#71800 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 6:09 pm Subject: Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear James, Thanks for your reply: J: '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." Sincerely, Scott. #71801 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 6:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, On 10/05/07, Scott Duncan wrote: > > > 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... > I'm only butting in here, because it just happened to pop up when I was looking. I'm not stalking you, honest :-) I am happy that you acknowledge your own cravings (for future learning and knowing). Your acceptance and pursuit of your cravings does show me, however, that you do not realise the truth of the first noble truth. Which is fine, of course. Herman #71802 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 6:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "I'm only butting in here, because it just happened to pop up when I was looking. I'm not stalking you, honest :-)" Scott: I know that, Herman. No worries. H: "I am happy that you acknowledge your own cravings (for future learning and knowing). Your acceptance and pursuit of your cravings does show me, however, that you do not realise the truth of the first noble truth. Which is fine, of course." Scott: Thanks. I do appreciate the sentiment. Hopefully I don't offend you. Sincerely, Scott. #71803 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 2:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Larry, I'm really happy you see the connection between Dependent Origination and impermanence as my final comments reiterates. Yes, they are the same activity!!! More comments below... .............................................................. In a message dated 5/9/2007 6:37:37 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: 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.TG: Conditions meet "in 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.c ............................................... TG: I don't know how they met unless they come into contact or some form of engagement. I'm not talking about phassa, just common ordinary English "contact." If there was no contact, what would the meaning of "meet" be? What would "simultaneous" refer to? Seems like the statement would unravel into meaninglessness. ....................................................... 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 this passage is meant to explain the process of impermanence, what would the issue of "concept" have to do with it. It doesn't seem to me to fit the subject matter. ............................................................. TG: "If looked at in more depth, it might be seen that the Four Great Elements as the "energies" responsible for this "perpetual" conditionality.c 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: As I'm interested in what is really happening, not merely abhidhammas take, this is likely a question that the texts can only assist on, but perhaps cannot resolve. Simple because Nina has or hasn't read something in a book, doesn't compel me to limit my understanding of nature due to that. As far as the formless planes go, they are generated by the actions in the "material" planes and therefore "their" impermanence is still based on it ... much like a flame flung in the air by the wind. There are several descriptions of "physical impermanence" in the Suttas. "Kasi cloth rubbed over a stone mountain crag." "The wearing away of an adze handle." "A ship rotting away due to contact with the elements." And more. ......................................................................... 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. ......................................................................... TG: Excellent!!! You made my day!!!! Exactly....they are one and the same. ........................................................................ Larry ...................................................................... TG #71804 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 2:35 pm Subject: Trouble with my system TGrand458@... Hi Folks My posts are very difficult to follow because for some reason, my replies do not indicate the past posts with the >>>. Therefore, besides framing my responses between dots "............................" I'm going to write "New TG" in front of my current comments. FYI TG #71805 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 6:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Scott, > Scott: Thanks. I do appreciate the sentiment. Hopefully I don't > offend you. > Not at all. Herman #71806 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 2:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance TGrand458@... Hi Herman, All I want to thank you and everyone else for their responses... In a message dated 5/9/2007 7:09:37 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: 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. .................................................... New TG: I think nama and rupa are completely interrelated and the impermanence of one has to do with the other. I.E., they interact and change each other. ........................................................ 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)? ......................................................... New TG: I'd probably be pretty "dukkha'd out" if my stereo broke down, much more if my house burned down, much more if loved ones died, much more if the sun burned out. Seeing this impermanence of material things, they are not worth being attached to. (Now didn't that sound like the Buddha?" ;-)) ............................................................. 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. ................................................................. New TG: I guess I answered this above. Not much more to add. ........................................................................ Herman TG OUT #71807 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 7:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance egberdina Yoh TG, my main man, On 10/05/07, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > New TG: I think nama and rupa are completely interrelated and the > impermanence of one has to do with the other. I.E., they interact and change each > other. > > ......................................................... > > New TG: I'd probably be pretty "dukkha'd out" if my stereo broke down, much > more if my house burned down, much more if loved ones died, much more if the > sun burned out. Seeing this impermanence of material things, they are not > worth being attached to. > > (Now didn't that sound like the Buddha?" ;-)) > ............................................................. You're doing well :-) Is there any relation between this reciprocal interacting and changing of namas and rupas and Nibbana? How, if at all, does nibbana fit in? Herman #71808 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 7:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Atta views: suffering and/or happiness egberdina Hi Sarah, On 09/05/07, sarah abbott wrote: > > …. > 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. > … This seems very surreal to me. Are you suggesting that if I, thinking about a biscuit, go to the biscuit tin in the cupboard, open it, take out a biscuit, and put it in my mouth, and eat it, that I have mistaken something that wasn't real for real? Herman #71809 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 7:22 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? sukinderpal Hi Herman, --------------------- Herm: > According to DO, the basis for proliferation of any kind, whether > feelings, perceptions, intentions, all sorts of mental activity > including thinking, is contact. Suk: According to the Texts, the proliferations are three, namely tanha, mana and ditthi. I understand too little to analyze the DO. But contact arises with every citta, so do feeling, perception and intention. Would you consider kusala dhammas proliferation? In any case, you were talking about `thinking' and this is not the same as papanca. ========================= Herm: > I'm saying that in jhana contact is very narrowly restricted and focussed. Suk: Would you choose to remain in jhana for as long as possible? If so why, after all when one is out of jhana, everything comes back to normal?! ========================= > > 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? Herm: > Yes, there is no thinking without craving. This is also taught by the > Buddha in DO. Suk: Which part of the DO corresponds to `thinking'? the Buddha and other arahats `thought', where was the craving? ======================== Herm: > In which way would birth and death be real in the > absence of any thinking about them? Suk: There is conventional birth and death which everybody knows, this is concept based on concepts. With some understanding of Dhamma and dhammas, there can be concept of the reality of birth and death and this would be a reference to specific cittas. There can be varying degrees of understanding of this, including that they are dukkha. ========================= Herm: > 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? Suk: Yes, only the 8FP does not add to becoming, samsara, everything else does, including jhana. ;-) But as you know, jhana is developed kusala, and also that kusala too are dana, sila and samatha bhavana. None of these however, directly leads to cessation. ========================= > > S> With the exception of Nibbana, everything else is dukkha. And the cause > > of Dukkha is tanha, *not* 'thinking'. Herm: > The cause of becoming is craving, thinking is just part of becoming. Suk: No one can stop the mechanism of thinking. On experiencing sense objects, no one can determine not to have sanna arise and marking signs and details, and vitakka, viccara and manasikara from performing