#71600 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 6, 2007 5:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Herman) - In a message dated 5/6/07 11:50:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > 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. ------------------------------------ Howard: No, it's really not a major deal. I just am not crazy about the use of upper case - it carries a sense of absolutism and substantialism. Some folks will write of "Reality" instead of "reality", for example, making a kind of Platonic principle out of it, and leaning towards a substantialism that I'm philosophically uncomfortable with. That's all this is about. I DO for sure believe that things are exactly what they are, but that what that may be isn't clear. ----------------------------------------- > > 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. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Facts are facts, and true is true. I'm not disputing this, Scott. --------------------------------------- > > 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... ------------------------------------ Howard: Scott, you are latching onto the tiny tail of my dog-post, and turning it into the body. ----------------------------------- > > 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. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't understand what you are asserting here, Scott. Are you claiming to KNOW what is what? Do you suspect that the Buddha was wrong in saying not to assert that "This is true and all else is false"? ------------------------------------------- > > 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." --------------------------------------------- Howard: What do you mean that you'll "stay with it"? I will, too, as regards the Tipitaka, and most especially the Sutta Pitaka! I believe that this is largely a correct record of the Buddhadhamma, and I also believe that the Buddha did come to know what is what and that he taught it as well as anyone could do. I believe this sufficiently to stick with it and to follow it to the best of my understanding. I have enormous trust and confidence in the Dhamma. I do not, however, claim to *know* the "truth". I'll leave that to Islamic, Judaic, and Christian fundamentalists. ------------------------------------------------ > > What I think to be 'scary' and 'dangerous' is the unbounded creativity > of editorialisation and revision. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Ducky! --------------------------------------------- > > 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. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Scott, do you think I'm a Johnny-come-lately tothe Dhamma? Scott, your arrogance is showing. ------------------------------------------ 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. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Really! Your words haven't sounded that way to me! They've sounded quite judgemental. --------------------------------------- > > 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. --------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! There is the following very general enunciation of the Buddha's with regard to safeguarding truth (from MN 95, the Canki Sutta): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Bharadvaja, first you went by conviction. Now you speak of unbroken tradition. There are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which five? Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, & an agreement through pondering views. These are the five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Now some things are firmly held in conviction and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not firmly held in conviction, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. Some things are well-liked... truly an unbroken tradition... well-reasoned... Some things are well-pondered and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not well-pondered, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. In these cases it isn't proper for a knowledgeable person who safeguards the truth to come to a definite conclusion, 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless." "But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth." "If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth. "If a person likes something... holds an unbroken tradition... has something reasoned through analogy... has something he agrees to, having pondered views, his statement, 'This is what I agree to, having pondered views,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth." - - - - - - - - - - - - I will addas a postscript: An awakening to the truth is a *knowing*. Neither you nor I have awakened to the truth. -------------------------------------------- > ========================= With metta, Howard #71601 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 6, 2007 5:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - > 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 > ========================= I think that without permitting it to become an exercise in aversion, it is a correct understanding. It is our tendency to grasp onto and proliferate in thought and emotion whatever we find pleasant. Guarding "the senses" is really guarding the mind. It amounts to being so mindful of, and attentive to, what is happening "within" that we are able to forestall reaction to what is injurious to us. The specifics of the means of forestalling depend on how great is our vulnerability. A mind greatly calmed by sila and meditation will require little more than the mindful attention mentioned. Other minds may require a drastic avoidance or "turning away". Every case is individual. The properness of approach is to be measured by the results. With metta, Howard #71602 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 10:17 am Subject: Re: We're together! scottduncan2 Dear colette, Thanks for your reply. I'd say we'll abide while the abiding is good. Nothing else is sure. colette: "I went nutss when I did my quick search and discovery of the definitions of this terminology.;-))" Scott: Good one! We'll also have to consider BHUUMI: "Bhuumi (f.)...1. (lit.) ground, soil, earth...2. place, quarter, district, region...(jaati - district of one's birth);...3. (fig.) ground, plane, stage, level; state of consciousness..." And here I'm wondering about there being a link between internal and external based on the connection between LOKA and BHUUMI, in particular as regards 'state of consciousness'. 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." Scott: Here, I think, I should have used 'DEVA REALM', these being the CAATUMMAHAARAAJIKAA, TAAVATI.MSA, YAAMA, TUSITA, NIMMAANARATI, and PARANIMMITAVASAVATTI, to name those of the sense sphere. I wouldn't call NIBBAANA 'heaven'. East is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet. As far as the boundary between CONSCIOUS and UNCONSCIOUS goes, this differs from person to person and from moment to moment, but talk of CS or UCS is not talk of DHAMMA. Remember, won't you, to take all I say with a pound of salt since I am an avowed ORTHODOX student of the Dhamma. Me: "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." Scott: Here I was referring to the process which is called SAMSAARA. I prefer SIMILE to METAPHOR in certain things. Why? Let me digress. I recall a story about ANDRE BRETON, the author of the SURREALIST MANIFESTO and founder of the movement of the same name, and SALVIDOR DALI. Dali, who took the 'practise' of surrealism to an extent Breton could not tolerate, once painted a picture I think of KARL MARX, whom, I believe, was idealised by Breton. The depiction was entitled, more or less (I'm going from memory), 'The Ananmorphic Buttock', and showed Marx with this particular aspect of his person, shall we say, 'satirised' in the surreal fashion. Fed up with Dali, Breton called him onto the carpet. Prepared for his DRESSING DOWN, Dali had come wearing several shirts, one over the other. In the process of being lectured to by the irate founder of the movement, Dali was said to have simply began to melodramatically remove one shirt after another and cast them to the floor. What does this have to with anything? The surrealists (BOURGEOIS DILLETANTS) attempted to mimic MADNESS through art by pushing beyond simile into metaphor. Suddenly, things were not merely LIKE other things, things WERE other things. Fine for literature, art, and poetry, but hazardous to the health. 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..." Scott: Yeah, this is what I was getting at. Back to whether bhuumi also applies. c: "nature of consciousness, I have to aks, is this SVABHAVA? Essense?" Scott: It is the characteristic of citta to cognise. c: "arises in these realms and which takes objects." Wow, does the consciousness take the object of does the object take the consciousness?" Scott: Good point. I guess this depends on CONDITIONS, right? And the order of the arising of consciousness. 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." Scott: I think 'the sees our realm' would be more precise, given our last posts, if one would say, 'the dog sees us as something in its realm'. 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." Scott: Again, you're welcome and thanks for your very kind words. I enjoy the discussion we're having. Since I'm aware of some of my own dark side, I don't worry too much about yours. We'll just keep discussing Dhamma. Sincerely, Scott. #71603 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 10:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Pardon the elisions: Howard: ..."Really! Your words haven't sounded that way to me! They've sounded quite judgemental..." Scott: I was just responding to you, Howard, which seems to try your patience each time. I wish that you would try to remain calm. Please recall, I was discussing something with Herman. You entered the conversation. You are welcome to come in, of course, but you must expect a reply if you address me. I'd just appreciate a little more patience, if at all possible. I also appreciate the sutta you have referenced. Let me know if you feel able to discuss this with me. Sincerely, Scott. #71604 From: "Larry" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 11:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness lbidd2 Hi Han, I am sure Sarah will have more to say about this but here are 6 ways to see a box of biscuits in accord with the dhamma: 1. The opposite of sakaaya di.t.thi is to see the box of biscuits as not mine. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html 2. Like Vajiraa one could see the box of biscuits as an assemblage of parts. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html 3. Following the Kaccaanagotta Sutta one could see that the box of biscuits neither exists nor does not exist because of dependent arising. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html 4. As the Buddha taught in the Lump of Foam Sutta one could see that the box of biscuits is void, hollow, and insubstantial. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html 5. In accordance with a few remarks in the Visuddhimagga and its commentaries one could see that the box of biscuits has no 'own nature' (sabhava). It is distinguished only by signs. 6. In a way that is not developed by the commentaries one could see that experience is only a moment of consciousness arising one after another. No object of consciousness is in experience. With no object there is no subject. When consciousness does not play the role of subject there is no self and other, no internal and external. Seeing in this way a box of biscuits appears pure, free from the conflict of self and other, subject and object. One can see expressions of this in Zen aesthetics in particular, and probably in artistry of all kinds. I am sure there are other ways to look at 'objects' but these came to mind. However they are seen they are not to be grasped. Larry #71605 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 6, 2007 7:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 5/6/07 1:30:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Pardon the elisions: > > Howard: ..."Really! Your words haven't sounded that way to me! They've > sounded quite judgemental..." > > Scott: I was just responding to you, Howard, which seems to try your > patience each time. I wish that you would try to remain calm. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I wasn't disturbed, Scott. I was just being direct and reporting my observations in a firm but perfectly proper way, without anger. --------------------------------------------- > > Please recall, I was discussing something with Herman. You entered > the conversation. You are welcome to come in, of course, but you must > expect a reply if you address me. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I did expect a reply. But you wrote "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." But I switched to lower-case "t" in a completely up-front way to express MYperspective, and not to distort what you meant. Here you were either just being argumentative, or, more likely, just misunderstood my intention. You also wrote "What I think to be 'scary' and 'dangerous' is the unbounded creativity of editorialisation and revision.", which I find quite judgemental and accusatory. Editorializing and revising what? I was expressing my own perspective, not attempting to distort yours. Please don't be "paranoid". As I said, you took a minor aspect of my reply, a side-issue really, and misinterpreted it as something significant and not at allas what it was actually about. You completely misinterpreted what my purpose was, and you lashed out in a nasty way in response. Get over it, Scott! Along the same lines, you wrote "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," which implies that I engage in "fantasies" - not nice to say, and certainly judgemental. And despite all this you write "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." I found that implausible. ------------------------------------------------------- > > I'd just appreciate a little more patience, if at all possible. --------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I think I've been adequately patient. ---------------------------------------------- > > I also appreciate the sutta you have referenced. Let me know if you > feel able to discuss this with me. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I think I'll just leave it for your consideration. --------------------------------------------- > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > > ======================= With metta, Howard #71606 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 11:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! scottduncan2 Dear Jon (and James), J: "Thanks for the text. Clearly, in abhidhamma terms there is a cuti-citta (death consciousness) at the time of parinibbana." Scott: Yes. This is 'death' as defined by the abhidhamma method. J: "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)." Scott: I think this is the point, that is, 'it is the ending of rebirth, rather than the ending of death'. Birth is the cause of death, isn't it? There is no suggestion that the ending of rebirth serves as 'cause' for anything else. Does that make sense? I agree, as well, that 'death' considered conventionally, differs from death in the sense referred to in the texts. Sincerely, Scott. #71607 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 11:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks for the clarifications: Howard: ...I wasn't disturbed, Scott. I was just being direct and reporting my observations in a firm but perfectly proper way, without anger...you were either just being argumentative, or, more likely, just misunderstood my intention...judgemental and accusatory..."paranoid" ...you lashed out in a nasty way in response.... Get over it, Scott!... which implies that I engage in "fantasies" - not nice to say, and certainly judgemental..." Scott: Since your original message was to suggest to me that I 'REMOVE THE BLINDERS', I'd say it all evens out, doesn't it Howard? I don't mind keeping them on. Sincerely, Scott. #71608 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 6, 2007 9:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 5/6/07 2:41:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Scott: Since your original message was to suggest to me that I 'REMOVE > THE BLINDERS', I'd say it all evens out, doesn't it Howard? > > ======================= No, Scott - I don't. I was addressing Herman at that point and agreeing with him that it is not good practice to accept with finality one view as correct and all others as false. That is why I went on later to quote the Canki sutta. You might review that post of mine to Herman, and you mght reconsider, or not - as you choose. In any case, Scott, I don't recall if there was ever a time that I found conversing with you to be remotely pleasant. So, I will not be continuing discussion with you at this point. I absolutely wish you well, Scott, but I'm not a masochist, and so I'm letting this go. With metta, Howard #71609 From: "colette" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 1:06 pm Subject: Re: We're together! watch this technique ksheri3 EXACTLY! THANK YOU. colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear colette, > > Thanks for your reply. I'd say we'll abide while the abiding is good. > Nothing else is sure. > > colette: "I went nutss when I did my quick search and discovery of the > definitions of this terminology.;-))" > > Scott: Good one! We'll also have to consider BHUUMI: > > "Bhuumi (f.)...1. (lit.) ground, soil, earth...2. place, quarter, > district, region...(jaati - district of one's birth);...3. (fig.) > ground, plane, stage, level; state of consciousness..." <....> #71610 From: han tun Date: Sun May 6, 2007 3:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness hantun1 Dear Larry, Thank you very much for taking your time to bring out all the relevant references for my benefit. I really appreciate it and I am very grateful. But the main point of contention between Sarah and me was: (1) I said attavaadupaadaana and sakkaaya-ditthi are the same. (2) She said they are not the same: attavaadupaadaana is broader than sakkaaya-ditthi. There are book references to support both statements. It is only that I am stubbornly sticking to my statement. Respectfully, Han #71611 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 3:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 07/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > I prefer to be chosen by a particular view I knew it, you are one of the Chosen Ones, the Elected :-) 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. > Herman #71612 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 3:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! scottduncan2 Dear Jon (and James), James: "I quoted from the Vism. about how parinibbana is not supposed to be considered 'death'. J: "OK, I must have missed this. I'll go back and have a look." Here it is again: ["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.] Scott: In my copy (~Naa.namoli) the phrase rendered above as: '...But death as termination (cutting off), in other words, the Arahant's termination of the suffering of the round, is not included here.' has '...is not intended here' instead, (p.225). I understand this to merely be differentiating death (marana), the end of a single life span, from parinibbaana. This doesn't suggest that parinibbaana isn't death. Contemplating death (marana) would be one thing, and contemplating death (parinibbaana), would be another - and not intended here. This is just saying that only a certain sort of death is to be contemplated, which is not parinibbaana nor the falling away of what has arisen. Sincerely, Scott. #71613 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 3:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Good one! H: "I knew it, you are one of the Chosen Ones, the Elected :-)" Scott: It was actually only by the slimmest of margins and the result of extensive ballot stuffing and general intimidation of the electorate... Sincerely, Scott. #71614 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi Charles, Jon, James, Scott, everybody, On 07/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > I agree, as well, that 'death' considered conventionally, differs from > death in the sense referred to in the texts. > It is a long way, to Tipperary. It is also a long way from the Suttas to cuti-citta. http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta3/22-Rad\ ha-Samyutta/02-Dutiyamaravaggo-e.html Màro - Death 1. I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the monastery offered by Anàthapiõóika in Jeta's grove in Sàvatthi. 2. Then venerable Ràdha approached the Blessed One, worshipped, and sat on a side. 3. Sitting, venerable Ràdha said to the Blessed One: Venerable sir, it is said, `Death.' What is death? 4. Ràdha, matter is death. Feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness are death. 5. Ràdha, the learned noble disciple, realizing this, turns from matter. Turns from feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness. Turning, looses interest and is released. Released, he knows, `I am released, birth is destroyed, the holy life is lived to the end, duties are done and I have nothing more to wish'. Herman #71615 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 4:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Is this going to be a sutta discussion? Me: "I agree, as well, that 'death' considered conventionally, differs from death in the sense referred to in the texts." Scott: In Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation, I see that, rather than use 'death', he chooses another route of translation: "...Venerable sir, it is said, 'Maara, Maara.' What now, venerable sir, is Maara? Form, Raadha, is Maara..." I'm sure this difference is significant somehow, but will have to figure it out. In the Maarasutta.m sutta in Pali, 'death' is from 'maaro'. The PTS PED: "Maara...killing, destroying, bringing death, pestilence...death ...usually personified as Death, the Evil one, the Tempter (the Buddhist Devil or Principle of Destruction)... Sometimes the term maara is applied to the whole of the worldly existence, or the realm of rebirth, as opposed to Nibbaana..." Also, there is: "Mara.na (nt.)...death, as ending this (visible) exist- ence, physical death, in a narrower meaning than kaalakiriyaa; dying, in cpds. death. ...-- anta having death as its end (of jiivita)..." Scott: The gist of the sutta seems to get at how form, etc., is 'Maara' in the same way that form, etc., is 'dukkha'. How do you see it? Sincerely, Scott. #71616 From: "Robert" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 5:33 pm Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? avalo1968 Hello Howard, Thank you for your answer. I think it was a good one. Regards, Robert A. #71617 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 5:42 pm Subject: Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! buddhatrue Hi Jon (and Scott), Jon: 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. James: You are getting too hung up on the labels of things rather than looking at the things themselves. It doesn't matter if the texts refer to that last consciousness of the arahant as culi-citta (death consciousness) or not; that is just a label. The label is not the thing. If the last consciousness of the arahant has a completely different object than the last consciousness of the non-arahant then they are two completely different kinds of consciousness- even if the texts give them the same label. In order for paranibbana to be considered the last death of the arahant it must follow exactly the same process of the death of a non- arahant. Death is death is death…it doesn't matter what label you give it. The important point I am making is that what the arahant experiences at paranibbana is not the same as what the non-arahant experiences at death. Do you agree or disagree with that? I don't care about the labels used. Metta, James #71618 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 6:06 pm Subject: Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! buddhatrue Hi Scott (and Jon at end), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > ["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.] > > Scott: In my copy (~Naa.namoli) the phrase rendered above as: > > '...But death as termination (cutting off), in other words, the > Arahant's termination of the suffering of the round, is not included > here.' > > has '...is not intended here' instead, (p.225). > > I understand this to merely be differentiating death (marana), the end > of a single life span, from parinibbaana. This doesn't suggest that > parinibbaana isn't death. Contemplating death (marana) would be one > thing, and contemplating death (parinibbaana), would be another - and > not intended here. This is just saying that only a certain sort of > death is to be contemplated, which is not parinibbaana nor the > falling away of what has arisen. I didn't quote the remainder of the passage, but the remainder of the passage states that the death of a dhamma is also not included in mindfulness of death. So, are we then to consider them all as "death" (conventional death, paranibbana, cessation of a dhamma), but only certain ones are fit for mindfulness? While we are at it, we might as well call a sunset "death of the sun" or an exhalation "death of the breath". We cannot be so sloppy and start applying the label of "death" to everything. As I wrote to Jon, the label is not the thing. I am not talking about labels, I am talking about the things itself. The Vism. is making a very important distinction which you are glossing over as unimportant. The death of the non-arahant is not supposed to be considered the same as the paranibbana of the arahant. When practicing mindfulness of death, one is supposed to consider only the termination of the life-faculty within a single existence, not paranibbana or the ending of a dhamma. Special note to Jon: It seems to me that you believe that by making this point I am trying to prove that the arahant achieves immortality at paranibbana, and I am not trying to make any such point. Immortality of a single individual or annihilation of a single individual goes against the teaching of anatta. I am not making that point! However, by pushing the idea that paranibbana is a "final death" of the arahant, you are making the point that paranibbana is the annihilation of a single individual, and that goes against the teaching. Metta, James #71619 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 6:47 pm Subject: Ghost Merit (Re: what must we slay to live happily?) buddhatrue Hi Connie and Azita, > > 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. > > I was mistaken about what I wrote. I was going on memory and it is DANA which ghosts can receive, not MERIT. My apologies: Janussoni Sutta (AN 10.177), a brahmin named Janussoni asked the Buddha, "Master Gotama, we brahmins give dana and do things in full faith, thinking, 'May this dana reach our departed relatives. May the departed relatives make use of this dana.' Master Gotama, can this dana reach our departed relatives? Can the departed relatives make use of the dana?" The Buddha's answer was: "If there is an opportunity, they can. If there is no opportunity, then they cannot." He then clarified thus: ~ conditions of non-opportunity: o those who do evil and hold wrong views and are reborn as hell beings o those who do evil and hold wrong views and are reborn as animals o those who refrain from evil and hold right views and are reborn as humans o those who refrain from evil and hold right views and are reborn as devas ~ condition of opportunity: o those who do evil and hold wrong views and are reborn in the realm of ghosts. It is clear here that dana can only reach the deceased if he is reborn as a ghost. In this sutta, we learn three important points: o The dana given by the living to the deceased cannot reach him if he is born in hell, in the animal kingdom, in the human world or even in heaven. o The dana can only reach the deceased if he is born in the realm of ghosts. o Dana here has to specifically mean offering food and drinks to the departed relatives, http://sasanarakkha.org/articles/archive/2003_06_01_articles.html Metta, James #71620 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 6:54 pm Subject: Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! scottduncan2 Dear James, Okay, thanks. J : "I didn't quote the remainder of the passage, but the remainder of the passage states that the death of a dhamma is also not included in mindfulness of death...The Vism. is making a very important distinction ...The death of the non-arahant is not supposed to be considered the same as the paranibbana of the arahant. When practicing mindfulness of death, one is supposed to consider only the termination of the life-faculty within a single existence, not paranibbana or the ending of a dhamma." Sincerely, Scott. #71621 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 6, 2007 3:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/5/2007 7:57:58 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > 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 ....................................... TG: Hi Jon and James Just butting in out of order so you probably already have this resolved... The way I see it, an Arahant attains the Deathless because there is no sense-of-self or subject who takes death personally. In other words, death for an Arahant is just changing conditions ... which occur all the time. No big deal. It only has an upside ... and that is possible relief from physical pain. Does an Arahant die? yes. Does death have the same ramifications it has to ordinary people? no. The Arahant has eliminated any sense of "me-ness" so death is a totally different thing. That by which we fear and dread death no longer occurs. It is also possible the Buddha was looking at the lack of future lives/births for the Arahant regarding the Deathless. However, seems like he would have called it the "single death" if that's what he meant. So I interpret it as above. TG #71622 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 7:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi Scott, On 07/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Scott: The gist of the sutta seems to get at how form, etc., is > 'Maara' in the same way that form, etc., is 'dukkha'. How do you see it? > Probably much the same as you. Everything covered by "the all" as per the Sabba Sutta is subject to decay and death, only nibbana is known as the deathless. Herman #71623 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Meditation Tip - tandem egberdina Hi Sarah and all, On 06/05/07, sarah abbott wrote: > > ... > 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). > .... The notion of nibbana as an element of lokutarra cittas is absent from the Suttas, and actually goes quite against their grain. This is well explained by the following note from Thanissaro Bhikku to the Sabba Sutta. 1. The Commentary's treatment of this discourse is very peculiar. To begin with, it delineates three other "All's" in addition to the one defined here, one of them supposedly larger in scope than the one defined here: the Allness of the Buddha's omniscience (literally, All-knowingness). This, despite the fact that the discourse says that the description of such an all lies beyond the range of explanation. Secondly, the Commentary includes nibbana (unbinding) within the scope of the All described here — as a dhamma, or object of the intellect — even though there are many other discourses in the Canon specifically stating that nibbana lies beyond the range of the six senses and their objects. Sn 5.6, for instance, indicates that a person who has attained nibbana has gone beyond all phenomena (sabbe dhamma), and therefore cannot be described. MN 49 discusses a "consciousness without feature" (viññanam anidassanam) that does not partake of the "Allness of the All." Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the "All" is to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be done. Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10). This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to complicate the uncomplicated — see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all differentiation is allayed. See also: SN 35.24 Herman #71624 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 6, 2007 9:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Meditation Tip - tandem sarahprocter... Hi Herman & all, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > > 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). > > .... > > The notion of nibbana as an element of lokutarra cittas is absent from > the Suttas, and actually goes quite against their grain. .... S: I haven't suggested that nibbana is 'an element of lokuttara cittas'. Rather that it is 'the object (arammana) of lokuttara cittas'. Nibbana is not a citta or 'element of' a citta. "This (the Noble Eightfold Path) is the Middle Path realized by the Tathagata which gives vision, which gives knowledge, and leads to calm, to insight, to enlightenment, and to Nibbana." [Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta]. S: The lokuttara cittas (path and fruition consciousness) above in my quote refer to enlightenment. Nibbana is experienced by path and fruition consciousness. .... >This is well > explained by the following note from Thanissaro Bhikku to the Sabba > Sutta. > > > > 1. The Commentary's treatment of this discourse is very peculiar. ... S: As discussed before, with all due respect, I think TB's treatment of this discourse is very peculiar. I think he misses the boat here. Lots in U.P. on 'Sabba Sutta' for you to consider and pull apart:). OK, here's one for you to get your teeth into for a starter. Of course, if you only look at TB sutta translations and don't wish to have any ancient Pali commentary or Abhidhamma - or other translation, for that matter - input, there's no point in pursuing the thread, is there? Metta, Sarah ======== #71625 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 6, 2007 10:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Scott & all, Lots of praise and blame as usual for all of us- --- upasaka@... wrote: > In any case, Scott, I don't recall if there was ever a time that > I > found conversing with you to be remotely pleasant. .... Meanwhile, Colette wrote to Scott: >EXACTLY! >THANK YOU. .... Sarah: Besides all the useful reflections on praise and blame, I think it's also natural and obvious that we all find some friends here easier to communicate with than others (just like we do with friends/acquaintances that we meet in our day-to-day lives). I think it helps to consider how we all come with 'baggage' (i.e. 'accumulations') in the way of biases, paranoias even perhaps, particular kinds of attachment and predilections and so on. It's bound to be that way for all of us for a very, very long time and perhaps it's useful to see that sometimes this baggage may affect our judgment of others' intentions and so on. After working with children and teenagers for 30 years, I was pretty aware of my own shortcomings in this regard . However, I'm sure I often misjudge comments made here, especially some of the wit (Hi, Herman!!), as I quickly read and respond to posts written by people from all over the world, of all ages and from all kinds of cultural background. Meanwhile, I'm sure it's true for all of us, 'one person's pleasant is another person's unpleasant'. The vipaka is just the moment of seeing consciousness and the various ideas and interpretations of what we see depend entirely on our inclinations. I think we are all fortunate here in that we share a 'real' (OOps, TG) and sincere love of the Dhamma however. I don't think there's anything substantive in this message of mine. I actually find it a pleasure to correspond with you both (Howard & Scott), but understand that we all have different people we find it harder to communicate with at times. And by now, James* will be screaming at all the niceties he'll find in this message of mine:-)) Metta, Sarah p.s James* - just as we've learnt to expect certain things from a 'Champion Debater', you may expect certain things from a 'Champion CGM'. CGM? The only prize I ever won in one school** I went to was the school prize for 'Courtesy & Good Manners'. I assure you, that as it was a Roman Catholic convent in England, that took some doing:-)). If they saw me now, the nuns would be shocked by my relative lack of courtesy here, I assure you! ** Oh, just remembered I also got third prize for the egg and spoon race at Sports Day, if you count that!! =========== #71626 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 6, 2007 11:05 pm Subject: Suprahuman Force V 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: With the divine eye , which is purified & surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and being reborn, as inferior or superior, beautiful or ugly, fortunate & unfortunate, and he understands how beings travel on in accordance with their actions (=kamma ) thus: The beings who misbehaved bodily, verbally and mentally, who reviled the Noble Ones, held wrong view, and did actions based on wrong view, with the break-up of their body, right after death, they have been reborn in a state of misery, in a painful destination, in the lower worlds, even in hell! But these other beings who engaged in good behaviour bodily, verbally & mentally, who did not revile the Noble Ones, who held right view, & undertook action based on right view, with the break-up of their body, after death, have been reborn in a good & happy destination, even a divine world! Thus with the divine eye , which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and being reborn, inferior and superior, beautiful and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings is reborn on in accordance with their kamma (behaviour). 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 Kamma: The accumulation of intentional causes, which may have spurious effects see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Kamma_and_Fruit.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Kamma_is_improvable.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Inevitable_Consequences.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Rebirth.htm About the Divine Eye: The Dibba-Cakkhu see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/The_Divine_Eye.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/b_f/dibba_cakkhu.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #71627 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 6, 2007 11:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Daana Corner (49) Last Installment sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- han tun wrote: > 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. .... S: You seem very fit and energetic when we meet you. I do hope you'll be able to continue sharing and discussing Dhamma with us for a good long while and that there are no serious physical afflictions for now. .... > > 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 .... S: I can see there is a wealth of detail here. Perhaps if you have the strength and inclination later, you might care to share all/part of it with us in extracts. I think everyone agreed here (most unusually!!) that you have led the Daana Corner beautifully to date. The following (from your link) just caught my eye in connection with what I just wrote to Howard & Scott about our common preferences: .... "Bodhisattas' minds maintain their balance by giving preference to other beings' welfare, by dislike of the suffering of others, by desiring that the success of others endure, and by impartiality towards all beings. They give gifts (//Dana//) to all beings (without showing preference)." ... S: Of course sharing of the Dhamma without preference and for others' welfare, regardless of praise and blame is highly commendable and can be a good reminder, I find. Thanks again Han, Metta, Sarah ======= #71628 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 12:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Desire sarahprocter... Hi James & all, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Herman, Rahula, and Howard, <...