with the words, "Now how can we obtain her?" Longed for (gijjhitaa) by merchants' sons (se.t.thi-puttehi) means: likewise, I was desired, craved for (abhigijjhitaa) by merchants' sons (se.t.thi-kumaarehi). "Give me Anopamaa" means: the kings' sons, etc, sent a messenger to her father, saying, "Give me Anopamaa. Give her to me." Yattaka.m tulitaa esaati "tuyha.m dhiitaa anopamaa yattaka.m dhana.m agghatii"ti tulitaa lakkha.na~n~nuuhi paricchinnaa, "tato a.t.thagu.na.m dassaamii"ti pitu me pesayi duutanti yojanaa. Sesa.m he.t.thaa vuttanayameva. Anopamaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. 153. "However much [she] weighs" means: "however much wealth your daughter Anopamaa is worth," what she weighs as measured by those who know marks. "I will give you eight times that" means: [one] sent my father a messenger [from v. 152], that is the connection. The meaning of the rest has been explained already. Here ends the commentary on the verse of Therii Anopamaa. === peace, connie #71514 From: "Phil" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 7:19 am Subject: AN X, 2 Act of will and virtue philofillet Hi all I'd like to bring to your attention a sutta which I think is very helpful. It is AN X, 2. I think reflecting on it might help one not get too carried away in premature interest in conditionality. "For one who is virtuous and endowed with virtue, there is not need for an actoof will: "May non-remorse arise in me!" It is a natural law, monks, that non-remorse will arise in one who is virtuous." "For one free of remorse, there is no need for an acto of will: "Mauy gladness arise in me!" It is a natural law that gladness will arise in one who is glad at heart." and so on for joy>serenity etc, leading to concentration and seeing the true nature of things etc. Please note that the Buddha does not teach in this sutta that virtue can arise without an act of will. The attainment of virtue is not included in this "natural law" laid out in the sutta, it must be established first, this is ever so clear. "An act of will" (many acts of will, of course) is necessary. I think reflecting on this sutta will dissuade one from beleiving that virtue arises in some wonderful way according to the laws of conditionality as a result of hearing the dhamma, reflecting on it, discussing it. Acts of will are necessary - whether there is self view or not. (Of course there will be self view - only the sotapanna is free of self view.) Metta, Phil #71515 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri May 4, 2007 7:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements jonoabb Hi James (and Howard) buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Howard, > ... > >> ======================= >> LOLOL! You ARE tenacious, James. (Yes, I knew you meant to >> write "ridding".) >> > > Yeah, I did mean "ridding" also. ;-)) Tenacious? Yeah, I would say > so. So was the Buddha about the subject of jhana: > > "Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, > out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are > the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, > monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our > message to you." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.019.than.html#false > The translation of 'jhana' in the phrase 'practice jhana' here is suspect, I think. The Pali has 'samadhi', I believe. Other translations use 'concentrate' (e.g., mettanet.org) or 'meditate' (e.g., BB in MLDB). Thought you might like to know. Jon #71516 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 3:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AN X, 2 Act of will and virtue upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 5/4/07 10:27:24 AM Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: > Hi all > > I'd like to bring to your attention a sutta which I think is very > helpful. It is AN X, 2. I think reflecting on it might help one not > get too carried away in premature interest in conditionality. > > "For one who is virtuous and endowed with virtue, there is not > need for an actoof will: "May non-remorse arise in me!" It is a > natural law, monks, that non-remorse will arise in one who is > virtuous." > > "For one free of remorse, there is no need for an acto of > will: "Mauy gladness arise in me!" It is a natural law that > gladness will arise in one who is glad at heart." and so on for > joy>serenity etc, leading to concentration and seeing the true > nature of things etc. > > > Please note that the Buddha does not teach in this sutta that > virtue can arise without an act of will. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: There are loads of suttas in which the Buddha does urge intentional cultivation of virtue, however this isn't one of them. While he doesn't teach here that virtue can be conditioned to arise without acts of will, he also doesn't teach here that it cannot. So, while I absolutely agree that there is a necessity for intentional cultivation of wholesome characteristics, I really don't think this particular sutta is support for that. ----------------------------------------- The attainment of virtue is > > not included in this "natural law" laid out in the sutta, it must be > established first, this is ever so clear. "An act of will" (many > acts of will, of course) is necessary. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: I agree that it is, but support for that needs to be found elsewhere. ----------------------------------------- I think reflecting on this > > sutta will dissuade one from beleiving that virtue arises in some > wonderful way according to the laws of conditionality as a result of > hearing the dhamma, reflecting on it, discussing it. > -------------------------------------- Howard: Phil, I don't understand why reflecting on *this* sutta will so dissuade one. What it establishes for me is that virtue is condition for non-remorse and that for gladness, and thus we see immediate and effortless beneficial fruits of virtue. --------------------------------------- Acts of will > > are necessary - whether there is self view or not. (Of course there > will be self view - only the sotapanna is free of self view.) --------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I agree entirely. ------------------------------------- > > Metta, > > Phil > ==================== With metta, Howard #71517 From: Sobhana Date: Fri May 4, 2007 8:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] what is sati, to sobhana. shennieca Hello Sarah, Thank you for your kindness in your email. (hug). Dhammas are like the 'facts of life' it is there whether we like it or not and the mysteries of life can be solved by knowing the nature of self, which is ironically 'not-self'. :D The Buddha's teachings is very profound. And thank you for making DSG a wonderful dhamma learning group. :) Hello Robert, Thank you for writing the big reply. I'm slowly understanding no freewill (i think). At first when you wrote in e-sangha about no freewill, I was sceptical but now when I think of it, freewill does not seem very logical. Often i ask, is this present moment conditioned? It should be. If it isn't conditioned, then where does it come from? It is more illogical to think that any moment of thoughts can come and go with freewill without any conditions. If it could at freewill then it would be random because nothing conditions it, isn't it. By knowing and understanding conditions means that there is some kind of formula to the train of thoughts, and when we finally figure out what that formula is or how it works, Nibbana becomes possible. (the formula is just a simile :) ) At first, my confusion was "if everything is conditioned, how is Nibbana possible?". I think it is because of conditions, Nibbana is possible, it just needs the Right conditions. I suppose RIght conditions means the Right way of practising the Noble 8foldpath. :) I'll post more questions later on whenever these questions pop into my head. Thank you for the dhamma explanations, Robert, I really appreciate it. Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu! May we realize Nibbana soon. With respect, Elaine Chin #71518 From: connie Date: Fri May 4, 2007 8:32 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? nichiconn Hi, James. Illustrator: ... it is not that action done by one gives fruit for another, [which is never so,] but simply that an object dedicated in this way is a [necessary] condition for [ghost] relatives [themselves to do] profitable action, [and he showed] how such profitable action with that as its object generates its fruit at that very moment. James: This is not true. Those in the ghost realms can directly receive the merit done by others, if it is dedicated to them. They can receive this merit because they have no opportunity to perform the wholesome deeds themselves. Connie: I don't think you would say I could run out and kill "for you" and that 'you' would thereby inherit my kamma. I think the quote speaks "to each one's own" / kammassaka. peace. #71519 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 5:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue TGrand458@... Hi Herman Excellent Sutta below. This is indeed the purpose of being mindful and developing correct understanding! "Turning" perhaps could be translated -- "turning away." (I though for sure that after the "extinction line" that "realities" would come up...but dammit no!?!?) ;-) TG In a message dated 5/4/2007 6:59:02 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: From the Radha-Samyuta Venerable sir, for what purpose is correct knowledge? Ràdha, it is for turning. Venerable sir, for what purpose is turning? Ràdha, it is for loosing interest. Venerable sir, for what purpose is loosing interest? Ràdha, it is for release. Venerable sir, for what purpose is release? Ràdha, it is for extinction. Venerable sir, for what purpose is extinction? Ràdha, it is not possible to answer that question. Extinction is the final end. The holy life is lived to reach extinction and it is the end. Herman #71520 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 5:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue TGrand458@... Hi Sarah Just butting in again... In a message dated 5/4/2007 5:27:29 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: ..... S: I think you miss the point of what we repeat over and over again. Discussing various realities which may be arising now and can be known at such times is essential. If we don't ever listen/read/such times is esse realities are that the Buddha taught, they will never be known. TG: By labeling them "realities" you are already misconstruing the Suttas and inflicting mass conceptualization, opinion, and conjecture upon them. S: Effort with self-view is poison. Any wrong view is poison. It is what keeps us off the path. The truth as we've spelt out over and over again is that there is no 'me' or 'you' doing anything. To think that 'you' or 'I' can make an effort and should make an effort is to swallow this poison over and over again - to remain locked up in the illusory prison which Howard described so well. TG: That's something you'd never hear in the Suttas! I'm quite sure the Buddha would recommend any wholesome effort at any stage of understanding or development. Obviously a beginner to the Buddha's teachings would have to start from a "self view" standpoint. Every time I practice mindfulness I have to reconfigure my mind to try to see objectively and not from a self point of view. So therefore, every effort I make starts with effort and a self oriented mentality ... to some extent. If no understanding develops which begins to learn about namas and rupas as anatta, then there's no purpose in studying the Buddha's teachings. TG: I think most of your audience in this group are well beyond that Sarah. Not only do many of us fully understand they are not anatta, but many of us realize that by substantializing them as "realities" with their "own characteristics," you are locking yourself into a theory of self completely unwittingly. The Buddha did NOT teach these things as realities. He DID teach us to completely reject and surmount them. Yes, we both use mindfulness and awareness. And we are both mindful of the same types of experiences. But your mindfulness incorporates a view that you are experiencing realities with their own characteristics. As such, I don't know how you can overcome "realities"? I don't view experiences as realities. I view them as empty/selfless, impermanent, and afflicting. They are resultants, mere apparitions, vacant of anything of their own substance. Experiences are literally killing us, as experiences/contacts are part-and-parcel of conditions tearing "each other" apart. (I don't subscribe to the "popcorn impermanence" theory of dhammas.) There is no way to conceive anything in the way it really is. ("In what ever way you conceive, the fact is ever other than that." -- The Buddha) Experiences are just changes and alterations in progress. They do not exist as things/states ... nor do they not exist. Whatever is experienced has its source somewhere else. Therefore, THAT experience is not a "reality." Its just a "happening." It is hollow of itself. They way in which you and Nina use realities, dhammas, namas and rupas has no resemblance to the way the Suttas handle elements and aggregates. From my view, you use the Suttas in a distorted way merely to support a different viewpoint ... hammered out by relatively late Abhidhamma commentators and analysists. Please oh please, if the Buddha taught us to see dhammas as realities with their own characteristics as THE most important thing, where the H in the Suttas is there even ONE mention of the like??????? The Buddha did NOT teach this. This is NOT the Buddha's teaching. This IS a corruption of the Buddha's teaching. Well, after that, I better project a little extra Metta your way. ;-) TG #71521 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 6:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/4/2007 7:24:05 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Thanks for this, Antony. Of course, it reflects a very specific view, that of Ven T. Despite all that I ended up saying in my post, I am still very much wary of 'inconstant'very much wary of 'inconstant', because it (literally sub-stance, "underlying"(literally sub-stance, "underlying") that cha perspective is not compatible with anatta as I see it. So, I still prefer 'impermanent''i Hi Howard "Inconstant" didn't affect me like that. To me, if it is by nature not constant, it must be continuously changing. Since I have a predilection of seeing phenomena that way, perhaps that's way I'd interpret it that way. I can see how the other interpretation might come up. Leave it to Ven T. to screw up perfectly good translations for what seems to be of no purpose other than to try to be unique himself. Oh well. A little extra metta to Ven T. is in order as well I guess. TG (PS, I have an idea for a TV show. -- "Leave It To Ven. T." Its about a bunch of Buddhist scholars who translate dhamma and one of them always goofs it a bit and the others have to straighten him out but they love him just the same.) #71522 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 6:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/4/07 1:12:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > (PS, I have an idea for a TV show. -- "Leave It To Ven. T." Its about > a > bunch of Buddhist scholars who translate dhamma and one of them always > goofs > it a bit and the others have to straighten him out but they love him just > the same.) > =================== ;-)) With metta, Howard #71523 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 10:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A Meditation Tip 4 different types- the Path moellerdieter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sukinder" wrote: > > Dear Dieter, > > Sorry for the delay in responding, no free time. Hi Sukinder,, no problem.. much better to take the convenient time than a hasty answer..from my side it will take some time as well to reply to your points. One issue however which seems to be of central importance I like to comment immdiately. you wrote: snip ...I believe that if there is a correct understanding of what the N8FP is, then it will be seen that jhana has no place in it.snip in definition of the 8th step of the Noble Path it is said e.g. within the Maha Satipatthana Sutta ( Digha Nikaya 22) : "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. With the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation -- internal assurance. With the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful & alert, physically sensitive of pleasure. He enters & remains in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' With the abandoning of pleasure & pain -- as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress -- he enters & remains in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. This is called right concentration. unquote For the benefit of our common understanding I like to suggest to keep this outstanding sutta in mind , respectively would appreciate if you could apare the time to re-read the whole text. with Netta Dieter #71524 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 6:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue TGrand458@... Hi Sarah and Herman, In a message dated 5/4/2007 7:55:18 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: Yes, the release/liberation is for the purpose of Nibbana without any continuation of the khandhas, i.e parinibbana. The final end! How? As we read in another sutta addressed to the bhikkhu Raadha (SN22:71, Raadha, Bodhi transl, Raadha asks exactly this: " 'Venerable sir, how should one know, how should one see so that, in regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external signs, I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit no longer occur within?' " 'Any kind of form whatsoever, Raadha, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near - one sees all form as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' '" TG: Of course if seeing the Khandas as realities had anything to do with the Buddha's teaching, that would have been highlighted in exactly these types of Suttas. To me this proves the point that seeing namas and rupas as realities has nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching. Saying that it does is merely conjecture and pretty poor conjecture IMO. (And so for any kind of feeling, perception, volitional formations or consciousness.c " 'When one knows and sees thus, Raadha, then in regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external signs, I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit no longer occur within.' "Then the Venerable Raadha ...became one of the arahants." .... S: In other words, all dhammas were clearly known for what they were, i.e as realities, as anatta. TG: Got that REALITIES slipped in there didn't you? ;-) Yep, this the only way to get "realities" into the Suttas by "slipping it in" where it doesn't belong. Your above statement would have reasonable accuracy if you had left OUT the "as realities" line. And while we're swapping suttas addressed to Raadha, in another earlier sutta,((SN35:sutta,((SN35:76) Raadha asked the Buddha to teach him brief' so that he 'might dwell alone, withdrawn, diligent, ardent, and resolute." Was he told to go to the forest to learn to dwell alone and attain jhanas? No. This is how he was told to dwell alone: " 'Raadha, you should abandon desire for whatever is impermanent. And what is impermanent? The eye....Forms.is impermanent? is impermis impermanent? The impermanent.impermanent...Whatever feeling arises with eye-contact a whether pleasant or painful or neither-painful-whether pleasant or painful or impermanent; you should abandon desire for it. " 'The ear.....The mind....Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact.mind-contact...that too is impermanent; you should aban Raadha, you should abandon desire for whatever is impermanent.R .... S: In the ultimate sense, this is the only way to "dwell alone, withdrawn, diligent, ardent, and resolute" - by understanding all such realities (NOT concepts) as they are - anicca, dukkha and anatta. (Sobhana and others, this includes unwholesome states and painful feelings). TG Slipping in "realities." There aint no "realities" in the quotes above. There's talk of no-self and impermanence. We are to see elements and aggregates as no-self, impermanent, and afflicting. THAT'S IT. The Buddha above is not even teaching mindfulness techniques. It is a conceptual instruction. Sarah's analysis seems groundless to me. Through such understanding, detachment is developed and attachment is abandoned for the final purpose of parinibbana and the ending of the rounds of samsara (as indicated in the sutta you quoted). The End! TG: If you stick to what the Buddha actually says ... then yes. Metta, Sarah TG #71525 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 6:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AN X, 2 Act of will and virtue TGrand458@... Hi Phil In a message dated 5/4/2007 8:27:20 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: I'd like to bring to your attention a sutta which I think is very helpful. It is AN X, 2. I think reflecting on it might help one not get too carried away in premature interest in conditionality. TG: This VERY Sutta is a condition that impacts those that hear it. All conditions accord to the "Natural law" the Buddha lays down. That being said, energy and effort, given the correct understanding of how to apply them, as either taught by the Buddha or garnered by ones "own" seeking, of course must be applied. Just as a hen must sit on her eggs to get them to hatch. That also is a natural law. The term "will" as used here implies that without the natural conditions to develop virtue, somehow one is going to "will" virtue ... that doesn't fly! One must learn what virtue is, how to cultivate it, then how to apply the effort. Then virtue can grow. All of this is in accordance with natural law and the beneficial results are just the same. Effort comes from appropriate education. Education formulates the appropriate conditions to advance to the next stage. Cause and effect works from both side. The cause and outcomes. Can't over-ride natural law. TG #71526 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 6:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/4/07 1:12:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > "Inconstant" didn't affect me like that. To me, if it is by nature not > constant, it must be continuously changing. > --------------------------------- Howard: My problem is with the "it" that supposedly continues but changes. To me that smacks of substantialism and eternalism. This, as I see it, is exactly the sort of view that most people have about so-called personal identity, namely that "I" have always existed, but changed! We think "That little child I recall has become an adult!": That is atta-view. No one of the tilakkhana should compromise either of the other two. A proper understanding of anicca should support anatta - not compromise it. The recognition of this, I believe, may well be the reason that some Theravadins have opted for the "atomic realities, film-frame approach," to avoid this continuing substance perspective. However, IMO, this staccato perspective is an untenable one, being unable to account in particular for mental activites that can do nothing in zero time, and, moreover, one which bears an atta-view of its own, namely that of separate, self-existent, though momentary "ultimate realities". For me, what the Mahayanists call the emptiness perspective, well expressed originally in many Pali suttas, including the Kaccayangota, Channa, Nalakalapiyo, Phena, and Uraga Suttas, is quite "saving" in this regard. It is like a protective talisman warding off error. From the Uraga Sutta: "He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none, — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin." From the Phena Sutta: "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately." ----------------------------------------- With metta, Howard #71527 From: "colette" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 8:46 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? ksheri3 Good morning connie, I Love It! that is a great definition and wonderfully put by the editors, monitors, of the msg. list. While we may not get what we want, desire, from another does not mean that we didn't get a "thing" of equal or greater value. here is also the concept of dwelling in or abiding in, for instance, the stream. the experience takes time to analyzis all the facets of the thing? When we first enter the stream, for instance, the water is shockingly cold but as we abide there we realize that the temperature is soothing and relaxing, comforting, and therefore, offering us a stay so that we can COGNIZE it better? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > > Hi Scott, Colette, Herman ... > > Scott: This fits. These beings are like us in that they are living in > their own, albeit different, sphere. We just think, "She was once my > wife," for example. This 'wifeness' is no longer relevant. > > And, as well, that 'fruit can never be given to another' is the main > point. An act of great kindness by one being with an other being as > 'object' accrues to the being giving the kindness. How this kindness is > experienced or taken or whatever follows next depends entirely on the > 'recipient'. > > Is this how you see it? > > Connie (tempted to fudge and just say yes) quotes: > > Illustrator vii 30 quoting Anguttara i: - But, Master Gotama, if that > deceased relative has not reappeared in that place, and if other relatives > and kin of his have not reappeared in that place, who makes use of that > almsgiving? - It is impossible, Divine, it cannot happen, that that place > should be empty of relatives of his in this long extent [of the round of > rebirths]: and furthermore, no giver ever lacked the fruit'. > > Connie: As long as we're always thinking in terms of relations, whether > with people (and who hasn't been our mother, father, etc) or things, it's > still pretty much all just about me my self. colette: isn't doing something "always" nothing more than ritual behavior and/or "CONDITIONING"? Repeatative motions! If it is "all just about me my self" then it is false, an illusion since you are not all there is: "EMPTINESS IS FORM"/"FORM IS EMPTINESS", there is no SVABHAVA in this thing you term your "self". You have made this 'self' have the concept of SVABHAVA it did not come with it on it's own. toodles, colette #71528 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 12:29 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] a question dacostacharles Hi Robert A, I would say "YES" the statement is correct. Even latent tendencies are both conditions for ... and are conditioned themselves. And, they can be ceased so they do not create the conditions for the arising of frustration or anger in the future. Charles DaCosta _____ Is this statement correct? A person suffering from frustration or anger in this moment does so because conditions were created in the past for that frustration or anger to arise. To prevent the arising of frustration or anger in the future he/she must cease to create the conditions for its arising. #71529 From: "colette" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 8:37 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? ksheri3 Good Morning Scott, I had a good abiding with your respons although I don't know what the last words were you had in CAPS LOCK but I'll be on my way to the library where I can find dictionaries and thesauruses. I was big on that when I was creating my library of grimoires back in the 80s and 90s. Dictionaries were the first thing but without a thesaurus the world is so black & white. Ya see, a lot of people don't recognize their behavior of adding that second "l" to my name so they are on AUTO-PILOT and don't realize it. lol. You, one a the "couple" that has recognized this behavior. Thanx. toodles, colette > Sorry. "See you next time, collette," should be: > > See you next time, colette. #71530 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 12:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/4/2007 12:06:59 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/4/07 1:12:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) writes: > Hi Howard > > "Inconstant" didn't affect me like that. To me, if it is by nature not > constant, it must be continuously changing. > --------------------------------- Howard: My problem is with the "it" that supposedly continues but changes. To me that smacks of substantialism and eternalism. This, as I see it, is exactly the sort of view that most people have about so-called personal identity, namely that "I" have always existed, but changed! We think "That little child I recall has become an adult!": That is atta-view. No one of the tilakkhana should compromise either of the other two. A proper understanding of anicca should support anatta - not compromise it. TG: Wow! This is an amazing response to the word 'It." Even though the argument you are making is exactly what I've been hammering away at in here for years, sounds like the "it" has made you think I am stuck with eternalism/substantialist views. Ease up there cowboy! ;-) In my usage, "it" is more likely referring to "phenomena in general" or "energy in general" making it less offensive I think. As Bill Clinton might say ... It depends on what the meaning of "it" is. ;-) Man, you need to read my paper!!! LOL The whole thing revolves around these exact issues. The recognition of this, I believe, may well be the reason that some Theravadins have opted for the "atomic realities, film-frame approach," to avoid this continuing substance perspective. However, IMO, this staccato perspective is an untenable one, being unable to account in particular for mental activites that can do nothing in zero time, and, moreover, one which bears an atta-view of its own, namely that of separate, self-existent, though momentary "ultimate realities". For me, what the Mahayanists call the emptiness perspective, well expressed originally in many Pali suttas, including the Kaccayangota, Channa, Nalakalapiyo, Phena, and Uraga Suttas, is quite "saving" in this regard. It is like a protective talisman warding off error. TG: I guess I really don't have anything to add to this. LOL From the Uraga Sutta: "He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none, — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin." From the Phena Sutta: "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately.a ----------------------------------------- TG: Great quotes! The latter one is in my paper of course. That's why I'm even happier that you included the first quote. What page/book did you get that first quote from? Since I have a predilection of > seeing phenomena that way, perhaps > that's way I'd interpret it that way. I can > see how the other interpretation might come up. TG: See, I'm even using "phenomena" here. When I have any iota of mindfulness at all, what most people see as objects ... I am just seeing as various formations of energy in a dynamic relationship with all other phenomena. If mindfulness gets stronger, I can surpass that and just experience the empty flow with insight of the conditionality process. The discernment of an object is only subjective. Even that of the universe as a whole. There are no separate objects, that is only delusion in the mind. And always self-view oriented. (Of course the Buddha and arahats used examples that would seemingly sound like separate objects. Hopefully their colleagues would not jump over them for using such examples, but would rather, understand the context of the message and realize that communication has its limits.) Yet we use discernment to examine nature and hopefully overcome the delusional mind-set that interprets various formations as distinct realities. This grave error, seeing things as distinct realities, will actually prevent any hope of enlightenment IMO. That's why I'm willing to risk coming off as rude to Nina and Sarah, who are obviously nice well meaning people, but who are doing huge damage to the Buddha's teaching IMO and virtually brainwashing some people with their over and over "realities" line. TG #71531 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 4:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Scott, S: "When I see 'body as body' and that 'it is not me' then this is, as you say, 'a glimpse of anatta'. Seeing it thus would be the opposite of what I was suggesting as a description of 'experience of self-view'. In this latter case one would say, 'I am my body (or feelings, or mind, etc.)'; or, 'my body is mine (or my feelings, or my mind, etc.). I was also suggesting that seeing or touching things would be similarly structured: These things are 'their own' and 'as they are', rather than just knowing that seeing is seeing or touching is touching." L: Right. In my view 'self' (atta) is not about the reality of conventional objects. It is about what constitutes I, me, and my. Similarly, dependent arising isn't so much about the nature of experience as it is the dependent arising of an apparent person. Certainly we can analyze objects and experience in a similar way but I don't think this analysis gets to the heart of the matter: self clinging. Larry #71532 From: "Phil" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 5:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] AN X, 2 Act of will and virtue philofillet HiTg, Howard and all Thanks for your feedback to my oversimplified post. > TG: This VERY Sutta is a condition that impacts those that hear it. All > conditions accord to the "Natural law" the Buddha lays down. Yes, right. Thanks for the reminder. That being said, > energy and effort, given the correct understanding of how to apply them, as > either taught by the Buddha or garnered by ones "own" seeking, of course must > be applied. Just as a hen must sit on her eggs to get them to hatch. That > also is a natural law. Yes, I don't know quite what I was getting at. I'm still a bit peeved from a dhamma talk in which a certain teacher failed to tell an inquiring student about any one of the many ways the Buddha urged people to apply intentional practices for the development of virtue. I have a lingering resentment towards teachings that fail to respect these intentional practices that are so clear in so many suttas. So when I crticized relying on "conditionality", which is of course a law at all times, I suppose I meant to critize relying on insight into conditionalilty, or something like that. This notion insight into the characteristics of dhammas (including their conditionality) somehow arises for us and provides guarding fo the sense doors. Somehting like that. I'm not sure. Ayways, thanks for reminder. "Can't override natrual law." And thanks to Howard for yoru feedback. There are lots of suttas I'm appreciating these days, so don't worry that I'm trying to read too much into this one. It just popped up. Metta, Phil #71533 From: han tun Date: Fri May 4, 2007 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Daana Corner (49) Last Installment hantun1 Dear Jon and Sarah (and others), Thank you very much for your kind words. I also benefit from my own presentation, because I have to study more while presenting them. It may be like what one Burmese Sayadaw said: he was listening to his own sermon while delivering it to the audience. I wanted to write more, but my physical condition is not like it used to be. I am experiencing jaraa with direct knowledge. The vital sap from my body is slowly ebbing away. After finishing the “Dana” by Ven Bhikkhu Bodhi, I wanted to present an article where daana is classified in groups of twos, threes, fours etc. But I cannot do it now. So I will just mention the link below. The Perfection of Generosity (Dana-parami), translated by Saya U Chit Tin. http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys4/dana.htm Respectfully, Han --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Many thanks for presenting this series on Dana. I > have benefited from it enormously. > Jon #71534 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 1:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, TG - > As Bill Clinton might say ... It depends on what the meaning of "it" is. > > ;-) > > Man, you need to read my paper!!! LOL The whole thing revolves around > these exact issues. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not criticizing you, though it might seem so. I'm just using your words as a jumping-off point for further explaining my uneasiness with the inconstancy terminology. As you know, I think it is very important what language we use, as it can affect our thinking or the thinking of others. As I see it, if "something" changes/alters, it also has continued as "it", and that creates a substantialist perspective in someone who doesn't see the matter clearly - as I know you do. ------------------------------------------------- > > > TG: Great quotes! The latter one is in my paper of course. That's why I'm > > even happier that you included the first quote. What page/book did you get > > that first quote from? --------------------------------------------- Howard: It's the 5th paragraph of the Uraga Sutta, findable at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.01.nypo.html --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Since I have a predilection of >seeing phenomena that way, perhaps > >that's way I'd interpret it that way. I can > >see how the other interpretation might come up. > > > TG: See, I'm even using "phenomena" here. ----------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) --------------------------------------- > > When I have any iota of mindfulness at all, what most people see as objects > > ... I am just seeing as various formations of energy in a dynamic > relationship > with all other phenomena. If mindfulness gets stronger, I can surpass that > > and just experience the empty flow with insight of the conditionality > process. -------------------------------------------- Howard: That sounds great! :-) -------------------------------------------- > > The discernment of an object is only subjective. Even that of the universe > > as a whole. There are no separate objects, that is only delusion in the > mind. And always self-view oriented. > > (Of course the Buddha and arahats used examples that would seemingly sound > like separate objects. Hopefully their colleagues would not jump over them > > for using such examples, but would rather, understand the context of the > message > and realize that communication has its limits.) ---------------------------------------------- Howard: We can't say anything without using reificational speech. I know that. As I said, I was just trying to further explain my perspective. ------------------------------------------- > ======================= With metta, Howard #71535 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 1:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] AN X, 2 Act of will and virtue upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 5/4/07 8:42:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: > And thanks to Howard for > yoru feedback. There are lots of suttas I'm appreciating these days, > so don't worry that I'm trying to read too much into this one. It > just popped up. > > ====================== That's just fine, Phil! As you know, I think about intentional practice just as you do, and I think that your pursuing the suttas in detail and putting their teachings into practice is not less than wonderful!! I'm so happy for you!! :-) With metta, Howard #71536 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 6:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements scottduncan2 Dear Jonathan (James and Howard), Regarding: "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you." J: "The translation of 'jhana' in the phrase 'practice jhana' here is suspect, I think. The Pali has 'samadhi', I believe. Other translations use 'concentrate' (e.g., mettanet.org) or 'meditate' (e.g., BB in MLDB). Thought you might like to know." Scott: I remember studying this with Nina awhile back. The Pa.li word in question is 'jhaayatha'. PTS PED: "Jhaayati...1] to meditate, contemplate, think upon, brood over (c. acc.): search for, hunt after" Nina writes: "In the Sallekhasutta (M.N. I,8), for example, the Buddha tells the monks: 'meditate' (jhaayathaa). We read in the Co. to this sutta, the Papa~ncasuudanii, about the two meanings of jhaana referring to samatha and vipassanaa: <'Meditate'. By contemplating the thirtyeight objects of samatha, and by contemplating the characteristics, beginning with impermanence, with regard to the khandhas and the aayatanas. It is said: develop samatha and vipassanaa. Do not be indolent, do not be negligent.> [Jhaayathaa ti. aaramma.nuupanijjhaanena a.t.thati.msaaramma.naahi, lakkha.nuupanijjhaanena ca aniccaadito khandhaayatanaadiini upanijjhaayatha. Samatha~n ca vipassana~ca va.d.dhetaa ti vutta.m hoti. Maa pamaadatthaati maapamajjittha.]" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/62109 Sincerely, Scott. #71537 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 3:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' TGrand458@... Hi Howard I understand your points and clarifications on this topic and agree with them. Thanks for the quote source. In a message dated 5/4/2007 6:49:29 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: I'm not criticizing you, though it might seem so. I'm just using your words as a jumping-off point for further explaining my uneasiness with the inconstancy terminology. As you know, I think it is very important what language we use, as it can affect our thinking or the thinking of others. As I see it, if "something" changes/alters, it also has continued as "it", and that creates a substantialist perspective in someone who doesn't see the matter clearly - as I know you do. ------------------------------------------------- TG: Yes it is important. The only thing that "continues as it alters" in the formations we discern is the momentums that either allow "it" to continue to be discernable as "the same" formation or not. When it is no longer discernable as "the same" formation, then it is said to have ceased. This is all just common parlance in addressing phenomena so folks can have a reasonable chance of understanding what the H you're talking about. LOL In actuality, no-thing arises, changes while persisting, or ceases. Experiences arise, change, and cease, but experiences are not "individual things." Experiences occur, but experiences are a conglomeration of momentums that have no identity. I sometimes like to think of them as apparitions because ... they do appear, but they are hollow of substance. when a mind tries to turn them into substance, this generates suffering. I'm just rambling. This is probably way more ontology than the Buddha would have cared for. -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Howard: We can't say anything without using reificational speech. I know that. As I said, I was just trying to further explain my perspective. ------------------------------------------- TG: Yea. It all sounded good to me. It is the way to work on transcending delusion. Insight into phenomenal occurrences. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss the matter. TG #71538 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 7:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements scottduncan2 Dear Jon, Sorry about the weird formality. I'm screwing names up these days. "Dear Jonathan..." Sincerely, Scot. #71539 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 7:39 pm Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? gazita2002 Hello Connie, James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Connie, > > > although it may be said 'Then let this be for relatives', > nevertheless it > > is not that action done by one gives fruit for another, [which is > never > > so,] but simply that an object dedicated in this way is a > [necessary] > > condition for [ghost] relatives [themselves to do] profitable > action, [and > > he showed] how such profitable action with that as its object > generates > > its fruit at that very moment. > > This is not true. Those in the ghost realms can directly receive the > merit done by others, if it is dedicated to them. They can receive > this merit because they have no opportunity to perform the wholesome > deeds themselves. > > Metta, > James azita: dont know how one being can receive merit done by someone else. For example, if I give away something [useful] to another, that is kusala done by 'me' therefore any merit will manifest as kusala vipaka somewhere in the future - that merit cannot be given away. My understanding is that any of those ghosts etc can have kusala only by 'rejoicing' in the good deed done by someone else, by acknowledging with kusala, that good generous action. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #71540 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 7:59 pm Subject: Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' gazita2002 Hello Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > This post represents a progression (some would say a downward > spiraling towards hell) of thought starting with a rather Abhidhammic position, but > ending up with something quite different. .......snip..... > > This has led me yet further. Consider a sound: Has it no parts and no > variation? I think it has both. So - is it paramattha dhamma or pa~n~natta? > Consider a visible object: It is a mosaic of different colors, and hence has > parts. So - is it paramattha dhamma or pa~n~natta? I'm beginning to think that > all separateness is mentally imposed upon a flux of experience, that it is a > carving out by mere convention serving convenience. It is starting to seem to me > that, in terms of a single "being," what there actually "is" is a multifaceted > phenomenal flux, a river of namarupic happening, only conventionally > separable into elements, in which no separated-out element is lasting, graspable, > intrinsically existent, or a source of satisfaction, or anything but conventional, > nor is the river any "thing," but is, in fact, radically empty. In fact, that > river, or, better, the confluence of all rivers is the one and only ultimate > reality, but is inconceivable, ungraspable, and unconditioned. azita: this sounds very Hindu to me. Behind all this 'emptyness' is the One. I hear this view often when I go to Yoga and we do some meditation. patience, courage and good cheer, azita. #71541 From: "Robert" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 8:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] a question avalo1968 Hello Charles, Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your answer to my question. Regards, Robert A. #71542 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 4:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi again, TG - In a message dated 5/4/07 10:09:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > I understand your points and clarifications on this topic and agree with > them. Thanks for the quote source. > > > In a message dated 5/4/2007 6:49:29 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > Howard: > I'm not criticizing you, though it might seem so. I'm just using your > words as a jumping-off point for further explaining my uneasiness with the > inconstancy terminology. As you know, I think it is very important what > language > we use, as it can affect our thinking or the thinking of others. As I see > it, > if "something" changes/alters, it also has continued as "it", and that > creates > a substantialist perspective in someone who doesn't see the matter clearly > - > as I know you do. > ------------------------------------------------- > > > TG: Yes it is important. The only thing that "continues as it alters" in > the formations we discern is the momentums that either allow "it" to > continue > to be discernable as "the same" formation or not. When it is no longer > discernable as "the same" formation, then it is said to have ceased. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, and though the separated out formation is not baseless, it *is* at least in part a matter of convention. ---------------------------------------------- > > This is all just common parlance in addressing phenomena so folks can have > a > reasonable chance of understanding what the H you're talking about. LOL > In > actuality, no-thing arises, changes while persisting, or ceases. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, we agree. ---------------------------------------- > > Experiences arise, change, and cease, but experiences are not "individual > things." Experiences occur, but experiences are a conglomeration of > momentums > that have no identity. I sometimes like to think of them as apparitions > because ... they do appear, but they are hollow of substance. when a mind > tries > to turn them into substance, this generates suffering. > > I'm just rambling. This is probably way more ontology than the Buddha > would > have cared for. --------------------------------------------- Howard: If it is rambling, it's good rambling, at least IMO. --------------------------------------------- ======================== With metta, Howard #71543 From: "Robert" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 8:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Daana Corner (49) Last Installment avalo1968 Dear Friend Han, Thank you very much for the excellent article on generousity There is so much good and useful material here. With metta, Robert A. #71544 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 4, 2007 4:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, Azita - In a message dated 5/4/07 11:01:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, gazita2002@... writes: > > azita: this sounds very Hindu to me. Behind all this 'emptyness' is > the One. I hear this view often when I go to Yoga and we do some > meditation. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Hmmph! Guess I'd better keep an eye out for the Buddhist Inquisitional Police! AAAUUUUMMMMMM! (Just to make you feel happily justified!) Now my serious reply: Behind all this emptiness is nothing whatsoever to grasp onto at all. Relinquishment, relinquishment, relinquishm, relinquish, relinq, re, r, ...... ---------------------------------------- > > patience, courage and good cheer, > azita. > ===================== With metta, Howard, the Heretical Hindu P.S. I note that you make no comments at all about visible object not being unitary, but consisting of parts. You address none of the content of my considerations, but merely say how it "sounds" to you. I consider this to not be a reply to my post that is useful in any respect. It is merely an attempt to put it down by innuendo. #71545 From: "Paulette" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 5:26 pm Subject: 12th century mural of Buddha's life... dianaeos Greetings everyone, Just thought I'd share this great, good news...:) :) Paulette from Comcast.com news... KATMANDU, Nepal - Paintings of Buddha dating back at least to the 12th century have been discovered in a cave in Nepal's remote north- central region by a team of international researchers who were tipped by a local sheep herder. A mural with 55 panels depicting the story of Buddha's life was uncovered in March, with the team using ice axes to break through a snow path to reach the cave in Nepal's Mustang area, about 160 miles northwest of the capital, Katmandu. "What we found is fantastically rich in culture and heritage and goes to the 12th century or earlier," Broughton Coburn, a writer and conservationist from Jackson Hole, Wyo., told The Associated Press on Friday. Coburn said the main mural measured around 25 feet wide, and each panel was about 14 inches by 17 inches. The team of Nepalese, Italian and American archeologists, art experts, and climbers, were tipped by a local sheep herder who mentioned that he had seen a cave with old paintings several years ago when he took shelter from the rain. "I was overwhelmed with questions," Coburn said about the discovery. Besides the main mural, paintings were discovered on other walls of the cave which they believe were made slightly later. A nearby cave had manuscripts which were written in Tibetan language, which were photographed by the team and will be translated by experts. Coburn said the team planned to perform limited excavation, collection and cataloging of the manuscripts. The five Americans in the team included renowned mountaineer Peter Athans who has scaled Mount Everest seven times and film maker Renan Ozturk. Other members included Italian art expert Luigi Fieni and two Nepalese archaeologists. "I can unequivocally say that climbing into the caves was greatly more exciting than any emotions I had on Everest," Athans said in e- mail sent from Seattle, Wash. "The opportunity to explore new ground with potentially significant discoveries imminent was far more enticing than the Everest summit." The team has refused to reveal the exact location of the caves, fearing visitors could disturb the centuries-old art. The expedition spent three weeks in the remote mountainous area, where there are few people due to the extreme weather and barren land. "We learnt how much we don't know, how much there is to discover, explore and understand," Coburn said, adding they plan to return to the cave next spring to conduct more research. The area has for centuries been used as a major passageway between Nepal and Tibet. >end #71546 From: "colette" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 5:54 pm Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? ksheri3 Hi Scott, Sorry, I was in a big hurry this morning and it slipped by me that I was on your second response which was a correction of the misspelling of my name: people do it all the time and they do not recognize their behavior, actions, generation of karma, yet, although mindful of their action, I let them hallucinate what they want to because if I correct them then I am viewed as condescending, looking down on them in the wealth and power all throughout suburbia, thus I just let it slide. Thanx, as I said, you're part of the only two to have ever recognized this act. > Scott: I like this. Animals are easy. We see them nearly everyday > (if not everyday). When I look at my dog I am actually gazing at a > being in another realm! You write above about LOKA - the dog's world, > the dog's point of view. colette: as I've said in many forums, ya gotta walk a mile in the other person's shoes before ya go off half cocked telling them what they are and are not doing. good observation about the dog. ---------------------- > > Were we to see devis or devas it would be the same, if we knew what we > were looking at. colette: COGNITIVE RECOGNITION or even easier optical recognition. the eye sees it and raises eye-consciousness, send that to the mind where the cognition takes place by "putting the square peg in the square hole" etc. All ken dolls must wear wing tips, a suite, a noose tightly tied around the airway, etc. the same stereotyping, categorization, takes place with barbie dolls as well. both Ken & Barbie must use one hand for the cell phone or coffee mug and the other is given to sacrifice on the alter of the corp. demi-god. Look ma, no hands. Who would even think of manifesting bad karma by having to tie your hands behind your back? You do it nicely yourself, no? lol Getting past the natural inclination to be AMAZED, > ASSOMATED, INTOXICATED, colette NOPE, those are emotions generated by Name & Form. Common Name & Form are the biggest falsehoods in the world. That is where the entire negative process of karma generation begins, no? You have a hallucination of what you think you see or saw, you tell yourself that you see clearly and therefore you fit the lie you told yourself into the reality you expect will unfold right before your very eyes. Which is commonly called drug dependence. Do they get many big name groups to play at the bar in THE HOUSE OF CARDS? and whatever else, we'd realise that this, > just like looking at a dog, is a glimpse at another realm of existence > by seeing a being that lives there. colette: close, but not quite. You went a little too far by saying "...glimpse at another realm..." It's the same realm, the object and subject are both part of the same realm, the subject sees something and cognizes it as the subject when it should be cognized as the object, vice versa, and etc. Maybe I just do not have the education that can better explain where you made your mistake, maybe my lack of education has given me a misinterpretation of what you said? ------------------------- It tends to put things into > PERSPECTIVE, but too often our own perspective disallows such an > perspectivisation. colette: I can read this and understand it in my way and I know that what I think you said here is a good fit. The lens our mind- consciousness recieves data from is not the same as the lens of some other being so, like the Hubble telescope, we tend to NOT SEE CLEARLY. of course if you're paid enough I suspect that even the Supreme Court of the U.S.A. can be persuaded to see things the way the Supreme Court of Florida saw the election process during the Al Gore defeat. I do recall some police officers here in Chicago shooting and killing their own in 2005 and then some Federal Judges started having their hearts stopped as well, as if a process on an assembly line. People build things out of proportions. ************************************************************** I have to leave this intact since there are a few questions I have concerning "Tumsescence" and "essence", for instance, what are they? > > c: "...For instance when I was very young I was with my parents and > screamed the word "FUDGE" very loudly in response to a negative effect > something else had on my body. My mom went nuts saying that I had said > "FUCK" when I deliberately made sure that I said fudge. Thus my mom > only heard what she wanted to hear based on conditions, et al, which > is much like the dog that is trained. Does personal gratification > play a role? Then we get into the strange occurance of EDUCATION being > abreviated as ED while ERECTILE DISFUNCTION happens to be a big seller > in the drug world based upon the abreviation ED." > > Scott: TUMESCENCE is not ESSENCE. And in this case I'd say, 'Yes, > personal gratification indeed plays a role.' (Hence, not at all > essential). colette: for what purpose is personal gratification essential to life? I mean, must I live every day as a child that is no more than 3 years old and must I always hunger for the possession of everything when I know that when I possess it it will not satisfy my hunger to possess things (gluttony, greed, avarice, etc, and we can look at those fast food place where prostitutes just barely make a living while the man in the suit has just baught a new car from the profits he's made on your dreams). While our living human mothers seem, at times such as you > describe, to inhabit different realms they don't. This is merely lack > of EMPATHY. Rather ALIENATING. colette: the 4 or 5 yr. old girl that lives here sometimes asks me questions about my mom and I always end up in the drawn out explanation that she's dead, been dead since 1981, ten days before her divorce settlement was due. The kid has a hard time realizing that I am alone, have been since '81 and it sure isn't getting differrent, I'm just getting older. I liked this response Scott, as I said earlier, I had a good abiding in this post. Thank you. toodles, colette #71547 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri May 4, 2007 11:11 pm Subject: Suprahuman_Force_III bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the Effects of the 4 Feet of Spiritual Force? The Blessed Buddha once said: When a Bhikkhu develops the Feet of Force that is enriched with concentrated desire, concentrated energy, concentrated thought & concentrated investigation, all constructed by effort, by thinking: In this way will my desire, energy, thinking and investigating neither be too slack nor too tense, it will neither be constricted internally nor scattered externally, then he dwells experiencing both what is in front & what is behind, so above, so also below, so by day, so also at night! Therefore, with a mind that is all open & unrestricted, he develops the dazzling bright mind, which is pervaded by luminosity... When the 4 feet of suprahuman force have been developed, refined and cultivated in exactly this way, the Bhikkhu possesses the various kinds of suprahuman force: He understands other beings minds when having encompassed them with his own mind. He understands a mind with lust as a mind with lust; a mind without lust as a mind without lust; a mind with hate as a mind with hate; a mind without hate as a mind without hate; a mind with ignorance as a mind with ignorance; a mind without ignorance as a mind beyond ignorance; a contracted & lazy mind as contracted mind and a distracted mind as agitated & distracted; an exalted mind as exalted into jhÄ?na and an unexalted mind as unexalted; a surpassable mind as a surpassable mind and an unsurpassable mind as unsurpassable; a well concentrated mind as a concentrated mind & an unconcentrated mind as unconcentrated; a released mind as released and an unreleased mind as unreleased... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:263-65] section 51: The 4 Forces: Thread 11: Shaking The Mansion. About AbhiññÄ?: The 6 suprahuman forces, higher powers, or supernormal knowledge's see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/a/abhinna.