their functions, which is why citta is sometimes described as "that which thinks". Even the Buddha thought and communicated those thoughts. That certain thoughts seem to go from one object to another `hungrily', is due to the roots and not the mechanism of thinking itself, which seems to be what you agree with when you said: > Only that which leads to cessation, renunciation, turning away, that > sort of stuff, that is not rooted in craving. ========================== S> > > 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. Herm: > If your repeated listening to mp3's does not lead you to turning away, > you are listening vainly and in vain. Suk: Unless one's accumulated wisdom has reached the level which makes the giant step to Stream Entry or even the vipassanannanas possible, then I think it can't be expected that changes will be dramatic. But yes, every little step in the right direction *does* have effect, re: the adze handle. So no, listening does not have to be in vain, even if the changes are not apparent. ============================ > > 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? Herm: > Well, I don't know. What are you usefully going to think about these things? Suk: That they are `dukkha" for example….. ============================ > > 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. Herm: > Well, I'm glad you've got that all sorted out. Not ! Suk: Are you referring to your own experience which states otherwise?:- ) ============================ Herm: > 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 Suk: You are referring to this: " And what is Right Resolve? Being resolved in renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness:" From my understanding, as with Right Concentration and Right Effort in their respective cases, this is a description of what Samma Sankappa does at the ultimate level. Though this is a conventional description, it is not saying that Right Resolve is "thinking in these terms". But just as Right Effort is not thinking along the lines that, "I shall discourage akusala and encourage kusala" and Right Concentration is not about developing jhana itself, but that the concentration accompanying the Path is the same as jhana, so too here with Right Thought, that this is what in effect it does. Besides as I said above, it is the N8FP as a unit which will lead to renunciation and so on. Metta, Sukinder #71810 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 7:44 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? philofillet HI Ken > 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. I believe you! > > --------------------- > 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: Oh I have no doubt about that. My doubt comes from wondering whether it is premature for us to seek insight into impersonal namas and rupas, whether what we might take to be "awareness of present realities"or whatever is not just a lot of thinking that makes us feel better about things but doesn't provide us with the kind of "stone thrown in soft clay" (I forget the exact wording) resilience to sense objects that mindfulness of the body as developed in what you call "formal meditation" does. > > --------------------------- > 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?. O, of course there is discretionary wisdom from the beginning. There has to be that kind of wisdom that sees what is harmful and what isn't and drops the former. I call it "common sense illuminated by the Buddha's teaching." But the penetrative wisdom that sees into the characteristics of dhammas. No, not that for me, and no desire for it. I don't think it can come by wanting to have it, but I'm sure we agree there. Anyways, never mind. I will stick to what is helpful for me and stop sticking my nose in other people's cittas. (ha. we'll see how long that lasts.) Metta, Phil #71811 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence lbidd2 Hi TG (and Herman), I don't have anything to add except that dependent arising begins with ignorance, not the four great elements. Larry #71812 From: "Phil" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 7:55 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? philofillet Hi Robert You always ask great questions. > and from what I believe was a book by Pema Chodron - "Will my whole > world be beige?" Christine asked a similar question some years back in a Dhamma talk - will spice go out of our of life? - and it led to a very eloquent answer by a member named Matt in a dhamma talk. His point was that it will not, because the conditioned patterns will run their course. (He said it in a much more eloquent way.) I've come to disagree with that. Yes, we become more sober. A kind of distrust ps sense pleasures develops, but not in a weird way that separates us from other people. For example, here in Japan it has been the Glden Week holidays, always the most glorious weather of the year. Many walks in a nearby park, observing the happy scenese of people at play, families, lovers etc. The glorious fresh green, warm sunshine, heat not yet unpleasant. ie very pleasant sense door objects abounding. But now there is always a kind of soberness, a recollention of the sutta on the eight worldly conditions, that these pleasant objects are of no more importance or value or no more or less likely to last than the unpleasant ones which will certainly come as well. This is a kind of soberness, I think. Doesn't effect one's outward behaviour in a blatant way, but there is an innner soberness, a little bit of detachment or something. So I'd say the colors of the world don't change. They are still pink and green and blue and lovely. But maybe they are more transparent or faded somewhat. Not as reliable or interesting or trusted. But still pleasant. Something like that. Metta, Phil #71813 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 8:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence egberdina Hi Larry, On 10/05/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi TG (and Herman), > > I don't have anything to add except that dependent arising begins with > ignorance, not the four great elements. > I know what you say above about dependent arising beginning with ignorance is standard and well-accepted doctrine, but it always bothers me. For one, the DO of DN15 starts with a reciprocal interdependency between vinnana and nama-rupa, which makes a whole lot of sense to me. And for two, what ignorance could be in the absence of vinnana is something far beyond my understanding. It is said that DO is very deep, but I tend to put ignorance preceding consciousness down to that scribe they got from the temp agency having had problems with his dictaphone :-). Herman #71814 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 5:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/9/2007 8:49:04 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi TG (and Herman), I don't have anything to add except that dependent arising begins with ignorance, not the four great elements. Larry ............................................... Hi Larry That's certainly true when it comes to the conditions that link up to form a "system" of suffering. The 12 fold chain is just one model of Dependent Arising. Indeed the most important model regarding the Buddha's teachings on suffering. But the Principle of Dependent Arising is applicable to all conditions... This being, that is, etc. If we consider the history of the earth. Did consciousness and physicality always exist on earth, or did physicality diversify and propagate so that plants and other life forms evolved and became "supportable." Its hard to believe that "ignorance" arises before life exists on Earth isn't it? This is worth pondering over... “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) TG #71815 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/9/2007 8:11:41 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: You're doing well :-) Is there any relation between this reciprocal interacting and changing of namas and rupas and Nibbana? How, if at all, does nibbana fit in? Herman .............................................. Hi Herman Seeing the unsatisfactoriness of conditions, the mind turns-away from conditions. By the ceasing of consciousness and all mental formations, by the ending of perception and feeling, one attains Nibbana. I don't believe Nibbana is something that arises, but rather, is merely the result of insight bringing an end to a afflicting system....i.e., a human. Insight essentially kills the momentum of "ignorance generated states." I'm not at all sure if this addressed in any way the issue you were raising. But I took a shot. How do you see this? TG #71816 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 9:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence lbidd2 Hi Herman, H: "I know what you say above about dependent arising beginning with ignorance is standard and well-accepted doctrine, but it always bothers me. For one, the DO of DN15 starts with a reciprocal interdependency between vinnana and nama-rupa, which makes a whole lot of sense to me. And for two, what ignorance could be in the absence of vinnana is something far beyond my understanding. It is said that DO is very deep, but I tend to put ignorance preceding consciousness down to that scribe they got from the temp agency having had problems with his dictaphone :-)." L: I was arguing that ignorance conditions the impermanence of rupa. 'Ignorance' is of course consciousness rooted in ignorance. One way to understand this is that ignorance is the root cause of kamma formations (which are also consciousnesses) and all the sense doors are kamma produced. How much rupa is there without a sense door? I know, "ask a tree" ;-) Larry #71817 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed May 9, 2007 10:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence lbidd2 Hi TG, TG: "Its hard to believe that "ignorance" arises before life exists on Earth isn't it?" L: Everything is hard to believe. It all hurts. Larry #71818 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 10:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Will my whole world be beige? kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------------ <. . .