> > You might like to read this article titled "Nibbana as Living > Experience" to get some insight into how the arahant lives and what > he/she experiences. It predominately uses sutta references: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html .... S: I just had a quick look and as usual with her Lily de Silva's articles, there appears to be a wealth of good detail for consideration here. As it may be relevant to several threads, would you (or anyone else you addressed it to) care to post it in short installments for discussion? Metta, Sarah ========= #71629 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 12:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? sarahprocter... Hi TG, Herman, Larry & all, Are our own commentaries of suttas really on a par with the ancient Pali commentaries? A sutta may seem very straight forward, but may lead to the conclusion that somehow the Buddha got it all wrong. For example: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote (#68827): > Larry > ps: I found that sutta about the monks who wanted to die. It is SN 54.9 > (also apparently in the Vinaya). It isn't quite what I remembered. The > Buddha instructed a group of monks in the meditation on foulness and > then said he was going into seclusion for two weeks and didn't want to > be disturbed. The monks became so disgusted with their bodies that many > of them committed suicide. The Buddha came back from his retreat, asked > what happened to the monks, then taught the remaining ones mindfulness > of breathing, "an ambrosial pleasant dwelling". L. .... S: Reading the sutta in a straight-forward manner (as summarised here), is there any other conclusion to come to but that either a) the Buddha gave the monks the wrong meditation subject, or that b) that suicide is to be encouraged, and/or that c)The Buddha lacked the foresight and omniscience to know what results might follow? However, the commentary explains details we'd have no idea about. It explains that in the past these monks had been hunters and had been reborn in hell. Past kamma was going to bring its results at this time, leading to suicide and homicide. The Buddha knew this and could not prevent it. He spoke about foulness of the body so that they would not have attachment to their bodies or fear death, so as to have rebirths in deva realms. "Therefore he spoke on foulness in order to help them, not with the intention of extolling death." (BB summary). The commentary also adds that while these monks included worldlings, sotapannas,s akadagamis, anagamis and arahants, the ariyan disciples did not kill, encourage others to kill or consent to the killing. Only the worldlings did. So, taking this sutta as an example, TG & Herman, are we really better-off ignoring the commentaries and following our own interpretations of 'straight-forward' suttas at all times? Metta, Sarah ========= #71630 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 1:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! buddhatrue Hi Jon, An additional quote for you. :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > 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 Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. THE HEEDFUL DIE NOT. The heedless are as if dead already. Dhammapada 21 Metta, James #71631 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 1:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > In the Maarasutta.m sutta in Pali, 'death' is from 'maaro'. > > The PTS PED: > > "Maara...killing, destroying, bringing death, pestilence...death > ...usually personified as Death, the Evil one, the Tempter (the > Buddhist Devil or Principle of Destruction)... Sometimes the term > maara is applied to the whole of the worldly existence, or the realm > of rebirth, as opposed to Nibbaana..." > > Also, there is: > > "Mara.na (nt.)...death, as ending this (visible) exist- ence, physical > death, in a narrower meaning than kaalakiriyaa; dying, in cpds. death. > ...-- anta having death as its end (of jiivita)..." .... Also, there is more on Mara in U.P. For example, on the different meanings of Mara: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/16439 Nina: "...maara, the defilements, and also: all conditioned realities which are impermanent and thus dukkha. Maara is a name that can be used for all that is dukkha. Birth, old age and death are Maara. The PTS dict gives: death, maara can be applied to all conditioned realities: realm of rebirth, opposed to nibbana. Khandha, dhatu, ayatana, they are maara. S, I, Maara Samyutta." .... >Scott: The gist of the sutta seems to get at how form, etc., is 'Maara' in the same way that form, etc., is 'dukkha'. How do you see it? .... S: Sounds good.... Metta, Sarah ====== #71632 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 1:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Desire buddhatrue Hi Sarah, > > You might like to read this article titled "Nibbana as Living > > Experience" to get some insight into how the arahant lives and what > > he/she experiences. It predominately uses sutta references: > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html > .... > S: I just had a quick look and as usual with her Lily de Silva's articles, > there appears to be a wealth of good detail for consideration here. As it > may be relevant to several threads, would you (or anyone else you > addressed it to) care to post it in short installments for discussion? > I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do this because I have limited my time posting to DSG to only during working hours. However, I would hope that someone else with more time available could post sections of the article. Metta, James #71633 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 1:46 am Subject: Ghost Merit (Re: what must we slay to live happily?) gazita2002 hello James, and Connie thank you James, for the sutta, it explains it quite well IMO. I think it is the Realm of the Hungry Ghosts that the sutta refers to. > http://sasanarakkha.org/articles/archive/2003_06_01_articles.html > > Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #71634 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 1:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Meditation Tip - tandem sarahprocter... Dear Scott & Dieter, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > 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. .... S: Thx Scott. There's a lot of good material in the extract for further consideration. Dieter, I'd be interested in any of your comments if you think it's relevant to our discussion. Metta, Sarah ======== #71635 From: han tun Date: Mon May 7, 2007 2:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Daana Corner (49) Last Installment hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you once again for your kind words. I have no serious physical afflictions, but I have age-related conditions which slowly make me weak. I might seem very fit and energetic when you last met me. That may be an example of “mind over body.” I was, at that time, taken with the meeting with you and Jon, and the meeting at the Foundation. I have the intention to come back to Lily de Silva’s suttas, Nina’s essay, and U Chit Tin’s article. I will do it slowly one at a time. I thank you and the Group for giving me the opportunity. Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > S: I can see there is a wealth of detail here. > Perhaps if you have the > strength and inclination later, you might care to > share all/part of it > with us in extracts. #71636 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 2:14 am Subject: Re: TYPO Re: [dsg] 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' sarahprocter... Hi Howard, (TG, Han & all), --- upasaka@... wrote: > 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." .... S: As one of the 'three folks', I'm somewhat confused. I personally don't see it as a big deal as to whether anicca is translated as impermanent or inconstant, but I tried to follow what you wrote. Here, I may be missing the point, but are you asking how seeing any impermanent paramattha dhamma as such does not require conceptualization and atta-view? Why should it? Visible object is quite distinct and 'separate' from sound. Developed wisdom understands their particular characteristics 'as they are'. In this case they are understood as particular kinds of rupa and as impermanent too. The same applies to hearing and sound. Yes, without sound, there cannot be hearing and so on, but when one 'appears' its 'separate' and particular characteristic is known. Pls let me know if I missed your point. I am also very interested to hear both your comments on the Ledi Sayadaw extracts on 'Atta views' which Han kindly posted: #71551, #71572. I would think that Howard would consider the articles quite favourably, whereas TG would disagree for the main part. Pls select any extracts from them that you particularly agree/disagree with if you can be bothered/are interested to do so. I'd also like to hear Herman's, James's, Larry's and anyone else's views on them. Metta, Sarah ========= #71637 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 2:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness sarahprocter... Dear Han, Thank you for giving a good summary of our discussions and also a good summary of the texts. I appreciated your sharing of this extract very much: --- han tun wrote: The Vipassana-Dipani: The Manual of Insight, by Ledi > Sayadaw > http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/MANUAL01.html#Tirana .... S: it's very detailed and useful, I think. We need to appreciate whilst reading it that 'earth' refers to pathavi dhatu. As we read in the Mulapariyaya Sutta, the ariyan directly knows 'earth as earth' etc. Also, when (in translation) he writes that 'earth is an ultimate thing and has essence or substantiality; while pot is a mere conception having no essence or substantiality', we can take it he is referring to sabhava, not atta! Pathavi has sabhava, its particular characteristic. Pots do not. (It's a little confusing because later the same terms are used when it is stressed that phenomena are anatta, 'the reverse of substantial essence'. In translation, he also uses 'phenomena' to refer to dhammas, to khandhas. Whether we use realities (as some of us do here), actualities or states (as B.Bodhi does) or phenomena as used here and by others too, the point is that these dhammas (phenomena) are not nothings. They are rupas, vedanas, sannas, sankharas and vinnanas - dhammas (REALITIES!!) arising and falling away as we speak. Han, thank you also for #71572 and #71560. I don't have time to say more about your biscuit comments now, but greatly appreciate your candour about your reservations about the 'broader view'. Definitely not a 'silly, pitiful, stubborn fellow':-))!! I think you consider the Dhamma very carefully and you're a dear Dhamma friend to us all. I'd like to add a little more when I have time, if you don't mind. Metta and thanks, Sarah ========== #71638 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 3:20 am Subject: Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' gazita2002 Hello Howard, sounds as tho I may have offended you and I didnt mean to do that so please accept my apologies. here are some less 'offensive' comments :-) Howard: 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? azita: wondering if you mean a sound in particular or sound in general. Whichever way, when sound has parts and variation it is pannatti bec. by that stage one is thinking about the sound heard. Likewise with the visible object. > > >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. Azita: dont understand what you are getting at here. 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, Azita: again not sure what you mean by elements, however my understanding of elements is that they are not conventional but real, if only for an xtremely short moment. I agree that elements are not lasting, not graspable [altho lobha clings and grasps - but to something that's gone already], and they certainly are not satisfactory bec they dont last. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #71639 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 3:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Scott (and Jon at end), > .. > > Special note to Jon: It seems to me that you believe that by making > this point I am trying to prove that the arahant achieves immortality > at paranibbana, and I am not trying to make any such point. > Immortality of a single individual or annihilation of a single > individual goes against the teaching of anatta. I am not making that > point! No, I didn't mean to suggest you were trying to make that point. I was suggesting that that would be a necessary implication (an unintended one, presumably) of the idea that the parinibbana of an arahant was not a death. > However, by pushing the idea that paranibbana is a "final > death" of the arahant, you are making the point that paranibbana is > the annihilation of a single individual, and that goes against the > teaching. > I do not see the final death of an arahant as being against the teaching on annihilationism. Annihilationism is the belief that there is no life after death for anyone, regardless of proper cause. The final death of the arahant comes about through an appropriate cause. Jon #71640 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 4:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Jon, > > An additional quote for you. :-) > > ... > Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. > Heedlessness is the path to death. > THE HEEDFUL DIE NOT. > The heedless are as if dead already. > > Dhammapada 21 > Thanks for the quote. But does 'the heedful' refer only to the arahant, or to anyone who is (at that moment) heedful? Here's another quote. It's from the translation of SN 3:3 in BB's latest anthology "In the Buddha's Words" (at p. 26; the same sutta is at p. 167 of CDB). I think you'll find BB's comment on this interesting. << << << At Savatthi, King Pasenadi of Kosala said to the Blessed One: "Venerable Sir, is anyone who is born free from ageing and death?" "Great king, no one who is born is free from ageing and death. ... Even those monnks who are arahants, whose taints are destroyed [etc]: even for them this body is subject to breaking up, subject to being laid down." >> >> >> A footnote to the last sentence of the quoted passage says: << << << When speaking of the arahant, the Buddha does not describe his destiny as "ageing nad death", but as a mere breaking up and discarding of the body. This is because the arahant, being free from all notions of "i" and "mine", does not conceive the decay and dissolution of the body as the ageing and death of an "I." >> >> >> Jon #71641 From: han tun Date: Mon May 7, 2007 4:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness hantun1 Dear Sarah, I have nothing more to add. I look forward to reading your additional comments when you have time. Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > Han, thank you also for #71572 and #71560. #71642 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 5:07 am Subject: Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! scottduncan2 Dear James and Jon, Here's some more material: J: "Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. Heedlessness is the path to death. THE HEEDFUL DIE NOT. The heedless are as if dead already. Dhammapada 21 Scott: The pali: "Appamaado amatapada.m, pamaado maccuno pada.m; appamattaa na miiyati, ye pamattaa yathaa mataa." If it is said that 'the heedless are as if dead already', then I think this can be taken as a simile and not to mean that the heedless are actually dead. Similarily then, when it is said, 'the heedful die not', this too must be taken to be, in this case, metaphorical, i.e., not literal. The PTS PED on amata: "Amata...(nt.)...1. The drink of the gods, ambrosia, water of immortality..." Scott: This can't be the meaning, obviously. "...2. A general conception of a state of durability & non -- change, a state of security i. e. where there is not any more rebirth or re -- death." Scott: This must refer to Nibbaana - the Deathless, although even this definition seems to smack of 'permanence'. Sincerely, Scott. #71643 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 5:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 07/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Regarding: > > "The various loka: are they anything other than nama and rupa?" > > Scott: I'd say no. > The Buddha says : yes, but he didn't have the advantage of commentaries :-) 168. The demon Hemavata asked: How has the world arisen and how are acquaintances made, On what is the world supported, and how does it get destroyed. " 169. The Blessed One said; Hemavata, the world arises in the six, and acquaintances are on the six Supported on these same six, the world gets destroyed in the six". This little extract will also answer your question whether the Buddha taught intersubjectivity. He didn't teach it , he assumed it. All communication does. Herman #71644 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 5:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! scottduncan2 Dear Sarah and Herman, Thanks for the following, Sarah: Sarah: "...Also, there is more on Mara in U.P....Nina: "...maara, the defilements, and also: all conditioned realities which are impermanent and thus dukkha...Sounds good..." And, H: "Probably much the same as you. Everything covered by "the all" as per the Sabba Sutta is subject to decay and death, only nibbana is known as the deathless." Me: "The gist of the sutta seems to get at how form, etc., is 'Maara' in the same way that form, etc., is 'dukkha'. How do you see it?" Scott: Take a picture. We've all three agreed on something! Sincerely, Scott. #71645 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 5:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, What is the reference, please? H: "The Buddha says : yes, but he didn't have the advantage of commentaries :-) 168. The demon Hemavata asked: How has the world arisen and how are acquaintances made, On what is the world supported, and how does it get destroyed. " 169. The Blessed One said; Hemavata, the world arises in the six, and acquaintances are on the six Supported on these same six, the world gets destroyed in the six". This little extract will also answer your question whether the Buddha taught intersubjectivity. He didn't teach it , he assumed it. All communication does." Sincerely, Scott. #71646 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 5:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Meditation Tip - tandem egberdina Hi Sarah, On 07/05/07, sarah abbott wrote: > > > OK, here's one for you to get your teeth into for a starter. Of course, if > you only look at TB sutta translations and don't wish to have any ancient > Pali commentary or Abhidhamma - or other translation, for that matter - > input, there's no point in pursuing the thread, is there? > Using commentaries to justify commentarial translations of Suttas is a very spurious practice. BTW, you totally misrepresent me if you are suggesting that I will only look at TB translations, but frankly....... Let's cut to the chase, and why don't you just quote the Pali words in the original Sabba Sutta that according to you translate into saying that nibbana is included in the scope of the all? Herman #71647 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 5:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 07/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > What is the reference, please? > http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/5Khuddaka-Nikaya/05Suttanipata/1-\ uragavagga-e.html As an aside, last time I quoted this sutta on the 28th Feb, Sarah replied on the 8th March with: S: Yes, only 6 worlds of experience (at most)for sure, no matter what realm. Which just goes to show that getting to the heart of the matter can indeed be very difficult. Herman #71648 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 5:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! sarahprocter... Dear Scott, Jon & James, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > J: "Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. > Heedlessness is the path to death. > THE HEEDFUL DIE NOT. > The heedless are as if dead already. > > Dhammapada 21 .... > Scott: The pali: > > "Appamaado amatapada.m, pamaado maccuno pada.m; > appamattaa na miiyati, ye pamattaa yathaa mataa." .... S: Let me add a little more from Daw Mya Tin's translation (Myanmar Pitaka Association) notes which summarise the commentary on this: "1. appamaada: According to the Commentary, it embraces all the meanings of the words of the Buddha in the Tripitaka, and therefore appamaada is to be interpreted as being ever mindful in doing meritorious deeds; to be in line with the Buddha's teaching in Mahaasatipa.t.thaana Sutta, 'appamaado amatapada'm,' in particular, is to be interpreted as 'Cultivation of Insight Development Practice is the way to Nibbaana.'" "2. amataa: lit, n) death/deathless; it does not mean eternal life or immortality. The Commentary says: 'Amata means Nibbaana. It is true Nibbaana is called 'Amata' as there is no ageing (old age) and death because there is no birth.' " "3. pamaado maccuno pada'm: lit., unmindfulness is the way to Death. According to the Commentary one who is unmindful cannot be liberated from rebirth; when reborn, one must grow old and die; so unmindfulness is the cause of Death." "4. appamattaa na miiyanti: Those who are mindful do not die. It does not mean that they do not grow old or die. According to the Commentary, the mindful develop mindful signs (i.e., cultivate Insight Development Practice); they soon realize Magga-Phala (i.e., Nibbaana) and are no longer subject to rebirths. Therefore, whether they are, in fact, alive or dead, they are considered not to die." "5. ye pamattaa yathaa mataa; as if dead. According to the Commentary, those who are not mindful are like the dead; because they never think of giving in charity, or keeping the moral precepts, etc., and in the case of bhikkhus, because they do not fulfil their duties to their teachers and preceptors, nor do they cultivate Tranquillity and Insight Development Practice." ******* S: May we all follow the path to the Deathless! Metta, Sarah ====== #71649 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 7, 2007 1:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Scott) - In a message dated 5/7/07 1:32:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > > Hi Howard, Scott &all, > > Lots of praise and blame as usual for all of us- > > ======================== Thank you, Sarah, for being a peace maker. As that good man whom TG mentioned two days ago said, the peace makers are blessed. :-) I must say, Sarah, though we often see some matters of Dhamma differently, even radically so on certain topics, I have always had nothing but pleasure in speaking with you. I think a lot of it has much to do with good will and the giving of benefit of the doubt. I don't always exhibit these and do need to move further in this direction, and certain others here fail to exhibit these. You do, however, exhibit these, most reliably! Scott, you misunderstood my intent with regard to "T" and "t", and made a mountain out of a very tiny molehill. What I did with that was entirely innocent in intention, but I guess I sure got my hackles up in being accused of wrong doing when it wasn't really so. That, of course, was pure, defensive ego on my part, and my reaction certainly wasn't a good example of guarding the senses or right effort. I apologize for that and also for not having made myself clearer in what I wrote. It *is* true that our history of conversations has been strained. In a way, we are a bit like oil and water. But if I cannot handle something this minor, what about matters of critical importance! I hope to do better in our dealings, should you wish to sustain them. With metta. Howard #71650 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Thanks, I'm on it. http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/5Khuddaka-Nikaya/05Suttanipata/1-\ uragavagga-e.html Sincerely, Scott. #71651 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:12 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Howard, H: "...It *is* true that our history of conversations has been strained. In a way, we are a bit like oil and water. But if I cannot handle something this minor, what about matters of critical importance! I hope to do better in our dealings, should you wish to sustain them." Scott: Of course I do, Howard! No worries. Sincerely, Scott. #71652 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Meditation Tip - tandem sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Let's cut to the chase, and why don't you just quote the Pali words in > the original Sabba Sutta that according to you translate into saying > that nibbana is included in the scope of the all? .... S: This sutta (included in Sa.laayatanasa.myutta) is referring to all the aayatanas. The last of the aayatanas mentioned is dhammaayatana (translated by B.Bodhi as mental phenomena and by TB as ideas.) Dhamaayatana includes all cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. Of course, this is spelled out in the Abhidhamma! B.Bodhi's note summarises the commentary to the sutta: "Spk: The all (sabba) is fourfold: (i) the all- inclusive all (sabbasabba), i.e. everything knowable, all of which comes into range of the Buddha's knowledge of omniscience; (ii) the all of the sense bases (ayatanasabba), i.e. the phenomena of the four planes; (iii) the all of personal identity (sakkayasabba), i.e. the phenomena of the three planes; and (iv) the partial all (padesabba), i.e. the five physical sense objects. Each of these, from (i) to (iv), has a successively narrower range than its predecessor. In this sutta the all of the sense bases is intended." .... S: I also believe nibbana is included under dhammaayatana because it is part of the 'all' taught and to be realised. .... However, in the next sutta on 'Abandonment', clearly nibbana is not included in the 'all' to be abandoned, so we do need to read and consider carefully. Metta, Sarah ======== #71653 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Charles, Jon, James, Scott, everybody, > > On 07/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > >> I agree, as well, that 'death' considered conventionally, differs from >> death in the sense referred to in the texts. >> > > It is a long way, to Tipperary. It is also a long way from the Suttas > to cuti-citta. > I don't think so. Death as the end of this life-span is easily found in the suttas. The term cuti-citta simply refers to the last moment of consciousness of a life-span. Thanks for the interesting sutta quote. The 5 khandhas as Maara is another meaning of 'death'. Different context, you see. Jon > http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/3Samyutta-Nikaya/Samyutta3/22-Rad\ ha-Samyutta/02-Dutiyamaravaggo-e.html > > Màro - Death > > 1. I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One was living in the > monastery offered by Anàthapiõóika in Jeta's grove in Sàvatthi. > > 2. Then venerable Ràdha approached the Blessed One, worshipped, and > sat on a side. > > 3. Sitting, venerable Ràdha said to the Blessed One: Venerable sir, it > is said, `Death.' What is death? > > 4. Ràdha, matter is death. Feelings, perceptions, intentions, and > consciousness are death. > > 5. Ràdha, the learned noble disciple, realizing this, turns from > matter. Turns from feelings, perceptions, intentions, and > consciousness. Turning, looses interest and is released. Released, he > knows, `I am released, birth is destroyed, the holy life is lived to > the end, duties are done and I have nothing more to wish'. > > > Herman > #71654 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 7, 2007 2:36 am Subject: Re: TYPO Re: [dsg] 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and TG & Han) - In a message dated 5/7/07 5:14:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > Hi Howard, (TG, Han &all), > > --- upasaka@... wrote: > >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." > .... > S: As one of the 'three folks', I'm somewhat confused. > > I personally don't see it as a big deal as to whether anicca is translated > as impermanent or inconstant, but I tried to follow what you wrote. > > Here, I may be missing the point, but are you asking how seeing any > impermanent paramattha dhamma as such does not require conceptualization > and atta-view? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: No. I'm saying that whatever changes during the course of its existence (like a rupa with 3 stages of rising, stasis, and decline), and whatever has parts (like a visible object) requires conceptualization for its congnizance as a single phenomenon. ------------------------------------------------- > > Why should it? Visible object is quite distinct and 'separate' from sound. > Developed wisdom understands their particular characteristics 'as they > are'. In this case they are understood as particular kinds of rupa and as > impermanent too. > > The same applies to hearing and sound. Yes, without sound, there cannot be > hearing and so on, but when one 'appears' its 'separate' and particular > characteristic is known. > > Pls let me know if I missed your point. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I hope that what I wrote above clarifies it. -------------------------------------------- > > I am also very interested to hear both your comments on the Ledi Sayadaw > extracts on 'Atta views' which Han kindly posted: > #71551, #71572. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I will review them! :-) ------------------------------------------- ======================= With metta, Howard #71655 From: Dieter Möller Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:52 am Subject: A Meditation Tip -tandem moellerdieter Hi Sarah, All, (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. D: due to the general importance a bit more lengthy quotations ..there are certainly more to find: A.N. IV 1 (extract) Bhikkhus, not comprehending and not enlightened on the virtues of the noble ones, you and I too have been traversing and transmigrating for a very long time. Bhikkhus, not comprehending and not enlightened on the concentration of the noble ones, you and I too have been traversing and transmigrating for a very long time. Bhikkhus, not comprehending and not enlightened on the wisdom of the noble ones, you and I too have been traversing and transmigrating for a very long time. Bhikkhus, not comprehending and not enlightened on the release of the noble ones, you and I too have been traversing and transmigrating for a very long time. (Nyanatiloka in a comment here refers to the training sequence 3- 4 - 5, 6-7-8,1-2) MN 44 extract (transl. by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Rajagaha in the Bamboo Grove, the Squirrels' Sanctuary. Then Visakha the lay follower went to Dhammadinna the nun and, on arrival, having bowed down to her, sat to one side. Snip ,"And are the three aggregates [of virtue, concentration, & discernment] included under the noble eightfold path, lady, or is the noble eightfold path included under the three aggregates?" "The three aggregates are not included under the noble eightfold path, friend Visakha, but the noble eightfold path is included under the three aggregates. Right speech, right action, & right livelihood come under the aggregate of virtue. Right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration come under the aggregate of concentration. Right view & right resolve come under the aggregate of discernment." snip Then Visakha the lay follower, delighting & rejoicing in what Dhammadinna the nun had said, bowed down to her and, keeping her to his right, went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he told the Blessed One the full extent of the conversation he had had with Dhammadinna the nun. When this was said, the Blessed One said to him, "Dhammadinna the nun is wise, Visakha, a woman of great discernment. If you had asked me those things, I would have answered you in the same way she did. That is the meaning of those things. That is how you should remember it." unquote I haven't found yet any other sutta source which is refering to the squence in such detail as Dhammadina did. DN 16 (translation by Sister Vajira and Francis Story) . And the Blessed One, living at Rajagaha, at the hill called Vultures' Peak, often gave counsel to the bhikkhus thus: "Such and such is virtue; such and such is concentration; and such and such is wisdom. 9 Great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of concentration when it is fully developed by virtuous conduct; great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of wisdom when it is fully developed by concentration; utterly freed from the taints of lust, becoming, and ignorance is the mind that is fully developed in wisdom." (9:virtue (sila), concentration (samadhi), and wisdom (pañña) are the three divisions of the Noble Eightfold Path. Our text stresses again and again the importance of a full development of all three for final liberation.) A.N.III 74, 82 ff D:It is interesing to note that the samadhi part ( here training the mind to a higher degree is always refering to Jhana) Example : AN III 90: 90. Bhikkhus, these three are the precepts. What three? Observing the precept for higher virtues, training the mind to a higher degree and higher wisdom. Bhikkhus, what is the precept for higher virtues? Here bhikkhus, the bhikkhu becomes virtuous observing the precept for higher virtues [1] To this is called observing the precept for higher virtues. Bhikkhus, what is training the mind for a higher degree? Here, bhikikhus the bhikkhu secluding the mind from sensual and evil thoughts, with thoughts and thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion attains to the first jhana. Allaying thoughts and thought processes and the mind internally appeased and brought to one point, without thoughts and thought processes and with joy and pleasantness born of concentration attains to the second jhana. With detachment to joy abides in equanimity. Mindful and aware experiences pleasantness too with the body. This is the third jhana, to this the noble ones say mindfully abiding in pleasantness with equanimity. Giving up pleasantness and unpleasantness and earlier gone beyond pleasure and displeasure and experiencing neither the pleasant nor the unpleasant by purifying mindfulness with equanimity attains to the forth jhana. To this is called training the mind to a higher degree. Bhikkhus, what is training for higher wisdom?. Here bhikkhus, the bhikkhu knows as it really is, this is unpleasant. Knows as it really is, this is the arising of unpleasantness. Knows as it really is, this is the cessation of unpleasantness and knows as it really is, this is the path to the cessation of unpleasantness. Bhikkhus, to this is called training for higher wisdom. Bhikkhus, these three are the precepts. unquote S: 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. D: I believe there is more about the training (sikha ) and its sequence 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. D: we are talking about training..and so is the Maha Satipatthana . Right Mindfulness/Awareness is the perfection . Though Samma Ditthi is mentioned , its training (8.th path factor) is different . I don't think we can say ' It arises with the other path factors in the development of satipatthana', nor can we say that the path factors arise together, however a certain level of e.g. 'right understanding' is present. For the Noble Ones the Holy Noble Path obviously develops right from the start. Right Understanding to be the forerunner followed by Right Thought etc ,etc up to the end. Assumed that we are not at that state , we better take care for the directions provided of each path factor (i.e the mundane path). 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? D: yes , Scott's quote fit in here .. The significance for us of different Path approaches by the Noble Ones is perhaps that the 7 types mark different 'characters ' which we already may recognise at our level. For all sutta references exists whereas I am afraid the Abhidhamma is only concerned with the former. with Metta Dieter #71656 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? sarahprocter... Hi Herman (& Scott), --- Herman Hofman wrote: > > What is the reference, please? > > > > http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/5Khuddaka-Nikaya/05Suttanipata/1-\ uragavagga-e.html > > As an aside, last time I quoted this sutta on the 28th Feb, Sarah > replied on the 8th March with: > > S: Yes, only 6 worlds of experience (at most)for sure, no matter what > realm. ... S: I don't doubt that I missed something from your original message which isn't in front of me, but I did check my response to see if it was as strange as this might suggest. This is what this line was in response to (i.e lines from another sutta surely, in the context of a discussion on different realms, I believe): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/69331 >>>H:> From the Hemavata Sutta > > 168. The demon Hemavata asked: > How has the world arisen and how are acquaintances made, > On what is the world supported, and how does it get destroyed." > > 169. The Blessed One said; > Hemavata, the world arises in the six, and acquaintances are on the six > Supported on these same six, the world gets destroyed in the six". > > The six, of course, being the six senses. Mediated by a brain. .... S: Yes, only 6 worlds of experience (at most)for sure, no matter what realm.