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #71548 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 4, 2007 11:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness sarahprocter... Hi Scott (Larry & Han), You're having a great discussion and I appreciate the quotes and exploration together. Larry's really keeping you on your toes, I see:) --- Scott Duncan wrote: > that wrong-view is the first of the 'Ignoble > Eightfold Path'. Wouldn't self-view fall in here? And wouldn't this > lead to or condition 'experience of self-view? I'm not sure of the > answer to your question as to the differentiation of self-view from > views in general. Shall we keep looking? .... S: As a general comment, I think Larry is often referring to sakkaya-ditthi, when he refers to self-view and you're often referring to the broader atta- or attanu-ditthi. It's complicated because most texts and writers treat them as synonyms. You might like to explore the upadanas together. Here's a starting place in U.P. for you to consider: 'Atta-vadupadana & sakkaya-ditthi - see also 'Upadana'' #60593, #60959, #62539, #66471 If you're fortunate, Han may also join is as he and I have discussed this area together quite a bit! I'll look forward to reading what you all dig up. Metta, Sarah ========== #71549 From: han tun Date: Sat May 5, 2007 1:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Daana Corner (49) Last Installment hantun1 Dear Friend Robert, I am very glad to know that the article is good and useful. I hope I can contribute like this from time to time. With metta, Han #71550 From: han tun Date: Sat May 5, 2007 3:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness hantun1 Dear Sarah (Scott, Larry and Antony), You had summarized our discussions on this topic at the Foundation as follows: 3. More discussion on sakkaya-ditthi vs atta-ditthi or attavadupadana( atavaadupaadaana ). We looked at the box of biscuits on the table. Are they taken for oneself? No, so when they are taken for really being a box of biscuits (as opposed to visible object, concepts about v.o. and so on), there's wrong view, but it's not sakkaya-ditthi. Still there is atta-ditthi, the opposite of an understanding of anatta. So, atta-ditthi is broader than sakkaya-ditthi. (More under 'attavaupadana' in U.P.) (Like topics 1) and 2), you were very polite, but I think still beg to differ:-)). My response to that was: I still do not understand how a box of biscuits could be cited as an example of attavaadupaadaana. I thank KS and other members who kindly explained to me about this topic. But I still maintain that attavaadupaadaana and sakkaaya-ditthi are the same. -------------------- Recently, I came to know more about your views on this topic by reading your posts to Antony: S: For example, when we take the computer for being a 'thing' rather than visible object, hardness and so on that is experienced, there is atta-belief - no understanding of dhammas as anatta - but 'self-view' is mis-leading here, I think. S: Maybe not. I think the Buddha was the expert and specialist who pointed out that we live in a world of illusions, taking chariots and computers to exist, when really they are just figments of the imagination. What is seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched is never a computer, but based on various sense experiences, there are long, long proliferations and we end up with these various ideas which we take for being so much more than just ideas. -------------------- Han: I understand your views as explained above. But I am sorry, I would still say that attavaadupaadaana and sakkaaya-ditthi are the same. Respectfully, Han #71551 From: han tun Date: Sat May 5, 2007 5:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness hantun1 Dear Sarah (Scott, Larry and Antony), Sarah, good news for you! After I have posted my last post, I found the following which would support your views. The Vipassana-Dipani: The Manual of Insight, by Ledi Sayadaw http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html#Tirana Quote [Anatta The mark by which mental and material phenomena are to be understood as No-soul is called the Anatta-lakkhana or the Mark of No-soul. In considering the word Anatta, the meaning of Atta ought first to be understood. Atta in ordinary sense means essence, or substantiality. By essence or substantiality is meant, as we have already explained in connection with Ultimate Truth, the earth which is the essence or the substantiality of pot. The word "pot" is merely the name by which is indicated a certain pictorial idea (santhanapannati); it is not a name for earth. And a pictorial idea possesses no essence or substantiality as an ultimate thing; here earth alone is ultimate thing and possesses essence or substantiality. If the question is asked:"Does such a thing as pot exist in the world?" those who are unable to differentiate between the two kinds of truth, ultimate and conventional, would answer that the pot exists. These should then be asked to point out the pot. They will now point to an earthen pot near at hand, saying: "Is not that a pot?" But it is not correct of them thus to allege that earth is pot; it is a false allegation. Why is it a false allegation? Simply because earth is an ultimate thing and has essence or substantiality; while pot is a mere conception having no essence or substantiality, and thus, like space, is void. To allege of earth that it is pot, is in effect to try to make out that essential earth constitutes the essence or substantiality of pot, which is actual fact, seeing that pot as a mere representation of the mind, possesses no substantial essence whatever. Here, what actually is non-existent pot becomes existent pot, and earth also becomes Atta of the earth, so that earth and pot become one and the same thing, the identity of the one is confused with the identity of the other. For this reason it is that we call this a false allegation. In this illustration, "earth" corresponds with the Five Aggregates or their constituents, material and mental phenomena, while "pot" corresponds with persons and living creatures. Just as earth becomes the essence of pot in the statement that the earth is the pot; so also the Five Aggregates or their constituents become the Atta or the essence of persons and creatures, when it is said that the Aggregates are persons and creatures. This is the meaning of Atta. Now for Anatta. In the expression "earthern pot"; if one is able to discern that earth is one thing, and pot another, and that earth is an ultimate thing and pot a mere conception of the mind; and again, that earth is not pot, and pot is not earth, and also that it is false to call earth a pot, and to call pot, earth; then the earth becomes not the essence or Atta of the pot, but becomes Anatta: while at the same time also, pot is seen to be void like space, since it is a mere conception of form. A like result is obtained if one is able to discern the Five Aggregates and the material and mental phenomena thus: The Fivefold set of Aggregates are ultimate things; persons and creatures are ideas derived from the forms and the continua; hence the phenomena are not persons and creatures; and persons and creatures are not the phenomena. If the phenomena are called persons and creatures, this is a false naming of them; and if persons and creatures are called the phenomena, this is false too. Accordingly the phenomena become, not the essence of persons and creatures, but become Anatta, or the reverse of substantial essence. And also, persons and creatures become quite evidently void and empty, inasmuch as they are mere ideas derived from the forms and continua of the phenomena. What has just been said is in exposition of the meaning of Anatta.] End Quote. ------------------------------ Respectfully, Han #71552 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 6:20 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear colette, Thanks for your reply. c: "...Thanx, as I said, you're part of the only two to have ever recognized this act." Scott: You're welcome! colette: "COGNITIVE RECOGNITION or even easier optical recognition. the eye sees it and raises eye-consciousness, send that to the mind where the cognition takes place by "putting the square peg in the square hole" etc..." Scott: I'm going to suggest, below, that the above is part of the essence of LOKA. colette: "NOPE, those are emotions generated by Name & Form. Common Name & Form are the biggest falsehoods in the world. That is where the entire negative process of karma generation begins, no? You have a hallucination of what you think you see or saw, you tell yourself that you see clearly and therefore you fit the lie you told yourself into the reality you expect will unfold right before your very eyes. Which is commonly called drug dependence. Do they get many big name groups to play at the bar in THE HOUSE OF CARDS?" Scott: Yeah, to the above. I don't know about THE HOUSE OF CARDS, but, the band in the bar called HEAVEN, THEY PLAY MY FAVOURITE SONG. Its a cover, though and it is LIKE drug dependence though, since they PLAY IT ONCE AGAIN, PLAY IT ALL NIGHT LONG. colette: close, but not quite. You went a little too far by saying "...glimpse at another realm..." It's the same realm, the object and subject are both part of the same realm, the subject sees something and cognizes it as the subject when it should be cognized as the object, vice versa, and etc. Maybe I just do not have the education that can better explain where you made your mistake, maybe my lack of education has given me a misinterpretation of what you said?" Scott: I really appreciate this. I had misgivings about the statement upon re-reading it. You've clearly pointed out the imprecision. The clarification seems correct and this is why I think so: I'd have to be the dog looking at the man looking at me in order to 'glimpse' the animal realm. I'm thinking that LOKA is meaningful in a couple of ways. I'll paste the Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary (PTS PED) definition for a start: "Loka [cp. Vedic loka in its oldest meaning "space, open space." For etym. see rocati. To the etym. feeling of the Paali hearer loka is closely related in quality to ruppati (as in pop. etym. of ruupa) and rujati. As regards the latter the etym. runs "lujjati kho loko ti vuccati"...and loka=lujjana DhsA 47, 308: see lujjana. The Dhtp 531 gives root lok (loc) in sense of dassana] world, primarily "visible world," then in general as "space or sphere of creation," with var. degrees of substantiality. Often (unspecified) in the comprehensive sense of "universe." Sometimes the term is applied collectively to the creatures inhabiting this or var. other worlds, thus, "man, mankind, people, beings." Scott: I wonder if this means, and this is in relation to animals who 'seem' to share our world, that the deeper meaning of LOKA is related to nature of consciousness which arises in these realms and which takes objects. In the human realm seeing a dog is only seeing a denizen of the animal realm, not seeing the realm. The dog seeing me is the animal realm, if you know what I mean. colette: "I can read this and understand it in my way and I know that what I think you said here is a good fit. The lens our mind- consciousness recieves data from is not the same as the lens of some other being so, like the Hubble telescope, we tend to NOT SEE CLEARLY...People build things out of proportions." Scott: (Pardon the elision, I don't understand the intricacies of american Politics.) I think this exactly it. I dig it. This is 'LOKA' in a sense. I love the last phrase: "People build things out of proportions" Its poetic. There's 'out of proportion' or IMBALANCE; there's 'build things out of proportions' in which proportions become the material used to build with. c: "I have to leave this intact since there are a few questions I have concerning "Tumsescence" and "essence", for instance, what are they?" Scott: Just me playing with words. You referred to ED and erectile made me think of tumescence which, according to some means: 'tumidity resulting from the presence of blood or other fluid in the tissues'. I was MOCKING the sex-addicted and making the point that its not the point. Kinda dumb of me really. colette: "for what purpose is personal gratification essential to life?" Scott: It keeps PERPETUATING THE ROUND? colette: "the 4 or 5 yr. old girl that lives here sometimes asks me questions about my mom and I always end up in the drawn out explanation that she's dead, been dead since 1981, ten days before her divorce settlement was due. The kid has a hard time realizing that I am alone, have been since '81 and it sure isn't getting differrent, I'm just getting older." Scott: Its hard to get one's head around dead is dead, speaking of loka, whether one is 4 or 5 or was 4 or 5 at one constantly receding point in one's life time... c: "I liked this response Scott, as I said earlier, I had a good abiding in this post. Thank you." Scott: Thanks, colette. I like the phrase 'a good abiding in this post'. Sincerely, Scott. #71553 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 5, 2007 6:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ugly Defilements jonoabb Hi Scott (and James and Howard) Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Jonathan (James and Howard), > Regarding: > > "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. > Practice jhana, monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into > regret. This is our message to you." > > J: "The translation of 'jhana' in the phrase 'practice jhana' here is > suspect, I think. The Pali has 'samadhi', I believe. Other translations > use 'concentrate' (e.g., mettanet.org) or 'meditate' (e.g., BB in MLDB). > > Thought you might like to know." > > Scott: I remember studying this with Nina awhile back. The Pa.li > word in question is 'jhaayatha'. > Thanks for this clarification/correction. I did check the Pali before posting my message, but obviously I was looking in the wrong part of the sutta!! It's 'jhaayatha' that is used, not 'samadhi'. As Nina has explained before, 'jhaayatha' means to develop both samatha and vipassana, and a good translation would reflect that. > PTS PED: > > "Jhaayati...1] to meditate, contemplate, think upon, brood over (c. > acc.): search for, hunt after" > > Nina writes: > > "In the Sallekhasutta (M.N. I,8), for example, the Buddha tells the > monks: 'meditate' (jhaayathaa). We read in the Co. to this sutta, the > Papa~ncasuudanii, about the two meanings of jhaana referring to > samatha and vipassanaa: > <'Meditate'. By contemplating the thirtyeight objects of samatha, and > by contemplating the characteristics, beginning with impermanence, > with regard to the khandhas and the aayatanas. It is said: develop > samatha and vipassanaa. Do not be indolent, do not be negligent.> > [Jhaayathaa ti. aaramma.nuupanijjhaanena a.t.thati.msaaramma.naahi, > lakkha.nuupanijjhaanena ca aniccaadito khandhaayatanaadiini > upanijjhaayatha. Samatha~n ca vipassana~ca va.d.dhetaa ti vutta.m > hoti. Maa pamaadatthaati maapamajjittha.]" > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/62109 > Thanks for including this passage from Nina's post on the subject. The key terms in the commentary passage are the 2 kinds of jhana, namely: aarammanuupanijjhaana - contemplation of the thirty eight objects of samatha lakkhanuupanijjhaana - contemplation of the characteristics (of dhammas) The first of these refers to samatha bhavana, the second to vipassana bhavana. Jon #71554 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 5, 2007 6:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue sarahprocter... Hi TG, Thank you for your comments and also some other posts which I'll try to address at the same time. I apologise for some slow responses. --- TGrand458@... wrote: >S: " 'Any kind of form whatsoever, Raadha, whether past, future, or > present, > internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or > near - > one sees all form as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is > not > mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' '" …. > TG: Of course if seeing the Khandas as realities had anything to do > with > the Buddha's teaching, that would have been highlighted in exactly these > types > of Suttas. … S: I think this is just what is highlighted here: “one sees all form(sabba.m ruupa.m) as it really is (Yathaa bhuuta) with correct wisdom (sammapa~n~naaya passati) thus: ‘This is not mine……’ The same of course is said for all vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana, i.e all the khandhas have to be seen as they really are, i.e as dhammas (realities) which arise and pass away. We’ve discussed the meaning of ‘yathaa bhuuta’ before. Only khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, i.e dhammas (realities) are ever referred to as being seen as they really are. It always refers to the development of insight (vipassana). Here B.Bodhi uses ‘states’ here for dhammas: SN35:244 (7) “Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu understands as they really are (yathaa bhuuta) the origin and the passing away of all states (dhammas) whatsoever that entail suffering, then sensual pleasures have been seen by him in such a way that as he looks at them sensual desire, sensual affection, sensual infatuation, and sensual passion do not lie latent within him in regard to sensual pleasures:..” Also see more on yathaa bhuuta as discussed before: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/41366 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/42542 TG:>To me this proves the point that seeing namas and rupas as > realities has nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching. Saying that it > does is > merely conjecture and pretty poor conjecture IMO. …. S: As far as I’m concerned, namas and rupas, khandhas, dhammas(above) are realities and that knowing realities as opposed to concepts “as they are” is what the Buddha’s teaching is about. For me, this is spelled out clearly in suttas like these, but for further detail I would turn to the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries (the ‘Theravadan authorities’). Here it is made clear that the meaning of dhammas in this context refers to ‘ultimately real actualities (saccika.t.thaparamatthato) as opposed to ‘mere expressions of conventional discourse’ (lokavohaaramatta). I’ve also explained why I understand these texts to have been accepted as ‘Buddha vacana’ in the Theravadan tradition. On the other hand, you make comments in recent posts such as: a)-‘Whatever manifests is energy’ etc (#71066) b)-‘Vipassana practice is done primarily so that actual (real time) experiences are recognized as impermanent, afflicting, and no-self. ‘ etc (#71011) c)-‘Kamma is a connectivity of energy. ….Kamma is..(the momentum of deluded cognitive-formations and associated energies)’ etc (#71292) d)-‘ There are three types of realities as I see it. An ultimate reality, a conditional reality, and a subjective reality………[etc]…The ‘dhammas’ that arise, listed by abhidhamma, neither exist or not exist. They are important ‘qualities’ or ‘relativities’ to use as reference points when developing mindfulness. They are not realities’ etc (#71411) e)- ‘Even the distinction between nama and rupa fade away into emptiness when taken to the end…..’ etc (#71493) …. S: These are just a few from recent posts of yours I had intended to respond to. I’d like to see your clear support for these comments (a –e) from any of these texts (any part of the Tipitaka or ancient commentaries), TG. …. <….> >>S: And while we're swapping suttas addressed to Raadha, in another earlier >>sutta,((SN35)…. >>…. " 'Raadha, you should abandon desire for whatever is impermanent. And >> what is impermanent? The eye....Forms….. … >TG: The Buddha above is not even teaching mindfulness techniques. It is a > conceptual instruction. Sarah's analysis seems groundless to me. No, the Buddha didn’t teach ‘mindfulness techniques’ . He taught the development of vipassana – the seeing of dhammas ‘as they really are’. Where did the Buddha ever suggest that the route to the complete eradication of defilements was through ‘a conceptual instruction’? Metta, Sarah ====== #71555 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 5, 2007 6:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Scott, > > On 04/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > >> Dear Herman, >> >> H:"I accept that you accept that, and do you also think that the Buddha >> taught that these realms exist literally?" >> >> Scott: Yes I do. For example, Sa.myutta Nikaaya 21,1: >> >> "...And how, great king, is a person one heading from light to light? >> Here some person has been reborn in a high family...He engages in >> good conduct of body, speech, and mind. After having done so, with >> the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in a good >> destination, in a heavenly world." >> >> > > Thank you for this. Yes, there's no shortage of Suttas about different > destinations. There's also DN15 which enumerates 7 stations of > consciousness and 2 spheres, as well as 8 emancipations. > > I assume then that there is something missing in the statement that > there are only namas and rupas, that list ought to include lokas? > A belief in something (such as lokas) in the literal sense does not conflict with the teaching that in the ultimate sense there are only namas and rupas. The suttas are full of references to people, things, places, events and the past and the future, all meant to be taken literally and also to be understood in terms of ultimate realities, in my view. Do you perhaps think it's necessary to eschew the conventional world in order to see things in terms of dhammas? Jon #71556 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 6:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Han, Thanks for joining in. Han: "I understand your views as explained above. But I am sorry, I would still say that attavaadupaadaana and sakkaaya-ditthi are the same." Scott: I'd enjoy reading a clarification of the above, if you have the time. In particular, I'd ask if you could compare and contrast the two according to your understanding. (Tentatively I'm understanding attavaadupaadaana to be the broader category and sakkaaya-di.t.thi to be subsumed within the former as a special case.) Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott. #71557 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 5, 2007 6:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: > Venerable Samahita, > ... > > Thank you for your post and kind explanation. I agree with > everything you write except when you write "Arahants do indeed die, > but only one single more time." I harp on this point a lot in this > group, and some may think I am just trying to win debate points (hi > Ken ;-)), but I think it is very important to Right View to NOT see > the final passing away of an arahant or Buddha as death. Others may > view the occurrence as death (on the surface it appears like death), > but those who wish to have Right View should not view paranibbana as > death. > > To view paranibbana as death (even one, final death) could create > wrong view of the Four Noble Truths and Dependent Origination. The > Buddha called nibbana "The Deathless" for a reason- because it is the > deathless. Death is suffering, a very great suffering, and the > arahant is free from that suffering. > Yes, nibbana is referred to as 'the deathless', but why does it then follow that the arahant doesn't die? Do you think of the arahant as having 'entered' the deathless? Would that not equate to attaining immortality? Jon #71558 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 5, 2007 3:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Herman & Scott) - In a message dated 5/5/07 9:51:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Hi Herman > > Herman Hofman wrote: > > A belief in something (such as lokas) in the literal sense does not > conflict with the teaching that in the ultimate sense there are only > namas and rupas. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sure it does, Jon! A belief in lokas in the conventional/figurative sense does not. Realms of existence/experience are not just imagined - I agree, but they are certainly only conventional realities. They are merely conceived of. They are conceptually constructed experience, fabricated from "a little b it of this and a little bit of that." Don't you agree with this?? ------------------------------------------------------ > > The suttas are full of references to people, things, places, events and > the past and the future, all meant to be taken literally and also to be > understood in terms of ultimate realities, in my view. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Jon, I'm not following what you mean by "taken literally"! I think your usage here is a bit odd. I KNOW you consider these only a matter of convention. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Do you perhaps think it's necessary to eschew the conventional world in > order to see things in terms of dhammas? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, I certainly don't, and for sure Herman does not. I just question your use of 'literally'. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ========================= With metta, Howard #71559 From: "sukinder" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 2:11 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A Meditation Tip 4 different types- the Path sukinderpal Hi Dieter, I have some free time, so I would like to respond now. ================================ Sukin: snip ...I believe that if there is a correct understanding of what the N8FP is, then it will be seen that jhana has no place in it.snip Dieter: in definition of the 8th step S>> Perhaps before we discuss the Mahasatipatthana Sutta, we should try to find out how in fact the N8FP should be seen? Since you interpret it as being eight individual limbs to be developed each separately, it is understandable that you will interpret any mention of Jhana as being the 'Right Concentration of the Path', especially since this is also referred to in the Mahasatipatthana Sutta itself. I on the other hand, seeing them as I do, have no problem seeing the mention of Jhana as being quite unrelated to the Path. But I will go ahead and comment some below: ============================== Dieter: of the Noble Path it is said e.g. within the Maha Satipatthana Sutta ( Digha Nikaya 22) : "And what is right concentration? There is the case where a monk -- quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities -- .....nor pain. This is called right concentration. unquote S>> I may be wrong in this, but I believe that in this Sutta the Buddha intended to cover all possible objects for mindfulness and wisdom of the level of satipatthana. The purpose was, because he had a diverse audience including those practicing Anapanasati and other jhana practices, to remind them of all the objects that might come up while they were doing what they were doing. Hence if some of them were walking, bending, turning around and others were sitting still experiencing jhana, whatever nama or rupa that was the object of consciousness, all were to be understood for their characteristics. Some read this Sutta as a step-by-step 'instruction' for a kind of "formal practice", but this does not hold, since what dhamma arises as object of consciousness is beyond control. And it does not even stop there, for this reading has taken them into a direction which then sees that the practice must 'start' with knowing 'posture'. But posture is a concept, and already *not* covered by the idea of "foundation", re: the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. Another contradictory position, which may also be what you are saying, is that the Buddha having started the discourse with Anapanasati, has therefore suggested that one must first calm oneself, to be free of the hindrances, in order to then observe realities. But didn't the Buddha in the same Sutta point to knowing the various akusala dhammas, including the hindrances?!! Wouldn't a more reasonable interpretation be along the lines that I have pointed out, namely that the mention of postures and various activities is a reminder that at anytime and place the realities to be understood are in fact the namas and rupas? As I mentioned in my last response, there is "Right Concentration" of the Path and that of samatha/jhana. In the above quote, it is the latter. After all, it is 'not' the concentration which accompanies akusala, which would then be 'wrong concentration', therefore the concentration of jhana too should be considered "Right". Another thing, it could be implied by your particular interpretation, that concentration which then accompanies other kusala, including moments of suttamaya and cintamaya panna, that those are not right! How do you account for this? ============================= Dieter: For the benefit of our common understanding I like to suggest to keep this outstanding sutta in mind , respectively would appreciate if you could apare the time to re-read the whole text. S>> If it is not too presumptuous to ask, I'd like to know in what sense is this Sutta "outstanding" to you? Metta, Sukinder #71560 From: han tun Date: Sat May 5, 2007 7:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness hantun1 Dear Scott, I said attavaadupaadaana and sakkaaya-ditthi are the same because the books I am reading say so. ------------------------------ (1) The Buddhist Dictionary by Nyanatiloka: upaadaana 'clinging', according to Vis.M. XVII, is an intensified degree of craving (tanhâ). The 4 kinds of clinging are: sensuous clinging (kaamupaadaana), clinging to views (ditthupaadaana), clinging to mere rules and ritual (siilabbatupaadaana), clinging to the personality-belief (atta-vaadupaadaana). (1) "What now is the sensuous clinging? Whatever with regard to sensuous objects there exists of sensuous lust, sensuous desire, sensuous attachment, sensuous passion, sensuous deluded-ness, sensuous fetters: this is called sensuous clinging. (2) ''What is the clinging to views? 'Alms and offerings are useless; there is no fruit and result for good and bad deeds: all such view and wrong conceptions are called the clinging to views. (3) "What is the clinging to mere rules and ritual? The holding firmly to the view that through mere rules and ritual one may reach purification: this is called the clinging to mere rules and ritual. (4) "What is the clinging to the personality-belief? The 20 kinds of ego-views with regard to the groups of existence (s. sakkaaya-ditthi): these are called the clinging to the personality-belief" (Dhs.1214-17). ------------------------------ (2) The Essence of Buddha Abhidhamma by Dr. Mehm Tin Mon also says so, on page 260. “Attavaadupaadaana is synonymous with sakkaaya-ditthi.” ------------------------------ (3) A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma by Mahathera Narada and Bhikkhu Bodhi, page 267: On attavaadupaadaanam: Clinging to a doctrine of self is the adoption of personality view (sakkaayaditthi), the identification of any of the five aggregates as self or the accessories of a self. The Suttas mention twenty types of personality view. These are obtained by considering each of the five aggregates in four ways, thus: “One regards materiality as self, or self as possessing materiality, or materiality as in self, or self as in materiality.” The same is repeated with respect to feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. (See e.g. M.44/i,300.) ------------------------------ But in my last post to Sarah, I have quoted a passage from The Vipassana-Dipani: The Manual of Insight, by Ledi Sayadaw http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html#Tirana which would support Sarah’s broader view Attavaadupaadaana. Yours sincerely, Han #71561 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 8:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yes, nibbana is referred to as 'the deathless', but why does it then > follow that the arahant doesn't die? Do you think of the arahant as > having 'entered' the deathless? Would that not equate to attaining > immortality? I don't know what happens at paranibbana. Do you? Metta, James #71562 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 8:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! scottduncan2 Dear Jon (and James), J: "Yes, nibbana is referred to as 'the deathless', but why does it then follow that the arahant doesn't die? Do you think of the arahant as having 'entered' the deathless? Would that not equate to attaining immortality?" Scott: I find this relevant, from Guide To Conditional Relations, part 1, U Naarada, pp.22-23: "In the dying mental process of the Arahat, the mind-door advertence, impulsions and registering consciousnesses do not produce kammic results and, therefore, unlike other dying mental processes, past action (kamma) or a sign of kamma (kamma-nimitta) is not taken as object. And since there is no future existence for the Arahat, a sign of destiny (gati-nimitta) cannot be taken as object. The object is either a mundane materiality, mentality or concept. But the Arahatta's death consciousness takes the same object, which is kamma, kamma-nimitta or gati-nimitta, that was taken at rebirth consciousness. If this death consciousness follows impulsion or life-continuum, as the case may be, then the impulsion or life-coninuum is the conditioning state and the Arahatta's death-consciousness is the conditioned state. And since there is no rebirth after the Arahatta's death consciousness, the latter can never be a conditioning state. That is why, although the beginning of samsaara cannot be known, as pointed out above, there is an end to it. This is the Arahatta's death-consciousness." Sincerely, Scott. #71563 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 9:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness scottduncan2 Dear Han, Thanks for this: H: "I said attavaadupaadaana and sakkaaya-ditthi are the same because the books I am reading say so..." Scott: I'll take some time to ponder what you gave and to go through the U.P. Sincerely, Scott. #71564 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 9:29 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear connie, Ahh, good one: Connie: "(tempted to fudge and just say yes) quotes: Illustrator vii 30 quoting Anguttara i: "But, Master Gotama, if that deceased relative has not reappeared in that place, and if other relatives and kin of his have not reappeared in that place, who makes use of that almsgiving? - It is impossible, Divine, it cannot happen, that that place should be empty of relatives of his in this long extent [of the round of rebirths]: and furthermore, no giver ever lacked the fruit'." Connie: "As long as we're always thinking in terms of relations, whether with people (and who hasn't been our mother, father, etc) or things, it's still pretty much all just about me my self. Even down to thinking in terms of metta and the only child. Ouch. And yeah, some kids just kick and scream and bite and ... I know you're wrapping all 24 conditions in that 'recieving blanket' - that you aren't blaming the victim, etc." Scott: As the quotation suggests, and pardon the bad pun, 'Its all relative.' I take 'no giver ever lacked the fruit' to reflect the fact that kusala kamma leads to kusala vipaaka but only in relation to the 'giver'. I'm thinking that it is nicely demonstrated in SN94,2: "...Having done so he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it. When it is being thus explained...and elucidated by the Tathaagata, if anyone who does not know and see, how can I do anything with that foolish worldling, blind and sightless, who does not know and does not see?" Scott: A Buddha can elucidate and teach but can do nothing with an other who 'does not know and does not see'. The inability to 'know and see' 'resides in other'. Sincerely, Scott. #71565 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 5, 2007 6:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 5/5/2007 7:45:32 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi TG, Thank you for your comments and also some other posts which I'll try to address at the same time. I apologise for some slow responses. --- _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) wrote: >S: " 'Any kind of form whatsoever, Raadha, whether past, future, or > present, > internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or > near - > one sees all form as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is > not > mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' '" …. > TG: Of course if seeing the Khandas as realities had anything to do > with > the Buddha's teaching, that would have been highlighted in exactly these > types > of Suttas. … S: I think this is just what is highlighted here: “one sees all form(sabba.m ruupa.m) as it really is (Yathaa bhuuta) with correct wisdom (sammapa~n~naaya passati) thus: ‘This is not mine……’ The same of course is said for all vedana, sanna, sankhara and vinnana, i.e all the khandhas have to be seen as they really are, i.e as dhammas (realities) which arise and pass away. We’ve discussed the meaning of ‘yathaa bhuuta’ before. Only khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, i.e dhammas (realities) are ever referred to as being seen as they really are. It always refers to the development of insight (vipassana). TG: To see something "as it really is" ... is not at all the same as saying "seeing them as realities." The Buddha has pointed out that seeing these conditions "as they really are" is seeing them as -- impermanent, suffering, and no-self. No.... he has not identified "seeing them as they really are" as "seeing them as realities." Such a major conjecture is hugely significant and hugely dangerous IMO. I'm sure the Buddha would have wanted us to see delusion "as it really is." That of course would not mean seeing it as "a reality." Here B.Bodhi uses ‘states’ here for dhammas: SN35:244 (7) “Bhikkhus, when a bhikkhu understands as they really are (yathaa bhuuta) the origin and the passing away of all states (dhammas) whatsoever that entail suffering, then sensual pleasures have been seen by him in such a way that as he looks at them sensual desire, sensual affection, sensual infatuation, and sensual passion do not lie latent within him in regard to sensual pleasures:..â€? Also see more on yathaa bhuuta as discussed before: _http://groups.http://grohttp://groups.To me this proves the point that seeing namas and rupas as > realities has nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching. Saying that it > does is > merely conjecture and pretty poor conjecture IMO. …. S: As far as I’m concerned, namas and rupas, khandhas, dhammas(above) are realities and that knowing realities as opposed to concepts “as they areâ€? is what the Buddha’s teaching is about. For me, this is spelled out clearly in suttas like these, but for further detail I would turn to the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries (the ‘Theravadan authorities’)Abhidh it is made clear that the meaning of dhammas in this context refers to ‘ultimately real actualities (saccika.t.thaparam‘ultimately real ‘mere expressions of conventional discourse’ (lokavohaaramatta)‘ TG: Sarah, yes, I know "as far as your concerned" dhammas are realities. The Suttas do not support that contention, nor does any quote you have posted above. I'm sure you can find support in later commentaries. But what I write is a later commentary and basically meaningless as Authority. The commentaries are only useful in clearing up the tripitaka. But when they go beyond what's in those texts, they are dangerously open to failure. I’ve also explained why I understand these texts to have been accepted as ‘Buddha vacana’ in the Theravadan tradition. On the other hand, you make comments in recent posts such as: a)-‘Whatever manifests is energy’ etc (#71066) b)-‘Vipassana practice is done primarily so that actual (real time) experiences are recognized as impermanent, afflicting, and no-self. ‘ etc (#71011) c)-‘Kamma is a connectivity of energy. ….Kamma is..(the momentum of deluded cognitive-formationdeluded cognitive-formations and d)-‘ There are three types of realities as I see it. An ultimate reality, a conditional reality, and a subjective reality………[etc]…The ‘dhammas’ that arise, listed by abhidhamma, neither exist or not exist. They are important ‘qualities’ or ‘relativities’ to use as reference points when developing mindfulness. They are not realities’ etc (#71411) e)- ‘Even the distinction between nama and rupa fade away into emptiness when taken to the end…..’ etc (#71493) …. TG: Sarah, Sarah, Sarah. Have I even once claimed "the Buddha taught this?" These are MY interpretations based on my understanding of the Suttas. I have good reason to believe they do not conflict with the Buddha's teaching and in fact are well in accord with the Buddha's teaching. BUT, I do not claim they are the Buddha's teaching. BTW, energy is merely something with momentum. Can you name any conditioned thing that this does not apply to??? Energy is very basic and not a dirty word and I think helpful to teach modern day people who are more familiar with that type of notion. It also should Buddhism as being "real" from a modern day perspective and not a bunch of superstitious rebirth, karma ideas. Of course I don't believe these are superstitious....but non-Buddhists might. S: These are just a few from recent posts of yours I had intended to respond to. I’d like to see your clear support for these comments (a –e) from any of these texts (any part of the Tipitaka or ancient commentaries)these tex …. <….> >>S: And while we're swapping suttas addressed to Raadha, in another earlier >>sutta,((SN35)…s >>…. " 'Raadha, you should abandon desire for whatever is impermanent. And >> what is impermanent? The eye....Forms… w … >TG: The Buddha above is not even teaching mindfulness techniques. It is a > conceptual instruction. Sarah's analysis seems groundless to me. No, the Buddha didn’t teach ‘mindfulness techniques’ . He taught the development of vipassana – the seeing of dhammas ‘as they really are’. TG I guess we live on a different planet with different Suttas. While many suttas teach us how to be mindful, exactly how to apply mindfulness (mindfulness techniques), you have failed in demonstrating any Sutta, not even one that teaches us to "see things as realities." As far as "teaching things as they really are." This is a "fall back" position that you are trying to confuse with teaching things "as realities." Let's not play games. Teaching thing "as they really are" is a very different massage. BTW, I am coming off very strong but I am not mad and I do like you very much. Where did the Buddha ever suggest that the route to the complete eradication of defilements was through ‘a conceptual instruction’? TG: "The route" must begin with concepts in order to communicate. The Buddha did not telepathically enlightened those he contacted as far as we know. Therefore, the "route" must involve conceptual thinking. Did the Buddha actually say this? Not to my knowledge. I don't think the utterly obvious was necessary for him to instruct. Concepts are delusional and must eventually be overcome. But, the Suttas and us engage in the use of concepts to further advance our understanding. Mindfulness is, of course, a better way to even further understanding/insight. Both mindfulness and concepts are employed for the task to end suffering. Eventually, concepts are overcome with direct knowledge if the mind advances far enough. Metta, Sarah TG #71566 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 5, 2007 7:01 am Subject: TYPO Re: [dsg] 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, all - In my lead post on this thread, I wrote the following: > If > alteration of any sort is countenanced in any phenomenon, in particular, in > any alleged > paramattha dhamma, how would not grasping it as a separate reality not > require conceptualization, and, in fact, a kind of substantialist, > atta-view. > Actually, there is a confusing typo in that: The first 'not' doesn't belong. What I meant to write was "If alteration of any sort is countenanced in any phenomenon, in particular, in any alleged paramattha dhamma, how would grasping it as a separate reality not require conceptualization, and, in fact, a kind of substantialist, atta-view." With metta, Howard #71567 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 5, 2007 8:51 am Subject: Re: TYPO Re: [dsg] 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 5/5/2007 12:01:59 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, all - In my lead post on this thread, I wrote the following: > If > alteration of any sort is countenanced in any phenomenon, in particular, in > any alleged > paramattha dhamma, how would not grasping it as a separate reality not > require conceptualization, and, in fact, a kind of substantialist, > atta-view. > TG: I lost a couple of nights of sleep over this! Actually, there is a confusing typo in that: The first 'not' doesn't belong. What I meant to write was "If alteration of any sort is countenanced in any phenomenon, in particular, in any alleged paramattha dhamma, how would grasping it as a separate reality not require conceptualization, and, in fact, a kind of substantialist, atta-view." TG: That is much better. Thank you for clearing up this. The historical DSG files are now back in order. BTW, I can actually understand what you wrote and agree with it. :-) I believe Jesus said something to the effect.... "They know not what they conceptualize." ;-O With metta, Howard TG #71568 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 5, 2007 9:49 am Subject: Re: TYPO Re: [dsg] 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, TG - > > TG: I lost a couple of nights of sleep over this! --------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! I'm sure that was the general reaction among the 3 folks who read it! ;-)) ---------------------------------------------- > > > > > Actually, there is a confusing typo in that: The first 'not' doesn't > belong. What I meant to write was "If alteration of any sort is > countenanced > in > any phenomenon, in particular, in any alleged paramattha dhamma, how would > grasping it as a separate reality not require conceptualization, and, in > fact, a > kind of substantialist, atta-view." > > > > TG: That is much better. Thank you for clearing up this. The historical > DSG files are now back in order. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, indeed! And a matter of critical importance it is - not to be taken lightly!! ;-)) ------------------------------------------- BTW, I can actually understand what you > > wrote and agree with it. :-) ------------------------------------------ Howard: Great! So now maybe you'll explain it to me so I understand it too? ( Just kidding ;-)) Actually, what I wrote was sufficiently convoluted even without the typo - so I'm glad you get my point. :P ------------------------------------------- > > I believe Jesus said something to the effect.... "They know not what they > conceptualize." ;-O ---------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! Yep - and I think he was speaking to his dad at the moment. ;-) No disrespect intended towards Jesus, folks. We could all do a lot worse than to aspire to be like him, I think!! --------------------------------------- ======================== With metta, Howard #71569 From: "colette" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 2:39 pm Subject: We're together! ksheri3 Scott, No time, in case I get kicked off this computer soon I want to say that I did a quick Wikipedia search on "Loka" and YES, WE'RE IN THE MIX HERE, I CAN'T WAIT TO READ THAT ENTIRE DEFINITION AND PLACE IT IN CONTEXT WITH YOUR, THIS, POST. In Western Theological esoteric traditions we are more than on our way to a good abiding in this "magik circle" I can see it coming. I'm just worried about past history where everybody abandons me and lets me hang in the breeze taking all the negative force while they sit back and enjoy the profits, etc., smiling faces no? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear colette, > > Thanks for your reply. > > c: "...Thanx, as I said, you're part of the only two to have ever > recognized this act." > > Scott: You're welcome! > > colette: "COGNITIVE RECOGNITION or even easier optical recognition. > the eye sees it and raises eye-consciousness, send that to the mind > where the cognition takes place by "putting the square peg in the > square hole" etc..." > > Scott: I'm going to suggest, below, that the above is part of the > essence of LOKA. > colette: I went nutss when I did my quick search and discovery of the definitions of this terminology.;-)) > colette: "NOPE, those are emotions generated by Name & Form. Common > Name & Form are the biggest falsehoods in the world. That is where > the entire negative process of karma generation begins, no? You have > a hallucination of what you think you see or saw, you tell yourself > that you see clearly and therefore you fit the lie you told yourself > into the reality you expect will unfold right before your very eyes. > Which is commonly called drug dependence. Do they get many big name > groups to play at the bar in THE HOUSE OF CARDS?" > > Scott: Yeah, to the above. I don't know about THE HOUSE OF CARDS, > but, the band in the bar called HEAVEN, THEY PLAY MY FAVOURITE SONG. colette: very dangerous to apply a Western terminology, "heaven", in a buddhist context. You should've used "Nirvana". In applying the western term you exhibit potentials for "ulterior motivation" from your subconscious. --------------- > Its a cover, though and it is LIKE drug dependence though, since they > PLAY IT ONCE AGAIN, PLAY IT ALL NIGHT LONG. colette: I think I see your point, that they repeat the same behaviors, they degrade that which they previously exhalted. they essentially, turn what they once called virtue into vice and they make this virtue such a toy to play with like little infants playing with toys. But their toys are more than dangerous and lethal. That, my friend, PISSES ME OFF TO NO END, which is an emotion that I have to master and control. <....> > > colette: close, but not quite. You went a little too far by > saying "...glimpse at another realm..." It's the same realm, the > object and subject are both part of the same realm, the subject sees > something and cognizes it as the subject when it should be cognized > as the object, vice versa, and etc. Maybe I just do not have the > education that can better explain where you made your mistake, maybe > my lack of education has given me a misinterpretation of what you > said?" > > Scott: I really appreciate this. I had misgivings about the statement > upon re-reading it. You've clearly pointed out the imprecision. The > clarification seems correct and this is why I think so: I'd have to > be the dog looking at the man looking at me in order to 'glimpse' the > animal realm. colette: EXACTLY! as Pink Floyd said:"I am you and what I see is Me" but we know for fact that this cannot happen, at best we can attempt this feat of daring do in the form of Astral Projections. -------------------- I'm thinking that LOKA is meaningful in a couple of > ways. I'll paste the Pali Text Society Pali-English Dictionary (PTS > PED) definition for a start: > > "Loka [cp. Vedic loka in its oldest meaning "space, open space." For > etym. see rocati. To the etym. feeling of the Paali hearer loka is > closely related in quality to ruppati (as in pop. etym. of ruupa) and > rujati. As regards the latter the etym. runs "lujjati kho loko ti > vuccati"...and loka=lujjana DhsA 47, 308: see lujjana. The Dhtp 531 > gives root lok (loc) in sense of dassana] world, primarily "visible > world," then in general as "space or sphere of creation," with var. > degrees of substantiality. Often (unspecified) in the comprehensive > sense of "universe." Sometimes the term is applied collectively to the > creatures inhabiting this or var. other worlds, thus, "man, mankind, > people, beings." > > Scott: I wonder if this means, and this is in relation to animals who > 'seem' to share our world, that the deeper meaning of LOKA is related > to nature of consciousness which arises in these realms and which > takes objects. colette: I think I understand, you're suggesting that the animal lives in a seperate world, Loka, from the world we live in BECAUSE OF the animals consciousness only perceives the world in which it lives in and does not even have an inkling of another world, (as Carlos Casteneda once put it: A Seperate Reality) The consciousness of the animal is singular. NO DUALITY. Our consciousness is filled with all this garbage that we've collected BECAUSE OF Duality. nature of consciousness, I have to aks, is this SVABHAVA? Essense? "arises in these realms and which takes objects." Wow, does the consciousness take the object of does the object take the consciousness? We, in our programming from womb to tomb, are trained, programmed, to think in terms of our superiority, mastery, and control over that which is exterior, external, outside, beyond, and so we often deliberately and intentionally TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION.<....> ------------------------- In the human realm seeing a dog is only seeing a > denizen of the animal realm, not seeing the realm. colette: I avoid applying your term denizen since I'm not familar with this word, I'm very uncomfortable using the word without knowing it's meaning, but I'm guessing here. A) The Dog has a realm B) we have a realm C) the dog sees our realm but cognizes it in terms of his realm D) we see the dog and congize it's realm in terms of our realm. E) we cannot cognize the dogs realm in the dogs terms unless we become the dog. ------------------------ The dog seeing me > is the animal realm, if you know what I mean. > > colette: "I can read this and understand it in my way and I know that > what I think you said here is a good fit. The lens our mind- > consciousness recieves data from is not the same as the lens of some > other being so, like the Hubble telescope, we tend to NOT SEE > CLEARLY...People build things out of proportions." > > Scott: (Pardon the elision, I don't understand the intricacies of > american Politics.) I think this exactly it. I dig it. This is > 'LOKA' in a sense. I love the last phrase: > > "People build things out of proportions" colette: I can't tell you how close we've become in the process of this exchange. It brings me so much joy to know that I actually gave a person happiness. You know of my humor and you laughed with me instead of laughing at me. Thank You! Now I ponder if you know the dark sardonic side of my humor since I know that my jokes are for real and show such truths and realities of our lives today, that yes it even scares me too but since I meditate so much and astrally project, et al, if I harbor the emotion of fear or amazement, etc, then whatever it is "out there" that I interact with will feel, sense, know, that I hold fear, amazement, etc. which will manifest negatively. -------------------- > > Its poetic. There's 'out of proportion' or IMBALANCE; there's 'build > things out of proportions' in which proportions become the material > used to build with. colette: as MY reflection, you have cognized my material and shown me an even greater analysis of my own work. Thanx. ------------------ > c: "I have to leave this intact since there are a few questions I have > concerning "Tumsescence" and "essence", for instance, what are they?" > > Scott: Just me playing with words. You referred to ED and erectile > made me think of tumescence which, according to some means: 'tumidity > resulting from the presence of blood or other fluid in the tissues'. > I was MOCKING the sex-addicted and making the point that its not the > point. Kinda dumb of me really. colette: I was mocking the stupidity of the status quo for getting caught up in the rediculous reality of the fact that in the high school educational system the goal is to SOCIALIZE become a party animal that is subserviant to the SEX INDUSTRY. This is further continued and established, "conditioned", in the subconsciousness, by the factory called "University". <......> gots ta go. toodles, colette #71570 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 4:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Jon, On 05/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > A belief in something (such as lokas) in the literal sense does not > conflict with the teaching that in the ultimate sense there are only > namas and rupas. > > The suttas are full of references to people, things, places, events and > the past and the future, all meant to be taken literally and also to be > understood in terms of ultimate realities, in my view. > > Do you perhaps think it's necessary to eschew the conventional world in > order to see things in terms of dhammas? > I don't buy that there are ultimate realities, I just buy that all conditioned phenomena are anicca, anatta and dukkha. But I was asking Scott, and now you, who both appear to believe in conventional realities and ultimate realities, what a literal conventional reality is, and how, perhaps, it might be different to a conventional reality that is not literal? Herman #71571 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 5:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Sukin, On 30/04/07, sukinder wrote: > > > As to "peril in thinking" and preference for Jhana, hmm. You might say that > the reason the Buddha did all that "thinking" during the forty five years of > teaching Dhamma, was out of compassion for all beings. But where did he > actually teach that thinking was the problem? The Buddha did teach DO, didn't he? It is also manifestly obvious to me that thinking that there is birth and death occurs as a result of craving. Let me ask you: where did he teach that the absence of thinking was dukkha? He taught about the roots of > good and evil and he taught about right and wrong view. It is this latter > which is the real problem it seems, one which takes all other dhammas > wrongly, including those roots of good and evil. In fact he did point out > the danger of certain wrong views issuing from certain meditation > experiences including Jhana. And this seems to be the direction that you are > taking..? > And I guess that because he never pointed out the dangers of having mp3 players as a constant companion, so one would never be without "right view", proves that he sanctioned such lunacy? > What do you think went on in the minds of those of his disciples who were > enlightened upon hearing the Dhamma, right there and then? Did they not > 'think' about what they heard no matter how briefly? We happen to be dummies > compared and therefore need to hear and think over much more. But what other > way is there, Jhana? I don't think so! Dummies are dummies because they think birth and death and everything in between. If one is unsure whether one is thinking or not, be suffused with joy and rapture. If that is proving impossible, that is because one is thinking. > > While I do disagree with your basic approach, I admire and greatly enjoy the > way you think Herman. I compare you with a sharp knife, and me a blunt one, > which is why unlike you, I need many more strokes to finish the cut (re: my > looong posts ;-)). And I had always thought that Scott would be the ideal > person to handle ;-), you. (Actually I sometimes wish that there were > another six of him on the list :-)) > Scott and me are just not in the same LOKA, I'm afraid. :-) Herman #71572 From: han tun Date: Sat May 5, 2007 5:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness hantun1 Dear Sarah (Scott, Larry and Antony), I will give you more ammunition to fire at me! Please look at Sammaditthi Dipani: The Manual of Right Views, by Ledi Sayadaw. http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL03.html In Part Three, under sub-heading of Atta and Anatta, you will find the material that would support your broader view of Attavaadupaadaana. ------------------------------ Atta means 'self, ego, personality, soul-essence'; anatta means 'non-ego, not-self, absence of soul-essence'. The word anatta is used to convey the following three interpretations: asarakatthena-anatta--on account of being without essence or substance it is called anatta. asamikatthena-anatta--on account of not having any owner or overlord it is called anatta. avasavattanatthena-anatta-on account of its not yielding to another's will it is called anatta. ------------------------------ When Sayadaw explained asarakatthena-anatta citing an example of a bowl, I remember the reference made to a box of biscuits at the Foundation. ------------------------------ However, if you now ask me where do I stand, I would still say that *for all practical purposes* I would consider Attavaadupaadaana and Sakkaaya-ditthi the same. The reason is as follows. As I cannot even eliminate sakkaaya-ditthi, if I were to look at a broader view, and consider whatever I see all around me are not what I think they are (a computer is not a computer, a box of biscuit is not a box of biscuit, and so on), I think I would go mad instead of gaining any insight! A silly, pitiful, stubborn fellow, am I not? :>) Respectfully, Han #71573 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 5:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 03/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > 4)The role of the teachings. > > What do you think? > Last one first. We do not even get to reach an impasse on the role of the teachings, because you call them "the teachings" and I call them "some teachings". In doing so, you close the door on the possibility of healthy discussion, because you have already decided that your selection of Theravadan orthodoxy is always going to be correct. It is a telling fact for me, that a few of the early schools of Buddhism, while all basing themselves on the Pali suttas, had their own Abhidhamma, and that these Abhidhammas diverged widely in their content. It is also a telling fact that only the Theravadans claimed (much, much later) that the Buddha had basically dictated their Abhidhamma. These of course, are political claims that mock history. Any discussions that I have about "the teachings" will be discussions about the Suttas, because they are not interpretetive works, they form the basis for all interpretations, of which Theravada is just one. In that regard, all commentators have the same status, as long as they base themselves on the Suttas. Having said that ie that the Suttas are "the teachings" and that everything else is interpretation, my approach to the Suttas is not philosophical or systematic or theoretical, but practical. To make the Suttas an object of academic study is to deny them their purpose, much like the study of doctor's prescriptions does not contribute to healing. Needless to say, there is much in the Suttas that is not at all of a practical nature, and also not everything applies to everyone. But then again, doctor's prescriptions are also quite specific, to the person. I hope these general ramblings shed some light on my position on the teachings. Herman #71574 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 6:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks for your reply. H: "I hope these general ramblings shed some light on my position on the teachings." Scott: Yes, quite admirably. H: "We do not even get to reach an impasse on the role of the teachings, because you call them 'the teachings' and I call them 'some teachings'. In doing so, you close the door on the possibility of healthy discussion, because you have already decided that your selection of Theravadan orthodoxy is always going to be correct." Scott: Yeah, I see what you mean. I'm afraid I am impossibly orthodox. I don't apologise, mind you, since I can't help it. I find absolutely no problem with the version of Theravaada currently under question. It doesn't arise in me to question things that you do. I don't even try to understand why this doesn't come up for me. It makes no sense except that some things seemed wrong until I got into the Abhidhamma and the Commentarial literature and it seems correct. The Suttas are also not questioned by me. What's a guy to do? It also doesn't make sense that two-and-a-half years ago I knew nothing about any of this and now I'm telling you what I feel totally comfortable with. I don't mind, though. I don't doubt it and if it ain't broke don't fix it. H: "Any discussions that I have about "the teachings" will be discussions about the Suttas, because they are not interpretetive works, they form the basis for all interpretations, of which Theravada is just one. In that regard, all commentators have the same status, as long as they base themselves on the Suttas." Scott: Fair enough. I'd like to see a good discussion on a sutta. In saying that the suttas 'form the basis for all interpretations' you seem to be granting them some sort of higher authority, which doesn't make sense in light of your overall stance. No need to explain though... I see it that, without the stabilising function of ancient Theravaadin commentarial exegesis, the 'interpretation' of suttas is anarchical. I want to know what the pali is, for example, what the meanings are said to be, to get a handle on that first, before starting to think more about it. I don't like my own opinions. I think Truth exists. H: "Having said that ie that the Suttas are "the teachings" and that everything else is interpretation, my approach to the Suttas is not philosophical or systematic or theoretical, but practical. To make the Suttas an object of academic study is to deny them their purpose, much like the study of doctor's prescriptions does not contribute to healing. Needless to say, there is much in the Suttas that is not at all of a practical nature, and also not everything applies to everyone. But then again, doctor's prescriptions are also quite specific, to the person." Scott: I'm familiar with these distinctions you make, i.e., 'philosophical', 'systematic', 'theoretical', and 'practical'. I'm just not sure these can be separated out 'in practise', as it were. I'd be interested if you could describe how you can take a sutta - the 'basis for all interpretations' - and arrive at a practical interpretation, without first passing through at least one or two of your other categories. And I don't know what you mean by 'practical'. We don't share the same way of understanding 'practise', either. So there you have it. Apparently we can't discuss 'the teachings'. Can we? Next... Sincerely, Scott. #71575 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 11:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > On 05/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > > > > > A belief in something (such as lokas) in the literal sense does not > > conflict with the teaching that in the ultimate sense there are only > > namas and rupas. > > > > The suttas are full of references to people, things, places, events and > > the past and the future, all meant to be taken literally and also to be > > understood in terms of ultimate realities, in my view. > > > > Do you perhaps think it's necessary to eschew the conventional world in > > order to see things in terms of dhammas? > > >________ Dear All The various loka: are they anything other than nama and rupa? robert #71576 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 5, 2007 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 05/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > >> > >> >> A belief in something (such as lokas) in the literal sense does not >> conflict with the teaching that in the ultimate sense there are only >> namas and rupas. >> >> The suttas are full of references to people, things, places, events and >> the past and the future, all meant to be taken literally and also to be >> understood in terms of ultimate realities, in my view. >> >> Do you perhaps think it's necessary to eschew the conventional world in >> order to see things in terms of dhammas? >> >> > > I don't buy that there are ultimate realities, I just buy that all > conditioned phenomena are anicca, anatta and dukkha. There may be a terminology issue here, as I understand 'ultimate realities' and 'conditioned phenomena' to both be used to as alternative renderings of the term 'dhammas'. What do you mean by 'conditioned phenomena'? > But I was asking > Scott, and now you, who both appear to believe in conventional > realities and ultimate realities, what a literal conventional reality > is, and how, perhaps, it might be different to a conventional reality > that is not literal? > I would not say I believe in conventional realities and ultimate realities. The terms I have come across in the texts are 'conventional speech' and 'conventional truths' vs.. 