> KH: >> 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? ;-) ------------- That is a different question, but, since you ask, I am not sure that I do. In wholesome moments there can be wholesome intention, of course, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about unwholesome craving for enlightenment, and I am not sure that I feel that way at all. I cling too much to existence to crave enlightenment and the parinibbana that will inevitably follow. -------------------------- H: > Seriously, Ken, you aren't claiming to be free of desiring, are you? ------------------------- No, I am just saying (rightly or wrongly) that when there is right understanding of a present paramattha dhamma there is no interest in past or future existence. I am not claiming to have personally experienced that level of understanding. In fact, I have no hesitation in saying that I haven't. -------------------------------------- H: > But desire aside, Ken, if this is the only moment, and you are not an arahant now, then I guess that's it, huh? -------------------------------------- Yes! ---------------------- <. . .> KH: >> 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. --------------------- You sometimes say categorically that the Buddha urged us to take conventional actions. Conventional actions (so called) exist over a period of time - not in a single moment. ---------------------------------- <. . .> H: > . . . 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. ----------------------------------- That would mean we could never know consciousness. Consciousness could only ever be, at best, inferred. If that were the case, there would be no escape from ignorance. If there is to be an escape from ignorance then there must be a mechanism by which consciousness can become the object of consciousness. Thankfully, there is such a mechanism (whether you believe it or not). :-) -------------------------- <. . .> H: > . . . my point was that being heir to one's kamma presupposes earlier and later points in time. ------------------------ When an ordinary (uninstructed) person thinks of being an heir he thinks of someone who was *in the past* named as a beneficiary to a will, and who is *now* considered a potentially rich man, and who might (if things go according to plan) receive his inheritance *in the future.* The Buddha would not have wanted us to understand "heir" in that fashion. As always, he was referring to the present, fleeting, five khandhas. ------------------------- <. . .> H: > 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. ------------------------- The ancient commentaries accept both definitions - doer and doing. That must mean they do not see either as a contradiction of the other. I know from my own musings that one definition is sometimes more helpful than the other. When there is a tendency to create a mental picture of a nama (as if it had a visible or a tangible shape) I find the second definition helpful. When there is a tendency to see nama as something insubstantial (such as a mere "event") I find the former helpful. -------------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> 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. --------------------------------------------- And what about vicara? It hits "again and again" on its object. And yet, according to the Dhamma, it does so in a single moment. Clearly, dhammas are similar to conventional realities and yet, at the same time, very different. -------------------- <. . .> H:> I'm suggesting you might shrug, Atlas! ;-)) --------------------- :-) Speaking of self image: Yesterday, when I was carrying my board past a scenic lookout on the way to the beach, an attractive young German backpacker asked if she could take my photo. (!) "Yes, of course," I said, and added modestly, "Why of me in particular?" "Because I want to show my daddy that surfing is not only for the young-aged." :-( Ken H #71819 From: "colette" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 10:40 pm Subject: I want to play. ksheri3 Hi David, I'm gonna save this line since I thing I'll be needing it towards the end of our chit-chat. > > 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. > > 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. colette: I give you the option of accepting that view or rebuting that view since one can be drunk with power while another can be drunk alcohol. Drunkeness with power is where I lay me booby-traps for you as I am cerain over the 27 or 28 years the Republican National Committee has observered my poformance. lets make it easy, (watch the tactical INSULT which further accelerates your hallucination, remember now, racing thoughts are a result of some chemical and cause some very strange consiousnesses which are considered STATUS QUO), Lets do that: "thinking in terms of self". If I am thinking then how can I think of myself while looking at you? I mean, my eye conscsiousness sees you but somehow you are under the impression that I am hypnotized and suseptible to your delusions by having me think of YOUR self as MY self. Interesting ploy. The Lion does Roar, you may care to say the Lion's Roar, but that is you and not me. Now we have an interesting perspective since you are now alone and not part of me. Hmmmmm, just how Sunya are you? Lets find out, shall we? I am forced to leave, we shall talk later. toodles, colette #71820 From: "Robert" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 11:06 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? avalo1968 Hello Ken, KH:> 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). Robert A:> How we choose to live our lives makes all the difference in the world. The Buddha taught the precepts for a reason. If you ask people you live with if it matters how you chose to live your life, I suspect they would tell you that it does. Regards, Robert A. #71821 From: "Robert" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 11:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Virtue avalo1968 Hello Sarah, Thank you for your reply. You comments are always helpful. 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. R: Let me try to give some examples. A simple practice I learned long ago is to train in being aware of the quality you are bringing to a specific situation - sometimes I use the term feeling-tone (I know I am not using precise terms here, but bear with me). It is difficult to describe in words what I am talking about and it is actually easier to do than describe, but when you pay attention, you can notice a characteristic mood, feeling, or emotion that arises in conjunction with a line of thought - the story line going on in your head. There will also be characteristic body sensations that arise as well. One of the things that is difficult to describe is the disconnect that can be seen between the story line and the quality that arises - you begin to see qualities of mind arise repeatedly, often in response to very different situations and you recognize your characteristic modes of operation - your own special delusions. Another practice that is useful in the same way it to work with seeing what is there and what you are adding in to what is there - Anais Nin had a good line for this - "you don't see the world the way it is, you see it the way you are". I believe what is important is to recognize that a particular story line is just that, not reality. I believe it is important to recognize that a particular quality I am bringing to a given situation is skillful or unskillful. Finally, I believe it is important to understand how to work with unskillful qualities that arise and cultivate skillful ones. This is the meaning of Right Effort, the sixth step of the Noble Eightfold Path - prevent the arising of unskillful states, abandon unskillful states that have arisen, cultivate skillful states, and strengthen skillful states that have arisen. All of the things that I say are important above are things you can learn to do - and I use the term 'do' here - you do them. You learn to recognize what is skillful and unskillful and you learn to work with these things. Meditation is an important part of this for me, for I am convinced that meditation helps me develop the capacity to see clearly what quality I am bringing to a situation and strengthens my ability to work with it once it has arisen. Don't ask me why this works, but I am convinced that it does. 