<<< ***** Anyway, perhaps I can leave you and Scott to sort it all out:). Metta, Sarah ======== #71657 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 7:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi Scott Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Jon (and James), > > J: "Thanks for the text. Clearly, in abhidhamma terms there is a > cuti-citta (death consciousness) at the time of parinibbana." > > Scott: Yes. This is 'death' as defined by the abhidhamma method. > > J: "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)." > > Scott: I think this is the point, that is, 'it is the ending of > rebirth, rather than the ending of death'. Birth is the cause of > death, isn't it? There is no suggestion that the ending of rebirth > serves as 'cause' for anything else. Does that make sense? > Yes. Birth is invariably followed by death - no exceptions. For the arahant, however, death is not followed by birth. SN 35:234 'Udaayi' (at p.1232-1233 of CDB) <> Jon #71658 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 7:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi Scott Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Jon (and James), > > James: "I quoted from the Vism. about how parinibbana is not supposed > to be considered 'death'. > > J: "OK, I must have missed this. I'll go back and have a look." > > Here it is again: > > ["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.] > Thanks for tracking down the passage and requoting it. > Scott: In my copy (~Naa.namoli) the phrase rendered above as: > > '...But death as termination (cutting off), in other words, the > Arahant's termination of the suffering of the round, is not included > here.' > > has '...is not intended here' instead, (p.225). > > I understand this to merely be differentiating death (marana), the end > of a single life span, from parinibbaana. This doesn't suggest that > parinibbaana isn't death. Contemplating death (marana) would be one > thing, and contemplating death (parinibbaana), would be another - and > not intended here. This is just saying that only a certain sort of > death is to be contemplated, which is not parinibbaana nor the > falling away of what has arisen. > Yes, I see it in much the same way. I think nibbana is itself one of the 40 objects of contemplation (recollection of peace). Jon #71659 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 7:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: > ... > TG: Hi Jon and James > > Just butting in out of order so you probably already have this resolved... > ;-)), ;-)) > > The way I see it, an Arahant attains the Deathless because there is no > sense-of-self or subject who takes death personally. In other words, death for an > Arahant is just changing conditions ... which occur all the time. No big > deal. It only has an upside ... and that is possible relief from physical > pain. > Yes, that is no doubt one way of understanding 'attaining the Deathless'. Another way would be that the path consciousness has nibbaana as its object, and since nibbaana is the deathless the deathless is thereby attained (momentarily). > Does an Arahant die? yes. Does death have the same ramifications it has to > ordinary people? no. The Arahant has eliminated any sense of "me-ness" so > death is a totally different thing. That by which we fear and dread death no > longer occurs. > This is perhaps similar to the comment by BB which I quoted in a post to James earlier. Thanks for coming in on the thread. Jon #71660 From: "Robert" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 8:28 am Subject: Will my whole world be beige? avalo1968 Hello DSG, I have sometimes heard people new to the Buddhist teachings ask questions like: "Can you live without craving and attachment and still have drive and ambition?" "Will my intimate relationships become good friendships?" and from what I believe was a book by Pema Chodron - "Will my whole world be beige?" I would be interested in any opinions members of this group would care to offer on these questions. Thank you, Robert A. #71661 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon May 7, 2007 5:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? TGrand458@... Hi Sarah Before we get into new discussions. I'd really like to hear your answers to my post re: The Buddha's teaching to "see things as they really are" .... and my comments that this is not at all the same as teaching us to see things as "realities." This is the heart of the matter and "tabling" that and shifting gears in an askewed direction won't do. Gots to hear your justification. ;-) But anyway, I'll comment on the below in good faith that you won't dismiss "the heart of the matter." Plus, what's below is just too easy to jump all over. ;-) In a message dated 5/7/2007 1:57:29 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: --- In _dhammastudygroup@dhammastudygdha_ (mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com) , LBIDD@... wrote (#68827): > Larry > ps: I found that sutta about the monks who wanted to die. It is SN 54.9 > (also apparently in the Vinaya). It isn't quite what I remembered. The > Buddha instructed a group of monks in the meditation on foulness and > then said he was going into seclusion for two weeks and didn't want to > be disturbed. The monks became so disgusted with their bodies that many > of them committed suicide. The Buddha came back from his retreat, asked > what happened to the monks, then taught the remaining ones mindfulness > of breathing, "an ambrosial pleasant dwelling". L. .... S: Reading the sutta in a straight-forward manner (as summarised here), is there any other conclusion to come to but that either a) the Buddha gave the monks the wrong meditation subject, or that b) that suicide is to be encouraged, and/or that c)The Buddha lacked the foresight and omniscience to know what results might follow? However, the commentary explains details we'd have no idea about. It explains that in the past these monks had been hunters and had been reborn in hell. Past kamma was going to bring its results at this time, leading to suicide and homicide. The Buddha knew this and could not prevent it. He spoke about foulness of the body so that they would not have attachment to their bodies or fear death, so as to have rebirths in deva realms. "Therefore he spoke on foulness in order to help them, not with the intention of extolling death." (BB summary). The commentary also adds that while these monks included worldlings, sotapannas,s akadagamis, anagamis and arahants, the ariyan disciples did not kill, encourage others to kill or consent to the killing. Only the worldlings did. So, taking this sutta as an example, TG & Herman, are we really better-off ignoring the commentaries and following our own interpretations of 'straight-forward' suttas at all times? Metta, Sarah ........................................................ TG: First of all, do you believe a story like this verbatim? What has "believing in" such an "explanation" got to do with understanding dhamma? It certainly is the opposite of "being in the moment." I take such commentarial explanation with a grain of salt...if I'm using that expression correctly. Seems like you're all settled in to believe it wholeheartedly. It as if you're saying...OK, the commentary said this....now I KNOW what happened and questions about it RESOLVED. The blessed commentaries have saved the day again! ;-) If only the Buddha could have spoken the commentaries directly, how that would have solved a lot of trouble! :-))) If the story's true, there's no way for us to know that. So "believing in it" means you are willing to "take as fact what you actually don't know." Second and very plausible scenario... The story is just a cover to try to make the Buddha look good in the eyes of people that might criticize what happened. The events are not bothering to me nor are they surprising. A handful of monks was overly gung ho and stupid and acted based on a sense-of-self. --- Ananda told the Buddha about it and suggested he teach a teaching that will not have the suicidal result. Then the Buddha did so. Oh, I'm sorry, that's the actual story in the Sutta. What we need, are the people who lived hundreds of years later telling us what was actually going on in the heads of the Buddha and all others involved. Their speculations are what are to be relied on. I'm just trying to point out some irony here. For folks who seem to claim to practice in a pure direct experience sort of way, ya sure seem willing to go along with a bunch of speculation, here say, conjecture. Please don't respond to this until you respond to my earlier post. Thanks. TG #71662 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, Azita - Thank you for continuing with this. :-) In a message dated 5/7/07 6:22:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gazita2002@... writes: > > Hello Howard, > > sounds as tho I may have offended you and I didnt mean to do that > so please accept my apologies. > here are some less 'offensive' comments :-) --------------------------------------- Howard: Thank *you*. Yeah, for a Buddhist, at least *this* Buddhist, sounding like a Hindu (or Vedantin) doesn't rest easy on the ear. ;-) But I need to lower my "senstivity threshhold"! I apologize to *you*. ------------------------------------- > > > Howard: 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? > > azita: wondering if you mean a sound in particular or sound in > general. > ----------------------------------- Howard: No, no, not "sound in general" - that's clearly just a general concept. I meant any specific sound that we actually hear. For example, when a chord is played on a piano, and, at the same time there are "the sounds" of a truck in the street, of children laughing, and of wind molecules in contact with the ear drum,etc, etc, etc. At any moment, the entirety of that constitutes a single "heard sound". But it is a complex, just as when we open our eyes, the visible object is the entirety of "the scene", a mosaic of various colors. In each case, this is actually a complex consisting of parts. That is my point. ------------------------------------ Whichever way, when sound has parts and variation it is > > pannatti bec. by that stage one is thinking about the sound heard. > Likewise with the visible object. ------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I agree with that. Where lies the "paramattha dhamma," then? It seems that so called paramattha dhammas at least as *usually* understood are idealizations like the single points of mathematics - useful fictions that are never really observed. As I said before, it seems that the boundary between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natta is ragged and porous. ------------------------------------- > > >>>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. > > Azita: dont understand what you are getting at here. ------------------------------------------- Howard: A mosaic of colors, being a complex, cannot be a paramattha dhamma according to the view of paramattha dhammas I have seen expressed on DSG. ------------------------------------------ > > 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, > > Azita: again not sure what you mean by elements, however my > understanding of elements is that they are not conventional but > real, if only for an xtremely short moment. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I understand that this is your perspective. It is what I am questioning on the basis of the fact that some so called paramattha dhammas are complexes. In fact, if one accepts the commentarial idea of a rupa having 3 consecutive stages of rising, stasis, and decline, all rupas are complexes. ---------------------------------------- I agree that elements > > are not lasting, not graspable [altho lobha clings and grasps - but > to something that's gone already], and they certainly are not > satisfactory bec they dont last. > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > azita > > ========================== Again, Azita, I appreciate your writing back. With metta, Howard #71663 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Scott) - > > 168. The demon Hemavata asked: > > How has the world arisen and how are acquaintances made, > > On what is the world supported, and how does it get destroyed. " > > 169. The Blessed One said; > > Hemavata, the world arises in the six, and acquaintances are on the six > > Supported on these same six, the world gets destroyed in the six". > > This little extract will also answer your question whether the Buddha > taught intersubjectivity. He didn't teach it , he assumed it. All > communication does. > > > Herman > ========================= Herman, I am a believer in intersubjectivity, but I don't understand in what manner what you quoted here has a bearing on that. Also, how does this quoted material contradict the various realms consisting of namas and rupas? The "six" are, of course, the six sense media. They are rupas, and their objects are namas and rupas and concepts "built" from these, as I see it. Could you please explain a bit further? With metta, Howard #71664 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 5/7/07 9:14:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Dear Howard, > > H: "...It *is* true that our history of conversations has been > strained. In a way, we are a bit like oil and water. But if I cannot > handle something this minor, what about matters of critical > importance! I hope to do better in our dealings, should you wish to > sustain them." > > Scott: Of course I do, Howard! No worries. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Great! :-) -------------------------------------- > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > > ==================== With metta, Howard #71665 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Will my whole world be beige? upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/7/07 11:28:43 AM Eastern Daylight Time, avalo1968@... writes: > Hello DSG, > > I have sometimes heard people new to the Buddhist teachings ask > questions like: > > "Can you live without craving and attachment and still have drive and > ambition?" > > "Will my intimate relationships become good friendships?" > > and from what I believe was a book by Pema Chodron - "Will my whole > world be beige?" ------------------------------------------ Howard: LOLOL! I love that! It reminds me of the advice to a mother-in-law in dealing with her daughter-in-law: "Keep your wallet open, keep your mouth closed, and always wear beige!" ;-)) ------------------------------------------ > > I would be interested in any opinions members of this group would care > to offer on these questions. > > Thank you, > > Robert A. > ===================== With metta, Howard P.S. Tiring a bit of serious stuff, I'll leave this for others to reply more seriously. ;-) #71666 From: "nilovg" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 11:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Ecard. Atta views: suffering and/or happiness nilovg --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > I have nothing more to add. > I look forward to reading your additional comments > when you have time. > > Respectfully, > Han > > > __________________________________________________ >Dear Han and all, greetings from France.My brother has a French keybord,difficult. Lodewijk also enjoyed your post on the biscuit jar, with your touch of humour. Good for thinking over. I write more when I am back next week. We had some rock climbing today. I needed courage,but,more courage to continue with satipatthana.In Paris in the Louvre Museum many good discussions with Lodewijk about what is sati.I reread to him all posts with Howard and others about what is sati. Lodewijk liked what Howard wrote. His regards to you and all. Do not answer me, next week I am back. Nina. #71667 From: connie Date: Mon May 7, 2007 11:59 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (55) nichiconn dear friends, Part 1 of 17: Mahaapajaapatigotamiitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa The commentary on the verse of Therii Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii Buddha viira namo tyatthuuti-aadikaa mahaapajaapatigotamiyaa gaathaa. Ayampi kira padumuttarassa bhagavato kaale ha.msavatiinagare kulagehe nibbattitvaa vi~n~nuta.m patvaa satthu santike dhamma.m su.nantii satthaara.m eka.m bhikkhuni.m ratta~n~nuuna.m agga.t.thaane .thapenta.m disvaa, adhikaarakamma.m katvaa ta.m .thaanantara.m patthetvaa yaavajiiva.m daanaadiini pu~n~naani katvaa The verses beginning Buddha, hero, homage to you are Theri Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii's. It is said that she too at the time of the Blessed One Padumuttara was born in a good family in the town of Ha.msavatii. After she came of age, she heard the Doctrine in the presence of the Teacher. Seeing the Teacher place a certain bhikkhunii in the foremost position of those of long standing, she performed a meritorious deed, aspiring to that position. And throughout her life she performed merit such as [giving] gifts, etc. kappasatasahassa.m devamanussesu sa.msaritvaa, kassapassa ca bhagavato antare amhaaka~nca bhagavato buddhasu~n~ne loke baaraa.nasiya.m pa~ncanna.m daasisataana.m je.t.thikaa hutvaa nibbatti. Atha saa vassuupanaayikasamaye pa~nca paccekabuddhe nandamuulakapabbhaarato isipatane otaritvaa, nagare pi.n.daaya caritvaa isipatanameva gantvaa, vassuupanaayikasamaye ku.tiyaa atthaaya hatthakamma.m pariyesante disvaa, taa daasiyo taasa.m attano ca saamike samaadapetvaa ca"nkamaadiparivaarasampannaa pa~nca ku.tiyo kaaretvaa, ma~ncapii.thapaaniiyaparibhojaniiyabhaajanaadiini upa.t.thapetvaa paccekabuddhe temaasa.m tattheva vasanatthaaya pa.ti~n~na.m kaaretvaa vaarabhikkha.m pa.t.thapesu.m. Yaa attano vaaradivase bhikkha.m daatu.m na sakkoti, tassaa saya.m sakagehato niiharitvaa deti. She journeyed on for one hundred thousand aeons among men and devas, and she was born in Baaraa.nasii as the eldest of five hundred servant girls in a world without a [Teaching] Buddha between [the time of] the Blessed One Kassapa and our Blessed One. Then she saw five Pacceka Buddhas at the time of the beginning of the rainy season [retreat] descending from the Nandamuulaka Cave[s] to Isipatana, going on their alms round, then coming to Ispatana in search of manual labour for the sake [of making] huts for the beginning of the rainy season [retreat]. She incited those servant women's husbands as well as her own to make five huts surrounded by walkways, etc, furnished with couches, seats, drinking water, water for washing, and bowls, etc. If one [woman] could not give alms food on the day it was her turn, then she gave them to her, talking [alms] from her own house. Eva.m temaasa.m pa.tijaggitvaa pavaara.naaya sampattaaya ekeka.m daasi.m ekeka.m saa.taka.m vissajjaapesi. Pa~ncathuulasaa.takasataani ahesu.m. Taani parivattaapetvaa pa~ncanna.m paccekabuddhaana.m ticiivaraani katvaa adaasi. Paccekabuddhaa taasa.m passantiina.myeva aakaasena gandhamaadanapabbata.m agama.msu. Taapi sabbaa yaavajiiva.m kusala.m katvaa devaloke nibbatti.msu. Thus, they looked after [the Pacceka Buddhas] for three months. When the [time for] the pavaara.na [ceremony] arrived, she had each servant woman, one by one, send a robe. There were five hundred coarse robes. She had them altered and gave sets of three robes to the five Pacceka Buddhas. Then the Pacceka Buddhas went through the air to Gandhamaadana Mountain as they watched. They all did good as long as they lived and were reborn in a deva world. === connie #71668 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon May 7, 2007 10:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Ecard. Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/7/07 2:28:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Dear Han and all, > > greetings from France.My brother has a French keybord,difficult. > Lodewijk also enjoyed your post on the biscuit jar, with your touch of > humour. Good for thinking over. I write more when I am back next week. > We had some rock climbing today. I needed courage,but,more courage to > continue with satipatthana.In Paris in the Louvre Museum many good > discussions with Lodewijk about what is sati.I reread to him all posts > with Howard and others about what is sati. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Nina, your visit there sounds SO wonderful!! I envy you!!! (Only in the best sense, of course! LOL!) ------------------------------------------------ Lodewijk liked what Howard> > wrote. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: I always smile when I read that, Nina. Not so much because I like my writings appreciated, but because of how much Iike Lodewijk and how sympatico we seem to be. :-) -------------------------------------------- His regards to you and all. Do not answer me, next week I am back. > > > Nina. ============================ With metta, Howard P.S. Nina, I directly emailed you two articles. #71669 From: "colette" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 9:22 am Subject: Gift of Gab ksheri3 Good Morning Group, Sarah's recent post caused a REFLECTION in me during the last few minutes when I walked away from the computers, my time was up, and went outside to see the day while waiting for my last time on this computer system. During my REFLECTION process I found that Sarah's response forced me to cognize a post that I received from Lucy Stafford or Safford in 2004 concerning "FAITH", we were discussing Western mystery traditions, and it dealt with the 0 card of the Major Arcana in Tarot, THE FOOL. It came to me so easily because I read it again no more than a month ago, she had two posts that I saved and have in my stacks, that I often return to. There are several people over the years that I've enjoyed discussions with concerning that which we study here & there. That was something though, Sarah! You're a beautiful girl that I enjoy having discussions with here, not there though, ha ha, lol, ;-). Thanx for the splendid input Sarah. toodles, colette #71670 From: "colette" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 8:23 am Subject: inclinations = momentum? ksheri3 Good Morning Sarah, Scott, Howard, et al, I like your analysis Sarah, you take the situation and bring it into a different focus for us to "grasp" it. I enjoy it so much BECUASE I am not consciously making an effort to grasp the grasp or cognition, is already there and so visualization is sooooo much more easier. (on the side, what was that blurb about "not having any pleasantries in a conversation with Scott?") > Meanwhile, Colette wrote to Scott: > > >EXACTLY! > > >THANK YOU. > .... > Sarah: Besides all the useful reflections on praise and blame, colette: "praise and blame" are nothing but trouble since they are the same "thing", "concept". Of course, I admit that there is benefits to the application of "reflecting" on the actions of "praise" and "blame". I do believe our friend Sarah has taken on the characterization of a Mary Poppins here, which is to say that she's on to something. Namely a good path, cognition. see below. ------------ I think > it's also natural and obvious that we all find some friends here easier to > communicate with than others (just like we do with friends/acquaintances > that we meet in our day-to-day lives). colette: Lets leave that alone since it's such a nice way of putting it. Thus I want the paint to dry on this before we go covering it up with graffeti, no? ;-) -------------- > > I think it helps to consider how we all come with 'baggage' (i.e. > 'accumulations') in the colette: isn't it odd how these "accumulations" you speak of resemble the "conditioning" as mentioned in the Abhidharma and the programming as studied by all computer science majors and applied by all robotic technitions, and stil it resembles the programming of post hypnotic suggestioning which we can view as False Memory Syndrone. <....> But lets move on. ------------------ way of biases, paranoias even perhaps, particular > kinds of attachment and predilections and so on. It's bound to be that way > for all of us for a very, very long time and perhaps it's useful to see > that sometimes this baggage may affect our judgment of others' intentions > and so on. colette: isn't that the point of buddhism: to awaken that aspect of the individual that the individual is not conscious of, to break the individual out of the prison of isolation within their minds ON THEIR MISINTERPRETATIONS OF "I"? Buddhism is one helluva powerful vehicle to use to access the inner realms of the mind. > > After working with children and teenagers for 30 years, I was pretty aware > of my own shortcomings in this regard . colette: EXCELLENT PERSPECTIVE: working with children while the parents are exactly the same as children BECAUSE OF THEIR BEHAVIOR, conscious recognition. --------------------- However, I'm sure I often misjudge > comments made here, especially some of the wit (Hi, Herman!!), as I > quickly read and respond to posts colette: don't we all! If you cannot forgive yourself for this trait that all sentient beings come complete with then how can you forgive any sentient being. Where we find ourselves digging for ROOT CAUSES & CONDITIONS, no? At least you've cognized this characteristic and can do something about it within your own self. A majority of society could never see anything so simple in this life because they are consumed by CONTRIVANCES, one lie begets thousands of lies, FALSE HOODS. --------------------------- I've gotta go, the rest would be nothing more than praise and cognitions for your gift to me of observing that the path you've taken this morning sarah, is a good path to have found. Thank you. toodles, colette #71671 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Howard and Scott, On 08/05/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > Herman, I am a believer in intersubjectivity, but I don't understand > in what manner what you quoted here has a bearing on that. Also, how does this > quoted material contradict the various realms consisting of namas and rupas? It doesn't. I misread Scott. He appears to no longer believe in literal realms. Have I got that right, Scott? As to intersubjectivity, I do not know how to further explain that communication between two beings (from different realms, even) is an example of intersubjectivity. Sorry. Herman #71672 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 3:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Meditation Tip - tandem egberdina Hi Sarah, On 07/05/07, sarah abbott wrote: > > > Dhamaayatana includes all cetasikas, subtle rupas and nibbana. Of course, > this is spelled out in the Abhidhamma! > I have a view of the world that holds that the arrow of time goes in one direction only. From the past to the future. Earlier things condition later things, but not vice versa. Seeing cetasikas and subtle rupas in the Sabba Sutta is like explaining World War I in terms of World War II. The Suttas were a condition for all the Abhidhammas, not vice versa. Explaining the Suttas in terms of the Abhidhamma is not explaining anything at all, it is an exercise in circularity. I have no need to convince you or anyone of that, though. That it happens simply limits the number of people I can have a reasoned conversation with. Herman #71673 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 4:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] If so, how did he know it? egberdina Hi Sarah, On 07/05/07, sarahprocterabbott wrote: > > > For example: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote (#68827): > > Larry > > ps: I found that sutta about the monks who wanted to die. It is SN > 54.9 > > (also apparently in the Vinaya). It isn't quite what I remembered. > The > > Buddha instructed a group of monks in the meditation on foulness and > > then said he was going into seclusion for two weeks and didn't want > to > > be disturbed. The monks became so disgusted with their bodies that > many > > of them committed suicide. The Buddha came back from his retreat, > asked > > what happened to the monks, then taught the remaining ones > mindfulness > > of breathing, "an ambrosial pleasant dwelling". L. > .... > S: Reading the sutta in a straight-forward manner (as summarised > here), is there any other conclusion to come to but that either a) > the Buddha gave the monks the wrong meditation subject, or that b) > that suicide is to be encouraged, and/or that c)The Buddha lacked the > foresight and omniscience to know what results might follow? > Personally, I have no need for an omniscient Buddha. The very idea detracts from the value that Buddhism has for me. A Buddha that can know the future implies a deterministic universe, in which case the Buddha was also a determined being. This leads to a very ugly or very pretty, que sera sera, whatever will be will be worldview. And whether it is pretty or ugly will, of course, depend on the determined viewpoint one has. Also, I seem to recall that the Buddha, when he was a rabbit, didn't have any problems self-immolating, so perhaps your reservations about suicide are not shared by him? After all, Channa, who couldn't bear the pain of his illness, died faultlessly in the eyes of the Buddha, after having killed himself. > However, the commentary explains details we'd have no idea about. It > explains that in the past these monks had been hunters and had been > reborn in hell. Past kamma was going to bring its results at this > time, leading to suicide and homicide. The Buddha knew this and could > not prevent it. He spoke about foulness of the body so that they > would not have attachment to their bodies or fear death, so as to > have rebirths in deva realms. "Therefore he spoke on foulness in > order to help them, not with the intention of extolling death." (BB > summary). The commentary also adds that while these monks included > worldlings, sotapannas,s akadagamis, anagamis and arahants, the > ariyan disciples did not kill, encourage others to kill or consent to > the killing. Only the worldlings did. > The commentary does not so much explain anything, it puts a spin on things that isn't there. > So, taking this sutta as an example, TG & Herman, are we really > better-off ignoring the commentaries and following our own > interpretations of 'straight-forward' suttas at all times? > Using one's critical faculties is very important, even in just reading Suttas on their own. For example, it is beyond belief that all the teachings on the inefficacy of rites and rituals can get swamped by a single phrase in the ParaNibbana Sutta, and Buddha is made the author of his own Stupa (Stupid) cult, despite everything he ever taught. Herman #71674 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon May 7, 2007 12:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/7/2007 8:37:56 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Yes, that is no doubt one way of understanding 'attaining the Deathless'. Another way would be that the path consciousness has nibbaana as its object, and since nibbaana is the deathless the deathless is thereby attained (momentarily)d Hi Jon Thanks for the response. I'm glad you reminded me of this aspect. I won't and can't dispute the mechanics of it as I am not qualified by experience or proper educated deduction. I just want to reiterate my firmly held position that Abhidhamma analysis is not always wrong. ;-) TG #71675 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 4:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Will my whole world be beige? egberdina Hi RobertA, Logically, a life lived without interest is uninteresting, and a life lived without attachment is unconcerned with whether it is happening or not, or what is happening. It also seems straightforward that without expectations there are no disappointments. And from experience, an empty mind is a blissful mind. So the answer to "Will my whole world be beige?" is yes. But it needs to be said that beige is a sublime abode. Herman #71676 From: "Robert" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 4:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Will my whole world be beige? avalo1968 Hello Herman, Thank you for your response. Robert A. #71677 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 4:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi Jon, On 07/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > I don't think so. Death as the end of this life-span is easily found in > the suttas. Perhaps so, but without any insinuation that death is an instant moment (as far as I know). The term cuti-citta simply refers to the last moment of > consciousness of a life-span. As such, it refers to something that is, in principle, unknowable. Unless you can explain how a citta knows what is to follow it? Failing that, it is no more than speculation. Speculation has it's proper place in the sciences, because there is every intention to put speculations to the test. But untestable speculations have no place in science, or in the path to the ending of suffering, as we are often reminded in the Suttas. Herman #71678 From: "sukinder" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 12:21 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] A Meditation Tip 4 different types- the Path sukinderpal Dear Dieter, --------------------------------- Dieter: please see http://www.audiodha rma.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 .. ;-) Suk: I don't believe in debates and no one should feel obliged to continue with any ongoing discussion. I listened to the first track of the above link, but didn't hear anything that I have not heard before, so there is no motivation to continue with the others. The reason I asked you, "in what sense is this Sutta "outstanding" to you?" was because your remark reminded me of similar ones made by others. For example there was a very knowledgeable member here on dsg, who on a few occasions said that he thought that this particular Sutta and no more than ten others, was all that any Buddhist needed. This to me is an expression of arrogance and lacking in respect for the Dhamma. Along the same lines is a remark made by Goenka, two of whose retreats I attended, when he to the effect says that one does not have to give up one's religion, in order to practice Vipassana. I am not saying that one has to become a 'Buddhist' first before one can begin to appreciate the Dhamma. However, in saying that one could go on believing what one believes, which would be 'wrong views', that one can still 'practice rightly', is saying that one can bypass the need to have a correct intellectual understanding of Dhamma. But of course this is already seeded in the very idea of 'retreat', 'formal practice' and ''doing' vipassana'. One symptom of this is as in the example above of the ex-dsg member and in Goenka's case, his preference for books written by his company over any other, including the Tipitaka. Of course this could be due to sincere belief that the Satipatthana Sutta is a 'technique', perhaps resulting from drawing out the essence of Dhamma. Whatever the reason however, as far as I am concerned, it is devaluing the Dhamma as a whole. As you know by now, I see the correct practice, 'patipatti' as capable of arising only from correct 'pariyatti'. The latter is so deep that it takes many, many lifetimes to grow and become more firm. In thinking that one can "just do it", not only does one deny oneself the crucial process of 'correcting one's views', but in fact be taking the wrong path altogether. Besides, any thought about 'someone practicing', would be going against the Teaching that says to the effect that 'there are only Dhammas performing their functions'. My opinion of course. But at least you can understand why I would dismiss any explanations (which to my ears would only be justifications), by any meditation teacher. If it is not arrogance then it must be stupidity to think that 'right practice' can arise just by "intending" to note. I know that not all meditators go so far, but I do however see different degrees and 'variations on the same theme' in all. After being exposed to the Abhidhamma I begin to recognize the need to question and reconsider every conventional idea previously held. This includes what is 'study' and what is 'practice'. I now see both of these quite differently from what I used to before, including during the mainstream interpretation stage. Actually I see no difference between the pre-Dhamma and the mainstream understanding in this regard, both involving the perception and view of 'self' doing/having to do certain things. The real big step away came after I began to understand the Abhidhamma perspective; it was then that I saw the world of a difference between Dhamma and every other teaching, including the Mahayana. Study and practice moved away from being 'conventional activities' to being instances of conditioned realities. It makes sense now that one would begin to really "know" practice only when there is the recognition of the difference between a moment with sati and without. Until then it is all *just ideas*! In the meantime however, any correct intellectual understanding would be one which acknowledges this distinction from one perspective or the other. Did I learn this at the Goenka retreat for example? No, they only encouraged me to just do it and in the process increase any tendency to rite and rituals. I am fine with your decision not to continue with this discussion, but if you want to continue, that is also OK. :-) Metta, Sukiner #71679 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 5:33 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Oh... H: "...It doesn't. I misread Scott. He appears to no longer believe in literal realms. Have I got that right, Scott?" Scott: No, of course you haven't. Realms are literal. I can't wait for you to show me how you've come up with the above... Sincerely, Scott. #71680 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 5:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott and Howard, On 08/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > H: "...It doesn't. I misread Scott. He appears to no longer believe in > literal realms. Have I got that right, Scott?" > > Scott: No, of course you haven't. Realms are literal. I can't wait > for you to show me how you've come up with the above... > Well, now I *am* confused. Never mind, it won't be the last time :-). Herman #71681 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "Well, now I *am* confused. Never mind, it won't be the last time :-)." Scott: I'm all ears, as it were, should you wish to eventually make your point. Upon what did you base your idea that I no longer considered realms to be literal? Sincerely, Scott #71682 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:13 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > Hello DSG, > > I have sometimes heard people new to the Buddhist teachings ask > questions like: > > "Can you live without craving and attachment and still have drive and > ambition?" Hi Robert A, At the risk of making myself unpopular, I prefer to take a hard line on questions like these. We can't have it both ways; either there is, or there is not, a self. Either the world is a huge space filled with people, places and things to do, or it is a fleeting moment of citta, cetasikas and rupas. I think the majority of present day Buddhists (even at DSG) want to have it both ways. The Abhidhamma tells them there are only conditioned dhammas, and yet they insist on asking, "What can I do in order to become enlightened?" "Will satipatthana make me a better person?" "If I become a better person will I still be popular at parties?" They should, of course, be asking, "What can you tell me about these conditioned dhammas?" Ken H #71683 From: "Robert" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 6:53 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? avalo1968 Hello Ken, You won't make yourself unpopular with me. I appreciate a sincere attempt to answer my questions, and, so far at least, beige seems to be a popular color at the DSG. Regards, Robert A. #71684 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 7:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 08/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > H: "Well, now I *am* confused. Never mind, it won't be the last time :-)." > > Scott: I'm all ears, as it were, should you wish to eventually make > your point. Upon what did you base your idea that I no longer > considered realms to be literal? > Because of this exchange between RobK and your good self. > > "The various loka: are they anything other than nama and rupa?" > > > > Scott: I'd say no. > > BTW, I felt as though I *had* already made my point Herman #71685 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 8:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, I see... H: "Because of this exchange between RobK and your good self. [R.K.: "The various loka: are they anything other than nama and rupa?" Me: "I'd say no."] H: "BTW, I felt as though I *had* already made my point" Scott: Well, of what else could any loka consist? Sincerely, Scott. #71686 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 8:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 08/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Dear Herman, > > I see... > > H: "Because of this exchange between RobK and your good self. > > [R.K.: "The various loka: are they anything other than nama and rupa?" > > Me: "I'd say no."] > > H: "BTW, I felt as though I *had* already made my point" > > Scott: Well, of what else could any loka consist? > What, then, is the relevance of the word "literal" in relation to lokas? Herman #71687 From: "Phil" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 9:00 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? philofillet Hi Ken and all > They should, of course, be asking, "What can you tell me about these > conditioned dhammas?" One of the useful things that I learned from Acharn Sujin came in this phrase she coined: "the shortcut is lobha" - please be honest with yourself about whether there is not a lot of lobha involved in the desire to know more about dhammas, whether it is not lobha looking for shortcuts. In my case it was - it is probably different for you, but it might not be, so please be honest with yourself, and others. Don't you feel tuned in to a very, very special, very, very deep angle into the Dhamma when you listen to Acharn Sujin? I did - and came to see it was just greed for wisdom. Again, I sincerely say that that needn't be the case for you, but don't the words "deep Dhamma" make you kind of tingly? I know they did in my case. That tingly feeling was greed for wisdom. Metta, Phil #71688 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 9:10 pm Subject: Freed of Fermentation! 