'ultimate speech/truths'. (These are sometimes loosely approximated by the terms 'conventional/ultimate realities', but I have not actually come across 'conventional realities' in any translation of the Pali.) Much of the speech employed in the suttas is conventional speech (and, by and large, is to be taken as literally true). However, speech in the suttas about khandhas, dhatus, the 4NT and the like is ultimate speech, or speech about ultimate truths. Conventional truths are those truths that do not concern the path to enlightenment. Hope this clarifies. Jon #71577 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 5, 2007 11:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Herman & Scott) - > ... > >> A belief in something (such as lokas) in the literal sense does not >> conflict with the teaching that in the ultimate sense there are only >> namas and rupas. >> > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sure it does, Jon! A belief in lokas in the conventional/figurative > sense does not. Realms of existence/experience are not just imagined - I agree, > but they are certainly only conventional realities. They are merely conceived > of. They are conceptually constructed experience, fabricated from "a little b > it of this and a little bit of that." Don't you agree with this?? > ------------------------------------------------------ > I agree with the general thrust of what you say. I was using 'literal' in contradistinction to 'figurative', not in contradistinction to 'conventional' (i.e., not as a synonym for 'absolute'). See my post of a few minutes ago to Herman. >> The suttas are full of references to people, things, places, events and >> the past and the future, all meant to be taken literally and also to be >> understood in terms of ultimate realities, in my view. >> > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Jon, I'm not following what you mean by "taken literally"! I think > your usage here is a bit odd. I KNOW you consider these only a matter of > convention. > ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for pointing out the confusion my post gave rise to. I hope I have now clarified. >> Do you perhaps think it's necessary to eschew the conventional world in >> order to see things in terms of dhammas? >> > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Well, I certainly don't, and for sure Herman does not. Here's something we all agree on then ;-)) Jon #71578 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 5, 2007 11:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Jon, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > >> Yes, nibbana is referred to as 'the deathless', but why does it then >> follow that the arahant doesn't die? Do you think of the arahant as >> having 'entered' the deathless? Would that not equate to attaining >> immortality? >> > > I don't know what happens at paranibbana. Do you? > But you seem quite sure that parinibbana is not a 'death'. I've never seen this said or suggested anywhere. As far as I recall, the texts talk about final death at parinibbana. Don't they? Jon #71579 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 6, 2007 12:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi Scott (and James) Thanks for the text. Clearly, in abhidhamma terms there is a cuti-citta (death consciousness) at the time of parinibbana. As you know, it is the ending of rebirth, rather than the ending of death (i.e., everlasting life, immortality), that is the ultimate escape (I've always thought this was a great example of how the teachings run counter to conventional thinking). Jon Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Jon (and James), > > J: "Yes, nibbana is referred to as 'the deathless', but why does it > then follow that the arahant doesn't die? Do you think of the arahant > as having 'entered' the deathless? Would that not equate to attaining > immortality?" > > Scott: I find this relevant, from Guide To Conditional Relations, part > 1, U Naarada, pp.22-23: > > "In the dying mental process of the Arahat, the mind-door advertence, > impulsions and registering consciousnesses do not produce kammic > results and, therefore, unlike other dying mental processes, past > action (kamma) or a sign of kamma (kamma-nimitta) is not taken as > object. And since there is no future existence for the Arahat, a sign > of destiny (gati-nimitta) cannot be taken as object. The object is > either a mundane materiality, mentality or concept. But the > Arahatta's death consciousness takes the same object, which is kamma, > kamma-nimitta or gati-nimitta, that was taken at rebirth > consciousness. If this death consciousness follows impulsion or > life-continuum, as the case may be, then the impulsion or > life-coninuum is the conditioning state and the Arahatta's > death-consciousness is the conditioned state. And since there is no > rebirth after the Arahatta's death consciousness, the latter can never > be a conditioning state. That is why, although the beginning of > samsaara cannot be known, as pointed out above, there is an end to it. > This is the Arahatta's death-consciousness." > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > #71580 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun May 6, 2007 12:27 am Subject: A Meditation Tip 4 different types- the Path moellerdieter Dear Sukinder, you wrote: ' S>> If it is not too presumptuous to ask, I'd like to know in what sense is this Sutta "outstanding" to you? D: you may remember that I asked you already at the beginning of our discussion to take the time and listen to an (MP3) introduction of the sutta. There are several available on the net , e.g. the following: 'This series is based on the Satipatthana Sutta, the Discourse on the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, from the Majjhima Nikaya (The Middle Length Discourses) MN10. It covers the Buddha's comprehensive practical instructions on the development of mindfulness. ' please see http://www.audiodharma.org/talks-sutta.html It is not of real importance why I respectively the 'mainstream ' of Buddhists consider the Maha Satipatthana Sutta outstanding but that you get an understanding of the essence of the teaching . There are other DSG Dhamma friends more suitable than I to debate the way you prefer . Sorry for withdrawal ..but , who knows ..perhaps you will follow my advise .. ;-) with Metta Dieter #71581 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat May 5, 2007 11:50 pm Subject: Suprahuman Force IV bhikkhu5 Friends: What are the Effects of the 4 Feet of Spiritual Force? The Blessed Buddha once said: When a Bhikkhu develops the Feet of Force that is enriched with concentrated desire, concentrated energy, concentrated thought & concentrated investigation, all constructed by effort, by thinking: In this way will my desire, energy, thinking and investigating neither be too slack nor too tense, it will neither be constricted internally nor scattered externally, then he dwells experiencing both what is in front & what is behind, so above, so also below, so by day, so also at night! Therefore, with a mind that is all open & unrestricted, he develops the dazzling bright mind, which is pervaded by luminosity... When the 4 feet of suprahuman force have been developed, refined and cultivated in exactly this way, the Bhikkhu possesses the various kinds of suprahuman force: He remembers many of his prior lives, one rebirth, two lives, three lives, four lives, five lives, ten past lives, twenty lives, thirty lives, forty lives, fifty lives, a hundred past lives, one thousand prior lives, several hundred thousand lives, many aeons (universal cycles) of world-contraction and expansion (big bangs): There such was my name, species, family, such my appearance, such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such my life; passing away from there, I was reborn elsewhere. There such was my name, species, family, such my appearance, such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such my life length; passing away from there, I was reborn here. Thus he recollects his manifold various past lives & abodes in all their particular modes & details... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:265-66] section 51: The 4 Forces: Thread 11: Shaking The Mansion. About AbhiññÄ?: The 6 suprahuman forces, higher powers, or supernormal knowledge's see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/a/abhinna.htm About kappa: The immensely long universal cycle or eon or kalpa (big bang to next big bang) see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/g_m/kappa.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #71582 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 1:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 06/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Scott: Yeah, I see what you mean. I'm afraid I am impossibly > orthodox. I don't apologise, mind you, since I can't help it. I find > absolutely no problem with the version of Theravaada currently under > question. It doesn't arise in me to question things that you do. > Fair enough. But it does imply that you would, and do, question any non-Theravadan approach. > I don't even try to understand why this doesn't come up for me. It > makes no sense except that some things seemed wrong until I got into > the Abhidhamma and the Commentarial literature and it seems correct. > The Suttas are also not questioned by me. What's a guy to do? Nothing. You don't have to do anything, not on my account, anyway. > > It also doesn't make sense that two-and-a-half years ago I knew > nothing about any of this and now I'm telling you what I feel totally > comfortable with. I don't mind, though. I don't doubt it and if it > ain't broke don't fix it. > Yes, that makes a lot of sense. > > Scott: Fair enough. I'd like to see a good discussion on a sutta. > I think that it is quite possible to have such a discussion when no participant assumes their position to be anything but an interpretation, and not authoritative because another commentator has said it. > In saying that the suttas 'form the basis for all interpretations' you > seem to be granting them some sort of higher authority, which doesn't > make sense in light of your overall stance. No need to explain though... > Very happy to clarify, though. The Suttas have historical precedence, they are "thus have I heard" accounts, they do not interpret what the Buddha and his major disciples have said, they merely report it. > I see it that, without the stabilising function of ancient Theravaadin > commentarial exegesis, the 'interpretation' of suttas is anarchical. > I want to know what the pali is, for example, what the meanings are > said to be, to get a handle on that first, before starting to think > more about it. I don't like my own opinions. OK. But why limit yourself, at the outset, to only the Theravadin exegesis? The Suttas are not Theravadin, you know that don't you? > I think Truth exists. Well, I think it is safer to say that Theravadan Truth is relative to a Theravadan, as all the other schools hold their truths to be dear to themselves. I think it would be a frightfully scary thing to assert that Theravadan exegesis is Absolute Truth, though. > > H: "Having said that ie that the Suttas are "the teachings" and that > everything else is interpretation, my approach to the Suttas is not > philosophical or systematic or theoretical, but practical. To make the > Suttas an object of academic study is to deny them their purpose, much > like the study of doctor's prescriptions does not contribute to > healing. Needless to say, there is much in the Suttas that is not at > all of a practical nature, and also not everything applies to > everyone. But then again, doctor's prescriptions are also quite > specific, to the person." > > Scott: I'm familiar with these distinctions you make, i.e., > 'philosophical', 'systematic', 'theoretical', and 'practical'. I'm > just not sure these can be separated out 'in practise', as it were. > I'd be interested if you could describe how you can take a sutta - the > 'basis for all interpretations' - and arrive at a practical > interpretation, without first passing through at least one or two of > your other categories. And I don't know what you mean by 'practical'. > We don't share the same way of understanding 'practise', either. > The teachings of the Buddha, as recorded in the Suttas, claim to be a map of the path to an ending of suffering. To this end, there are many imperatives in the Suttas. They take the form of "Do this, and do not do that". These are repeated hundreds and hundreds of times. There is no exegesis required to see the bleeding obvious. But exegesis, in some cases, does result in the obfuscation of the obvious. There are many imperatives that are obvious by their absence. There is no imperative to "collect my sayings", "systematise my sayings" , "interpret my sayings" "study the interpretations of my sayings that you like best". As to the meaning of the word practical. A practical map of Rome will allow one to navigate to the Colosseum. A practical path to the end of suffering leads to that goal. In the absence of a realisation of dukkha, there is no practical path, because there is no possibility of measurement of progress towards a destination. And interpreting all suttas that say "Do this" to mean "It is not possible to do anything because there is nobody that can do anything" is a way that those who do not realise dukkha can justify their present LOKAtion as THE destination. > So there you have it. Apparently we can't discuss 'the teachings'. > Can we? > It takes two to tango, any many to make a conga line. I'm easy, sailor :-) Herman #71583 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 6, 2007 1:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? sarahprocter... Hi Connie, Scott, James, Herman, Han & all, --- connie wrote: >Scott: And, as well, that 'fruit can never be given to another' is the main > point. An act of great kindness by one being with an other being as > 'object' accrues to the being giving the kindness. How this kindness is > experienced or taken or whatever follows next depends entirely on the > 'recipient'. .... > Connie (tempted to fudge and just say yes) quotes: > > Illustrator vii 30 quoting Anguttara i: - But, Master Gotama, if that > deceased relative has not reappeared in that place, and if other > relatives > and kin of his have not reappeared in that place, who makes use of that > almsgiving? - It is impossible, Divine, it cannot happen, that that > place > should be empty of relatives of his in this long extent [of the round of > rebirths]: and furthermore, no giver ever lacked the fruit'. .... S: Good quotes and comments in this discussion. It's the same with the teaching of Dhamma. Even a Buddha could not enlighten another. It would depend on the listeners as to whether there were the conditions, i.e accumulations, to understand what was said. I think this extract from Nina's article which Han posted in his daana series is also very relevant to the discussion and the sutta Herman quoted. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/messages/70749 Metta, Sarah ======= #71584 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 6, 2007 2:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Meditation Tip - tandem sarahprocter... Hi Dieter, (Scott***) --- Dieter Möller wrote: > S: When there is a gradual, interrelated process 'leading to the full > penetration.....etc', there is sila, samadhi and panna from the very > start > as I understand. Even for the prelude or prior steps of satipatthana, > there has to be right concentration and right understanding. There is > sila > whenever there is any 'right'. > > D: I think the Visuddhi Magga refers in length to the 3 fold Path > training.. unfortunately not available to me at present , so I can't > advise where exactly . > > I will look for sutta sources if you like. ... S: Pls do. In the first chapter of the Vism, a lot of detail is given on the various kinds of sila. In brief, whenever the consciousness is wholesome, there is sila. When it comes to the 'four foundations of mindfulness', there must be right awareness, right understanding and so on too. .... > There is a certain level available to us - the status quo - which we > are expected to bring into perfection by the sila , samadhi, panna > training, usually taking special care for the Path links 3,4,5 .. 6,7,8 > .. 1,2 . > > When you write ' there is sila, samadhi and panna from the very start as > I understand', it seems to me that there may be a misunderstanding.. > the links are in a way interrelated , but for example training > mindfulness/Sati , the 7th step in order to obtain insights in respect > to body, feelings, mind/citta and mind objects (dhamma) as outlined in > the Maha Satipatthana Sutta , there is of course a difference in the > training of the 8th step, concentration , i.e. the Jhana states..., > don't you agree? .... S: As in your discussion with Sukin, I understand the path factors to arise *together*. Right concentration is samma samadhi. It arises with the other path factors in the development of satipatthana. Scott quoted a good text to indicate distinctions (with regard to jhana) even for arahants: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/66755 ***[Scott, where was your good text from?] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/66755 ... > D: I suppose there must be a sutta source to which Abhidhamma / > commentaries refer to.. > I have no idea how 'At moments of lokuttara cittas arisings ' and Jhana > is related.. but that may be due to my lack of knowledge of Abhidhamma > terminology ... S: At the moments when lokuttara cittas arise, the object is nibbana. So jhana cittas don't arise at these moments, but the samadhi accompanying the path factors of the lokuttara cittas is said to be of a strenght and degree equivalent to appana samadhi (as in jhana cittas). .... > > S:Perhaps this summary note in the Guide to #30,31 'Compendium of > Consciousness' in 'Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma' ed by B.Bodhi > will > help: > "Those who develop insight without a basis of jhaana are called > practitioners of bare insight (sukkhavipassaka). When they reach the > path > and fruit, their path and fruition cittas occur at a level corresponding > to the first jhaana. > "Those who develop insight on the basis of jhaana attain a path and > fruit > which corresponds to the level of jhaana they had attained before > reaching > the path." > > D: I think the important point is here to recognise different Dhamma > approaches and assume that is a source of many misunderstandings in > list communication , hence a deeper look should be benefitial .... S: Misunderstandings and different interpretations too:-) ... > > please let me quote from a recent message to Sukinder: > > ' I say that is a matter of type /character ... > as you may know the Abhidhamma quite well , I wonder whether you studied > the > Puggalapannatti . There is a nice essay > The Jhanas in Theravada .. by Bhikkhu Henepola Gunaratana..please see > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/jhanas/jhanas06.htm > Seven Types of Disciples > > The sevenfold typology is originally found in the Kitagiri Sutta of the > Majjhima Nikaya (M.i,477-79) and is reformulated in the Puggalapannatti > of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. This typology classifies the noble persons on > the paths and fruits into seven types: > > 1. the faith-devotee (saddhanusari), > 2. the one liberated by faith (saddhavimutta), > 3. the body-witness (kayasakkhi), > 4. the one liberated in both ways (ubhatobhagavimutta), > 5. the truth-devotee ( dhammanusari), > 6. the one attained to understanding (ditthipatta), and > 7. the one liberated by wisdom (pannavimutta). .... S: Yes, this ties in with the long quote in Scott's post above. As Sukin and you both said, different accumulations/characters, but all these disciples attain stages of liberation by way of the noble eightfold path. Some have attained jhana previously, some have accumulated very strong saddha, etc. It helps to remember that these are referring to cittas (moments of consciousness) and not people. Lots of detail in the Puggalapannatti if you wish me to check anything. Was there any particular significance in the list for you? Thx again, Dieter. It's good to have your participation and well-considered input. Metta, Sarah ========= #71585 From: "sukinder" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 9:35 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? sukinderpal Hi Herman, =========================== Sukin: > As to "peril in thinking" and preference for Jhana, hmm. You might say that > the reason the Buddha did all that "thinking" during the forty five years of > teaching Dhamma, was out of compassion for all beings. But where did he > actually teach that thinking was the problem? Herman: The Buddha did teach DO, didn't he? S> Yes, and it is extremely difficult to understand. But from the little that I know, I don't see anything to do with the fact of "thinking" here. Or are you putting forward a different point perhaps that in Jhana, DO does not have effect? ========================= Herman: It is also manifestly obvious to me that thinking that there is birth and death occurs as a result of craving. S> I am not sure what you mean, but are you saying that if one were to think about birth and death, that this would only be with craving? If birth and death are real, then would not thinking about these be either akusala or kusala with/without panna? ========================= Herman: Let me ask you: where did he teach that the absence of thinking was dukkha? S> With the exception of Nibbana, everything else is dukkha. And the cause of Dukkha is tanha, *not* 'thinking'. ========================== Sukin: He taught about the roots of > good and evil and he taught about right and wrong view. It is this latter > which is the real problem it seems, one which takes all other dhammas > wrongly, including those roots of good and evil. In fact he did point out > the danger of certain wrong views issuing from certain meditation > experiences including Jhana. And this seems to be the direction that you are > taking..? Herman: And I guess that because he never pointed out the dangers of having mp3 players as a constant companion, so one would never be without "right view", proves that he sanctioned such lunacy? S> 'Thinking' is a dhamma, 'mp3' is not. There were the concepts of house, palaces, clothes, gardens, children, fine foods, music, painting, stage plays and such at the time, and all these were a product of "thinking" as much as mp3 now is.. But then there was also the conventional activity of "listening to Dhamma" which was very much encouraged. And this is what some of us do some time, with those Mp3s. :-) All akusala is a form of madness, but wrong view is the worse of them. ======================= Sukin: > What do you think went on in the minds of those of his disciples who were > enlightened upon hearing the Dhamma, right there and then? Did they not > 'think' about what they heard no matter how briefly? We happen to be dummies > compared and therefore need to hear and think over much more. But what other > way is there, Jhana? I don't think so! Herman: Dummies are dummies because they think birth and death and everything in between. S> There 'is' patisandhi, bhavanga, cuti and vitthi cittas, the latter includes those that experience rupas. Why would it necessarily be dumb to think about these? ======================== Herman: If one is unsure whether one is thinking or not, be suffused with joy and rapture. If that is proving impossible, that is because one is thinking. S> And this itself is *thinking*!! You are referring to the ascension from 1st to 2nd jhana. Jhana only suppresses the hindrances and not work at eradicating it. The 'thinking' that is a problem to jhana, is related to sense experiences and this can be developed even in the midst of wrong view. On the other hand, wrong view is the only reality which makes the development of vipassana impossible. Thinking wrongly is, but that is due to being conditioned by wrong view. On the other hand, Right Thinking, one which is conditioned by Right View, is part of the Path to final eradication of all akusala. ========================= Herman: Scott and me are just not in the same LOKA, I'm afraid. :-) S> You mean Scott is somewhere here on planet earth whereas you have a connection from some Brahma plane? ;-) Metta, Sukinder #71586 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 3:21 am Subject: Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (51) sarahprocter... Hi Connie, Just catching up on some of the Sisters missed while we were away. Came across this: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, connie wrote: > Therii Vaasi.t.thii <...> > Pruitt: When she came of age, her parents gave her to the son of a good > family of equal birth, and she went to her husband's household. Living in > happiness with him, she had a son. But her son ran around, ran in all > directions, continuously moving around, and he died. Afflicted by grief > for her son, she went mad. And while the relatives were treating her > husband, she ran away without their knowing of it; and then roaming about, > she came to the town of Mithilaa. .... > {c: OMIGOSH! Her parents gave her away! What kind of world do we live in > where this STILL happens... or at least we went thru the motions of saying > as much at my daughter's wedding & I like to tell her sometimes "O, no, > you made me give you away." I suppose it might be that I did her a favor, > but whatever could have possessed his family to give me a son?} ..... S: They probably thought they were doing you an honour! Yes, there is still a 'giving away', often with a lot of fanfare, joy and festivity in many cultures. A kind of dana, perhaps? Reminds me of the Vessantara discussions. We hadn't mentioned the giving away of brides and so on... Thx for all the great texts and all your work, Connie. Fabulous! Metta, Sarah ======== #71587 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 4:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi James > > buddhatrue wrote: > > Hi Jon, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > > wrote: > > > > > >> Yes, nibbana is referred to as 'the deathless', but why does it then > >> follow that the arahant doesn't die? Do you think of the arahant as > >> having 'entered' the deathless? Would that not equate to attaining > >> immortality? > >> > > > > I don't know what happens at paranibbana. Do you? > > > > But you seem quite sure that parinibbana is not a 'death'. I've never > seen this said or suggested anywhere. James: I quoted from the Vism. about how parinibbana is not supposed to be considered "death". And Scott has quoted some source (not sure of the source or even if I agree) about how the process of parinibbana is completely different than that of "death". How much more evidence do you want? As far as I recall, the texts > talk about final death at parinibbana. James: As far as you recall? Please be more specific. Don't they? James: You answer that. > > Jon > Metta, James #71588 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 4:59 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Leading to stream entry - questions dacostacharles Hi all, I have two questions that go to the first few posts of the thread ("RE: [dsg] Re: Leading to stream entry"), they are as follows: 1. Can we all be stream enterers, and why or why not? 2. For some of us -- why is it important for titles like Buddha down to Stream-enter often considered out of reach for modern humans? Charles DaCosta #71589 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 5:09 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Desire dacostacharles Dear Rahula and Claudia, May be Arahants and Buddhas "do have desires," and it is the "attachments (that can cause suffering) to desires" that they don't have. And, we have misunderstandings about this issue, so we are not clear what is meant by the term "desire" in every instant it is used. Charles DaCosta _____ > If Arahant or the Buddha do not have any desire, wouldn't they be just > sitting there doing nothing? This is because they do not have any > desire to eat, move, teach, stand up or to do anything at all. > #71590 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 5:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Meditation Tip - tandem scottduncan2 Dear Sarah and Deiter, Regarding: Sarah: "...Scott quoted a good text to indicate distinctions (with regard to jhana)..." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/66755 Sorry about that, its from The Great Discourse On Causation, The Mahaanidaana Sutta and Its Commentaries, Translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi, pp. 38-41. Sincerely, Scott. #71591 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 5:34 am Subject: RE: [dsg] The Problem! dacostacharles Hi Herman, I understand how you could have come to this conclusion. What is really true about the sutras "in your case" is that, at present, they are not really for you. So keep reading the other sutras, and may be you will find one at the right time and place for it to be helpful to you. I also believe the scope of the sutras are too broad, therefore very relative and easily perceived as untrue. Charles DaCosta _____ insight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.184.than.html > A very appropriate sutta, thanks James. It certainly proves the point that > So all mortals in this world > Live in constant fear of death is a bit of hyperbole at best. #71592 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 6, 2007 6:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Jon, > > ... > >> But you seem quite sure that parinibbana is not a 'death'. I've >> never seen this said or suggested anywhere. >> > > James: I quoted from the Vism. about how parinibbana is not supposed > to be considered "death". OK, I must have missed this. I'll go back and have a look. > And Scott has quoted some source (not sure > of the source or even if I agree) about how the process of > parinibbana is completely different than that of "death". I read Scott's passage (copied below) as confirming that parinibbaana is indeed a death process (see the references there to 'death-consciousness'), but that the object of the cittas in the process differs from the object in the case of the non-arahant. > How much more evidence do you want? > > > >> As far as I recall, the texts >> talk about final death at parinibbana. >> > > James: As far as you recall? Please be more specific. > > Don't they? > > James: You answer that. > I will look. In the meantime, the standard declaration of attainment of nibbana in the suttas refers to *birth* being destroyed. See for example SN 35:234 'Udaayi' (at p.1232-1233 of CDB). No mention of death not occurring. Jon Scott: I find this relevant, from Guide To Conditional Relations, part 1, U Naarada, pp.22-23: "In the dying mental process of the Arahat, the mind-door advertence, impulsions and registering consciousnesses do not produce kammic results and, therefore, unlike other dying mental processes, past action (kamma) or a sign of kamma (kamma-nimitta) is not taken as object. And since there is no future existence for the Arahat, a sign of destiny (gati-nimitta) cannot be taken as object. The object is either a mundane materiality, mentality or concept. But the Arahatta's death consciousness takes the same object, which is kamma, kamma-nimitta or gati-nimitta, that was taken at rebirth consciousness. If this death consciousness follows impulsion or life-continuum, as the case may be, then the impulsion or life-coninuum is the conditioning state and the Arahatta's death-consciousness is the conditioned state. And since there is no rebirth after the Arahatta's death consciousness, the latter can never be a conditioning state. That is why, although the beginning of samsaara cannot be known, as pointed out above, there is an end to it. This is the Arahatta's death-consciousness." #71593 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 5:47 am Subject: RE: [dsg] a question dacostacharles Hi Robert A, You are welcome. Why did you ask the question; I got the feeling you already have an answer? Charles DaCosta _____ > > Is this statement correct? > > A person suffering from frustration or anger in this moment does so > because conditions were created in the past for that frustration or > anger to arise. To prevent the arising of frustration or anger in the > future he/she must cease to create the conditions for its arising. #71595 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 6, 2007 3:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Scott) - In a message dated 5/6/07 4:06:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > >I think Truth exists. > > Well, I think it is safer to say that Theravadan Truth is relative to > a Theravadan, as all the other schools hold their truths to be dear to > themselves. I think it would be a frightfully scary thing to assert > that Theravadan exegesis is Absolute Truth, though. > > ======================= I agree with what you say here, Scott - that what-is-what actually is what it is - that is, truth (lower-case "t") exists and isn't "up for grabs". However, I agree with the sense of what you say as well, Herman. It is "scary" and even "dangerous" to take one opinion of what the truth is - one interpretation and understanding of the facts, as correctly expressive of the truth, with no room for exception or error. The Buddha himself criticized statements to the effect "This is so and all else is false." Each of us, based on serious investigation and consideration, should attempt to see what is in fact the way things are. Along the way, we will certainly adopt opinions, but they should be held lightly and tentatively, and, most importantly of all, I think, we should not willingly place selective filters over our eyes so that we purposely avoid consideration of what at the moment is unpleasing to us. The use of blinders is not part of Dhammic practice - quite the opposite. To head off a point of possible disagreement by some on this last point: Even guarding the senses is not an avoiding of looking. In fact, just oppositely, it is a very careful looking to see exactly what is what, and then responding appropriately and usefully. With metta, Howard #71596 From: "Robert" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 8:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a question avalo1968 Hello Charles, The reason I asked the question is that most people think they are angry or frustrated because of something going on outside themselves, but I like to believe that it is possible for someone to be at peace with the world, no matter how the world is choosing to be. I think this is a very important point for many people who come to Buddhism not as an interesting philosophy, but as a way to find some relief in life circumstances that are very difficult or stressful, circumstances they have little opportunity to change. I also believe it is an important milestone in their practice of Buddhism as people shift from trying to rearrange the external circumstances of their lives to training and knowing their own minds. Someone only does this as they come to recognize that rearranging the externals has very limited power to bring more than transient happiness and working with the inside is a better way to live. With metta, Robert A #71597 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 8:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thank you for your reply. Regarding: H: "I agree with what you say here, Scott - that what-is-what actually is what it is - that is, truth (lower-case "t") exists and isn't 'up for grabs'." Scott: This is just what I wish to point out! I believe I wrote 'Truth' with an upper-case 't' to refer to this. As such, I'm afraid we disagree, the revision notwithstanding. If 'Truth' can be equated for a moment with my original statement, for didactic purposes: By changing the upper-case 't' - which I put in on purpose to communicate an idea of my own - to a lower-case 't', to suit your purposes, you distort Truth. You change the meaning of what I say and then suggest we are in agreement. I don't mind, but when this tendency becomes a method for studying Dhamma then... H: "...It is 'scary' and even 'dangerous' to take one opinion of what the truth is - one interpretation and understanding of the facts, as correctly expressive of the truth, with no room for exception or error...." Scott: ...that is very 'scary' and 'dangerous'. I think the opposite to what you say above. I'll stay with: "...the Buddha's teachings as found in all three baskets of the Tipitaka, the original record of the Buddha's word in the Theravada tradition, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition." What I think to be 'scary' and 'dangerous' is the unbounded creativity of editorialisation and revision. I prefer to be chosen by a particular view and then narrow in and attempt to understand this particular view as completely as possible before generating my own fantasies about it. But this is only the way I see it. I certainly don't need to have someone else see it the same way. Live and let live. H: "...The Buddha himself criticized statements to the effect "This is so and all else is false." Scott: I think the Buddha taught a Truth which invalidated every other 'truth'. He was criticising others. I don't think he was ever, ever unsure as to the nature of his own teachings. Do you suggest he'd turn this statement around and apply it to what he taught? Of course not. H: "...Each of us, based on serious investigation and consideration, should attempt to see what is in fact the way things are. Along the way, we will certainly adopt opinions, but they should be held lightly and tentatively, and, most importantly of all, I think, we should not willingly place selective filters over our eyes so that we purposely avoid consideration of what at the moment is unpleasing to us. The use of blinders is not part of Dhammic practice - quite the opposite..." Scott: This is highly disputable, but not worth disputing because we just see things differently. I just wanted to reply in some way. I personally blame, among other things, a misreading of the Kalamas Sutta, for all this moralising about not using blinders. By the way, do you know the function performed by blinders in the whole business of driving horses? They are attached to the bridle in order to keep the horse from distraction so it can focus on the road. Being skittish and flightly creatures, big and prone to run off, they require this particular piece of equipment. Sincerely, Scott. #71598 From: "Robert" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 9:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? avalo1968 Hello Howard, I want to thank you for making the following point: Howard: Even guarding the senses is not an avoiding of looking. In fact, just oppositely, it is a very careful looking to see exactly what is what, and then responding appropriately and usefully. Robert A: Let me ask a question about this. It is common for 'guarding the senses' to be interpreted as something such as looking the other way when someone sexually attractive walks by, not dwelling on the 'sign' of sexual attractiveness in that person. Do you think this is a correct understanding or an incorrect one? Thank you Robert A #71599 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 9:30 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Robert, Regarding: "The various loka: are they anything other than nama and rupa?" Scott: I'd say no. Sincerely, Scott.