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? R: Here we arrive at the essence of our disagreement. To me, "who or what undertakes this training?" is a much less interesting question than "what kind of training can bring peace and joy to my life, help me cause less harm, and maybe allow me to be helpful to others in a small ways?". Maybe I am less ambitious than you, or perhaps just less curious. There is so much that I do as a part of my practice which I don't really care how it works. It is enough for me that I can experience that it is helpful. Take for example practices which I believe are taught in the Visuddhimagga - the 16 antidotes to anger - simple things like recognizing we all are owners of our kamma, or recognizing that we all suffer from the same basic ignorance that causes us to do harmful things. I can try to put these little 'hints' into practice, see they are in fact helpful, and that is enough for me. I apologize for my casual use of terms. I do appreciate your sincere effort to convince me that study of the Abhidhamma would help me. I'm afraid that in the end I am just kind of stubborn about doing things my own way, which makes it difficult for me to learn from others, even when I should. But it is kind of you to try. Robert A. #71822 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed May 9, 2007 11:54 pm Subject: Mindfulness of Death-1 buddhatrue Hi All, THE PATH OF PURIFICATION Chapter VIII DESCRIPTION OF CONCENTRATION—OTHER RECOLLECTIONS AS MEDITATION SUBJECTS MINDFULNESS OF DEATH Now comes the description of the development of Mindfulness of Death, which was 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 intended here, nor is momentary death, or other words, the momentary dissolution of formations, nor the `death'of conventional (metaphorical) usage in such expressions as `dead tree', `dead metal', and so on. As intended here it is of two kinds, that is to say, timely death and untimely death. Herein, timely death comes about with exhaustion of merit or with exhaustion of a life span or with both. Untimely death comes about through kamma that interrupts [other, life-producing] kamma. Herein, death through exhaustion of merit is a term for the kind of death that comes about only owing to the result of [former] rebirth- producing kamma's having finished ripening although favorable conditions for prolonging the continuity of a life span may be still present. Death through exhaustion of a life span is a term for the kind of death that comes about owing to the exhaustion of the normal life span of men of today, which measures only a century owing to want of such excellence in destiny [as deities have] or in time [as there is at the beginning of an aeon] or in nutriment [as the Uttarakurus and so on have]. Untimely death is a term for the death of those whose continuity is interrupted by kamma capable of causing them to fall (cavana) from their place at that very moment, as in the case of Dusi-Mara, Kalaburaja, etc., or for the death of those whose [life's] continuity is interrupted by assaults with weapons, etc. due to previous kamma. All of these are included under the interruption of the life faculty of the kinds already stated. So Mindfulness of Death is the remembering of death, in other words, of the interruption of the life faculty. DEVELOPMENT: One who wants to develop this should go into solitary retreat and exercise attention wisely in this way: `Death will take place; the life faculty will be interrupted', or `Death, death'. If he exercises his attention unwisely in recollecting the [possible] death of an agreeable person, sorrow arises, as in a mother on recollecting the death of her beloved child she bore; and gladness arises in recollecting the death of their enemies; and no sense of urgency arises on recollecting the death of neutral people, as happens in a corpse-burner on seeing a dead body; and anxiety arises on recollecting one's own death, as happens in a timid person on seeing a murderer with a poised dagger. In all that there is neither mindfulness nor sense of urgency nor knowledge. So he should look here and there at the beings that have been killed or have died, and advert to the death of beings already dead but formerly seen enjoying good things, doing so with mindfulness, with a sense of urgency and with knowledge, after which he can exercise his attention in the way beginning `Death will take place'. By so doing he exercises it wisely. He exercises it as a [right] means, is meaning. When some exercise is merely in this way, their hindrances get suppressed, their mindfulness becomes established with death as its object, and the meditation subject reaches access. To be continued with: EIGHT WAYS OF RECOLLECTING DEATH Metta, James #71823 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 12:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi Jon and James, On 08/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > 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). > You both seem in agreement on this point, so I'll take this post as a good vantage point from which to reply to both of you. I agree with you about the possible motivations behind the wish for a good death. I would like to add one, namely, not the fear of pain and suffering, but the actual pain and suffering that may be occuring. I don't know where fear of death comes in, though. I assume that death, in the absence of pain, is like going to sleep. I don't have a fear of going to sleep, do you? Herman #71824 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 12:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi James, On 09/05/07, buddhatrue wrote: > > > 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 sincerely hope that you never end up in a situation where you come to regret these words. BTW, do you think that the precept against intoxicants prohibits the use of opiates and the like as painkillers in palliative care? > 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. > I notice you have just posted your first installment. Much appreciated already. Herman #71825 From: han tun Date: Thu May 10, 2007 1:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (2) hantun1 Dear Nina (and James), After I have written to you my last post I happened to read James’s post on “Mindfulness of Death.” I followed up the topic and I found in Vism. VIII, 39 the following: 8. As to the shortness of the moment: in the ultimate sense the life-moment of living beings is extremely short, being only as much as the occurrence of a single conscious moment. Just as a chariot wheel, when it is rolling, rolls (that is, touches the ground) only on one point of (the circumference of) its tyre, and, when it is at rest, rests only on one point, so too, the life of living beings lasts only for a single conscious moment. When that consciousness has ceased, the being is said to have ceased, according as it is said: “In a past conscious moment he did live, not he does live, not he will live. In a future conscious moment not he did live, not he does live, he will live. In the present conscious moment not he did live, he does live, not he will live.” But, Nina, if you have something to add I will be most grateful to take note. Respectfully, Han --- han tun wrote: > Dear Nina, > > Kindly refer to DSG message # 70332, Daana Corner > (34), #71826 From: "nilovg" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 1:28 am Subject: Re: Posts to Daana Corner (2) nilovg "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. Dear Han, Remember the Vis. text: Life, pleasure, pain, all in one moment that flicks by? Here it quotes from the Niddesa, Khuddaka Nikaaya. We have learnt that what we call a person are: citta, cetasika and rupa, but we should see this very concretely, in the present moment. What is citta when seeing? Vipaakacitta. What when we think of what is seen? Usually akusala citta with lobha.Then life is lobha. This really helps to understand more that there is no Nina there.We just give a name to vipaakacitta or akusala citta. There is bhavangacitta that keeps the continuity in a life. It is produced by the same kamma that produced the rebirth-consciousness. When cuticitta falls away, there is a new life and kamma produces another bhavangacitta. Han, I like to discuss with you and could you keep this thread for when I am back, next week? After Friday I have no access when in Paris. This computer is troublesome. Now Life is aversion. Nina. #71827 From: han tun Date: Thu May 10, 2007 2:40 am Subject: Posts to Daana Corner (4) hantun1 Dear All, Here are some excerpts from A Treatise on the Paramis, From the Commentary to the Cariyapitaka, By Acariya Dhammapala, Translated from the Pali by Bhikkhu Bodhi. ---------- What are the characteristics, functions, manifestations, and proximate causes of paramis? Firstly, all the paaramiis, without exception, have as their characteristic the benefiting of others; as their function, the rendering of help to others, or not vacillating; as their manifestation, the wish for the welfare of others, or Buddhahood; and as their proximate cause, great compassion, or compassion and skillful means. ---------- Taken separately, Giving has the characteristic of relinquishing; its function is to dispel greed for things that can be given away; its manifestation is non-attachment, or the achievement of prosperity and a favorable state of existence; an object that can be relinquished is its proximate cause. ---------- The perfection of giving should be reflected upon thus: "Possessions such as fields, land, bullion, gold, cattle, buffaloes, slaves, children, wives, etc., bring tremendous harm to those who become attached to them. Because they stimulate desire they are wanted by many people; they can be confiscated by kings and thieves; they spark off disputes and create enemies; they are basically insubstantial; to acquire and protect them one has to harass others; when they are destroyed, many kinds of calamities, such as sorrow, etc., follow; and because of attachment to these things, the mind becomes obsessed with the stain of stinginess, and as a result one is reborn in the plane of misery. On the other hand, one act of relinquishing these things is one step to safety. Hence one should relinquish them with diligence." ---------- With metta, Han #71828 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu May 10, 2007 3:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance jonoabb Hi TG Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: > 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? ;-) > Here's what I think. Impermanence as spoken of in the teachings is a characteristic of dhammas (one of the 3 universal characteristics). It is to be seen by developed panna. It is not a quality that is to be imputed to the world or things in the world. The Buddha did not suggest that we 'think' impermanence, that we try to see the impermanence in things. Given the foregoing, the question of the cause of impermanence does not really arise. The impermanence of dhammas becomes apparent in due time as panna of dhammas is developed. Before then it cannot really be known. So to try to come to terms with it by theorising about its cause is bound to put us in the realm of