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: Such Bhikkhu, by the total destruction & complete elimination of the 3 mental fermentations , in this very life enters and dwells in the fermentation -free release of mind, in the fermentation -freed release of understanding, realizing it for himself with direct knowledge, through direct experience... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:266] 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 Ä€sava: The fermentation due to desire for sensing, becoming and due to ignorance see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Three_Fermentations.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Freed_from_Fermentation.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/a/aasava.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #71689 From: "colette" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 8:57 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? ksheri3 Hello Ken H., Are we talkin' or what! I love the stance defiant yet resolute. Applause from the peanut gallery. If I may, would somebody hold this bottle of Stoli and hand me the scalpel? ;-) time to operate! > > At the risk of making myself unpopular, I prefer to take a hard line > on questions like these. We can't have it both ways; either there is, > or there is not, a self. colette: why a few seconds ago there was a nail in this body, hmmm, somebody may've been using their driver and now I can't see it. I love this concept: Self and how over the centuries there has been such work done on the body of "Being" in the form of "I". We've gotta get right down to it and define what the self is once and for all. Either it's concrete or it's abstract. If it's concrete then I will most certainly pull out any and all amunition to deal with the concreteness of this "Self". If it is abstract then don't run around talkin' about this "a priori", hmmmm, (lets get the iere of those monks goin'), this buddha-nature, this "soul", lets put this stuff out under the heading of "HYPOTHESIS" in which case we can then put to rest our friends and greatest of all theives, Organgized Religion. Thank You sir, Thank you, Thank You. ------------------------------------ Either the world is a huge space filled with > people, places and things to do, colette: YES, it is there! this concept of ILLUSIONS that buddhist cling to is sidestepping it, IMO. It is a molecular complex and can be RE-CONFIGURED. The process of "doing" maintains the stresses on the configuration so that the illusion is not witnessed as nothing more than a hallucination. I AM VERY INTO TIBETAN TRADITIONS RIGHT NOW. SO TANTRA IS ON THE MENU. ------------------------------------- or it is a fleeting moment of citta, > cetasikas and rupas. colette: YES, it certainly is. Every freaking second is so fleeting that we neither recognize the citta rising and falling as well as the subtle characteristics that the rupas hold so close to their vest. Cetasikas, I'm not very comfortable with applying right now. You should go to the illusion called Nina. ;-) ----------------------------- > > I think the majority of present day Buddhists (even at DSG) want to > have it both ways. The Abhidhamma tells them there are only > conditioned dhammas, and yet they insist on asking, "What can I do in > order to become enlightened?" colette: they will always grasp and find nothing but air. Ah, one of the four elementals of the alchemists. I once used a joke concerning this concept all the time: reach out with one hand and grab a few inches from your person, close your fist, and bring the fist to your chest. Now open your fist and tell me what you have. Most of you will say that you have nothing and that is totally incorect since you grabbed AIR. An alchemist can do a lot of things with a student that is confounded by the concept of Air in their possession. "Will satipatthana make me a better > person?" colette: damn, not up on my terminology, pardon me since this would be the crux of the joke you play below. "If I become a better person will I still be popular at > parties?" colette Define what is "better"; define your version of "person" and how does this definition of person relate to the opinion of "Better- Worse/Best-Worst? What is Popularity? Parties, oh, how could you, I was once one of the biggest party animals. Isn't EVERY DAY A PARTY? ISN'T EVERY OPORTUNITY TO INTERACT WITH PEOPLE AT THE SAME PARTY NOTHING LESS THAN A JOYFUL EXPERIENCE? I went to a party a few years ago that an old friend won from the weekly Reader here in Chicago and I sat there mesmermizing all these people with my knowledge that I gained from this study of the esoteric. they were putty in my hands and I had no reason to abuse my opportunities since I had them so mesmerized with 100% truth as I knew and know it. I didn't even have to apply any form of "me" or "I" in the hours I sat there getting completely polluted with liquor and never once losing any momentum. This stuff is so POWERFUL! How could you even think of being at anything that would be lesser than a party. --------------------- > > They should, of course, be asking, "What can you tell me about these > conditioned dhammas?" colette: they, the conditioned dhammas, are you! What more do you need to know? toodles, colette #71690 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 10:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > A footnote to the last sentence of the quoted passage says: > << << << > When speaking of the arahant, the Buddha does not describe his destiny > as "ageing nad death", but as a mere breaking up and discarding of the > body. This is because the arahant, being free from all notions of "i" > and "mine", does not conceive the decay and dissolution of the body as > the ageing and death of an "I." > >> >> >> Doesn't this quote point to what I am trying to say? Anyway, this discussion has run its course I think. I will leave the thread with a quote from Lily DeSilva: Further, there is a great difference between the death of an ordinary worldling and that of an arahant. To indicate this, a different terminology is used: mara.na/miyyati is used for the death of a worldling, while parinibbaana/parinibbaayati is used in the case of an arahant. In fact the Dhammapada specifically states that the vigilant ones, meaning arahants, never die (in the ordinary sense of the word).104 Let us first see what happens when a worldling dies. It is an accepted fact that everybody fears death.105 We also fear the unknown; therefore death is doubly fearful because we know least about it. It seems reasonable to assume that at the root of all fear there lurks the fear of death. In other words we fear everything which directly or indirectly threatens our life. So long as our bodies are strong enough, we can either fight or run away from the source of fear, with the intention of preserving life. But when ultimately we are on the deathbed face to face with death and our body is no longer strong enough to flee from death, it is highly unlikely that we will mentally accept death with resignation. We will struggle hard, long for and crave for life (ta.nhaa), and reach out and grasp (upaadaana) a viable base somewhere as the dying body can no longer sustain life. Once such a viable base, for instance a fertilized ovum in a mother's womb, has been grasped, the process of becoming or growth (bhava) starts there, which in due course gives rise to birth (jaati). This is what is referred to in the twelve-linked pa.ticcasamuppaada as "craving conditions grasping, grasping conditions becoming, becoming conditions birth."106 Thus a worldling dies and is reborn. Now let us consider the last moments of an arahant. As an arahant has no fear whatsoever from any source (akutobhaya), he would not be agitated (na paritassati) as he has no craving for life.107 He will watch the process of death with perfect equanimity and crystal-clear mindfulness.108 Further, the Mahaaparinibbaana Sutta, which explains the final moments of the Buddha, states that the Buddha passed away immediately after rising from the fourth jhaana.109 The fourth jhaana is characterized by purity of equanimity and mindfulness.110 It is not known whether all arahants attain parinibbaana after the fourth jhaana, but certainly they cannot have a deluded death.111 As they do not grasp another birth the state they attain after final passing away has to be described as unborn (ajaata) . Similarly it is uncaused (asa"nkhata).112 As it is no ordinary death it is called the deathless state.113 It is beyond elemental existence, beyond brahmalokas, neither in this world nor the next, beyond the radiance of the sun and moon.114 It is beyond what we know of in the three worlds of kaama, ruupa, and aruupa . Therefore, as it is beyond the ken of ordinary human understanding, any attempt to define the state is bound to end in failure. The course of liberated ones cannot be traced like that of birds in the air.115 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/desilva/wheel407.html Metta, James #71691 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon May 7, 2007 10:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? jonoabb Hi Herman (and Scott) Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Scott, > > On 08/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > >> Dear Herman, >> >> I see... >> >> H: "Because of this exchange between RobK and your good self. >> >> [R.K.: "The various loka: are they anything other than nama and rupa?" >> >> Me: "I'd say no."] >> >> H: "BTW, I felt as though I *had* already made my point" >> >> Scott: Well, of what else could any loka consist? >> >> > > What, then, is the relevance of the word "literal" in relation to lokas? > > Herman > Well, since it was you who brought the term up in this context, perhaps *you* should be telling *us* ;-)) ;-)) Jon ********************************** ... It doesn't. I misread Scott. He appears to no longer believe in literal realms. Have I got that right, Scott? ... Herman http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/71671 ************************************ #71692 From: han tun Date: Mon May 7, 2007 10:17 pm Subject: Posts to Daana Corner (1) hantun1 Dear Dhamma Friends, I am submitting a proposal to the Group for approval. I will write posts under the subject of “Posts to Daana Corner” with a serial number. The current one is the first post. It will be like “Letters to the Editor.” But here, both the writers and Editors will be the Group members themselves. I most humbly request the Group members to write here messages for discussion or just for information. The writer will put the serial numbers in succession. For example, the next writer to the Daana Corner will put the subject matter as “Posts to Daana Corner (2)”. To start with, I will quote for information: AN 7.6 Dhana Sutta: Treasure Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.006.than.html This sutta deals with the seven treasures of the noble ones, namely, the treasure of conviction (saddhaa), the treasure of virtue (siila), the treasure of conscience (hiri), the treasure of concern (ottappa), the treasure of listening (suta), the treasure of generosity (caaga), the treasure of discernment (pa~n~naa). The reader can go through all the seven treasures, but as this is the Dhaana Corner I will bring out the treasure of generosity (caaga). "And what is the treasure of generosity? There is the case of a disciple of the noble ones, his awareness cleansed of the stain of stinginess, living at home, freely generous, openhanded, delighting in being magnanimous, responsive to requests, delighting in the distribution of alms. This is called the treasure of generosity. Katama~nca bhikkhave caagadhana.m: Idha bhikkhave ariyasaavako vigatamalamaccherena cetasaa agaara.m ajjhaavasati muttacaago payatapaa.nii vossaggarato yaavayogo daanasa.mvibhaagarato. Ida.m vuccati bhikkhave caagadhana.m. I hope the Group members will participate, so that we will have a treasure trove of Daana Corner. Phil may wish to initiate “Posts to Siila Corner.” With metta and deepest respect to All, Han #71693 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 11:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Jon, On 08/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > What, then, is the relevance of the word "literal" in relation to lokas? > > > > Herman > > > > Well, since it was you who brought the term up in this context, perhaps > *you* should be telling *us* ;-)) ;-)) > I've possibly missed some subtle point somewhere, but I am, and have been, referring to this exchange from the 3rd May. 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. Anyway........ Herman #71694 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 11:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' gazita2002 hello Howard, > > Howard: 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? > > > > azita: wondering if you mean a sound in particular or sound in > > general. > > > ----------------------------------- > Howard: > No, no, not "sound in general" - that's clearly just a general > concept. I meant any specific sound that we actually hear. For example, when a chord > is played on a piano, and, at the same time there are "the sounds" of a truck > in the street, of children laughing, and of wind molecules in contact with the > ear drum,etc, etc, etc. At any moment, the entirety of that constitutes a > single "heard sound". But it is a complex, just as when we open our eyes, the > visible object is the entirety of "the scene", a mosaic of various colors. In > each case, this is actually a complex consisting of parts. That is my point. > ------------------------------------ > Whichever way, when sound has parts and variation it is > > > pannatti bec. by that stage one is thinking about the sound heard. > > Likewise with the visible object. > > ------------------------------------ > Howard: > Yes, I agree with that. Where lies the "paramattha dhamma," then? > It seems that so called paramattha dhammas at least as *usually* > understood are idealizations like the single points of mathematics - useful > fictions that are never really observed. As I said before, it seems that the boundary > between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natta is ragged and porous. Azita: the so-called boundary bet paramattha and pannatta is definitely unclear to non-ariyans. You say 'useful fictions that are never really observed' so I ask you, what is it that the Buddha and the ariyans 'observe'. Surely its paramattha dhammas. > > >>>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. > > > > Azita: dont understand what you are getting at here. > > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > A mosaic of colors, being a complex, cannot be a paramattha dhamma > according to the view of paramattha dhammas I have seen expressed on DSG. > ------------------------------------------ > > > > > 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, > > > > Azita: again not sure what you mean by elements, however my > > understanding of elements is that they are not cono ventional but > > real, if only for an xtremely short moment. > > > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Yes, I understand that this is your perspective. It is what I am > questioning on the basis of the fact that some so called paramattha dhammas are > complexes. In fact, if one accepts the commentarial idea of a rupa having 3 > consecutive stages of rising, stasis, and decline, all rupas are complexes. azita: yes, maybe they are complexes which makes all this very complex :-) which is why some teachers, the foremost being the Buddha, stated that is it a very gradual 'learning' process. I think paramattha dhammas cannot be realised by just thinking about them. I think they 'manifest' when wisdom and understanding have developed to a degree that knows 'this is visible object, this is seeing, different from what is seen' and that mosaic of colors become just pannatti. I really cant see any other way to know PD other than by highly developed knowledge. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #71695 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 11:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi to no-one in particular, On 08/05/07, buddhatrue wrote: > > > Let us first see what happens when a worldling dies. It is an accepted > fact that everybody fears death. I am posting this only to refute this dogmatic nonsense. For many, a good death (euthanasia) is something hoped for, not a threat. Can we get one thing straight, not everybody is burdened by thoughts of literal rebirth, heaven or hell. May I suggest that those who are so burdened, deal with it, rather than imagine that everyone else has their affliction. http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21688594-1702,00.html Herman #71696 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon May 7, 2007 11:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Jon, On 06/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > 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'? > Anything covered by the Sabba Sutta. > > Conventional truths are those truths that do not concern the path to > enlightenment. > I don't actually know what enlightenment as an experience could entail. The thing being that conditioned phenomena are the very antithesis of nibbana, and any knowing at all is denial, a negation, of nibbana. Herman #71697 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 12:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Sukin, On 07/05/07, sukinder wrote: > > > 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? > According to DO, the basis for proliferation of any kind, whether feelings, perceptions, intentions, all sorts of mental activity including thinking, is contact. I'm saying that in jhana contact is very narrowly restricted and focussed. > ========================= > > 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? Yes, there is no thinking without craving. This is also taught by the Buddha in DO. In which way would birth and death be real in the absence of any thinking about them? I'm not an expert in kusala theory, but if all becoming is rooted in craving, which it is, what part of becoming can be kusala? Only action that leads to cessation is kusala, isn't it? > > 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'. > The cause of becoming is craving, thinking is just part of becoming. Only that which leads to cessation, renunciation, turning away, that sort of stuff, that is not rooted in craving. > 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. > If your repeated listening to mp3's does not lead you to turning away, you are listening vainly and in vain. > 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? > Well, I don't know. What are you usefully going to think about these things? > 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. > Well, I'm glad you've got that all sorted out. Not ! Would you be kind enough to go over the following description of the Noble 8 fold path, and quote the right thinking bit for me? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn45/sn45.008.than.html > > 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? ;-) No, it was meant as a joke. Herman #71698 From: "nilovg" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 12:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! nilovg --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > "5. ye pamattaa yathaa mataa; as if dead. According to the Commentary, > those who are not mindful are like the dead; because they never think of > giving in charity, or keeping the moral precepts, etc., and in the case of > bhikkhus, because they do not fulfil their duties to their teachers and > preceptors, nor do they cultivate Tranquillity and Insight Development > Practice." > ******* > S: May we all follow the path to the Deathless! Dear Sarah, thanks for the text. The last part reminded me of the Co. to the Satipatthanasutta,mentioning the people in Kuru who developed satipatthana. They said: those who are not mindful are like the dead. I discussed this with Lodewijk.Life is so senseless when one does not develop mindfulness of whatever appears through one of the six doors. One might as well be dead, just being absorbed in the outward appearance of things, being ignorant of what is really there. Nina. #71699 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 8, 2007 2:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 08/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > >> > >> > What, then, is the relevance of the word "literal" in relation to lokas? >> > >> > Herman >> > >> >> Well, since it was you who brought the term up in this context, perhaps >> *you* should be telling *us* ;-)) ;-)) >> >> > > I've possibly missed some subtle point somewhere, but I am, and have > been, referring to this exchange from the 3rd May. > > 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. > > Anyway........ > > > Herman > OK, my mistake. Apologies. Your original question may stand! ;-)) Jon #71700 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 2:30 am Subject: Euthansia -good death:? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > >. For many, a > good death (euthanasia) is something hoped for, not a threat. Can we > get one thing straight, not everybody is burdened by thoughts of > literal rebirth, heaven or hell. May I suggest that those who are so > burdened, deal with it, rather than imagine that everyone else has > their affliction. > > http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21688594-1702,00.html > > __________ Dear Herman A bit sad for those people, spending their time finding ways to kill themselves. They probably believe that when they die they are not reborn- and unfortunately that wrong view is an extreme one that will be a cause for them to arise in the lower realms. Ironic, they have a life as a human now, a pleasant realm, but they rush to a painful destination. Robert Robert #71701 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 8, 2007 3:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: > > In a message dated 5/7/2007 8:37:56 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > Yes, that is no doubt one way of understanding 'attaining the > Deathless'. Another way would be that the path consciousness has > nibbaana as its object, and since nibbaana is the deathless the > deathless is thereby attained (momentarily)d > > > > > Hi Jon > > Thanks for the response. I'm glad you reminded me of this aspect. I won't > and can't dispute the mechanics of it as I am not qualified by experience or > proper educated deduction. I just want to reiterate my firmly held position > that Abhidhamma analysis is not always wrong. ;-) > I'm glad to hear this. I was beginning to think that most of your firmly held positions involved errors on the part of the Abhidhamma ;-)). Nice talking to you. Jon #71702 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 8, 2007 3:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi Scott Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear James and Jon, > > Here's some more material: > > J: "Heedfulness is the path to the Deathless. > Heedlessness is the path to death. > THE HEEDFUL DIE NOT. > The heedless are as if dead already. > > Dhammapada 21 > > Scott: The pali: > > "Appamaado amatapada.m, pamaado maccuno pada.m; > appamattaa na miiyati, ye pamattaa yathaa mataa." > Many thanks for the Pali. > If it is said that 'the heedless are as if dead already', then I think > this can be taken as a simile and not to mean that the heedless are > actually dead. > > Similarily then, when it is said, 'the heedful die not', this too must > be taken to be, in this case, metaphorical, i.e., not literal. > > The PTS PED on amata: > > "Amata...(nt.)...1. The drink of the gods, ambrosia, water of > immortality..." > > Scott: This can't be the meaning, obviously. > > "...2. A general conception of a state of durability & non -- change, > a state of security i. e. where there is not any more rebirth or re -- > death." > > Scott: This must refer to Nibbaana - the Deathless, although even this > definition seems to smack of 'permanence'. > Your analysis of 'amata' as meaning 'Nibbana' agrees with the commentary quoted by Sarah. Well done! Jon #71703 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 8, 2007 3:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 07/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > >> I don't think so. Death as the end of this life-span is easily found in >> the suttas. >> > > Perhaps so, but without any insinuation that death is an instant > moment (as far as I know). > What other option/s do you see to there being a final moment of consciousness of the present lifespan? >> The term cuti-citta simply refers to the last moment >> of consciousness of a life-span. >> > > As such, it refers to something that is, in principle, unknowable. > Unless you can explain how a citta knows what is to follow it? Failing > that, it is no more than speculation. Speculation has it's proper > place in the sciences, because there is every intention to put > speculations to the test. But untestable speculations have no place in > science, or in the path to the ending of suffering, as we are often > reminded in the Suttas. > I'd agree it's unknowable by you or me, but not that it's in principle unknowable by, say, a Buddha. I see nothing wrong with a hypothesis, provided it's not taken as anything other than that. A certain amount of hypothesising is necessary, because there's so much that we'll never know by direct knowledge. Jon #71704 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 3:49 am Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? kenhowardau Hi Phil, -------------- Ph: > One of the useful things that I learned from Acharn Sujin came in this phrase she coined: "the shortcut is lobha" - please be honest with yourself about whether there is not a lot of lobha involved in the desire to know more about dhammas, whether it is not lobha looking for shortcuts. --------------- I am being quite honest with myself when I say I don't have greed for wisdom. Knowing that there are only dhammas, how could I aspire to being the next great sage? It just wouldn't make sense. It doesn't interest me. The present moment interests me. --------------------- Ph: > In my case it was - it is probably different for you, but it might not be, so please be honest with yourself, and others. ---------------------- One of the most important things I have ever learnt from DSG (and it was quite early in the piece) was to not understand Dhamma-study in terms of myself - my practice, my mental development, working towards my enlightenment and so on. Self just doesn't come into it! The Dhamma is about impersonal namas and rupas. They are not mine or yours. I hope one day you will agree with me on that. --------------------------- Ph: > Don't you feel tuned in to a very, very special, very, very deep angle into the Dhamma when you listen to Acharn Sujin? I did - and came to see it was just greed for wisdom. Again, I sincerely say that that needn't be the case for you, but don't the words "deep Dhamma" make you kind of tingly? I know they did in my case. That tingly feeling was greed for wisdom. --------------------------- Thanks for the friendly warning, but I really don't see your point. You previously misunderstood the purpose of Dhamma study and became attached to the idea of gaining wisdom, so now you avoid wisdom and follow . . . . what, instead? A path of religious rite and ritual? Wouldn't that be an overreaction?. Ken H #71705 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 8, 2007 3:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a question jonoabb Hi Robert A Robert wrote: > 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. Yes, I think this is very much implicit in what the Buddha taught. The 'problem' is the accumulated kilesa, especially ignorance and wrong view, and not the outside situation or other person. > 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. > And besides, no matter how much we succeed in changing the circumstances, there's no guarantee of the future. > 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. > I like the way you put this. The only thing I would put a little differently is the reference to knowing one's own mind, since I think it is a matter of knowing dhammas in general. As I see it, *all* dhammas are taken for self in some manner or other, and it requires an understanding of more than just one's mind for the wrong idea of self to be uprooted. Appreciating your postings to the list. Jon #71706 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 8, 2007 3:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? jonoabb Hi Robert A Hope you don't mind if I come in on this thread. Robert wrote: > 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? > I think that guarding of the sense-doors refers to the arising of kusala consciousness (specifically, sati/awareness) when aksuala might otherwise arise. To think of guarding the senses in terms of carrying out a specific action may be to lose sight of this. For instance, there could be kusala instead of akusala without there being any looking the other way. Equally, if there was a looking away with the idea that this was the meaning of guarding the sense doors and hence necessarily kusala, then that would be a wrong practice, as I see it. It is also useful to keep in mind that awareness may arise regardless of whether the consciousness is kusala or akusala. Jon #71707 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 4:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "What, then, is the relevance of the word "literal" in relation to lokas?" Scott: We live in the human realm/loka. We do so literally, as in 'actually'. All other realms/lokaa ("...world, primarily 'visible world,' then in general as 'space or sphere of creation,' with var. degrees of substantiality...PTS PED) are literal in the sense that this one is. Sincerely, Scott. #71708 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 5:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, Regarding: R.K.:"The various loka: are they anything other than nama and rupa?" Me: "I'd say no." Hemavasutta.m 168. The demon Hemavata asked: How has the world arisen and how are acquaintances made, On what is the world supported, and how does it get destroyed. " 169. The Blessed One said: Hemavata, the world arises in the six, and acquaintances are on the six. Supported on these same six, the world gets destroyed in the six". Scott: The 'six' are explained below, later in the same sutta: "170. How is that supportive condition, from where the world gets destroyed, Explain the release, how is the release from unpleasantness. " 171. In the world there are five strands of sense desires, the mind is the sixth Cutting up interest there, comes the release from unpleasantness." [170. Kismii.m loko samuppanno (iti hemavato yakkho) Kismii.m kubbati santhava.m, Kissa loko upaadaaya Kismii.m loko vi~n~nati. 171. Chassuu loko samuppanno (hemavataati bhagavaa) Chassu kubbati santhava.m, Channameva upaadaaya Chassu loko viha~n~nati.] Scott: The five strands of sense desires and the mind - are these not naama? Nyanatiloka: "Avacara: Sphere, realm, level or dimension. The 3 levels of existence are: the sense-level kaamaavacara, the fine-material level ruupaavacara, the formless level aruupaavacara. Which things are of the sense-level kaamaavacara? Whatever things exist within the interval bounded beneath by the Aviici hell and above by the paranimmitavasavatti heaven (see: deva), being therein included, to wit: the groups of existence, the elements, sources (see: khandha dhaatu, aayatana), form, feeling, perception, mental constructions and consciousness, all these things are of the sense-level. But which things are then of the fine material level ruupaavacara? Whatever things exist within the interval bounded beneath by the Brahma-world and above by the akanittha world (see: deva), having therein their level, and being therein included... and also consciousness and mental properties in one who has entered the fine-material absorptions, or who has been reborn at that level, or who already during his life-time is living in happiness of the absorptions, all these things are of the fine-material level. Which things are of the formless level aruupaavacara? Consciousness and mental properties arising within the interval bounded beneath by the beings reborn in the level of unbounded space and above by the beings reborn at the level of neither-perception-nor-non-perception (see: jhaana 5-8), and the consciousness and mental properties in one who has entered the formless absorptions, or who has been reborn at that level, or who already during his lifetime is living in happiness of the formless absorptions, all these things are of the formless level..." Scott: How do you see this? Again, of what else does any loka consist, if not of some combination of naama and/or ruupa? Sincerely, Scott. #71709 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 5:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! scottduncan2 Dear Jon, Thanks for: J: "Many thanks for the Pali...Your analysis of 'amata' as meaning 'Nibbana' agrees with the commentary quoted by Sarah. Well done!" Scott: I appreciate being kept on track. Sincerely, Scott. #71710 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue May 8, 2007 6:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi to no-one in particular, > > On 08/05/07, buddhatrue wrote: > >> Let us first see what happens when a worldling dies. It is an accepted >> fact that everybody fears death. >> > > I am posting this only to refute this dogmatic nonsense. For many, a > good death (euthanasia) is something hoped for, not a threat. Can we > get one thing straight, not everybody is burdened by thoughts of > literal rebirth, heaven or hell. May I suggest that those who are so > burdened, deal with it, rather than imagine that everyone else has > their affliction. > > http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21688594-1702,00.html > > > Herman > The wish for 'a good death' may be motivated by a fear of excessive pain and suffering prior to death. I don't think we can assume that those in favour of euthanasia have overcome the fear of death (notwithstanding how they themselves may see it). Jon #71711 From: "Robert" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 7:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a question avalo1968 Jon, I appreciate you sharing your ideas on this with me. Robert A. #71712 From: "daltig" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 7:07 am Subject: What is the difference between religion and philosophy? daltig What is the difference between the religion of buddhism and the philosophy of buddhism. I see many people come to buddhism and find it as a religion, find it as a philosophy, and even find it as a psychology. Didn't the Buddha teach his followers not to accepts his words as doctrine, but to test and verify on our own. Doesn't that make buddhism a philosophy? #71713 From: "daltig" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 6:59 am Subject: What did the Buddha teach regarding mantras? daltig What did the Buddha teach regarding mantras? I have read several references that mantras were taught at the Buddha's time, by the various Brahmincal sects. I don't see the Buddha made any comments as to their use or effectiveness. Yet mantras are used by later schools of buddhism. Does anyone have any additional insight? #71714 From: connie Date: Tue May 8, 2007 8:09 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (55) nichiconn dear friends, "the mother of all sisters", part 2 of 17: Taasa.m je.t.thikaa tato cavitvaa baaraa.nasiyaa aviduure pesakaaragaame pesakaaraje.t.thakassa gehe nibbattitvaa vi~n~nuta.m patvaa, padumavatiyaa putte pa~ncasate paccekabuddhe disvaa sampiyaayamaanaa sabbe vanditvaa bhikkha.m adaasi. Te bhattakicca.m katvaa gandhamaadanameva agama.msu. Saapi yaavajiiva.m kusala.m katvaa The eldest of them, when she passed away there, was born in the home of the head of the weavers in a village of weavers near Baaraa.nasii. When she came of age, she saw the five hundred Pacceka Buddhas who were the sons of Padumavatii. Treating them kindly, she paid homage to all of them and gave them alms food. Having eaten their meal, they went to Gandhamaadana. Then throughout her life she did good. devamanussesu sa.msarantii amhaaka.m satthu nibbattito puretarameva devadahanagare mahaasuppabuddhassa gehe pa.tisandhi.m ga.nhi, gotamiitissaa gottaagatameva naama.m ahosi; mahaamaayaaya kani.t.thabhaginii. Lakkha.napaa.thakaapi "imaasa.m dvinnampi kucchiya.m vasitaa daarakaa cakkavattino bhavissantii"ti byaakari.msu. She journeyed on among men and devas, and shortly before the birth of our Teacher, she obtained rebirth in the home of Mahaa-Suppabuddha in the town of Devadaha. She was born in the lineage called Gotamii, and that was her name. She was the younger sister of Mahaa-Maayaa. The experts in marks predicted, "The children dwelling in the womb[s] of these two will be wheel-turning monarchs." Suddhodanamahaaraajaa vayappattakaale dvepi ma"ngala.m katvaa attano ghara.m abhinesi. Aparabhaage amhaaka.m satthari uppajjitvaa pavattitavaradhammacakke anupubbena tattha tattha veneyyaana.m anuggaha.m karonte vesaali.m upanissaaya kuu.taagaarasaalaaya.m viharante suddhodanamahaaraajaa setacchattassa he.t.thaa arahatta.m sacchikatvaa parinibbaayi. When they came of age, the Great King Suddhodana married them both and brought them to his home. Afterwards, when our Teacher had arisen, having set the excellent wheel of the Doctrine in motion, he gradually helped those amenable to instruction here and there. Then while he was living near Vesaalii in the Kuu.taagaara Hall, the Great King Suddhodana attained final quenching, having realized Arahatship even while he was still [reigning] under the white parasol. Atha mahaapajaapatigotamii pabbajitukaamaa hutvaa satthaara.m ekavaara.m pabbajja.m yaacamaanaa alabhitvaa dutiyavaara.m kese chindaapetvaa kaasaayaani acchaadetvaa kalahavivaadasuttantadesanaapariyosaane (su. ni. 868 aadayo) nikkhamitvaa pabbajitaana.m pa~ncanna.m sakyakumaarasataana.m paadaparicaarikaahi saddhi.m vesaali.m gantvaa aanandatthera.m satthaara.m yaacaapetvaa a.t.thahi garudhammehi (a. ni. 8.51; cuu.lava. 403) pabbajja~nca upasampada~nca pa.tilabhi. Itaraa pana sabbaapi ekato-upasampannaa ahesu.m. Ayamettha sa"nkhepo, vitthaarato paneta.m vatthu paa.liya.m aagatameva. Then Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii, who wanted to go forth, entreated