speculation, and may not be to our advantage. Hoping this clarifies why I hesitate to attempt an answer to the question you have posed. Jon #71829 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu May 10, 2007 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > 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 :-) Appreciate your concern. But would this not be a concern about the future? ;-)) > Perhaps I > should refer you to some of the enlightened members of dsg for > counseling :-) > So you do have a definition of 'enlightenment' after all!! ;-)) Jon #71830 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu May 10, 2007 3:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (3) jonoabb Hi Han han tun wrote: > 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. > I agree with this. And I think the dana that the puthujjana develops will not be of the same order at all as the treasure of dana. So no need for us to try to emulate what is described in the sutta! > -------------------- > > >> 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? > Phil, I support this. Jon #71831 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu May 10, 2007 3:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Jon and James, > > On 08/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > >> 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). >> > > You both seem in agreement on this point, so I'll take this post as a > good vantage point from which to reply to both of you. > > I agree with you about the possible motivations behind the wish for a > good death. I would like to add one, namely, not the fear of pain and > suffering, but the actual pain and suffering that may be occuring. I > don't know where fear of death comes in, though. I assume that death, > in the absence of pain, is like going to sleep. I don't have a fear of > going to sleep, do you? > Not sure what you mean when you say that death, in the absence of pain, is like going to sleep. Do you mean the act of dying, or the state of being dead? Actually, I can't see that the presence of bodily pain in the period leading up to death would make much difference in either case. I suspect that everybody has the same basic fear of death, but I also think this fear can be temporarily supplanted by other emotions, for example, where a person believes they are going to a better realm to be reunited with their loved one (to give but one example -- there would be many others). Jon #71832 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu May 10, 2007 3:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Death-1 jonoabb Hi James Thanks for posting this series. buddhatrue wrote: > Hi All, > > THE PATH OF PURIFICATION > > Chapter VIII DESCRIPTION OF CONCENTRATION—OTHER RECOLLECTIONS AS > MEDITATION SUBJECTS > > MINDFULNESS OF DEATH > > Now comes the description of the development of Mindfulness of Death, > which was 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 intended here, nor > is momentary death, or other words, the momentary dissolution of > formations, nor the `death'of conventional (metaphorical) usage in > such expressions as `dead tree', `dead metal', and so on. > On the question of the arahant's death we were discussing in another thread, the issue really is whether the Arahant's "termination of the suffering of the round" is excluded here because it does not fall within the general description of the "interruption of the life faculty included with the limits of a single becoming", or for some other reason altogether. I'm inclined to think the latter, even though so-called "momentary death" (the other exclusion) is clearly outside the general description. > As intended here it is of two kinds, that is to say, timely death and > untimely death. Herein, timely death comes about with exhaustion of > merit or with exhaustion of a life span or with both. Untimely death > comes about through kamma that interrupts [other, life-producing] > kamma. > > Herein, death through exhaustion of merit is a term for the kind of > death that comes about ... . > So Mindfulness of > Death is the remembering of death, in other words, of the > interruption of the life faculty. > > DEVELOPMENT: > > One who wants to develop this should go into solitary retreat and > exercise attention wisely in this way: `Death will take place; the > life faculty will be interrupted', or `Death, death'. > This description needs to be read in the light of the general comments at the beginning of the 'Samadhi' section of the work. As I see it, it is not being suggested for the average layperson. Jon #71833 From: "gazita2002" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 4:07 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' gazita2002 hello Howard, Sorry I didnt get back before this... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Azita - ....... 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. > -------------------------------------------- Azita: No I dont think I am missing your point. What I'm trying to say is that we all make too much of 'visible object' - it is that which can be seen by seeing consciousness. I admit that I have heard 'color' being used for visible object, however the main emphasis is 'that which is seen' very different from that which is thought about; and I believe that 'multicolor, multishaded' becomes an object of thinking not of seeing. > > 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? azita: See my comments above, multicoloration only occurs thro mind, not thro eye - many millons of moments of seeing arising and falling away and sanna marking each different moment [because sanna arises with every citta]. Thro ignorance do we see many colors and shapes, 'we' mix up all the realities and then are confused about what is real. > 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. azita; neither do I. IN fact, I am a great believer in Abhidhamma, and think that anyone who denies the worth of Abhidhamma are doing harm to themselves. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #71834 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 5:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Death-1 buddhatrue Hi Jon, I'm glad that you appreciate the series. I hope it is some benefit to you and others. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > On the question of the arahant's death we were discussing in another > thread, the issue really is whether the Arahant's "termination of the > suffering of the round" is excluded here because it does not fall within > the general description of the "interruption of the life faculty > included with the limits of a single becoming", or for some other reason > altogether. James: Oh, I think that this subject is quite dead ('dead'...get it! ;-)). Anyway, you will be very pleased because later in the series I will quote extensively how the Vism. describes the "death" of arahants and the Buddha. Hmmm....seems Buddhaghosa can't quite make up his mind. ;-)) I'm inclined to think the latter, even though so-called > "momentary death" (the other exclusion) is clearly outside the general > description. James: Again, later material contradicts this, so it's hard to say. > > > As intended here it is of two kinds, that is to say, timely death and > > untimely death. Herein, timely death comes about with exhaustion of > > merit or with exhaustion of a life span or with both. Untimely death > > comes about through kamma that interrupts [other, life-producing] > > kamma. > > > > Herein, death through exhaustion of merit is a term for the kind of > > death that comes about ... . > > So Mindfulness of > > Death is the remembering of death, in other words, of the > > interruption of the life faculty. > > > > DEVELOPMENT: > > > > One who wants to develop this should go into solitary retreat and > > exercise attention wisely in this way: `Death will take place; the > > life faculty will be interrupted', or `Death, death'. > > > > This description needs to be read in the light of the general comments > at the beginning of the 'Samadhi' section of the work. As I see it, it > is not being suggested for the average layperson. James: Oh, I'm not even going to rise to that bait!! :-) > > Jon > Metta, James #71835 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 10, 2007 2:00 am Subject: Tibetan Buddhism, Study, and Contemplation upasaka_howard Hi all - I've read a number of books about elements of Tibetan Buddhism, most especially of the predominant Gelugpa school to which the Dalai Lama belongs. There is something I've observed before, and that a 2006 book by the Dalai Lama I'm currently reading confirms, that I think may be of interest to a number of you here. It pertains to their approach to cultivating wisdom. Before saying more, I would simply add the cautionary note that my knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism comes *only* from reading, and I stand to be corrected by any present or past adherents of the Tibetan schools. From what I understand, the sila aspect of their practice is unsurprising. Their samadhi, however, what some like to call their "formal meditation," seems to be only of the samatha sort - what they tend to call cultivation of "meditative quiescence." There does not seem to be a practice of in-tandem meditation or of dry-insight meditation or even of what I call "ongoing mindfulness," though I may well be wrong on that last point. They engage in sila and in samatha meditation (in various modes) for purposes of calming the mind. What is really interesting is their approach to the third prong of the practice trident - cultivation of wisdom. From what I can see from my reading, it is similar to an aspect at least of that adopted by Khun Sujin and her enthusiasts here on DSG. It is mind-based in the sense of studying (what they consider) the teachings by reading, debating,and contemplating, but, in thir case, in very specific ways. The main thing is that intellect, instead of being shunted aside in lieu of "more direct" observation of what arises (as in Zen and Theravada), is used as the foundation for cultivating wisdom. Most particularly, they seem to turn their conceptual and reasoning faculty to coming to clearly understand their currently held defiled concepts and view of "self," most particularly their atta-views with regard to both person and things, and by careful examination of them and by application of reasoning, typically in narrowly prescribed ways, disabuse themselves of these atta-bound views, gradually replacing them, by more correct understandings, and by repeating that process again and again, in ever-widening circles of ever more subtle correction and refinement, transforming their understanding until the point is reached that there is a qualitative leap, and their refined intellectual understanding is replaced by transcendental wisdom. My personal take on this: It is a very useful practice, an extremely helpful support, and, even an essential aspect of what is needed and actually one that all of us here, in an informal way, do engage in. I don't, view it, personally, however, as the core of my practice or as the core of the practice of cultivation of wisdom as taught by the Buddha. I consider direct examination of what actually arises in the moment as described in the Satipatthana, Anapanasati, and Kayagatasati Suttas as constituing the core. With metta, Howard #71836 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 10, 2007 2:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Will my whole world be beige? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/10/07 1:37:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > ------------ > <. . .> > KH: >>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? ;-) > ------------- > > That is a different question, but, since you ask, I am not sure that > I do. In wholesome moments there can be wholesome intention, of > course, but we are not talking about that. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: Oh! I didn't realize I wasn't talking about that! ;-) I thought I was talking about wanting to clear the mind entirely of defilement, often with proper intention though sometimes not. ------------------------------------------ We are talking about > > unwholesome craving for enlightenment, and I am not sure that I feel > that way at all. > --------------------------------------- Howard: If all your motives, conscious and subliminal are pure, I salute you, Ken. I also seem to myself to be engaged in the Dhamma only for the best and purest of reasons. I allow for the possibility of some significant error on my part, however. ---------------------------------------- I cling too much to existence to crave enlightenment > > and the parinibbana that will inevitably follow. -------------------------------------- Howard: Ah, okay. I understand. You think of complete awakening as an annihilation. Of course, if someone actually *wanted* that, it would be abhaava tanha. So, you are avoiding one of the extremes to be sure. The fact that you are Buddhist at all suggests that you haven't succumbed fully to the opposite extreme either, which I would say puts you in a pretty good position. :-) -------------------------------------- > > -------------------------- > H: >Seriously, Ken, you aren't claiming to be free of desiring, are > you? > ------------------------- > > No, I am just saying (rightly or wrongly) that when there is right > understanding of a present paramattha dhamma there is no interest in > past or future existence. I am not claiming to have personally > experienced that level of understanding. In fact, I have no > hesitation in saying that I haven't. ------------------------------------ Howard: Still you are quite the expert on what happens, hmm? ;-)) ------------------------------------ > > -------------------------------------- > H: >But desire aside, Ken, if this is the only moment, and you are > not an arahant now, then I guess that's it, huh? > -------------------------------------- > > Yes! --------------------------------------- Howard: Hmm. --------------------------------------- > > ---------------------- > <. . .> > KH: >>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. > --------------------- > > You sometimes say categorically that the Buddha urged us to take > conventional actions. Conventional actions (so called) exist over a > period of time - not in a single moment. ----------------------------------------- Howard: At any time during the "taking of a conventional action" it is a single moment, and what is in process then is what is in process then - consciousness of some object and various other mental operations pertaining to that object all in effect. --------------------------------------------- > > ---------------------------------- > <. . .> > H: >. . . 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. > ----------------------------------- > > That would mean we could never know consciousness. Consciousness > could only ever be, at best, inferred. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: But, Ken, there is only the present moment! (No, consciousness need not only be inferred - it can be recalled, even immediately after its passing.) --------------------------------------------------- > > If that were the case, there would be no escape from ignorance. If > there is to be an escape from ignorance then there must be a > mechanism by which consciousness can become the object of > consciousness. Thankfully, there is such a mechanism (whether you > believe it or not). :-) -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Tell me about it, Ken. I'd like to hear. -------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------- > <. . .> > H: >. . . my point was that being heir to one's kamma presupposes > earlier and later points in time. > > ------------------------ > > When an ordinary (uninstructed) person thinks of being an heir he > thinks of someone who was *in the past* named as a beneficiary to a > will, and who is *now* considered a potentially rich man, and who > might (if things go according to plan) receive his inheritance *in > the future.* The Buddha would not have wanted us to understand "heir" > in that fashion. As always, he was referring to the present, > fleeting, five khandhas. ------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, I told you what my point was. It was simply to point to the fact of multiplicity of moments of time - earlier and later. (At any of those moments, of course, the time is "now".) -------------------------------------- > > ------------------------- > <. . .> > H: >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. > ------------------------- > > The ancient commentaries accept both definitions - doer and doing. > That must mean they do not see either as a contradiction of the > other. -------------------------------------- Howard: The notion of "doer" is an atta-view. It is a way of speaking that is often unavoidable, but that doesn't mean one should credit such speech as not misleading. --------------------------------------- > > I know from my own musings that one definition is sometimes more > helpful than the other. When there is a tendency to create a mental > picture of a nama (as if it had a visible or a tangible shape) I find > the second definition helpful. When there is a tendency to see nama > as something insubstantial (such as a mere "event") I find the former > helpful. > > -------------------------------------------- > <. . .> > KH: >>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. > --------------------------------------------- > > And what about vicara? It hits "again and again" on its object. And > yet, according to the Dhamma, it does so in a single moment. Clearly, > dhammas are similar to conventional realities and yet, at the same > time, very different. > > -------------------- > <. . .> > H:> I'm suggesting you might shrug, Atlas! ;-)) > --------------------- > > :-) Speaking of self image: Yesterday, when I was carrying my board > past a scenic lookout on the way to the beach, an attractive young > German backpacker asked if she could take my photo. (!) > > "Yes, of course," I said, and added modestly, "Why of me in > particular?" > > "Because I want to show my daddy that surfing is not only for the > young-aged." --------------------------------- Howard: Oh, man! Raised high on the crest of a magnificent wave only to be be wiped out!! ;-) ----------------------------------- > > :-( > Ken H > ==================== With metta, Howard #71837 From: connie Date: Thu May 10, 2007 6:37 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (55) nichiconn Offline Dear, and "mother" to Buddha, part 4 of 17: Tattha buddhaviiraati catusaccabuddhesu viira, sabbabuddhaa hi uttamaviiriyehi catusaccabuddhehi vaa catubbidhasammappadhaanaviiriyanipphattiyaa vijitavijayattaa viiraa naama. Bhagavaa pana viiriyapaaramipaaripuuriyaa catura"ngasamannaagataviiriyaadhi.t.thaanena saatisayacatubbidhasammappadhaanakiccanipphattiyaa tassaa ca veneyyasantaane sammadeva pati.t.thaapitattaa visesato viiriyayuttataaya viiroti vattabbata.m arahati. Namo tyatthuuti namo namakkaaro te hotu. Sabbasattaanamuttamaati apadaadibhedesu sattesu siilaadigu.nehi uttamo bhagavaa. Tadekadesa.m satthupakaaragu.na.m dassetu.m, "yo ma.m dukkhaa pamocesi, a~n~na~nca bahuka.m janan"ti vatvaa attano dukkhaa pamuttabhaava.m vibhaaventii "sabbadukkhan"ti gaathamaaha. 