the Teacher on one occasion for the going forth, but she did not attain it. Then on a second occasion, she had her hair cut off and put on yellow [robes] and departed at the end of the teaching of the Kalahavivaada Discourse. After the five hundred Sakyan princes had gone forth, she went to Vesaalii together with their wives. She got Thera Aananda to entreat the Teacher, and she obtained the going forth and full ordination through [accepting] the eight important rules. All the others, however were ordained by the one side [of the Order of Bhikkhus]. This is a summary here, but the details of that story have come down in the canon. Eva.m upasampannaa pana mahaapajaapatigotamii satthaara.m upasa"nkamitvaa abhivaadetvaa ekamanta.m a.t.thaasi. Athassaa satthaa dhamma.m desesi. Saa satthu santike kamma.t.thaana.m gahetvaa bhaavanamanuyu~njantii na cirasseva abhi~n~naapa.tisambhidaaparivaara.m arahatta.m paapu.ni. Sesaa pana pa~ncasataa bhikkhuniyo nandakovaadapariyosaane (ma. ni. 3.398 aadayo) cha.labhi~n~naa ahesu.m. After being ordained in this way, Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotamii approached the teacher, paid respects, and stood on one side. And the Teacher taught her the Doctrine. She took a meditation subject from the Teacher, was diligent in mental development, and in a very short time she attained Arahatship together with the direct knowledges and the [four] discriminations. But the other five hundred bhikkhuniis attained the six direct knowledges at the end of the Nandkovaada Discourse. === connie #71715 From: "rahula_80" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 8:15 am Subject: Antarabhava rahula_80 Hi, I have read the discussion in this group. I just want to ask: 1. Those who believe in antarabhava, how do you refute the Kathavathu (of there are only three types of existence), other than just saying its a later text? 2. those who reject, how do you explain about mindful conception mentioned in DN 28 & DN 33. Thanks, Rahula #71716 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 4:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/8/2007 4:21:37 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: I'm glad to hear this. I was beginning to think that most of your firmly held positions involved errors on the part of the Abhidhamma ;-)). Nice talking to you. Jon Hi Jon Just some pesky ones that are not problems with abhidhamma, but problems with commentarial views and commentarial conjecture...being presented as "the Buddha's teaching." TG #71717 From: "upasaka_howard" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 9:03 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi,Sarah (and Han & all)- There is an aspect pfwhat the Sayadaw says in the quoted material below that I agree, but there are ways in which he falls into error IMO as well. I'll insert a few comments in context below: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > 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. -------------------------- Howard: Yes, and core,identity, own being, and own nature. -------------------------- 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. ----------------------------- Howard: The foregoing is all, of course, only conventional analogy. Relative to the pot, the clay of which it is composed is "there" more than is a pot there. That is so because pot depends on clay,and not vice-versa. However, pot doesn't depend only only on clay but on manifold other "things". Ifit depended only on that,there would be no observing of "pot" but only of "clay". Of course, as I already said, this is ALL conventional. "The clay" there is itself pa~n~natta, and based on sights, odors, tactile sensations, perceptual carvings-out, and conceptualization. I go further,as well. Even sights, sounds, tastes, smells, and so on lack essence/self/own being/self-existence, but it is true that they are not conceptually concocted in the same thoroughgoing way as conventional objects such as pots or persons. ------------------------------ 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. ---------------------------- Howard: The elements of the aggregates are what are drawn upon to "paint the picture" of persons and creatures, and they are quite analogous to the clay of the pot the sayadaw refers to. But looking further, those khandhic elements, like the clay, are also all dependent on (thus inseparable from) phenomena other than "themselves", and some, being complexes, are even dependent, in a mild way, on the conceptual faculty for being viewed as single phenomena. ----------------------------- > 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. ---------------------------- Howard: This foregoing is very interesting. It is sounds interestingly close to certain kinds of Mahayanist thought, though when he speaks a bit further down about the khandhas,it becomes clear that he means something else. ------------------------ 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. ------------------------ Howard: Here, so far, he is adopting the standard Theravadin perspective of the khandic elements being ultimate realities, and persons and creatures being totally different from them and merely conceptually imputed upon them as a basis, a view I accept with the proviso that very little be read into "ultimate" and "realities". ----------------------- 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. ------------------------ Howard: I think that is correct. ----------------------- Accordingly the phenomena become, not > the essence of persons and creatures, but become > Anatta, or the reverse of substantial essence. ---------------------- Howard: Okay. Here he is again correct, but it is important to understand exactly what he is saying. In saying that the khandhic phenomena are anatta, he is not saying that they lack essence, but that they do not constitute the essence or substance of any person or creature (or any conventional entity, for that matter). So,it seems that for the Sayadaw, anatta of conventional objects is lacking essence, but anatta of khandhic elements, instead, is not *serving as essence* for any conventional object. IMO, that latter view is correct but doesn't go far enough. ---------------------- =============================== With metta, Howard #71718 From: "nilovg" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 9:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Ecard. Atta views: suffering and/or happiness nilovg --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > -------------------------------------------- P.S. Nina, I directly emailed you two articles. > Hi Howard, thank you for your mail and the articles, I guess some Hebrew to ponder over? Lodewijk liked your highlighting part about sati. But difficult to know what direct understanding is. He keeps on asking me. Nina. > #71719 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 5:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is the difference between religion and philosophy? TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/8/2007 8:15:11 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, daltig@... writes: What is the difference between the religion of buddhism and the philosophy of buddhism. I see many people come to buddhism and find it as a religion, find it as a philosophy, and even find it as a psychology. Didn't the Buddha teach his followers not to accepts his words as doctrine, but to test and verify on our own. Doesn't that make buddhism a philosophy? Hi Taldig? How about Buddhism as a science? Buddhism does have phenomenological aspects and phenomenology gets labeled as a philosophy. But in my view, the Buddha's teachings do not have philosophy...(but do have phenomenology.) Buddhism is too pragmatic to be philosophy IMO. The Buddha's instruction are more like the instructions to build a model. Other than that, all these aspects; science, psychology, phenomenology, religion, can be found in the Buddha's teaching yet the Buddha' teachings combine these attributes into one integrated whole. How one considers Buddhism will depend on their own inclination. TG #71720 From: "upasaka_howard" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 9:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness upasaka_howard Hi again, Sarah & Han & all - I view 'atta' as referring to an alleged lasting and inviolable essence/core/identity/own being/self in *anything*. In "beings", people especially, it is usually called "the soul". With an opposite linguistic meandering, 'soul' has then sometimes come to be used figuratively to denote an essence in inanimate things and in abstractions (such as "the nation"). Now, there are two ways to then understand 'anatta'. One is as meaning "without atta" and the other is as meaning "not an atta". I adopt both meanings and apply it to all objects. Ledi Sayadaw, applies the first meaning to all conventional objects, from pots to people, but and only the second to khandhic elements (namas & rupas). That is the reason that Mahayanists accuse Theravadins of accepting emptiness of persons but not emptiness of dhammas. With metta, Howard #71721 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 6:01 am Subject: Intersubjectivity (Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily?) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Scott) - In a message dated 5/7/07 6:19:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > As to intersubjectivity, I do not know how to further explain that > communication between two beings (from different realms, even) is an > example of intersubjectivity. Sorry. > ======================= If by 'intersubjectivity' you only mean that communication is possible among "beings" I certainly agree. That would be just a denial of solipsism, right? But I interpret intersubjectivity, philosophically, as an alternative to objectivity. The view of objectivity is the view of objective phenomena existing, that these very same phenomena can be observed by many different beings, and then they can communicate with each other about them (and about private matters) by the objective means available to all. (Jon's perspective of rupas is an objectivity perspective, nota pheomenalist one, for example.) One might think of an entire class of students in a clooege classroom looking at the same monitor. My view of intersubjectivity is that of interacting, communicating, "mutually reflecting" streams of experience with much in the way of commonality due to the interaction and to similar kamma inheritance. More generally, from a philosophical perspective, intersubjectivity in the sense of experiencing a "shared reality" doesn't require objectivity, but only corresponding virtual realities. One, might think of students taking a class remotely, each looking at his own monitor at home. (I know - the metaphor is imperfect.) With metta, Howard #71722 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 8:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Will my whole world be beige? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Robert) - In a message dated 5/7/07 9:15:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > At the risk of making myself unpopular, I prefer to take a hard line > on questions like these. We can't have it both ways; either there is, > or there is not, a self. Either the world is a huge space filled with > people, places and things to do, or it is a fleeting moment of citta, > cetasikas and rupas. > > =================== Are there relations holding among these dhammas, many across time, Ken, or are there not? Did not your rebirth consciousness precede your current consciousness? Were there not trillions and trillions of mindstates (as you view them as separate realities) occurring in between. Was all that now? Or is just what is at this very moment "now", the rest *having* been but *no longer* being? Ken, you speak of "a fleeting moment." And at other times you have said that there is just this moment. If there is no multiplicity of moments, what, then, is this moment replaced by, and when? Is not replacement tantamount to time and to diversity? With metta, Howard #71723 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 8:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, Azita - > > > >------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > Yes, I agree with that. Where lies the "paramattha dhamma," > then? > > It seems that so called paramattha dhammas at least as > *usually* > >understood are idealizations like the single points of > mathematics - useful > >fictions that are never really observed. As I said before, it > seems that the boundary > >between paramattha dhamma and pa~n~natta is ragged and porous. > > Azita: the so-called boundary bet paramattha and pannatta is > definitely unclear to non-ariyans. You say 'useful fictions that are > never really observed' so I ask you, what is it that the Buddha and > the ariyans 'observe'. Surely its paramattha dhammas. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Very little is "sure"! What buddhas and ariyans observe is reality - I believe that. I do not presume that reality to be paramattha dhammas as conceived of by folks on DSG. ------------------------------------------ > > >> > >------------------------------------------ > >Howard: > > Yes, I understand that this is your perspective. It is what > I am > >questioning on the basis of the fact that some so called > paramattha dhammas are > >complexes. In fact, if one accepts the commentarial idea of a rupa > having 3 > >consecutive stages of rising, stasis, and decline, all rupas are > complexes. > > > azita: yes, maybe they are complexes which makes all this very > complex :-) which is why some teachers, the foremost being the > Buddha, stated that is it a very gradual 'learning' process. I think > paramattha dhammas cannot be realised by just thinking about them. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I think you may be missing my point. A complex/amalgam cannot be a paramattha dhamma according to the understanding I have seen expressed here. I'm not talking about 'complex' in the sense of complicated and difficult to understand. -------------------------------------------- > > I think they 'manifest' when wisdom and understanding have > developed to a degree that knows 'this is visible object, this is > seeing, different from what is seen' and that mosaic of colors > become just pannatti. I really cant see any other way to know PD > other than by highly developed knowledge. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Let me get this straight: You are saying that a visible object is not actually multicolored or multishaded? That multicoloration is nonexistent and illusion? If that is so, then Abhidhamma has no bearing on actual experience, but is an utterly impractical game of conceptual theorizing. But I do not believe it is so. ---------------------------------------------- ======================== With metta, Howard #71724 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 9:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 5/8/07 7:56:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: > Scott: We live in the human realm/loka. We do so literally, as in > 'actually'. All other realms/lokaa ("...world, primarily 'visible > world,' then in general as 'space or sphere of creation,' with var. > degrees of substantiality...PTS PED) are literal in the sense that > this one is. > ======================= I agree that it is true that we live in the human realm. But is that true speech ultimate or conventional speech? For me it is conventional, by which I mean figurative and not literal. The human realm is a matter of concept, as are humans. That doesn't make them utter fictions, of course. It is just that their existence as "entities" is less literal than that of sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and so on. With metta, Howard #71725 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue May 8, 2007 10:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Meditation Tip 4 different types- the Path moellerdieter Dear Sukinder, you wrote: ' I am fine with your decision not to continue with this discussion, but if you want to continue, that is also OK. :-)' D: I am not sure ; Sukinder though I do not appreciate some of your comments , I appreciate the explanation of your point of view ;-) Suk: I don't believe in debates and no one should feel obliged to continue with any ongoing discussion. D: yep .. before it is getting unpleasant ;-) Suk: I listened to the first track of the above link, but didn't hear anything that I have not heard before, so there is no motivation to continue with the others. D: so you tried ...;-) B.T.W.: do you know the sutta in such detail that further listening could not foster motivation? Suk: The reason I asked you, "in what sense is this Sutta "outstanding" to you?" was because your remark reminded me of similar ones made by others. For example there was a very knowledgeable member here on dsg, who on a few occasions said that he thought that this particular Sutta and no more than ten others, was all that any Buddhist needed. This to me is an expression of arrogance and lacking in respect for the Dhamma. D: All what any Buddhist needs to know / to understand are the 4 Noble Truths , the 'rest' is explanation and its interpretation ... would you say, such statement is lacking respect? Suk: Along the same lines is a remark made by Goenka, two of whose retreats I attended, when he to the effect says that one does not have to give up one's religion, in order to practice Vipassana. I am not saying that one has to become a 'Buddhist' first before one can begin to appreciate the Dhamma. However, in saying that one could go on believing what one believes, which would be 'wrong views', that one can still 'practice rightly', is saying that one can bypass the need to have a correct intellectual understanding of Dhamma. D: Goenka possibly would ask you whether sati , awareness of the Here -and Now, is contradictory to any religion.. ? What is wrong for a Christian, Moslem, Jew, Hindu , Sikh etc to learn to be mindful about the aspects of body, feeling ,mind and mind objects? Please remember Sati is only the first of the 7 wings of enlightenment (Bojjhanga) Suk: But of course this is already seeded in the very idea of 'retreat', 'formal practice' and ''doing' vipassana'. One symptom of this is as in the example above of the ex-dsg member and in Goenka's case, his preference for books written by his company over any other, including the Tipitaka. Of course this could be due to sincere belief that the Satipatthana Sutta is a 'technique', perhaps resulting from drawing out the essence of Dhamma. Whatever the reason however, as far as I am concerned, it is devaluing the Dhamma as a whole D: I don't agree with you . Of course one needs to seek a retreat from the daily business, if one can find a quite place at home ..fine Somehow the Maha Satipatthana Sutta is similar important for the Buddhists like the ' Sermon on the Mount' is for Christians. And still it represents the 7th link of the 8 fold Noble Path.. training . Suk: As you know by now, I see the correct practice, 'patipatti' as capable of arising only from correct 'pariyatti'. The latter is so deep that it takes many, many lifetimes to grow and become more firm. In thinking that one can "just do it", not only does one deny oneself the crucial process of 'correcting one's views', but in fact be taking the wrong path altogether. D: you learn by doing , Sukinder. Pariyatti is the theory , what patipatti , the practice is expected to prove. That is a gradual process ..progress in steps due to accumulation of insights. You will not learn to swim by optimizing its theory . Suk: Besides, any thought about 'someone practicing', would be going against the Teaching that says to the effect that 'there are only Dhammas performing their functions'. My opinion of course. D: your opinion .. indeed ! Suk: But at least you can understand why I would dismiss any explanations (which to my ears would only be justifications), by any meditation teacher. If it is not arrogance then it must be stupidity to think that 'right practice' can arise just by "intending" to note. I know that not all meditators go so far, but I do however see different degrees and 'variations on the same theme' in all D: the monkey nature of mind , jumping from branch to branch is much afraid of no activity , finding all kinds of arguments against sitting down, doing nothing but listening..contemplating ( e.g. the '4 applications of attentiveness') . Suk: After being exposed to the Abhidhamma I begin to recognize the need to question and reconsider every conventional idea previously held. This includes what is 'study' and what is 'practice'. I now see both of these quite differently from what I used to before, including during the mainstream interpretation stage. Actually I see no difference between the pre-Dhamma and the mainstream understanding in this regard, both involving the perception and view of 'self' doing/having to do certain things. The real big step away came after I began to understand the Abhidhamma perspective; it was then that I saw the world of a difference between Dhamma and every other teaching, including the Mahayana. Study and practice moved away from being 'conventional activities' to being instances of conditioned realities. It makes sense now that one would begin to really "know" practice only when there is the recognition of the difference between a moment with sati and without. Until then it is all *just ideas*! In the meantime however, any correct intellectual understanding would be one which acknowledges this distinction from one perspective or the other. D: my impression is that you keep yourself busy with the Abhidhamma but never come to the point of keeping quite and really ' listen' to the here-and - now. About 'the recognition of the difference between a moment with sati and without' , Zen comes into my mind ..and how practioners would react when you explain your interpretation of Abhidhamma to them ... ..without having meditation practise on your own.. Suk: Did I learn this at the Goenka retreat for example? No, they only encouraged me to just do it and in the process increase any tendency to rite and rituals D: though I don't know details of Goenka's retreat , I believe you mix rite and ritual with necessary practise.. wondering whether there is any progress of understanding in our communication .. ;-) with Metta Dieter #71726 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 9:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What did the Buddha teach regarding mantras? upasaka_howard Hi - I'm sorry - I didn't get your name. In a message dated 5/8/07 10:15:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, daltig@... writes: > What did the Buddha teach regarding mantras? I have read several > references that mantras were taught at the Buddha's time, by the > various Brahmincal sects. I don't see the Buddha made any comments as > to their use or effectiveness. Yet mantras are used by later schools > of buddhism. > > Does anyone have any additional insight? > > ======================== There is a Pali word, 'manta', corresponding to the Sanskrit 'mantra'. However, I am unaware of mantas being suggested as meditation subjects anywhere in the Pali suttas. Colored disks, called, "kasinas" are, and they correspond to what the Hindus and Tibetans call "yantras", but I am not aware of the Buddha having suggested mantra meditation. (I can tell you, however, that their use can lead into jhanas.) With metta, Howard #71727 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 2:55 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > Hello Ken H., > > Are we talkin' or what! I love the stance defiant yet resolute. > Applause from the peanut gallery. > > If I may, would somebody hold this bottle of Stoli and hand me the > scalpel? ;-) time to operate! > > > > > > At the risk of making myself unpopular, I prefer to take a hard > line > > on questions like these. We can't have it both ways; either there > is, > > or there is not, a self. > > colette: why a few seconds ago there was a nail in this body, hmmm, > somebody may've been using their driver and now I can't see it. I > love this concept: Self and how over the centuries there has been > such work done on the body of "Being" in the form of "I". > > Hi Colette, Thanks for your reply. You can operate on my posts any time you like. ----------------- C: > I love this concept: Self and how over the centuries there has been such work done on the body of "Being" in the form of "I". We've gotta get right down to it and define what the self is once and for all. Either it's concrete or it's abstract. If it's concrete then I will most certainly pull out any and all amunition to deal with the concreteness of this "Self". ----------------- Since there is no self, we will be hard pressed to define it. :-) Instead, we should try to define 'thinking in terms of self' and I would say that was concrete. Thinking is a number of absolutely real, momentary, mental factors working together to invent (in this case) the abstract, self. Not withstanding their momentariness they are as concrete as anything can be. ----------------------------- C: > If it is abstract then don't run around talkin' about this "a priori", hmmmm, (lets get the iere of those monks goin'), this buddha- nature, this "soul", lets put this stuff out under the heading of "HYPOTHESIS" in which case we can then put to rest our friends and greatest of all theives, Organgized Religion. Thank You sir, Thank you, Thank You. ------------------------------ I agree that "buddha-nature" and the "eternal soul" are creations of wrong view - the greatest of all thieves. The only sure defence against that kind of thief is Right View. ----------------------- <. . .> KH: > > The Abhidhamma tells them there are only conditioned dhammas, and yet they insist on asking, "What can I do in order to become enlightened?" >> colette: they will always grasp and find nothing but air. --------------------------- Yes; metaphorically speaking they find nothing but air. But the grasping continues. ----------------- <. . .> KH: >>"Will satipatthana make me a better person?" >> colette: damn, not up on my terminology, pardon me since this would be the crux of the joke you play below. ----------------- Satipatthana means 'Right Understanding of the way things (conditioned realities) really are.' But it - satipatthana - is itself a conditioned reality. Most people mistake it for a religious observance. My point is that religious observances belong in the illusory world (of people, places and things to do). ----------------------- KH>> "If I become a better person will I still be popular at parties?" >> colette Define what is "better"; define your version of "person" and how does this definition of person relate to the opinion of "Better- Worse/Best-Worst? What is Popularity? Parties, oh, how could you, ----------------------- I agree that is what is needed. We need to define everything in terms of absolute realities. Then we will see there is no self. ----------------------------------------- C: > . . I was once one of the biggest party animals. Isn't EVERY DAY A PARTY? ISN'T EVERY OPORTUNITY TO INTERACT WITH PEOPLE AT THE SAME PARTY NOTHING LESS THAN A JOYFUL EXPERIENCE? ------------------------------------------- Yes, well said, thank you Colette. --------------------- KH: > > They should, of course, be asking, "What can you tell me about these conditioned dhammas?" >> colette: they, the conditioned dhammas, are you! What more do you need to know? ---------------------- Nothing more. "There are only dhammas" is the realisation we can have at the beginning of our Dhamma practice and at the end. In other words, now! :-) Ken H #71728 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 3:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Euthansia -good death:? egberdina Hi RobK, On 08/05/07, rjkjp1 wrote: > > Dear Herman > A bit sad for those people, spending their time finding ways to kill > themselves. And do you believe that the opposite is true, that it is commendable to prolong your life? They probably believe that when they die they are not > reborn- Beliefs about life after death are not the default position, by any means. Death as the ending of life is the default position where I come from. and unfortunately that wrong view is an extreme one that will > be a cause for them to arise in the lower realms. Ironic, they have a > life as a human now, a pleasant realm, but they rush to a painful > destination. I'm curious as to how you make sense out of your own position. You allow that beings can kill themselves and then claim that beings are reborn, but you also hold that there are only namas and rupas (from our discussions on loka). So are namas and rupas able to kill themselves Herman #71729 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 3:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 08/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > Scott: How do you see this? Again, of what else does any loka > consist, if not of some combination of naama and/or ruupa? > I had already acknowledged that I had misread you. But the question still remains, how does "literal" come into the matter? Herman #71730 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 4:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi Jon, On 08/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > > Perhaps so, but without any insinuation that death is an instant > > moment (as far as I know). > > > > What other option/s do you see to there being a final moment of > consciousness of the present lifespan? > Not analysing. What is seen is a function of what is done to see it. Analysis leads invariably to seeing a plurality of different, unique states, while synthesis leads invariably to seeing a unity , a singular, monistic state. This translates roughly into seeing namas and rupas as being a product of analysis, while seeing conditions as beng a product of synthesis. On the other hand, in the absence of an analytic or synthetic mindset, there is ......... And in Buddhism that is called nibbana :-) Herman #71731 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 4:35 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------------ <. . .> H: > Are there relations holding among these dhammas, many across time, Ken, or are there not? ------------- There is nothing holding across time. 'The past no longer exists, and the future has never existed.' There are only the presently arisen dhammas. ------------------------- H: > Did not your rebirth consciousness precede your current consciousness? ------------------------- It did, and it fell away - never to return. ----------------------------------------- H: > Were there not trillions and trillions of mindstates (as you view them as separate realities) occurring in between. ----------------------------------------- Yes, they arose one at a time, and now they are all gone. ----------------------------- H: > Was all that now? ---------------------------- No. Each moment of namas and rupas conditioned another moment of namas and rupas to follow it. No information was lost in the process. A Buddha could look at the present namas and rupas and see how things were a million aeons in the past. ------------------------------------- H: > Or is just what is at this very moment "now", the rest *having* been but *no longer* being? -------------------------------------- I'm sorry, there is a typo in there somewhere, and it has made an already complicated sentence unfathomable (to me, at least). ---------------------- H: > Ken, you speak of "a fleeting moment." And at other times you have said that there is just this moment. If there is no multiplicity of moments, what, then, is this moment replaced by, and when? Is not replacement tantamount to time and to diversity? --------------------- If you could see me now you would see that I have my eyes shut and my hands over my ears and I am loudly repeating, "THERE IS ONLY THE PRESENT MOMENT!" :-) We must not conceive "relations holding across time" or, as you sometimes put it, "a complex network of interrelated [moments of] namas and rupas." To do so would be to open the floodgates. The Buddha's Dhamma would be adulterated into just another conventional teaching. Ken H #71732 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Will my whole world be beige? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/8/07 7:36:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ------------ > <. . .> > H: >Are there relations holding among these dhammas, many across > time, Ken, or are there not? > ------------- > > There is nothing holding across time. 'The past no longer exists, and > the future has never existed.' There are only the presently arisen > dhammas. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Of course, right now there is only now. This is supposed to be surprising? What child doesn't know that? But there WERE prior moments, there WERE conditions in effect then, and they served as conditions for what is in effect now. And that is exactly what "conditioning across time" means, Ken, nothing more or less. But if what you mean to say is "prior" and "subsequent" are empty concepts, then what is preconditioning, Ken? And what does it mean to be heir to one's kamma? And what is meant by past lives? And what are accumulations about? ------------------------------------- > > ------------------------- > H: >Did not your rebirth consciousness precede your current > consciousness? > ------------------------- > > It did, and it fell away - never to return. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Agreed! So,what are you saying any different from me? -------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------------------- > H: >Were there not trillions and trillions of mindstates (as you > view them as separate realities) occurring in between. > ----------------------------------------- > > Yes, they arose one at a time, and now they are all gone. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. We have no disagreement on this! ------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------- > H: >Was all that now? > ---------------------------- > > No. Each moment of namas and rupas conditioned another moment of > namas and rupas to follow it. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Then we have no disagreement on this. ---------------------------------------- > No information was lost in the process. --------------------------------------- Howard: I don't presume substantive information being passed along.That is not how I view conditionality. But that is another issue that I don't wish to embark on a discussion about. It is too subtle a matter to get into. ------------------------------------- A Buddha could look at the present namas and rupas and see how things > > were a million aeons in the past. > > ------------------------------------- > H: >Or is just what is at this very moment "now", the rest *having* > been but *no longer* being? > -------------------------------------- > > I'm sorry, there is a typo in there somewhere, and it has made an > already complicated sentence unfathomable (to me, at least). ---------------------------------------- Howard: Never mind. Every paraphrase I try is worse. You have already answered te question,and it seem we actually agree. ---------------------------------------- > > ---------------------- > H: >Ken, you speak of "a fleeting moment." And at other times you > have said that there is just this moment. If there is no multiplicity > of moments, what, then, is this moment replaced by, and when? Is not > replacement tantamount to time and to diversity? > --------------------- > > If you could see me now you would see that I have my eyes shut and my > hands over my ears and I am loudly repeating, "THERE IS ONLY THE > PRESENT MOMENT!" :-) > > We must not conceive "relations holding across time" or, as you > sometimes put it, "a complex network of interrelated [moments of] > namas and rupas." To do so would be to open the floodgates. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: Don't be scared, Ken You can handle it. In fact, you already do, by accepting the idea of preconditioning and succession. --------------------------------------- The > > Buddha's Dhamma would be adulterated into just another conventional > teaching. -------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddhdhamma is very robust. It isn't required to close it upin a box for protection. As for the floodgates, Ken, you needn't be the Buddhist "Little Dutch Boy" (later named Hans Brinker). ------------------------------------------- > > Ken H > > ===================== With metta, Howard #71733 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 7:05 pm Subject: Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! buddhatrue Hi Herman and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi to no-one in particular, > > On 08/05/07, buddhatrue wrote: > > > > > > Let us first see what happens when a worldling dies. It is an accepted > > fact that everybody fears death. > > I am posting this only to refute this dogmatic nonsense. For many, a > good death (euthanasia) is something hoped for, not a threat. Can we > get one thing straight, not everybody is burdened by thoughts of > literal rebirth, heaven or hell. May I suggest that those who are so > burdened, deal with it, rather than imagine that everyone else has > their affliction. > > http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21688594-1702,00.html Granted, the above is a generalization and there are possibly a few people who can face death mindfully without fear. But really, it would only be a few people. So, overall, I think it is a pretty fair generalization and nothing to get all worked up about. But, euthanasia is not an example of people who face death mindfully without fear. Those people who wish to end their lives through euthanasia only wish to end the suffering of pain and disease. They are not even really thinking about death, they are wanting to stop the pain. Personally, I don't agree with euthanasia because then the person may miss out on the opportunity to learn valuable lessons about the pain and suffering of life, and how to transcend that pain through non- clinging. I just got an idea.... I think tomorrow I will start to post sections from the Vism. about Mindfulness of Death. It would be very helpful to practice Mindfulness of Death to truly face death without fear. Metta, James #71734 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 7:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Howard and Herman, I hope you don't mind that I combine your responses: Howard: "I agree that it is true that we live in the human realm. But is that true speech ultimate or conventional speech? For me it is conventional, by which I mean figurative and not literal. The human realm is a matter of concept, as are humans. That doesn't make them utter fictions, of course. It is just that their existence as "entities" is less literal than that of sights, sounds, tastes, smells, tactile sensations, and so on." Herman: "I had already acknowledged that I had misread you. But the question still remains, how does "literal" come into the matter?" Scott: I think that each of the 31 realms of existence are actual. I think that they are actual destinations. I think that rebirth occurs for beings within samsaara and that it is within these realms that beings go 'round. We are in the human realm. When this is said to be a rare realm of rebirth, I accept that as stated. Literal comes into the matter, Herman, in just the way I'm trying to put across above: actual. Take the Oxford definition: "literal: (adjective) 1 using or interpreting words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory..." Scott: And I mean more than just the use of words. I mean this is the way it is. When the Buddha taught Devas, he actually taught Devas. Just like he actually taught humans. Devas came to him to ask questions. He spoke to them. They learned from him. It happened just like that. It was not allegorical nor metaphorical. I don't think, Howard, that realms are figurative. The Oxford dictionary: "figurative: (adjective) 1 not using words literally; metaphorical." Scott: Again, more than just the use of words, I don't think that realms are metaphorical. And I don't think in terms of more or less literal - this doesn't make sense to me. Something is either literal or not, in my opinion. Naama and ruupa are ultimately real, of course, and all 'beings' are as described by the Abhidhamma method. I think that if one takes realm to be metaphorical or figurative, then one also must be equivocating on the teachings of rebirth. How can one not be? If a destination is figurative, then what is rebirth? Do you claim rebirth to be metaphorical or figurative? I don't see how either of you can maintain your stance and claim to accept the reality of rebirth as part of the anchor in samsaara. Sincerely, Scott. #71735 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 3:27 pm Subject: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance TGrand458@... Hi All I would like to ask those who have a predilection for abhidhamma and abhidhamma commentarial thought ... What is the cause for phenomena being impermanent? Does Abhidhamma address this? (Just a heads-up... to say that it is the nature of phenomena to be impermanent is not a reason.) Just curious. TG #71736 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 3:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - Well, it seems now to me, Scott, that you are accepting conventional truth as truth. That puts you way to the "left" of Ken, for example. That's fine with me. So, when you say "literally true", you mean "really true, and not false." Now, it is so, let us assume, that it's true that there exists a Tavatimsa heaven. It is also true that sounds arise. Do you see any difference of any sort between these two types of truth? (I do. I say they are both true, but that there also is a big difference.) With metta, Howard #71737 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 7:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Euthansia -good death:? rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi RobK, > > On 08/05/07, rjkjp1 wrote: > > > > Dear Herman > > A bit sad for those people, spending their time finding ways to kill > > themselves. > > And do you believe that the opposite is true, that it is commendable > to prolong your life? +++++++++++ Dear Herman, It depends on the citta, is it kusala, that tries to prolong. > > They probably believe that when they die they are not > > reborn- > > Beliefs about life after death are not the default position, by any > means. Death as the ending of life is the default position where I > come from. > +++++++++ I would have thought on a Theravada forum the default position is that rebirth is a ceratinly for all but non-arahants. Do you accept that the Buddha taught this, or do you think it was made up by later Commentaries? > and unfortunately that wrong view is an extreme one that will > > be a cause for them to arise in the lower realms. Ironic, they have a > > life as a human now, a pleasant realm, but they rush to a painful > > destination. > > I'm curious as to how you make sense out of your own position. You > allow that beings can kill themselves and then claim that beings are > reborn, but you also hold that there are only namas and rupas (from > our discussions on loka). So are namas and rupas able to kill > themselves This post by Scott explains: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/69825 the Commentary to the Sammaadi.t.thi Sutta, which notes: "4. Herein, firstly, in the detailed exposition of the first section: as regards the passage beginning killing living beings is unwholesome (panatipato kho avuso akusalam), "unwholesome" should be understood by way of the occurrence of unwholesomeness, or as what is opposed to the wholesome, which is to be dealt with below (Section 6). As to characteristic, it is blameworthy and has painful result, or it is defiled. This, in the first place, is the comment upon the general terms here. But as regards the particular terms, the phrase killing living beings means the slaughter of a living being, the destruction of a living being. And here a living being (pana) is, according to ordinary usage, a being (satta); in the ultimate sense it is the life faculty. "Killing living beings" is the volition to kill on the part of one who is aware, in respect of a living being, that it is a living being, and which (volition), manifesting itself through one or the other of the doors of body and speech, initiates activity resulting in the cutting off of the life faculty. . There are five constituents for this (act of killing a living being): a living being, awareness that it is a living being, the mind to kill, activity, and the death (of the being) thereby. As to root: Killing living beings has two roots, by way of hate and delusion; "" Robert #71738 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 3:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/8/07 10:27:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi All > > I would like to ask those who have a predilection for abhidhamma and > abhidhamma commentarial thought ... --------------------------------------------- Howard: I have no predilection for Abhidhamma,but I've never let that stop me from jumping in before! ;-) -------------------------------------------- > > What is the cause for phenomena being impermanent? Does Abhidhamma address > > this? > > (Just a heads-up... to say that it is the nature of phenomena to be > impermanent is not a reason.) ----------------------------------------- Howard: Did the Buddha say more than that? Didn't he merely say that whatever arises, ceases? What would constitute an adequate "reason". I think that all there is to say is that the reason for impermanence of phenomena is their arising, because, in fact, whatever arises, ceases. What else would there be to say? --------------------------------------------- > > Just curious. > > TG > ======================= With metta, Howard #71739 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 8:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply; sorry, this will have to be quick I've got kids demanding the computer: H: "Well, it seems now to me, Scott, that you are accepting conventional truth as truth. That puts you way to the "left" of Ken, for example. That's fine with me. So, when you say "literally true", you mean "really true, and not false." Now, it is so, let us assume, that it's true that there exists a Tavatimsa heaven. It is also true that sounds arise. Do you see any difference of any sort between these two types of truth? (I do. I say they are both true, but that there also is a big difference.)" Scott: Remember, I put in the following clause: "...Naama and ruupa are ultimately real, of course, and all 'beings' are as described by the Abhidhamma method." I wouldn't be so quick to put me to the left of Ken. If I'm not coming across as Orthodox enough, I'll have to try harder. I'm trying very hard to say that there are other realms. I'm attempting no equivocation whatsoever. I think 'conventional' is often misused. It is a 'convention' to refer to beings. This is vohaara-sacca, sammuti-sacca or vohaara-desaana. Beings don't exist according to the Abhidhamma method. The types of naama in configuration differ according to realm; naama exist. I'm saying, look around. This is the human realm. I'm saying, don't be fooled, there are no humans. I'll ask you this: When sound arises in Tavatimsa is it any different than when it arises here? But what of the Non-percipient Beings? And, I'll ask this, of one who considers jhaana: What of the jhaana planes as destinations of rebirth? Is not jhaana, properly attained, not of this sphere? Does it not lead, potentially, to rebirth here? Are you saying jhaana is not real (or not true or not actual or false or however you wish to say it)? And, I wonder if you'd be able to reply to the question as to where you stand on the issue of rebirth? Thanks, Howard. Sincerely, Scott. #71740 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 8:22 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance buddhatrue Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi All > > I would like to ask those who have a predilection for abhidhamma and > abhidhamma commentarial thought ... James: This definitely isn't me, but I will answer anyway. :-) > > What is the cause for phenomena being impermanent? Does Abhidhamma address > this? > > (Just a heads-up... to say that it is the nature of phenomena to be > impermanent is not a reason.) James: I believe that the impermanence is the result of conditionality. The Buddha taught This/That conditionality: When there is this, that arises; when this ceases, that ceases. Because everything in existence is dependent on many conditions for its existence, everything is very unstable. You could consider "The Butterfly Effect" of how the beating of a butterfly's wings could be the beginning cause of a hurricane on the other side of the world. Taoism teaches this as the constant dance between Yin and Yang, positive and negative forces. Nibbana is the only permanent, stable condition because it depends on nothing for its existence. > > Just curious. James: I know you wanted input from an Abhidhamma perspective, but I hope this is somehow useful anyway. :-) > > TG Metta, James #71741 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 8:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? buddhatrue Hi Scott (and Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > I'm saying, look around. This is the human realm. I'm saying, don't > be fooled, there are no humans. This is the human realm but there are no humans?? Does that really make any sense? If you are to deny the existence of humans, you must also deny the existence of realms. Metta, James #71742 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 8:45 pm Subject: The Training is Three! bhikkhu5 Friends: How are all the Buddhist Mental Training Three-fold? The Blessed Buddha once said: Friends, without having mastered the basics of good morality (sÄ«la ), it is not possible to master the domain of concentration (samÄ?dhi ) ! Without having mastered the domain of concentration, it is not possible to master the sphere of understanding (paññÄ? ) !!! AN 5:22 Develop your concentration, friends, by regular & daily meditation! Since the one who has concentration understands things according to reality as they really are & become. And what are these things? The arising and passing away of all form, all feeling, all perception, all mental construction, and all consciousness. SN 22:5 About Morality (SÄ«la): The base of all good is this mighty Morality see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Mighty_is_Morality.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/siila.htm About Concentration (SamÄ?dhi): The best Tool is Concentration see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Concentration_Samadhi.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/samaadhi.htm About Understanding (PaññÄ?): The highest Ability is Understanding see: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_Understanding_Ability.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/n_r/pannaa.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #71743 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 4:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - > > I wouldn't be so quick to put me to the left of Ken. If I'm not > coming across as Orthodox enough, I'll have to try harder. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Of, geez! Me and my BIG mouth!! ----------------------------------------- I'm trying> > very hard to say that there are other realms. I'm attempting no > equivocation whatsoever. --------------------------------------- Howard: Okay.Yeah, I think there are too! -------------------------------------- > > I think 'conventional' is often misused. It is a 'convention' to > refer to beings. This is vohaara-sacca, sammuti-sacca or > vohaara-desaana. Beings don't exist according to the Abhidhamma > method. The types of naama in configuration differ according to > realm; naama exist. > > I'm saying, look around. This is the human realm. I'm saying, don't > be fooled, there are no humans. ----------------------------------- Howard: The "human realm" is an even greater abstraction than the idea "human", Scott. ----------------------------------- > > I'll ask you this: When sound arises in Tavatimsa is it any different > than when it arises here? But what of the Non-percipient Beings? ----------------------------------- Howard: Beats me, man! Do you know? I don't. ---------------------------------- > > And, I'll ask this, of one who considers jhaana: What of the jhaana > planes as destinations of rebirth? Is not jhaana, properly attained, > not of this sphere? Does it not lead, potentially, to rebirth here? ------------------------------------ Howard: So it is said. I've experienced jhana. I don't recall higher planes. I don't recall anything prior to this life. Well, that last is not entirely so. I did at one point seem to have a vague wisp of a memory of having done something more terrible than I've ever even dreamed of doing in this life, something that I will someday have to "pay for" if the recollection is not a false memory and if I haven't already "paid penance". If you've ever seen the film "Angel Heart", you'll get the drift of what I'm talking about. (It's a good film in any case.) -------------------------------------------------- > Are you saying jhaana is not real (or not true or not actual or false > or however you wish to say it)? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Hardly. -------------------------------------------------- > > And, I wonder if you'd be able to reply to the question as to where > you stand on the issue of rebirth? -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I strongly believe in it. ------------------------------------------------ > > Thanks, Howard. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank *you*, Scott. :-) ======================= With metta, Howard #71744 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 5:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Howard Well, you know I love you, but I would say that "whatever arises, ceases," though a statement of fact, does not provide a reason at all. I have my own reasons, which of course are open to debate, but let's see what others will say. (I notice the two responses so far are from Sutta oriented folks. Probably the only ones that will talk to me.) LOL BTW, James' answer starts down the lines I have in mind. TG #71745 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 9:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence lbidd2 Hi TG, Here are two reasons for dependent arising found in the Visuddhimagga: XVII 5 & 6. ...'So, bhikkhus, that herein which is reality, not unreality, not otherness, specific conditionality: that is called dependent origination' (S.ii,25f.) Consequently, it should be understood that dependent origination has the characteristic of being the conditions for the states beginning with ageing-and-death. Its function is to continue [the process of] suffering. It is manifested as the wrong path. Because particular states are produced by particular conditions, neither less nor more, it is called "reality" (suchness). Because once the conditions have met in combination there is no non-producing, even for an instant, of the states they generate, it is called "not unreality" (not unsuchness). Because there is no arising of one state with another state's conditions, it is called "not otherness". Because there is a condition, or because there is a total of conditions, for these states beginning with ageing-and-death as already stated, it is called "specific conditionality". XVII,37. For the Blessed One gives the exposition of the round with one of two things as the starting point: either ignorance, according as it is said, 'No first beginning of ignorance is made known, bhikkhus, before which there was no ignorance, and after which there came to be ignorance. And while it is said thus, bhikkhus, nevertheless it is made known that ignorance has its specific condition' (A.v,113); or craving for becoming, according as it is said, 'No first beginning of craving for becoming is made known, bhikkhus, before which there was no craving for becoming, and after which there came to be craving for becoming. And while it is said thus, bhikkhus, nevertheless it is made known that craving for becoming has its specific condition' (A.v,116). L: So the cause of arising is conditions for the arising and the first conditions of arising are ignorance and craving for becoming. Larry #71746 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 5:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance TGrand458@... Hi James This is a good overview and along the lines of my thinking. Conditionality is the right answer but it alone doesn't provide a reason. What is it about conditionality that causes impermanence? The "positive and negative forces" start to provide reasons with depth. I'm also looking for simple and almost obvious answers too. I actually think this is important to sort out. Its amazing that Buddhists, who spend large parts of their life looking at the causes of all sorts of intricate things, are often stumped by the causes associated with impermanence... Impermanence being one of the leading factors of Buddha' teaching and one of the most important insight issues. I guess if I get no responses from the Abhidhamma specialists I'll just have to figure they have no clue. Yes, that's a challenge. TG #71747 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 9:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance egberdina Hi TG, My explanation won't be in line with the abhidhamma, I suspect, but I offer the following. Phenomena are not existents. They are not things that are, whether that be things that are stable or notstable, phenomena are things that are known. Knowing is a relationship between consciousness and objects. Consciousness does not, and cannot see, objects that are changing or impermanent. It is rather each act of knowing that is an alteration of consciousness. Having seen (known) X, it is no longer the same consciousness that continues to see X, or sees X again. And this is repeated endlessly. Each act of knowing creates impermanence, as it were, not because objects are impermanent, but knowing alters itself (consciousness). Herman #71748 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 8, 2007 9:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- TGrand458@... wrote: > 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. …. S: The Buddha has pointed out that seeing rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana, i.e all namas and rupas, all khandhas, ‘as they really are’ is seeing them as impermanent, suffering, and no-self. It is a seeing of ‘conditioned dhammas’ “as they really are”. The khandhas are the conditioned dhammas. These are ‘realities’ (or actualities/states/ phenomena if you prefer), as opposed to concepts. "Whatever *phenomena* arise from cause: Their cause & their cessation." "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." Mv i.23.5 ..... When we read sabbe dhamma anatta, dhamma does not refer to ‘conditions’ or ‘energy’. It refers to realities/actualities. …. >>S: 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:..’? … > 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. … S: In this sutta I quoted above, what is the difference between ‘states (dhammas)’ and ‘dhammas (realities)’ do you think? And what is the difference between these dhammas in the sutta and the elaboration of the same dhammas in the commentaries as “they are borne, they are discerned, known, according to their specific nature (sabhava), thus they are dhammas (dhaariiyanti vaa yathaasabhaavato avadhaariyanti ~naayantii ti dhammaa)? …. S:> I’ve also explained why I understand these texts to have been > accepted as > ‘Buddha vacanaa’ in the Theravadan tradition. > > On the other hand, you make comments in recent posts such as: > > a)-‘˜Whatever manifests is energy’ etc (#71066) etc (points a- e) …. S: As you say, you haven’t claimed that the Buddha taught these (a-e). They are your interpretations which you think are in accord. You have not shown me any evidence from suttas or any other Tipititaka or commentarial texts to support your understanding. (You also didn’t reply to my questions in response to your comments about the authenticity of the commentaries!!) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/71349 … :>TG: BTW, energy is merely something with momentum. …. S: How is it experienced and through what doorway? Is it a characteristic of all dhammas? If so, why didn’t the Buddha point it out? …. >TG: It also should Buddhism as being "real" from a > modern day perspective …. S: Ah, REAL! So are we interested in ‘real’ from a ‘modern day perspective’ or ‘real’ as can be directly known and realized by the insight that the Buddha showed us, still to be developed by the wise? Before the unconditioned reality, nibbana can ever be known, conditioned dhammas have to be known as they really are. What are the conditioned dhammas appearing now? Surely they are the ‘forms’, the feelings, the perceptions and so on that we read about above in the suttas. They arise momentarily by conditions and beyond control and then fall away. We are used to thinking that we see people and things and experiencing energy sources, but these are just ideas we have. Even the element of air/motion (vayo dhatu) is a conditioned dhamma (reality) which arises and falls away. If the world of visible object is appearing, there is no world of motion appearing. When there is thinking about energy, the object is a concept on account of various dhammas and other concepts. There is no self that experiences any of these dhammas or who can make any effort. There are just conditioned dhammas. At each moment, there is a different kind of consciousness which experiences its object, then falls away. So different worlds are being experienced all the time through the 5 senses and through the mind-door on account of these. So dhammas are the namas and rupas appearing now. They are ‘empty phenomena’ arising and falling all the time. Either they are namas, the phenomena which can experience an object or rupas which do not experience anything. They continue life after life unless they are properly understood ‘as they really are’. They are very ordinary realities. It just depends on understanding as to whether visible object is understood as visible object, sound is understood as sound and so on. No one can change these – it just depends on wisdom to know them ‘as they really are’. Metta, Sarah ======= #71749 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 10:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Leading to stream entry - questions egberdina Hi Charles, On 06/05/07, Charles DaCosta wrote: > > > 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? > I think these terms are used to set others, or oneself, apart from the mob. As such, they serve no function that is relevant to the path, only to creating conceit and social hierarchies, IMO. Herman #71750 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 10:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Problem! egberdina Hi Charles, On 06/05/07, Charles DaCosta wrote: > > 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. > Thank you for your well-considered comments. I mean, they have to be well-considered, because I agree with them :-) In your adress there is dk. Is that Denmark? What's a guy like you doing in place like Denmark? (I loved Denmark when I was there BTW) Cheers Herman #71751 From: "Robert" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 10:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Will my whole world be beige? avalo1968 Hello Herman, Herman: Logically, a life lived without interest is uninteresting, and a life lived without attachment is unconcerned with whether it is happening or not, or what is happening. It also seems straightforward that without expectations there are no disappointments. And from experience, an empty mind is a blissful mind. So the answer to "Will my whole world be beige?" is yes. But it needs to be said that beige is a sublime abode. Robert A: There is a saying from Chuang Tzu - "Sleep without dreams, wake without worries" which sounds very similar to what you said above. Do you think Taoism and Buddhism end up in the same beige bliss? Regards, Robert A. #71752 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 8, 2007 10:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- TGrand458@... wrote: > 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. .... S: And I'd say that everytime 'it's all about ME', it's not the path that the Buddha taught; it's the illusory wrong path starting witht he wrong understanding that ME is in control and can somehow 'reconfigure' the world to make it other than it really is. Dhammas are not appearing as they really are (yathaa bhuuta)at such times. When right effort arises with right understanding and the other path factors, there is no ME involved, no reconfiguring by 'I' and self-oriented effort. .... >S: 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. .... S: Whilst we continue to have the illusion that we can 'reconfigure' or have effort or practice mindfulness, with all respect, I don't think there is really any clear understanding of namas and rupas as anatta at all. .... > 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. ..... S: On the otherhand, I beleive that by seeing namas and rupas as 'energy', as concepts, as mere 'conditions', you will never come to understand them as dhammas, as anatta. .... > > The Buddha did NOT teach these things as realities. He DID teach us to > > completely reject and surmount them. .... S: No, he didn't teach US to do anything. He taught that they are dhammas, khandhas, dhatus and so on, such as seeing now, visible object now etc (which I understand to be realities as opposed to concepts) in order that they be known for what they are, i.e anicca, dukkha and anatta. .... > 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. .... S: No. There is no 'I' or 'you' to use or experience anything. What are these experiences? But, yes, what can be known are realities with their particular characteristics. Like Scott, I didn't ask for it all to make sense. When I heard about how seeing just sees visible object, hearing just hears sound and so on, I hadn't read any commentaries -- they weren't available either, apart from Soma's on the Satip. Sutta which seems to have been around forever!! -- but it just seemed so obvioulsy correct. The same when I heard about dhammas as realities to be known now. I had no idea about Abhidhamma or aunthenticity of texts. I just knew it could be tested out and proved correct at this very moment. ... >As such, I > don't > know how you can overcome "realities"? .... S: I don't! When panna clearly and completely understands the nature of conditioned dhammas, the unconditioned dhamma is realized. The unwholesome dhammas are then eradicated in stages and when all clinging has been eradicated, there are no conditions for rebirth. There is the final 'overcoming' by abandoning. .... > 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??????? ... S: How about "with respect to the seen...merely the seen (di.t.the di.t.thamatta.m)" and so on. Enough for Bahiya to become an arahat on the spot. Of course, you will interpret your own way and the commentaries give detail in their way. I think we may just have to agree to differ in how we read the suttas, TG! I appreciate your consideration of what I write and apologise for any frustration it conditions:). Thx for all the extra Metta! Metta, Sarah ======= #71753 From: "Robert" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 10:35 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? avalo1968 Hello Ken H, Ken H: We can't have it both ways; either there is, or there is not, a self. Either the world is a huge space filled with people, places and things to do, or it is a fleeting moment of citta, cetasikas and rupas. I think the majority of present day Buddhists (even at DSG) want to have it both ways. Robert A: Do you think that might be because, for example, people enjoy having relationships with people rather than fleeting citta, cetasikas, and rupas? So, perhaps the question is, do the Buddhist Teachings have anything to offer those who want to live lives somewhere between where they started before they had ever heard of Buddhism and the life of someone whose only purpose in life is to see conditioned dhammas as they arise and pass away. It may be that most of the people who visit this group live lives that fall somewhere in between. Regards, Robert A. #71754 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 8, 2007 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness sarahprocter... Dear Han, (Robert A, Howard & all), --- han tun wrote: > 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. …. S: Yes, helpful. … > 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. …. S: The point is that when we look at a bowl or a box of biscuits, usually we don’t take them for being ‘self’ or ‘soul’. However, often they are taken for being ‘something’which exists when there is no awareness that what is seen is merely visible object, what is touched is hardness and so on. In other words, the concept, idea or image of ‘bowl’ or ‘biscuits’ is taken for being real. … > As I cannot even eliminate sakkaaya-ditthi, …. S: of course, as you know, it is pa~n~naa only which eliminates sakkaaya-ditthi gradually with the development of satipatthana. The wrong view is only eradicated completely by sotapatti-magga. However, the beginning is the right conceptual understanding of what is really seen, felt and so on. …. >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! …. S: I think this relates to the questions Robert A mentioned that people raise: will the whole world be beige? Will the party end? Life goes on just as usual! If we like to socialise, we continue socialising. If we like to stay at home quietly, we stay at home quietly. It depends on accumulations! If we like biscuits, we’ll go on liking biscuits! It’s not a matter of ‘reconfiguring’ as I just mentioned to TG, with a sense of “ME’ and ‘effort’ to turn in a particular direction. Just develop more understanding whilst wearing red, going to parties, reaching for the cookie jar or whatever there are conditions for in daily life! Actually, I quite liked Howard’s simile of the magnifying glass. Nothing is slowed down or changed or seen differently. However, the right view means that what appears becomes a little less distorted than usual. That’s all. We continue using our computers, but it’s more and more apparent that only visible object is seen now, only hardness is touched. Sabbe dhamma anatta. Nothing to fear at all. It’s only thinking which leads to such concerns and fear. Any wisdom is peaceful, not fearful. Please let me know if this makes any more sense and if not, please point out where any differences in your understanding are. It’s helpful for me to consider more as well, Han. Metta, Sarah p.s Thank you for starting your ‘letters’ in the Daana corner. I’m afraid we may make you continue to take your good lead in the editorial corner too! ========== #71755 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue May 8, 2007 11:17 pm Subject: Re: Intersubjectivity (Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily?) egberdina Hi Howard, On 09/05/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > If by 'intersubjectivity' you only mean that communication is possible > among "beings" I certainly agree. That would be just a denial of solipsism, > right? Yes, that's right. And that denial incorporates both a denial that this mind is the only mind, and also a denial that the being of the world is dependent on that mind. > But I interpret intersubjectivity, philosophically, as an alternative > to objectivity. The view of objectivity is the view of objective > phenomena existing, that these very same phenomena can be observed by many different > beings, and then they can communicate with each other about them (and about > private matters) by the objective means available to all. (Jon's perspective of > rupas is an objectivity perspective, nota pheomenalist one, for example.) One > might think of an entire class of students in a clooege classroom looking at > the same monitor. > My view of intersubjectivity is that of interacting, communicating, > "mutually reflecting" streams of experience with much in the way of commonality > due to the interaction and to similar kamma inheritance. More generally, from > a philosophical perspective, intersubjectivity in the sense of experiencing a > "shared reality" doesn't require objectivity, but only corresponding virtual > realities. One, might think of students taking a class remotely, each looking > at his own monitor at home. (I know - the metaphor is imperfect.) > Thanks for further elaborating your take on the matter. Your use of "virtual reality" above, should I infer from that that you see all reality as mind-made, as existing in dependence on mind? Herman #71756 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 8, 2007 11:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] inclinations = momentum? sarahprocter... Hi Colette, Thank you for your kind feedback and furthe comments. --- colette wrote: > (on the side, what was that blurb about "not having any pleasantries > in a conversation with Scott?") ... S: I'm not sure. Either it was some silly joke because I'm told I use too many pleasantries or else you may be referring to this: S:" 'one person's pleasant is another person's unpleasant'. The vipaka is just the moment of seeing consciousness and the various ideas and interpretations of what we see depend entirely on our inclinations." ... S: What I meant was that we're used to think that we see unpleasant words or that people speak unfairly and so on. In fact the vipaka, i.e the result of kamma is just one moment of seeing consciousness which sees visible object or one moment of hearing consciousness which hears sound. The ideas we have about unpleasant words, unfair speech and so on depend on our thinking. So you and I may read the same post, the same comments, but come away with a very different interpretation. Pls let me know if there was anything else. .... > > Sarah: Besides all the useful reflections on praise and blame, > > colette: "praise and blame" are nothing but trouble since they are > the same "thing", "concept". Of course, I admit that there is > benefits to the application of "reflecting" on the actions > of "praise" and "blame". .... S: Yes, as ignorant worldlings, we're very susceptible to the 8 worldly conditions which include these, aren't we? Understanding a little more about kamma and vipaka (as in the above) and other conditions, helps a lot, I find. I think the benefit to the reflection is in terms of seeing our susceptibility to these. Also, knowing that others also like praise, gain and so on, we can speak gently, take joy in others' gain and so on. .... > > I do believe our friend Sarah has taken on the characterization of a > Mary Poppins here, which is to say that she's on to something. Namely > a good path, cognition. see below. > ------------ ... S: Ooh! I've certainly never been called a Mary Poppins before, lol!! ... > I think > > it's also natural and obvious that we all find some friends here > easier to > > communicate with than others (just like we do with > friends/acquaintances > > that we meet in our day-to-day lives). > > colette: Lets leave that alone since it's such a nice way of putting > it. Thus I want the paint to dry on this before we go covering it up > with graffeti, no? ;-) > -------------- .... S: ;-) Nice to see your comments without too much graffiti, I must say, Colette;-) .... > colette: isn't that the point of buddhism: to awaken that aspect of > the individual that the individual is not conscious of, to break the > individual out of the prison of isolation within their minds ON THEIR > MISINTERPRETATIONS OF "I"? Buddhism is one helluva powerful vehicle > to use to access the inner realms of the mind. .... S: Nicely said. Also, your other comments. I'm also interested to read your discussions with Scott and Ken H. Pls continue the threads. I'm sure they'll take care of any graffiti:-)). Metta, Sarah ======== #71757 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 7:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue TGrand458@... Hi Sarah The long awaited reply comes. :-) In a message dated 5/8/2007 10:58:42 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi TG, --- _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) wrote: > 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. …. S: The Buddha has pointed out that seeing rupa, vedana, sanna, sankhara, vinnana, i.e all namas and rupas, all khandhas, ‘as they really are’ is seeing them as impermanent, suffering, and no-self. .................................... TG: OK .................................... It is a seeing of ‘conditioned dhammas’ “as they really areâ€?. The khandhas are the conditioned dhammas. These are ‘realities’ (or actualities/are the phenomena if you prefer), as opposed to concepts. .................................................................. TG: This is conjecture. Commentary I suppose. I actually don't agree with it because I view concepts as mere mentality; therefore, a component of the aggregates. Nothing can arise other than "The All." The All is the elements/aggregates. You seem to be implying that there is some sort of a "sub-class" of phenomena that CAN arise...called concepts. That's in conflict with the suttas IMO. ........................................................................ "Whatever *phenomena* arise from cause: Their cause & their cessation." "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation." Mv i.23.5 ..... When we read sabbe dhamma anatta, dhamma does not refer to ‘conditions’ or ‘energy’. It refers to realities/actualiti‘e …. ............................................ TG: All things are not self. This certainly includes energy and conditions. Nibbana is the ceasing of consciousness, the stilling of all formations. Is that a reality or actuality? I figure its at least a "potentiality." Once achieved, I don't think the concepts/terms/or view of reality or actuality can even be applied to it. But no-self is applicable. Basically just "negatives" can describe Nibbana; i.e., what it is not. ............................................... >>S: 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? … > 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. … S: In this sutta I quoted above, what is the difference between ‘states (dhammas)’ and ‘dhammas (realities)’ do you think? ..................................................................... TG: If you're going to use "realities" to include Nibbana, the above is referring to "conditions/conditioned phenomena," so it wouldn't apply here. But even so, "realities" if far too substantive and lofty for the sense of the teachings. The main idea is to "turn away" from these empty and afflicting conditions...which in actuality neither exist, nor not exist according to the Suttas. ..................................................................... And what is the difference between these dhammas in the sutta and the elaboration of the same dhammas in the commentaries as “they are borne, they are discerned, known, according to their specific nature (sabhava), thus they are dhammas (dhaariiyanti vaa yathaasabhaavato avadhaariyanti ~naayantii ti dhammaa)? …. ..................................................................... TG: Sabhava has been discussed a lot in this group. The one use of it in the Suttas, as I understand it, is to deny it. The commentary is establishing a view that is antithetical to the suttas. Hence, if you believe that, of course views of "realities" and "own characteristics" will arise and also be in opposition to the gist of the Suttas. ..................................................................... S:> I’ve also explained why I understand these texts to have been > accepted as > ‘Buddha vacanaa’ in the Theravadan tradition. > > On the other hand, you make comments in recent posts such as: > > a)-‘˜Whatever manifests is energy’ etc (#71066) etc (points a- e) …. S: As you say, you haven’t claimed that the Buddha taught these (a-e). They are your interpretations which you think are in accord. You have not shown me any evidence from suttas or any other Tipititaka or commentarial texts to support your understanding. (You also didn’t reply to my questions in response to your comments about the authenticity of the commentaries!co ..................................................................... TG: So if a book says its true, you'll believe it? I cannot view anything in the realm of conditionality that is not energy and vice versa. Can you? Why the objection? Just cause its not in the book? If you don't think outside the box (or book in this case) how are you going to see things the way they really are for yourself? Of course the suttas are an invaluable help. But I feel we should tap all knowledge that will help us see things more clearly. The "energy thing" to me is just common sense. If it bothers you, I wouldn't think in those terms. But if you can't see elements/aggregates as energies, I think you're missing some potential insight power. ..................................................................... _http://groups.http://grohttp://groups.TG: BTW, energy is merely something with momentum. …. S: How is it experienced and through what doorway? Is it a characteristic of all dhammas? If so, why didn’t the Buddha point it out? …. ..................................................................... TG: As you might think all the conditions the Buddha pointed out were realities, I would much rather think that they were energies. Whereas "realities" gets entangled with philosophy and ontology, "energy" is just the mechanics of cause and effect...the heart of the Buddha's teaching IMO. Energy is not a "separate thing." It IS the aggregates and elements. Therefore, that is the vast portion of what the Buddha pointed out. Would the people 2500 years ago had the idea of energy the way we might, I doubt it. To me, its a potential "insight perk" that we have. ..................................................................... >TG: It also should Buddhism as being "real" from a > modern day perspective …. S: Ah, REAL! So are we interested in ‘real’ from a ‘modern day perspective’ or ‘real’ as can be directly known and realized by the insight that the Buddha showed us, still to be developed by the wise? ..................................................................... TG: Don't get too excited. ;-) Real here is just meant to be something that common folk can relate to. A poor choice of words on my part. ..................................................................... Before the unconditioned reality, nibbana can ever be known, conditioned dhammas have to be known as they really are. What are the conditioned dhammas appearing now? Surely they are the ‘forms’, the feelings, the perceptions and so on that we read about above in the suttas. They arise momentarily by conditions and beyond control and then fall away. We are used to thinking that we see people and things and experiencing energy sources, but these are just ideas we have. ..................................................................... TG: All you state here are just ideas you have to. ..................................................................... Even the element of air/motion (vayo dhatu) is a conditioned dhamma (reality) which arises and falls away. ..................................................................... TG: I don't agree with your characterization of impermanence as merely -- "arises and falls away." To me this is a flippant view of impermanence and doesn't provide reasons or any depth of insight regarding impermanence. I think its too cozy to think this is something that is understood when in fact, it isn't understood at all. Its just a guess and I think a wrong one. I started a topic on impermanence that I hope you join in or at least observe. ..................................................................... If the world of visible object is appearing, there is no world of motion appearing. When there is thinking about energy, the object is a concept on account of various dhammas and other concepts. ................................................................. TG: Everything that is experienced is motion. Experience "itself" is a motion. It is impossible to experience something that is not moving. ..................................................................... There is no self that experiences any of these dhammas or who can make any effort. There are just conditioned dhammas. At each moment, there is a different kind of consciousness which experiences its object, then falls away. So different worlds are being experienced all the time through the 5 senses and through the mind-door on account of these. ............................................................................. TG: I wouldn't disagree with any of this, though I might say it a little differently. ..................................................................... So dhammas are the namas and rupas appearing now. They are ‘empty phenomena’ arising and falling all the time. Either they are namas, the phenomena which can experience an object or rupas which do not experience anything. They continue life after life unless they are properly understood ‘as they really are’. ..................................................................... TG: Not as realities, but as impermanent, afflicting, and no-self. As a lump of foam, as a bursting bubble, as a mirage, as a coreless thing, as a conjurors trick. As a murderer, as subject to disease, death, pain, despair, etc. To be rejected, to turn away from, to detach from, to escape from, etc. Not to "pat ourselves on the back" by thinking we can discern realities. Discerning the elements/aggregates from more gross forms of delusion is important...but really a basic and relatively intermediate level of Buddhist practice and insight. ..................................................................... They are very ordinary realities. It just depends on understanding as to whether visible object is understood as visible object, sound is understood as sound and so on. No one can change these – it just depends on wisdom to know them ‘as they really are’. ................................................................... TG: Wisdom turns away from these things by knowing them as affliction. Wisdom does not get bogged down into seeing them as realities. At best, the latter is just a stepping stone for the purpose of achieving the former. However, if ones concept is...of these things as "realities," I think it makes the job of "turning away" much more difficult. How can one turn away "reality"? I fully expect that I have converted you. ;-)))) TG PS, Metta yourself and hope the "dots" helped. I'm too tired to proof read so I hope there aren't too many mistakes. #71758 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue May 8, 2007 7:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/8/2007 11:30:33 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > 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. .... S: And I'd say that everytime 'it's all about ME', it's not the path that the Buddha taught; it's the illusory wrong path starting witht he wrong understanding that ME is in control and can somehow 'reconfigure' the world to make it other than it really is. Dhammas are not appearing as they really are (yathaa bhuuta)at such times. When right effort arises with right understanding and the other path factors, there is no ME involved, no reconfiguring by 'I' and self-oriented effort. Hi Sarah I'll respond to the entire post later. Briefly, your above comment is idealistic and unrealistic to expect a "beginner" to have the Insight to understand the ramifications of no-self. Really ridiculous when you think about it. TG #71759 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue May 8, 2007 11:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue sarahprocter... Hi Robert A, I have to say that though we may have differences in the way we understand 'practice', I appreciate the tone of all your posts and the way you view life from the 'inside'. --- Robert wrote: > For the last 30 years or so I have been working with a simple > practice that has at its core just to know objects of name and form > in the present moment as they arise and pass away. .... S: If it's not too boring, would you mind telling me what you mean here by 'name and form'. (I mean, clearly you're referring to nama and rupa, but would you give some examples, please.) I agree with you that 'practice' comes down to knowing nama and rupa, so let's be sure we agree on what they are. ... > Perhaps we agree this is a useful thing to do. > > Over the same 30 years, I have had the understanding that it is > possible to undertake a systematic training that develops our > ability to do this knowing objects of name and form in the present > moment as they arise and pass away with increasing skill as our > training progresses. This training includes all of the Noble > Eightfold Path. > > This seems to be controversial at the DSG - both as to what form > that training should take, or even the concept of any training other > than studying of texts and being aware in the present moment as best > you can. .... S: Yes, as you'll have noticed, any understanding is controversial round here:-). The question I think is to just who or what undertakes this training? Also, is there really a clear enough understanding of namas and rupas now, let alone an advanced understanding of the arising and falling away of them, directly, not just by conceptualizing? Thank you again for sharing your understanding and the other helpful questions/comments you've raised in other threads. Metta, Sarah ======== #71760 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed May 9, 2007 12:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue sarahprocter... Hi TG, Don't get excited, this isn't a proper reply - that won't be til I've gone through the rest of my pile:). Thx for your super-prompt reply. --- TGrand458@... wrote: > Hi Sarah > > The long awaited reply comes. :-) .... S: Just to say, this was a quick one for me - you were honoured :-). Seriously, anytime I'm too slow, anyone's welcome to give me a reminder. .... ... > I fully expect that I have converted you. ;-)))) .... S: Sure, TG, sure ;-))) ... > PS, Metta yourself and hope the "dots" helped. I'm too tired to proof > read > so I hope there aren't too many mistakes. ... S: I know the feeling. Pls don't tire yourself out in your conversion efforts:-)). Thx for the dots too. I have to apologise, I think, for the funny squiggles that appeared in my posts to you (or in any I compose on a word document). My computer broke down last week and I'm told the cooling fan needs replacing and it may take 6 weeks to get a spare part.....Yikes! Just as I was beginning to catch up after the holiday. Fortunately, still jsut under a 3yr warranty. Anyway, I've borrowed a computer but am having trouble with settings etc. Will read your post properly later when we print them out. Sarah ======= #71761 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 12:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance buddhatrue Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > Hi James > > This is a good overview and along the lines of my thinking. Conditionality > is the right answer but it alone doesn't provide a reason. What is it about > conditionality that causes impermanence? The "positive and negative forces" > start to provide reasons with depth. I'm also looking for simple and almost > obvious answers too. I actually think this is important to sort out. James: Actually, I don't really think that this is an important subject. The Buddha didn't teach the "why" of impermanence because that knowledge isn't necessary for enlightenment. One only needs to know that dhammas are impermanent, suffering, and non-self and in that way have dispassion toward them leading to enlightenment. The information I gave you about positive and negative energies is from Taoism (which doesn't contradict Buddhism but gives more ontological detail about the cosmos)-- so i guess I cheated on the question. ;-)) Metta, James #71762 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 12:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Leading to stream entry - questions buddhatrue Hi Herman (and Charles), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Charles, > > On 06/05/07, Charles DaCosta wrote: > > > > > > 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? > > > > I think these terms are used to set others, or oneself, apart from the > mob. As such, they serve no function that is relevant to the path, > only to creating conceit and social hierarchies, IMO. > This wasn't their original function, but unfortunately this is what they have become. In some ways I prefer Zen Buddhism which completely does away with these categories and simply has those who are enlightened and those who are not. Metta, James #71763 From: han tun Date: Wed May 9, 2007 12:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your very comprehensive explanation. S: The point is that when we look at a bowl or a box of biscuits, usually we don’t take them for being ‘self’ or ‘soul’. However, often they are taken for being ‘something’ which exists when there is no awareness that what is seen is merely visible object, what is touched is hardness and so on. In other words, the concept, idea or image of ‘bowl’ or ‘biscuits’ is taken for being real. ---------- Han: I am relieved when you said, “when we look at a bowl or a box of biscuits, usually we don’t take them for being ‘self’ or ‘soul’.” When you first said attavaadupaadaana is broader than sakkaaya-ditthi, and when an example of a box of biscuits was cited at the Foundation, I thought attavaadupaadaana is expanded to include all external things (more than the five aggregates) in which case, I cannot manage. However, the second part of your above statement: “often they are taken for being ‘something’ which exists when there is no awareness that what is seen is merely visible object, what is touched is hardness and so on” I would say that such a view is more like vipallaasa (sa~n~naa-vipallaasa, citta-vipallaasa, ditthi-vipallaasa) than attavaadupaadaana. =========== S: I think this relates to the questions Robert A mentioned that people raise: will the whole world be beige? Will the party end? Life goes on just as usual! If we like to socialise, we continue socialising. If we like to stay at home quietly, we stay at home quietly. It depends on accumulations! If we like biscuits, we’ll go on liking biscuits! It’s not a matter of ‘reconfiguring’ as I just mentioned to TG, with a sense of “ME’ and ‘effort’ to turn in a particular direction. Just develop more understanding whilst wearing red, going to parties, reaching for the cookie jar or whatever there are conditions for in daily life! Actually, I quite liked Howard’s simile of the magnifying glass. Nothing is slowed down or changed or seen differently. However, the right view means that what appears becomes a little less distorted than usual. That’s all. We continue using our computers, but it’s more and more apparent that only visible object is seen now, only hardness is touched. Sabbe dhamma anatta. Nothing to fear at all. It’s only thinking which leads to such concerns and fear. Any wisdom is peaceful, not fearful. Please let me know if this makes any more sense and if not, please point out where any differences in your understanding are. It’s helpful for me to consider more as well, Han. ---------- Han: Yes, what you wrote makes sense and I fully agree with you. The only thing is, at times, I find it difficult to practice what I should practice. I can only manage simpler approaches. For example: (1) to realize that there is no Han Tun, but only naama and ruupa. (2) to realize that there is no Han Tun, but only five aggregates. (3) to realize that there is no “body” of a person, but only 44 parts (kotthaasa), namely, 20 pathavii parts, 12 aapo parts, 4 tejo parts, and 6 vaayo parts. Even to realize above three simple points is already difficult. That is the problem with me. It is not that I do not know. ========== p.s Thank you for starting your ‘letters’ in the Daana corner. I’m afraid we may make you continue to take your good lead in the editorial corner too! ---------- Han: I will try my best. Respectfully, Han #71764 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue buddhatrue Hi Sarah (and TG), I would like to remind you (again) that the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths (which includes the Noble Eightfold Path) before and completely separate from his teaching of non-self. It is not necessary to have complete understanding of anatta before practicing the Buddha's path and any attempt to do so would be a false understanding. Metta, James #71765 From: han tun Date: Wed May 9, 2007 12:56 am Subject: Posts to Daana Corner (2) hantun1 Dear Nina, Kindly refer to DSG message # 70332, Daana Corner (34), http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/70332 “The Buddha taught that there is no lasting mind or soul which undergoes different experiences. Our experiences themselves are different moments of consciousness, which arise one at a time and then fall away immediately. Each moment of consciousness that arises and falls away is succeeded by the next moment of consciousness. Our life is thus a series of moments of consciousness arising in succession. Gradually we can learn to distinguish different types of consciousness. There is consciousness which is unwholesome or unskillful, and there is consciousness which is wholesome or skillful, and besides these there are other types of consciousness which are neither wholesome nor unwholesome. Only one type of consciousness occurs at a time, but each type is accompanied by several mental factors. Unwholesome types of consciousness are accompanied by unwholesome mental factors, such as attachment, stinginess, jealousy or aversion. Wholesome types of consciousness are accompanied by beautiful mental factors, such as generosity, kindness or compassion.” ------------------------------ Here, you wrote, “Our life is thus a series of moments of consciousness arising in succession” to show that only one type of consciousness occurs at a time (either unwholesome, or wholesome or neutral), and to gradually learn to distinguish different types of consciousness. I have noted with thanks this important statement. At the same time, I am also looking at it from another perspective. Our life is a series of moments of consciousness arising in succession, and we are alive only for a moment of one consciousness at a time. As each consciousness falls away we are dying momentarily all the time, until the falling away of cuti citta when we are finally dead for this life. It is like a big wheel touching the ground only at one point at any given time. Have you come across something like this in the literature? If you have, I will be most grateful if you could kindly elaborate on it. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #71766 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 1:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Well, that last is not entirely so. I did at one point seem to have a > vague wisp of a memory of having done something more terrible than I've ever > even dreamed of doing in this life, something that I will someday have to "pay > for" if the recollection is not a false memory and if I haven't already "paid > penance". If you've ever seen the film "Angel Heart", you'll get the drift of > what I'm talking about. (It's a good film in any case.) So sorry to read of this. If you practice metta meditation (and the other Brahma Viharas) you can possibly avoid or at least lessen the kamma-vipaka of this incident. I take those kind of "visions" very seriously, and I would hate for anything bad to happen to you. Metta, James #71767 From: han tun Date: Wed May 9, 2007 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] TYPO Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness hantun1 Dear Sarah, There was one mistake in my last post. Please read 42 body parts (kotthaasa), and not 44, namely, 20 pathavii parts, 12 aapo parts, 4 tejo parts, and 6 vaayo parts. Han #71768 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 3:26 am Subject: Re: flashbacks and guilt antony272b2 Dear Sarah, This is reviving an old thread from 2005. Your reply was #40852. You wrote: The seeing is real, the thinking is real, but the images and concepts are purely imagined. Let them go. ++++ Antony: I'm trying a new technique. When the flashbacks of being the perpetrator of cruelty come, I can momentarily actually //change// the imagery to things far worse that I know I would never have done. Then both the imagined and the "relevant" flashbacks disappear. Also reflecting that becoming a victim of the same cruelty in future lives is not going to help anybody. And rather than focussing on the fate of this personal mind-body I can remember the difference I have made to the big picture. Thanks for listening / Antony. #71769 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 4:35 am Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Howard (and James), A"nguttara Nikaaya,III,76: "Once the Venerable Aananda came to see the Blessed One and spoke to him thus: 'One speaks, Lord, of becoming, becoming. How does becoming take place? "If, Aananda, there were no kamma ripening in the sense-sphere realm, would there appear any sense-sphere becoming? "Surely not, Lord. "Therefore, Aananda, kamma is the field, consciousness the seed and craving the moisture for the consciousness of beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving to become established in a lower realm. Thus there is re-becoming in the future. "If, Aananda, there were no kamma ripening in the form realm...in the formless realm, would there appear any formless sphere becoming? "Surely not, Lord. "Therefore, Aananda, kamma is the field, consciousness the seed and craving the moisture for the consciousness of beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving to become established in an intermediate realm...in a lofty realm. Thus there is re-becoming in the future. "It is in this way, Aananda, that there is becoming." Bh. Bodhi, Note 55 (Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, p.287): "Bhava: Personal existence, which is always conceived by Buddhists as a dynamic process of becoming - kammabhava, 'kammically active becoming', the occasions when we engage in volitional activity (=kamma), which sows the 'seeds' of rebirth and future experience; and upapattibhava, 'rebirth becoming', the occasions of experience that result from the maturation of past kamma and within which kamma bears its fruits. The present sutta offers an explanation of how kammabhava generates upapattibhava. Scott: I think the sutta for sure, and maybe even Bh. Bodhi, are quite clear about these things. (J: "This is the human realm but there are no humans?? Does that really make any sense?" Scott: Yes, it does. Use the word 'experience', defined say, as by the Oxford Dictionary as: "...encounter or undergo (an event or occurrence)," then, right now, one 'experiences' the human realm. And, as you know, from the point of view of paramattha-desanaa, there are no humans. There is no need to re-hash this; or rather, I have no interest in rehashing this. Should you wish to comment on the sutta, please feel free, however.) Sincerely, Scott. #71770 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 5:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Euthansia -good death:? egberdina Hi RobK, On 09/05/07, rjkjp1 wrote: > > > > > Beliefs about life after death are not the default position, by any > > means. Death as the ending of life is the default position where I > > come from. > > > +++++++++ > I would have thought on a Theravada forum the default position is > that rebirth is a ceratinly for all but non-arahants. Do you accept > that the Buddha taught this, or do you think it was made up by later > Commentaries? > I would have thought that on a Theravada forum the default position would be cross-legged :-) I don't doubt that the Buddha taught that craving for becoming leads to future becoming. As in: SN12:38 Staying at Savatthi... [the Blessed One said,] "What one intends, what one arranges, and what one obsesses about: This is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing [or: an establishing] of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress. "If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses [about something], this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress. "But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." You need to go to the Commentaries if you're into patisandhi and all that stuff. One thing is clear, the taking of and clinging to positions on speculative matters is sure to ensure a future. Herman #71771 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 9, 2007 6:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance jonoabb Hi James (and TG) buddhatrue wrote: > Hi TG, > > ... > James: Actually, I don't really think that this is an important > subject. The Buddha didn't teach the "why" of impermanence because > that knowledge isn't necessary for enlightenment. One only needs to > know that dhammas are impermanent, suffering, and non-self and in > that way have dispassion toward them leading to enlightenment. A good observation, James. The Buddha taught the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas, and that insight comes to see dhammas as having the characteristic of impermanence. There is no question of a 'cause' of impermanence in the teaching given by the Buddha. Jon #71772 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 2:22 am Subject: Thoughts Really are Fast: A Benefit of Mindful Introspection upasaka_howard Hi, all - Just a brief observation. I've cultivated the habit of what I call "ongoing mindfulness." It really is far from as "ongoing" as it should be, but I engage in it probably more frequently and automatically than a good number of other folks. In any case, from time to time, because of this practice I observe some things first hand that I likely would not have otherwise noticed. This morning I observed an entire (wordless) stream of thought, rather complex, occur in a tiny fraction of a second (while no observable changes were occurring among the "surrounding" conventional, macroscopic objects), leading to a change in an action I was about to perform with the coffee maker. This was *so* interesting, to see what was going on interiorly at such a fine level, and to see how it resulted in a cetana impulse. Most interesting of all was to see a direct confirmation of the Buddha's teaching about the speed of thinking as compared to changes in "the world". As a matter of a fascination, if nothing else, I recommend to others the practice of ongoing mindfulness. It really opens up areas of observation not at all obvious without it. With metta, Howard #71773 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 2:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence upasaka_howard Hi, TG - > Well, you know I love you, but I would say that "whatever arises, ceases," > though a statement of fact, does not provide a reason at all. > > I have my own reasons, which of course are open to debate, but let's see > what others will say. (I notice the two responses so far are from Sutta > oriented folks. Probably the only ones that will talk to me.) LOL > > BTW, James' answer starts down the lines I have in mind. > > TG > ========================= I understand you, TG, and I agree that what I stated isn't a reason. I didn't make myself properly understood, and the fault is entirely mine. IMO, there is not a "reason" for everything. Whatever arises does so by virtue of conditions - certainly. But you are asking about arising and ceasing and conditions at a more basic level. You are asking why things are as they are instead of otherwise. For me, that is similar to a question such as "Why is there existence instead of no existence?" For me, such a "why" is unanswerable. I don't even know what would be the *nature* of an answer to such a question. For me, the way things are (in the most general sense) is simply the way they are. We can go into further detail of what that way is, better enabling prediction, but that is all. With metta, Howard #71774 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 2:45 am Subject: Re: Intersubjectivity (Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily?) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 5/9/07 2:17:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > Thanks for further elaborating your take on the matter. Your use of > "virtual reality" above, should I infer from that that you see all > reality as mind-made, as existing in dependence on mind? > ====================== I view, ultimately, all experience that comes to one as the result of kamma, though not only one's own kamma. (When you write to me, for example, that effects me.) If kamma (as cetana - the Buddha's usage) is mental, then, yes, I see all experience, the only "reality" I encounter, as arising in dependence on mind. I see this entire realm of experience as resulting from the kamma of trillions of "beings". With metta, Howard #71775 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 9, 2007 6:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (3) jonoabb Hi Han Many thanks for starting this series. I have a question. han tun wrote: > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > ... > To start with, I will quote for information: > AN 7.6 Dhana Sutta: Treasure > Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.006.than.html > > ... > > "And what is the treasure of generosity? There is the > case of a disciple of the noble ones, his awareness > cleansed of the stain of stinginess, living at home, > freely generous, openhanded, delighting in being > magnanimous, responsive to requests, delighting in the > distribution of alms. This is called the treasure of > generosity. > > Katama~nca bhikkhave caagadhana.m: > Idha bhikkhave ariyasaavako vigatamalamaccherena > cetasaa agaara.m ajjhaavasati muttacaago payatapaa.nii > vossaggarato yaavayogo daanasa.mvibhaagarato. Ida.m > vuccati bhikkhave caagadhana.m. > Who or what is being described by the words "a disciple of the noble ones, his awareness cleansed of the stain of stinginess"? Is this an ariyan disciple, would you say? > I hope the Group members will participate, so that we > will have a treasure trove of Daana Corner. > > Phil may wish to initiate “Posts to Siila Corner.” > Good idea. How about it, Phil? Jon #71776 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 9, 2007 6:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Herman and All, > > ... > > I just got an idea.... I think tomorrow I will start to post > sections from the Vism. about Mindfulness of Death. It would be very > helpful to practice Mindfulness of Death to truly face death without > fear. > That's a great idea, James. Looking forward to it. Jon PS Keep the sections short, I'd suggest. There's a lot of 'meat' there. #71777 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 2:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 5/9/07 4:53:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > So sorry to read of this. If you practice metta meditation (and the > other Brahma Viharas) you can possibly avoid or at least lessen the > kamma-vipaka of this incident. I take those kind of "visions" very > seriously, and I would hate for anything bad to happen to you. > ======================= Thanks, James - very much. I suspect each one of us (all), has a near-infinite backlog of kamma, much of which is quite dark. We also haven't a clue as to when the promissory notes will come due. So, I suppose it best to pay little attention to what might have been, and, instead attend to what one does now. At this point, I, quite literally, would not hurt a fly. With metta, Howard #71778 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 9, 2007 6:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 06/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > >> > >> > 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'? >> > > Anything covered by the Sabba Sutta. > Does that include concepts? If so, what is *not* included? >> Conventional truths are those truths that do not concern the path to >> enlightenment. >> > > I don't actually know what enlightenment as an experience could > entail. The thing being that conditioned phenomena are the very > antithesis of nibbana, and any knowing at all is denial, a negation, > of nibbana. > There's no need to get too philosophical about it ;-)). By the path to enlightenment is meant the development of insight (into the true nature of conditioned phenomena). Those truths are ultimate truths, the rest are conventional truths. Jon #71779 From: connie Date: Wed May 9, 2007 7:43 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (55) nichiconn dear friends, Mahaa Pajaapatii, part 3 of 17: Athekadivasa.m satthaa jetavanamahaavihaare ariyaga.namajjhe nisinno bhikkhuniyo .thaanantare .thapento mahaapajaapatigotami.m ratta~n~nuuna.m bhikkhuniina.m agga.t.thaane .thapesi. Saa phalasukhena nibbaanasukhena ca viitinaamentii kata~n~nutaaya .thatvaa ekadivasa.m satthu gu.naabhitthavanapubbaka-upakaarakavibhaavanaamukhena a~n~na.m byaakarontii- 157. "Buddhaviira namo tyatthu, sabbasattaanamuttama; yo ma.m dukkhaa pamocesi, a~n~na~nca bahuka.m jana.m. 158. "Sabbadukkha.m pari~n~naata.m, hetuta.nhaa visositaa; bhaavito a.t.tha"ngiko maggo, nirodho phusito mayaa. 159. "Maataa putto pitaa bhaataa, ayyakaa ca pure ahu.m; yathaabhuccamajaanantii, sa.msari.mha.m anibbisa.m. 160. "Di.t.tho hi me so bhagavaa, antimoya.m samussayo; vikkhii.no jaatisa.msaaro, natthi daani punabbhavo. 161. "Aaraddhaviiriye pahitatte, nicca.m da.lhaparakkame; samagge saavake passe, esaa buddhaana vandanaa. 162. "Bahuuna.m vata atthaaya, maayaa janayi gotama.m; byaadhimara.natunnaana.m, dukkhakkhandha.m byapaanudii"ti.- Imaa gaathaa abhaasi. Then one day, the Teacher was seated in the midst of a group of noble ones in the great monastery of the Jeta Grove, placing bhikkhunis according to special positions. He placed Mahaa-Pajaapatii Gotami in the foremost position among bhikkhuniis of long standing. She spent her time in the happiness of the fruition states and the happiness of quenching. In order to make clear his help, she first praised the Teacher's good qualities, then revealed her perfect knowledge and spoke these verses: 157. Buddha, Hero, homage to you, Best of All Creatures, who released me and many other people from pain. 158. All pain is known. Craving as the cause is dried up. Thenoble eightfold way has been developed. I have attained cessation. 159. Formerly I was a mother, son, father, brother, and grandmother. Not having proper knowledge, I journeyed on without expiation. 160. I have indeed seen that Blessed One. This is my last body. Journeying on from rebirth to rebirth has been completely eliminated. There is now no renewed existence. 161. I see the disciples all together, putting forth energy, resolute, always with strong effort. This is homage to the Buddhas. 162. Truly, Maayaa bore Gotama for the sake of many. He has thrust away the mass of pain of thse struck by sickness and death. RD: Now, one day, when the Master was seated in the conclave of Ariyans at the great Jeta Grove Vihaara, he assigned the foremost place in experience to Great Pajaapatii, the Gotamid. She, dwelling in the bliss of fruition and of Nibbana, testified her gratitude one day by declaring her A~N~NAA before the Master, in praising his virtue, who had brought help where before there had been none: Buddha the Wake, *277 the Hero, hail! all hail! Supreme o'er every being that hath life, Who from all ill and sorrow hast released Me and so many, many stricken folk. *278 (157) Now have I understood how Ill doth come. Craving, the Cause, in me is drie'd up. Have I not trod, have I not touched the End Of Ill - the Ariyan, the Eightfold Path? (158) Oh! but 'tis long I've wandered down all time. Living as mother, father, brother, son, And as grandparent in the ages past - Not knowing how and what things really are, And never finding what I needed sore. (159) But now mine eyes have seen th' Exalted One; And now I know this living frame's the last, And shattered is th' unending round of births. No more Pajaapatii shall come to be! (160) Behold the company who learn of him - In happy concord of fraternity, Of strenuous energy and resolute, From strength to strength advancing toward the Goal - The noblest homage this to Buddhas paid. *279 (161) Oh! surely for the good of countless lives Did sister Maayaa bring forth Gotama, Dispeller of the burden of our ill, Who lay o'erweighted with disease and death! (162) *278 So K. E. Neumann: Erlo:ser vielem vielem Volk. *279 Esaa Buddhaana-vandanaa. Cf. Savonarola's words: '. . . righteousness of living, which is the grandest homage and truest worship that the creature can render to his Creator' (The Triumph of the Cross). === connie #71780 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed May 9, 2007 7:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon, > > On 08/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > >> > >> > Perhaps so, but without any insinuation that death is an instant >> > moment (as far as I know). >> > >> >> What other option/s do you see to there being a final moment of >> consciousness of the present lifespan? >> > > Not analysing. What is seen is a function of what is done to see it. > Analysis leads invariably to seeing a plurality of different, unique > states, while synthesis leads invariably to seeing a unity , a > singular, monistic state. This translates roughly into seeing namas > and rupas as being a product of analysis, while seeing conditions as > beng a product of synthesis. > Are you suggesting that not thinking about (not 'analysing') what you're reading in the suttas is an option? ;-)) > On the other hand, in the absence of an analytic or synthetic mindset, > there is ......... > Thinking about ('analysing') is not what I'd call establishing a mindset. It's possible to form a view that is held tentatively, as a hypothesis. Besides, a view as to what the suttas mean is one thing, a held view is another (there may in fact be quite a divergence between the two). > And in Buddhism that is called nibbana :-) > Well, that's a whole other topic. Some other time ;-)) Jon #71781 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 4:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance TGrand458@... Hi James In a message dated 5/9/2007 1:35:00 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: James: Actually, I don't really think that this is an important subject. The Buddha didn't teach the "why" of impermanence because that knowledge isn't necessary for enlightenment. One only needs to know that dhammas are impermanent, suffering, and non-self and in that way have dispassion toward them leading to enlightenment. ............................................. TG: That could be. But since insight into impermanence is critical, seems to me that the more it is completely realized, and the more automatic and in-tune we are to it, the more likely we are to be able to detach from conditions. Since impermanence, affliction, and no-self are all related knowledge's, helps in all branches IMO. ..................................................... The information I gave you about positive and negative energies is from Taoism (which doesn't contradict Buddhism but gives more ontological detail about the cosmos)-- so i guess I cheated on the question. ;-)) ....................................................... TG: LOL I'm thinking more along the lines of the Four Great Elements and the interactions between "them." ......................................................... Metta, James ........................................ TG #71782 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 4:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/9/2007 7:36:07 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > James: Actually, I don't really think that this is an important > subject. The Buddha didn't teach the "why" of impermanence because > that knowledge isn't necessary for enlightenment. One only needs to > know that dhammas are impermanent, suffering, and non-self and in > that way have dispassion toward them leading to enlightenment. A good observation, James. The Buddha taught the development of insight into the true nature of dhammas, and that insight comes to see dhammas as having the characteristic of impermanence. There is no question of a 'cause' of impermanence in the teaching given by the Buddha. Jon ........................................................ Hi Jon Maybe its just too basic for the Buddha to have bothered? He did give examples of natures impermanent activities in several places. This holds the clue as to the Buddha's viewpoint.. Also, Larry has a good post, which I haven't addressed yet, where the Visuddhimagga DOES address this question. I guess its good enough for the Visuddhimagga to investigate but not some of us eh? ;-) TG #71783 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 5:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Howard In a message dated 5/9/2007 7:40:45 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: I understand you, TG, and I agree that what I stated isn't a reason. I didn't make myself properly understood, and the fault is entirely mine. IMO, there is not a "reason" for everything. Whatever arises does so by virtue of conditions - certainly. But you are asking about arising and ceasing and conditions at a more basic level. You are asking why things are as they are instead of otherwise. ..................................................... TG: Actually this is not what I'm asking. I'm just asking in essence -- "What are the mechanical reasons for things being impermanent"? A key is in your above paragraph... "Whatever arises does so by virtue of conditions - certainly" What is it about conditions that generate formations to arise? (Not "as they are," but just in general.) ............................................................... For me, that is similar to a question such as "Why is there existence instead of no existence?" For me, such a "why" is unanswerable. I don't even know what would be the *nature* of an answer to such a question. For me, the way things are (in the most general sense) is simply the way they are. We can go into further detail of what that way is, better enabling prediction, but that is all. ...................................... TG: Not applicable for the reasons I state above. Not the issue I'm trying to address. I would probably never attempt such an issue for the reasons you wrote. :-) ...................................... With metta, Howard ................................ TG #71784 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 5:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/9/07 12:04:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > > In a message dated 5/9/2007 7:40:45 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > I understand you, TG, and I agree that what I stated isn't a reason. I > didn't make myself properly understood, and the fault is entirely mine. > IMO, there is not a "reason" for everything. Whatever arises does so > by virtue of conditions - certainly. But you are asking about arising and > ceasing and conditions at a more basic level. You are asking why things are > > as they > are instead of otherwise. > ..................................................... > > TG: Actually this is not what I'm asking. I'm just asking in essence -- > "What are the mechanical reasons for things being impermanent"? > > A key is in your above paragraph... "Whatever arises does so by virtue of > conditions - certainly" > > What is it about conditions that generate formations to arise? (Not "as > they are," but just in general.) ------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, here you are asking what is the mechanism of conditionality. My only answer: More conditionality. I do not believe in underlying, substantial, "causal forces". I just believe in the objective regularity of conditionality: When these things are the case, those things are (or will be) the case. Just plain this/that conditionality. ---------------------------------------- > > ............................................................... > > > > For me, that is similar to a question such as "Why > is there existence instead of no existence?" For me, such a "why" is > unanswerable. I don't even know what would be the *nature* of an answer to > such a > question. For me, the way things are (in the most general sense) is simply > the way > they are. We can go into further detail of what that way is, better > enabling > > prediction, but that is all. > > ...................................... > > TG: Not applicable for the reasons I state above. Not the issue I'm > trying > to address. I would probably never attempt such an issue for the reasons > you wrote. :-) > > ...................................... > > > > > > With metta, > Howard > > > ................................ > > TG > ====================== Sorry I cannot be of help on this, TG. With metta, Howard #71785 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed May 9, 2007 9:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thoughts Really are Fast: A Benefit of Mindful Introspection moellerdieter Hi Howard, thanks for sharing your experience with mindfulness and your very useful recommendation! with Metta Dieter ----- Original Message ----- From: upasaka@... To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 3:22 PM Subject: [dsg] Thoughts Really are Fast: A Benefit of Mindful Introspection Hi, all - Just a brief observation. I've cultivated the habit of what I call "ongoing mindfulness." It really is far from as "ongoing" as it should be, but I engage in it probably more frequently and automatically than a good number of other folks. In any case, from time to time, because of this practice I observe some things first hand that I likely would not have otherwise noticed. This morning I observed an entire (wordless) stream of thought, rather complex, occur in a tiny fraction of a second (while no observable changes were occurring among the "surrounding" conventional, macroscopic objects), leading to a change in an action I was about to perform with the coffee maker. This was *so* interesting, to see what was going on interiorly at such a fine level, and to see how it resulted in a cetana impulse. Most interesting of all was to see a direct confirmation of the Buddha's teaching about the speed of thinking as compared to changes in "the world". As a matter of a fascination, if nothing else, I recommend to others the practice of ongoing mindfulness. It really opens up areas of observation not at all obvious without it. #71786 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 5:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance TGrand458@... Hi Jon Also should have mentioned that the Visuddhimagga passage that dealt with "the mechanics of impermanence" looked like it came from either abhidhamma or abhidhamma commentaries. TG #71787 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 6:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Larry, All In a message dated 5/8/2007 10:25:54 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi TG, Because particular states are produced by particular conditions, neither less nor more, it is called "reality" (suchness). Because once the conditions have met in combination ........................................... TG: Conditions meet "in combination." I.E., conditions "combine qualities when they make contact." ............................................... there is no non-producing, ......................................................... TG: "there is no non-producing." This means they are "always producing." .............................................................. even for an instant, of the states they generate .................................................................... TG: So there is not even an instant, when the combining of conditions/qualities, is not producing/generating "new" states. That means -- conditions are always in the process of combining qualities which produce/generate "new" conditions/formations. Sounds like this contradicts the view that dhammas arise as realities with their own characteristic for an instant and then vanish. ........................................................................ , it is called "not unreality" (not unsuchness). Because there is no arising of one state with another state's conditions, it is called "not otherness". Because there is a condition, or because there is a total of conditions, for these states beginning with ageing-and-death as already stated, it is called "specific conditionality"" .............................................................................. . TG: States are continually moving and combining conditions which continually generate "new" states/formations which continue the same process. Thanks to this post from Larry which is highlighting this Abhidhamma outlook which is also my outlook. If looked at in more depth, it might be seen that the Four Great Elements as the "energies" responsible for this "perpetual" conditionality. Hence, one might understand the mechanics of impermanence to be supported and generated by the Four Great Elements. More on this later maybe. What is the use of developing this understanding? It helps us "see" impermanence here and now as we experience this interaction. Interaction "itself" is impermanence in progress. It takes the guesswork out of "why things are impermanent" and inspires and builds confidence regarding impermanence, affliction, and no-self and all associated issues. .............................................................................. .. TG #71788 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 1:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Will my whole world be beige? kenhowardau Hi Howard, --------------- KH: > >The past no longer exists, and > the future has never existed.' There are only the presently arisen dhammas. >> Howard: Of course, right now there is only now. This is supposed to be surprising? What child doesn't know that? ---------------- A child will, as you say, agree there is only the present moment, but he still looks forward to a future moment (for example, when a promised ice cream might arrive). So, I would say his understanding was not genuine. When there is genuine understanding there is not the slightest interest in future or past existence. --------------------------- H: > But there WERE prior moments, there WERE conditions in effect then, and they served as conditions for what is in effect now. And that is exactly what "conditioning across time" means, Ken, nothing more or less. ---------------------------- I took it to mean something more. I know that your interpretation of satipatthana and vipassana involve a reality outside the present moment, and so I assumed this was a way of supporting that interpretation. ------------------------------------ H: > But if what you mean to say is "prior" and "subsequent" are empty concepts, then what is preconditioning, Ken? ------------------------------------ That's another term I am not familiar with, but I suppose it could refer to the functioning of present dhammas when they are being conditions for future dhammas. (?) ----------------------- H: > And what does it mean to be heir to one's kamma? ----------------------- To me, it means that the conditions whereby past causes will have future effects are bound up in the namas and rupas of the present moment. ----------------------------- H: > And what is meant by past lives? ----------------------------- Dhammas (khandhas) that have existed in the past but no longer exist. -------------------- H: > And what are accumulations about? -------------------- Conditions for the arising or non-arising of defilements may have originated in the past but they exist - either manifestly or latently - in the present namas and rupas. ------------------------------------ H: >> Did not your rebirth consciousness precede your current consciousness? >>> KH: > > It did, and it fell away - never to return. >> H: > Agreed! So, what are you saying any different from me? ------------------------------------- I am saying that absolute, momentary, reality is not something that everyone - even children - already understands. I am saying that any deeds that are currently being performed are being performed, not by you or me, but by paramattha dhammas. And they perform those deeds in a single mind-moment. If there is right effort, for example, it will last for one moment only. Otherwise, it is just a concept of right effort. The path taught by the Buddha was not a conceptual path. ---------------- <…> H: > The Buddhdhamma is very robust. It isn't required to close it up in a box for protection. As for the floodgates, Ken, you needn't be the Buddhist "Little Dutch Boy" (later named Hans Brinker). ----------------- I would prefer the simile of Atlas carrying the world on his shoulders, but yes, I take your point. :-) Ken H #71789 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 2:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi Jon, On 10/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > And in Buddhism that is called nibbana :-) > > > > Well, that's a whole other topic. Some other time ;-)) > Your eternalistic tendencies are a cause for concern :-) Perhaps I should refer you to some of the enlightened members of dsg for counseling :-) Herman #71790 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 11:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Will my whole world be beige? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/9/07 4:42:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > --------------- > KH: >>The past no longer exists, and >the future has never > existed.' There are only the presently arisen dhammas. > >> > > Howard: Of course, right now there is only now. This is supposed to > be surprising? What child doesn't know that? > ---------------- > > A child will, as you say, agree there is only the present moment, > but he still looks forward to a future moment (for example, when a > promised ice cream might arrive). So, I would say his understanding > was not genuine. When there is genuine understanding there is not the > slightest interest in future or past existence. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Ah, so, then, you have no wish for awakening, right? ;-) Seriously, Ken, you aren't claiming to be free of desiring, are you? But desire aside, Ken, if this is the only moment, and you are not an arahant now, then I guess that's it, huh? ---------------------------------------------- > > --------------------------- > H: >But there WERE prior moments, there WERE conditions in effect > then, and they served as conditions for what is in effect now. And > that is exactly what "conditioning across time" means, Ken, nothing > more or less. > ---------------------------- > > I took it to mean something more. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, that's fine - honest miscommunication. :-) No, that is all I meant. I can't imagine what "more" someone would mean by that. ---------------------------------------------- I know that your interpretation of > > satipatthana and vipassana involve a reality outside the present > moment, and so I assumed this was a way of supporting that > interpretation. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't quite get what you are referring to. At any time, there is no time but that time, and what then exists is *all* that exists then. At any time, the past is gone, the future is nothing, and the present is ungraspable. I've said again and again, for example, that I take exception to the idea of being directly aware of a mental state just passed, because that state no longer exists, and there can only be awareness of what exists at the present moment. There may be a recalling of something passed. but it cannot be that thing itself of which there is direct awareness. ------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------ > H: >But if what you mean to say is "prior" and "subsequent" are > empty concepts, then what is preconditioning, Ken? > ------------------------------------ > > That's another term I am not familiar with, but I suppose it could > refer to the functioning of present dhammas when they are being > conditions for future dhammas. (?) ------------------------------------------ Howard I'm thinking of the predecessor and immediate predecessor relations in Abhidhamma.(I may have the name wrong, but not the idea.) -------------------------------------------- > > > > ----------------------- > H: >And what does it mean to be heir to one's kamma? > ----------------------- > > To me, it means that the conditions whereby past causes will have > future effects are bound up in the namas and rupas of the present > moment. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know what you mean by the"bound up" part, but my point was that being heir to one's kamma presupposes earlier and later points in time. --------------------------------------------- > > ----------------------------- > H: >And what is meant by past lives? > ----------------------------- > > Dhammas (khandhas) that have existed in the past but no longer exist. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, exactly. And what was in the past is not now. It *was* "now" at that time! (Speaking about time is an odd business - there is no getting around that!!) ------------------------------------------- > > -------------------- > H: >And what are accumulations about? > -------------------- > > Conditions for the arising or non-arising of defilements may have > originated in the past but they exist - either manifestly or > latently - in the present namas and rupas. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. Past events serving as conditions for the current situation. Different moments in time. Not all the same time. (But each being "now" at that time.) ---------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------------------ > H: >>Did not your rebirth consciousness precede your current > consciousness? > >>> > > KH: >>It did, and it fell away - never to return. > >> > > H: >Agreed! So, what are you saying any different from me? > ------------------------------------- > > I am saying that absolute, momentary, reality is not something that > everyone - even children - already understands. I am saying that any > deeds that are currently being performed are being performed, not by > you or me, but by paramattha dhammas. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: You're bringing in a different matter here. But, on that topic, paramattha dhammas, namas most specifically, aren't agents either. They are not doers, but doings. -------------------------------------------- And they perform those deeds in > > a single mind-moment. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I utterly deny that, if you presume a "mind-moment" to take no time and to include no variation. Sa~n~na, for example, is a complex operation, not a static something-or-other.The same for thinking, feeling, and all the rest. ------------------------------------------ If there is right effort, for example, it will > > last for one moment only. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: I think that is hilarious. Sorry - but it couldn't be clearer to me that this is nonsense. Look at what the Buddha says right effort is. -------------------------------------- Otherwise, it is just a concept of right > > effort. The path taught by the Buddha was not a conceptual path. ------------------------------------- Howard: Look at what he actually said, Ken. --------------------------------------- > > ---------------- > <…> > H: >The Buddhdhamma is very robust. It isn't required to close it up > in a box for protection. As for the floodgates, Ken, you needn't be > the Buddhist "Little Dutch Boy" (later named Hans Brinker). > ----------------- > > I would prefer the simile of Atlas carrying the world on his > shoulders, but yes, I take your point. :-) ------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm suggesting you might shrug, Atlas! ;-)) -------------------------------------------- > > Ken H > > ===================== With metta, Howard #71791 From: "colette" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 7:50 am Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? ksheri3 > Hi Colette, > > Thanks for your reply. You can operate on my posts any time you like. > > ----------------- > C: > I love this concept: Self and how over the centuries there has > been such work done on the body of "Being" in the form of "I". We've > gotta get right down to it and define what the self is once and for > all. Either it's concrete or it's abstract. If it's concrete then I > will most certainly pull out any and all amunition to deal with the > concreteness of this "Self". > ----------------- > > Since there is no self, we will be hard pressed to define it. :-) colette: Ahhhhh, so you're on to me. You have insights to where it is I'm going? ------------------ > Instead, we should try to define 'thinking in terms of self' and I > would say that was concrete. colette: okay, I can play with that. So, you suggest that the self is tangible? I question your abstinence here since obviously you've been drinking much more than I. If the self is concrete then how is it possible that I can touch my or your body yet not touch my or your self? I propose that the self is a hallucination, a delusion. <....> ------------------------- Thinking is a number of absolutely real, > momentary, mental factors working together to invent (in this case) > the abstract, self. colette: I love it, you guys simply can't escape it can you? Last night I was reading concerning THE PATH OF THE ARROW, an activity to manifest DIRECT ENCOUNTERS with the (supposed) Divine and I was rationalizing GIMMEL, the equation of uniting Kether with Tifaret (the 1 and 6 sefira). Why is it that you devotees of knowledge through book study always return to Gematria? Why is it that you christians cannot leave it, christianity, somewhere other than where you are? Why do you always allow it to OBSCURE your work in Buddhism? Now you've gone and placed this "self" in terms of the abstract after affirming it's concreteness. Concreteness, in terms of the absolute, is SUNYA, but I seriously want to see you work that one, proving that the self is both concrete, tangible, and yet abstract (imagery). I will do you a favor here by going straight to my line of attack so that you don't dig your hole any deeper (I can assure you, you will not reach China by digging in your suburban back yard) "The Buddha teaches that our drive for self-expansion is the root of our bondage. It is a mode of craving, of grasping and clinging, leading headlong into frustration and despair. When this is understood the danger in egocentric seeking comes to the surface and the will turns in the opposite direction, moving towards renunciation and detachment. The objects of clinging are gradually relinquished, the sense of 'I' and 'mine' withdrawn from the objects to which it has attached itself. Ultimate deliverance is now see to lie, not in the extension of the ego to the limits of infinity, but in the utter abolition of the ego-delusion at its base" Not withstanding their momentariness they are > as concrete as anything can be. > > ----------------------------- > C: > If it is abstract then don't run around talkin' about this "a > priori", hmmmm, (lets get the iere of those monks goin'), this buddha- > nature, this "soul", lets put this stuff out under the heading > of "HYPOTHESIS" in which case we can then put to rest our friends and > greatest of all theives, Organgized Religion. Thank You sir, Thank > you, Thank You. > ------------------------------ > > I agree that "buddha-nature" and the "eternal soul" are creations of > wrong view - the greatest of all thieves. The only sure defence > against that kind of thief is Right View. > > ----------------------- colette: why can a layperson realize the truth of Right View from terms of the "a postiperior" principle and the Buddhist principle of EXPERIENCE, making that object which is KNOWN AS SUNYA one with the aspirant? gots ta go I have things that need to be taken care of so I don't want to spend too much time focusing on one response. I'll try to finish later tonight when time is easier to come by. thanx for your concern and response. I really do appreciate our work. toodles, colette #71792 From: han tun Date: Wed May 9, 2007 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (3) hantun1 Dear Jon, I am very grateful to you for writing to the Daana Corner. Jon: Who or what is being described by the words "a disciple of the noble ones, his awareness cleansed of the stain of stinginess"? Is this an ariyan disciple, would you say? Han: In this sutta, the Buddha used the word “ariyasaavako.” Therefore, the owner of these seven treasures (according to this sutta) is already an ariya, i.e. at least sotaapanna. However, ordinary person (puthujjana) can and should also develop these seven qualities. The difference will be the maturity or the perfection of these qualities. The seven treasures of an ariya will be firmly established and very steadfast, whereas in puthujjana they may still be shakable. -------------------- > Han: Phil may wish to initiate “Posts to Siila Corner.” Jon: Good idea. How about it, Phil? Han: I request you, Phil, to go ahead. Your post on AN X.2 Cetanaakaraniiya Sutta may be a good subject to start with. What are the conditions for developing siila? Respectfully, Han --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi Han > Many thanks for starting this series. > I have a question. #71793 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 4:24 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? kenhowardau Hi Robert A, -------------- KH: >> I think the majority of present day Buddhists (even at DSG) want to have it both ways. >> Robert A: Do you think that might be because, for example, people enjoy having relationships with people rather than fleeting citta, cetasikas, and rupas? ----------------- No, I don't think that is the reason. Right understanding can immediately follow a moment of enjoyment, and it can be just as closely followed by another moment of enjoyment. These things depend on conditions, not on a controlling self. The people who want to have it 'both ways' are those who want control over conditions, even though that is not what the Buddha taught. -------------------------------- RA: > So, perhaps the question is, do the Buddhist Teachings have anything to offer those who want to live lives somewhere between where they started before they had ever heard of Buddhism and the life of someone whose only purpose in life is to see conditioned dhammas as they arise and pass away. It may be that most of the people who visit this group live lives that fall somewhere in between. ------------------------------ The Dhamma applies irrespectively of how we choose to live our lives. Hermits and party animals are equally capable of right understanding. In fact, an obsession with the appropriateness of lifestyle is likely to indicate wrong understanding. It usually means there is a belief in the efficacy of rite and ritual (control over conditions). Ken H #71794 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 5:03 pm Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? buddhatrue Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > "Therefore, Aananda, kamma is the field, consciousness the seed and > craving the moisture for the consciousness of beings hindered by > ignorance and fettered by craving to become established in a lower > realm. Thus there is re-becoming in the future. "Beings" are human beings. The Buddha speaks of "beings" being established in realms. Again, if you deny the existence of human beings you have to deny the existence of realms. Metta, James #71795 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 5:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Will my whole world be beige? egberdina Hi RobertA, On 09/05/07, Robert wrote: > > > Herman: > Logically, a life lived without interest is uninteresting, and a life > lived without attachment is unconcerned with whether it is happening > or not, or what is happening. It also seems straightforward that > without expectations there are no disappointments. And from > experience, an empty mind is a blissful mind. > > So the answer to "Will my whole world be beige?" is yes. But it needs > to be said that beige is a sublime abode. > > Robert A: > There is a saying from Chuang Tzu - "Sleep without dreams, wake > without worries" which sounds very similar to what you said above. > Do you think Taoism and Buddhism end up in the same beige bliss? > Thanks for the question. To be honest, I am quite unfamiliar with Taoism, so any comment I will make on your question will not be an informed one. The beige bliss of the Buddha, is quite variegated, though. It is the world exactly as it is appears now, minus craving for it and minus the belief that it somehow is yourself in action. Beige is emptiness. Herman #71796 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 1:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance TGrand458@... Hi Herman In a message dated 5/8/2007 10:54:38 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Phenomena are not existents. They are not things that are, whether that be things that are stable or notstable, phenomena are things that are known. Knowing is a relationship between consciousness and objects. Consciousness does not, and cannot see, objects that are changing or impermanent. It is rather each act of knowing that is an alteration of consciousness. Having seen (known) X, it is no longer the same consciousness that continues to see X, or sees X again. And this is repeated endlessly. Each act of knowing creates impermanence, as it were, not because objects are impermanent, but knowing alters itself (consciousness)i Herman .............................................................. TG: I think Howard would like this phenomenological analysis. If I understand correctly, you are expressing a experiential awareness of impermanence. The bottom line is...that yes, we can't know it without consciousness being involved. I would say the opposite of your last sentence. I would say that impermanence generates knowing due to altering conditions ... as opposed to each act of knowing creates impermanence. If we look at the Suttas, they are replete with "external" examples of this and that including impermanence. To me this indicates the Buddha was dealing with common sense understanding and experience as well as mindfulness and direct experience. Technically, we can only interpret "the external" worlds operations apart from consciousness. But, the Buddha did it all the time in the Suttas and didn't seem to have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it either and find it helpful for forming models of conditionality. I hope I have understood you right. TG #71797 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 5:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence lbidd2 Hi TG, Here are a couple of comments: Vism: Because particular states are produced by particular conditions, neither less nor more, it is called "reality" (suchness). Because once the conditions have met in combination ........................................... TG: Conditions meet "in combination." I.E., conditions "combine qualities when they make contact." .............................................. Vism: there is no non-producing, Larry: I think "met" might mean arise simultaneously rather than 'contact' which one might construe as a convenient figure of speech. Abhidhamma is a little vague about mechanical contact and to actually "combine" is probably a misperception. [On the other hand misperception could be understood as the mechanism of impermanence.] TG: "Sounds like this contradicts the view that dhammas arise as realities with their own characteristic for an instant and then vanish." Larry: Only if you take combination as a reality rather than a concept. TG: "If looked at in more depth, it might be seen that the Four Great Elements as the "energies" responsible for this "perpetual" conditionality." Larry: There are two impermanences. One to do with nama and one to do with rupa. In the formless plane there are no 'great elements'. But I don't know if physical impermanence is included in dependent arising except on the occasion of the arising of 'namarupa'. This is a question for Nina. Is the rupa impermanence characteristic conditioned by ignorance or something else? TG: "What is the use of developing this understanding? It helps us "see" impermanence here and now as we experience this interaction. Interaction "itself" is impermanence in progress. It takes the guesswork out of "why things are impermanent" and inspires and builds confidence regarding impermanence, affliction, and no-self and all associated issues." Larry: What didn't occur to me before is that impermanence is dependent arising. They are one and the same. Good question. Larry #71798 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 6:05 pm Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Howard (and James), Here's an excellent quote, from a discussion of Path Condition, in Guide To Conditional Relations, part 1, U Naarada, pp.220-221: "...First of all these supramundane states must be differentiated from the mundane states. For example, in the case of right view as a mundane state, there are many kinds, one of which is that concerning kamma. Here the knowledge that all faultless and faulty actions performed by oneself to produce results exists in one's continuity throughout the many existences and worlds in this round of rebirths and are, therefore, one's property, is right view of kamma. It is also known as 'straightening one's views (di.t.thujukataa)', one of the items of the ten meritorious actions (pu~n~na-kiriya-vatthu). In this connection Gradual Sayings, III, p.59, states: 'I am the result of my own deeds; heir to deeds; deeds are matrix; deeds are kin; deeds are foundation; whatever deed I do, whether good or bad, I shall become heir to it.' Then there is right view of the ten kinds of subjects (dasa-vatthuka-sammaadi.t.thi) as given in Middle Length Sayings, I, pp. 347-8: (1) There is (result of) gift; (2) There is (result of) offering on a large scale (yi.t.tha); (3) There is (result of) offering on a small scale (hutaa); (4) There is fruit and ripening of deeds well done and ill done; (5) There is this world; (6) There is a world beyond (other worlds); (7) There is (result of) good and evil deeds done to one's mother; (8) There is (result of) good and evil deeds done to one's father; (9) There are spontaneously uprising beings; (10) There exists in this human world, recluses and brahmins who practise the true dhamma and possess tranquility of mind and who, having seen and realised this very world and other worlds by their own superknowledge, impart their knowledge to others." Scott: This satisfies me completely as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for your consideration. The ONLY thing I am interested in is mentioned in the text: DI.T.THIJUKATAA. I only want to learn what is termed orthodox Dhamma as fully as possible and this will not be possible in only one short life-time. I don't have time for the rest... Sincerely, Scott. #71799 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 6:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance egberdina Hi TG and Larry, On 10/05/07, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 5/8/2007 10:54:38 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > Phenomena are not existents. They are not things that are, whether > that be things that are stable or notstable, phenomena are things that > are known. Knowing is a relationship between consciousness and > objects. Consciousness does not, and cannot see, objects that are > changing or impermanent. It is rather each act of knowing that is an > alteration of consciousness. Having seen (known) X, it is no longer > the same consciousness that continues to see X, or sees X again. And > this is repeated endlessly. Each act of knowing creates impermanence, > as it were, not because objects are impermanent, but knowing alters > itself (consciousness)i > > Herman > > .............................................................. > > TG: I think Howard would like this phenomenological analysis. If I > understand correctly, you are expressing a experiential awareness of impermanence. > The bottom line is...that yes, we can't know it without consciousness being > involved. I would say the opposite of your last sentence. I would say that > impermanence generates knowing due to altering conditions ... as opposed to > each act of knowing creates impermanence. > > If we look at the Suttas, they are replete with "external" examples of this > and that including impermanence. To me this indicates the Buddha was dealing > with common sense understanding and experience as well as mindfulness and > direct experience. > > Technically, we can only interpret "the external" worlds operations apart > from consciousness. But, the Buddha did it all the time in the Suttas and > didn't seem to have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with it either and > find it helpful for forming models of conditionality. > > I hope I have understood you right. > Thanks for raising some very important questions. I think it is very useful to discuss these matters. I think Larry makes a very significant distinction. He says : There are two impermanences. One to do with nama and one to do with rupa. I agree with you that the Buddha certainly talked about the external world, and it's impermanence. The question is, how, if at all, is the impermanence of rupa related to the goal of the teachings (Suttas)? There is this, from MN121, in the section entitled Release. "And he discerns that 'Whatever is fabricated & mentally fashioned is inconstant & subject to cessation.' For him — thus knowing, thus seeing — the mind is released from the effluent of sensuality, the effluent of becoming, the effluent of ignorance." I would certainly like to read your comments as to whether you believe that this inconstantcy of nama is conditioned by the inconstancy of rupa. Herman