157. There, Buddha, Hero (viiraa) means: a hero among those awakened to the four [noble] truths (catu-sacca-buddhesu), the omniscient Buddhas, for all the Buddhas are called heroes because they are awakened to the four [noble] truths through supreme effort or because they have conquered and won through the perfection of energy and the fourfold right exertion. But the Blessed One, through the fulfilling of the perfection of effort by his determination [to accomplish] the four types of energy, through the perfection of the superior fourfold right exertion that should be made, through being properly established in the succession of those amenable to instruction, and especially through being associated with effort, deserves to be called a hero. Homage (namo) to you (ty atthu) means: may there be (hotu) homage, the paying of homage (nama-kkaaro) to you (te). Best of All Creatures (sabba-sattaanam uttama) means: best of creatures classified as without feet, etc, (apadaadi-bhedesu sattesu) through such [good] qualities as virtuous conduct, etc; [he is] the Blessed One. In order to show that part of the [good] qualities in the Teacher's nature, she says: who released me and many other people from pain. And making clear her own state of liberation from pain, she spoke the verse beginning all pain. Puna yato pamocesi, ta.m va.t.tadukkha.m ekadesena dassentii "maataa putto"ti gaathamaaha. Tattha yathaabhuccamajaanantiiti pavattihetu-aadi.m yathaabhuuta.m anavabujjhantii. Sa.msari.mha.m anibbisanti sa.msaarasamudde pati.t.tha.m avindantii alabhantii bhavaadiisu aparaaparuppattivasena sa.msari.m ahanti kathentii aaha "maataa putto"ti-aadi. Yasmi.m bhave etassa maataa ahosi, tato a~n~nasmi.m bhave tasseva putto, tato a~n~nasmi.m bhave pitaa bhaataa ahuuti attho. 159. Moreover, to partially show that pain of continued existence that he had released her from, she spoke the verse beginning: [Formerly I was] a mother, a son. There, not having proper knowledge (yathaa-bhucca.m ajaanantii, [lit.: "not knowing as it really is"]) means: not perceiving it as it really is (yathaa-bhuuta.m) the cause of continuation, etc. I ('ha.m) journeyed on (sa.msarii) without expiation means: by explaining: "I (ahan) journeyed on (sa.sari.m), arising in various lives, not finding, not obtaining, a support in the ocean of continued existence," she says, "[I was] a mother, son, etc." In one existence she was his mother. Then in another existence she was his son. Then in still another existence she was his father or brother. This is the meaning. "Di.t.tho hi me"ti gaathaayapi attano dukkhato pamuttabhaavameva vibhaaveti. Tattha di.t.tho hi me so bhagavaati so bhagavaa sammaasambuddho attanaa di.t.thalokuttaradhammadassanena ~naa.nacakkhunaa mayaa paccakkhato di.t.tho. Yo hi dhamma.m passati, so bhagavanta.m passati naama. Yathaaha- "yo kho, vakkali, dhamma.m passati, so ma.m passatii"ti-aadi (sa.m. ni. 3.87). 160. In the verse [beginning] I have indeed seen, she makes clear her own state of liberation from pain. There, I have indeed seen (di.t.tho hi me) that Blessed One means: I have personally seen (mayaa pacca-kkhato di.t.tho) that Blessed One, the Fully and Perfectly Awakened One, with the eye of knowledge, through seeing the mundane and the supramundane worlds myself. For whoever sees the Doctrine, he indeed sees the Blessed One. As it is said: "Whoever sees the Docrine, Vakkhali, he sees me," etc. Aaraddhaviiriyeti paggahitaviiriye. Pahitatteti nibbaana.m pesitacitte. Nicca.m da.lhaparakkameti apattassa pattiyaa pattassa vepullatthaaya sabbakaala.m thiraparakkame. Samaggeti siiladi.t.thisaama~n~nena sa.mhatabhaavena samagge. Satthudesanaaya savanante jaatattaa saavake, "ime magga.t.thaa ime phala.t.thaa"ti yaathaavato passati. Esaa buddhaana vandanaati yaa satthu dhammasariirabhuutassa ariyasaavakaana.m ariyabhaavabhuutassa ca lokuttaradhammassa attapaccakkhakiriyaa, esaa sammaasambuddhaana.m saavakabuddhaana~nca vandanaa yaathaavato gu.naninnataa. 161. Putting forth energy (aaraddha-viriye) means: applying energy (paggahita-viriye). Resolute (pahit'atte) means: with the mind focused (pesita-citte) on quenching. Always with strong effort (da.lha-para-kkame) means: always with firm effort (thira-para-kkame) for developing what has been obtained and for the attainment of what has not been obtained. All together means: all together through being grouped together because of the virtuous conduct and right views of ascetics. Through being born after hearing (savanante) a discourse from the Teacher, she truly sees the disciples (saavake) thus: established in the paths and established in the fruition states. This is homage to the Buddhas (Buddhaana.m) means: this is homage to the Fully and Perfectly Awakened Ones (sammaa-sam-buddhaana.m) and the disciple awakened ones (savaka-buddhaana~na) being truly bent on [ggod] qualities, any personal fulfilment of the supramundane Doctrine, having realized the noble nature of the noble disciples who have become the embodiment of the Doctrine of the Teacher. "Bahuuna.m vata atthaayaa"ti osaanagaathaayapi satthu lokassa bahuupakaarata.myeva vibhaaveti. Ya.m panettha atthato na vibhatta.m, ta.m suvi~n~neyyameva. 162. Truly ... for the sake of many (bahuuna.m) means: in the final verse, she makes clear the Teacher's help to many (bahuupakaarata.m) in the world. And whatever is not explained here, that is easily understood. === tbc, connie #71838 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu May 10, 2007 3:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, Azita - In a message dated 5/10/07 7:08:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gazita2002@... writes: > hello Howard, > Sorry I didnt get back before this... > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, Azita - > > ....... > 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. > >-------------------------------------------- > > Azita: No I dont think I am missing your point. What I'm trying to > say is that we all make too much of 'visible object' - it is that > which can be seen by seeing consciousness. I admit that I have > heard 'color' being used for visible object, however the main > emphasis is 'that which is seen' very different from that which is > thought about; and I believe that 'multicolor, multishaded' becomes > an object of thinking not of seeing. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Azita, an actual visible object you see: Is it multicolored or not? Do you find it more comfortable to not consider the question? I know I often consider some questions uncomfortable to consider. I think that when that happens, we should take that as a sign of our clinging to view and of fear of views being threatened. Easier to say than to do, I am the first to admit. -------------------------------------------- > > > >>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? > > azita: See my comments above, multicoloration only occurs thro mind, > not thro eye - many millons of moments of seeing arising and falling > away and sanna marking each different moment [because sanna arises > with every citta]. Thro ignorance do we see many colors and > shapes, 'we' mix up all the realities and then are confused about > what is real. -------------------------------- Howard: Does eye consciousness not see the actual visible object as it is? Is the sa~n~na that recognizes the visible object not based in the nature of the object? Is the vivisble object without characteristics? Is visible object not something real with an actual nature? Whatever happened tothe vaunted sabhava of paramattha dhammas? ------------------------------------ > > > 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. > > azita; neither do I. IN fact, I am a great believer in Abhidhamma, > and think that anyone who denies the worth of Abhidhamma are doing > harm to themselves. > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > azita > ====================== With metta, Howard #71839 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 7:20 am Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? philofillet Hi all A correction to the below. I got it wrong. The simile for resilience is a heartwood door, as compared to the soft clay, which is vulnerable. In any case, the point is that meditation sets up this resilience. Metta, Phil > My doubt comes from wondering > whether it is premature for us to seek insight into impersonal namas > and rupas, whether what we might take to be "awareness of present > realities"or whatever is not just a lot of thinking that makes us > feel better about things but doesn't provide us with the kind > of "stone thrown in soft clay" (I forget the exact wording) > resilience to sense objects that mindfulness of the body as > developed in what you call "formal meditation" does. > > > > > > --------------------------- > > 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?. > > > O, of course there is discretionary wisdom from the beginning. > There has to be that kind of wisdom that sees what is harmful and > what isn't and drops the former. I call it "common sense illuminated > by the Buddha's teaching." But the penetrative wisdom that sees into > the characteristics of dhammas. No, not that for me, and no desire > for it. I don't think it can come by wanting to have it, but I'm > sure we agree there. > > Anyways, never mind. I will stick to what is helpful for me and > stop sticking my nose in other people's cittas. (ha. we'll see how > long that lasts.) > > Metta, > > Phil > #71840 From: "Robert" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 7:31 am Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? avalo1968 Hello Phil, Thank you for a thoughtful reply to my question. I appreciate it very much. Phil: Yes, we become more sober. A kind of distrust ps sense pleasures develops, but not in a weird way that separates us from other people. Robert A: Sober is an interesting word, but it is sober in the sense that a sober person can see more clearly than an intoxicated one, definitely not sober used in the sense of being more serious or grim. Distrust is also an interesting word. It is so very difficult to put the experience of Buddhist practice into words. Definitely our illusions that sense pleasure can deliver anything more than the most fleeting happiness lose some of their allure over time. Our relationship to sense pleasures changes, but in a way that is just the opposite of separating us from other people. Nothing could separate us for other people more than an unquestioning faith in sense pleasure as a way to happiness. Phil: For example, here in Japan it has been the Glden Week holidays, always the most glorious weather of the year. Many walks in a nearby park, observing the happy scenese of people at play, families, lovers etc. The glorious fresh green, warm sunshine, heat not yet unpleasant. ie very pleasant sense door objects abounding. But now there is always a kind of soberness, a recollention of the sutta on the eight worldly conditions, that these pleasant objects are of no more importance or value or no more or less likely to last than the unpleasant ones which will certainly come as well. This is a kind of soberness, I think. Doesn't effect one's outward behaviour in a blatant way, but there is an innner soberness, a little bit of detachment or something. So I'd say the colors of the world don't change. They are still pink and green and blue and lovely. But maybe they are more transparent or faded somewhat. Not as reliable or interesting or trusted. But still pleasant. Something like that. Robert A: You put this very well. But when you say it is still pleasant, there is a wonderful difference in that it is pleasant in the sense of joy - cooler, calmer, more at ease - without the tightness and stress that must come with attachment and wanting. Thanks for responding to my post. Robert A. #71841 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu May 10, 2007 5:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 5/10/2007 4:13:14 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Here's what I think. Impermanence as spoken of in the teachings is a characteristic of dhammas (one of the 3 universal characteristics)character is to be seen by developed panna. ............................................. New TG: Yes ............................................... It is not a quality that is to be imputed to the world or things in the world. The Buddha did not suggest that we 'think' impermanence, that we try to see the impermanence in things. ............................................ New TG: OMG. ;-) The Buddha most certainly DID suggest that we think about impermanence and try to see the impermanence of things. Over and over and over again!!! Do you remember the Sutta where the Buddha describes a "lovely girl" and then talks about her condition when old, when sick, when dead, etc. Oh yes, he wants us to think about impermanence and to see the impermanence of things. There are many many more examples of the Buddha trying to make us very aware of "external" impermanence. Mindfulness of impermanence through direct experience is also important and taught by the Buddha. I would say even more important, but they are both important. Given the foregoing, the question of the cause of impermanence does not really arise. The impermanence of dhammas becomes apparent in due time as panna of dhammas is developed. Before then it cannot really be known. So to try to come to terms with it by theorising about its cause is bound to put us in the realm of speculation, and may not be to our advantage. ................................................... New TG: Given the foregoing was shown to be wrong, the question is still legitimate. ;-) Ahhhh, but the "commentary crowd" are always theoriziing and speculating about the nature of impermanence --- "Dhammas, namas, rupas, arising then immediately falling away. 17 namas per one rupa, etc." If we are going to develop a "mental model" of what is occurring, lets make it in the best way, so it has maximum impact in detaching the mind from afflicting states....i.e., all conditions. ................................................................. Hoping this clarifies why I hesitate to attempt an answer to the question you have posed. .................................................................. New TG: Yep. .................................................................. Jon TG #71842 From: "nilovg" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 9:26 am Subject: Re: Posts to Daana Corner (2) nilovg --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > "In a past conscious moment he did live, not he > does live, not he will live. In a future conscious > moment not he did live, not he does live, he will > live. In the present conscious moment not he did live, > he does live, not he will live." > > But, Nina, if you have something to add I will be most > grateful to take note. > Dear Han, This should not be theory, but realized by being aware of nama and rupa appearing at this moment. Otherwise we shall not understand what past,present and future really means.Seeing that appears now arose because there were the proper conditions.Visible object that did not fall away yet impinges on the eyesense that did not fall away yet. Seeing succeeds the eye-door adverting consciousness, and it is result of kamma. But since the conditions for it do not stay, it has to fall away and then there is nothing left of it. Thus, seeing that arises now did not come from the past nor is it going anywhere. These are many words but when there is firm sanna that remembers there are conditions for the arising of sati that can be aware of nama and rupa without thinking. That is the way to learn about the truth of this moment. Nina. #71843 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 1:54 pm Subject: Re: I want to play. kenhowardau Hi Colette. We were talking about "concrete" and "abstract." I wrote: > 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. > You replied: > okay, I can play with that. So, you suggest that the self is tangible? > KH: At first I suspected you had misread what I had written. As I explained, my point was that dhammas were concrete (tangible), but the idea of self that they sometimes created was abstract (intangible). Later, I wrote: > Thinking is a number of absolutely real, momentary, mental factors working together to invent (in this case) the abstract, self. > And you replied: <. . .> > Now you've gone and placed this "self" in terms of the abstract after affirming it's concreteness. <. . .> So I have to wonder if, according to you, the assertion that dhammas are real (concrete, tangible) is an assertion that the self is real. That might explain the way you interpreted my statements. But I would have to disagree with you. According to my understanding, dhammas are real (even though they are very short-lived). It is only the thoughts they sometimes create that are unreal. ------------------- Colette: > 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" Lets do that: "thinking in terms of self". If I am thinking then how can I think of myself while looking at you? I mean, my eye conscsiousness sees you but somehow you are under the impression that I am hypnotized and suseptible to your delusions by having me think of YOUR self as MY self. ------------------- Eye consciousness is a dhamma that experiences visible object (which is also a dhamma). A tiny fraction of a second after eye consciousness has arisen, performed its functions and fallen away, there can be other dhammas that think in terms of "my self "or "your self." They give the impression that my self or your self is being seen by eye consciousness. So the hallucination is very hard to dispel. Is that the way you understand it? Ken H #71844 From: han tun Date: Thu May 10, 2007 2:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Posts to Daana Corner (2) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your very good explanation about the truth of “this moment.” In particular, I like what you wrote: “Thus, seeing that arises now did not come from the past nor is it going anywhere. These are many words but when there is firm sanna that remembers there are conditions for the arising of sati that can be aware of nama and rupa without thinking.” The reason for my looking for book reference on the subject of the life of living beings lasting only for a single conscious moment, is to brace myself from the fear of death. I want to assure myself that death is nothing strange, and nothing to be afraid of, as we are dying million of times in a day, and there is no difference between the falling away of a consciousness (say eye-consciousness) and the falling away of cuti citta. Your advice on the conditions for arising of sati that can be aware of naama and ruupa appearing at “this monent” is very helpful. I love to read your posts on any subject. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han --- nilovg wrote: > These are many words but when there is firm sanna > that remembers there > are conditions for the arising of sati that can be > aware of nama and > rupa without thinking. That is the way to learn > about the truth of > this moment. > Nina. > > #71845 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 4:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Thoughts Really are Fast: A Benefit of Mindful Introspection egberdina Hi Howard, On 10/05/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > 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. > Wholeheartedly agreed. Herman #71846 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 4:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Jon, On 09/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > >> > >> 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? > I don't know anything that is not concept. Neither does Sariputta. MN43 clearly spells out that consciousness, feeling and perception are not seperable from each other. "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among them." Nibbana is not included. > > 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. OK. Thanks. Herman #71847 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 5:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Sukin, I have snipped where we agreed. Quite a few snips, actually :-) On 10/05/07, Sukinder wrote: > > --------------------- > Herm: > > According to DO, the basis for proliferation of any kind, whether > > feelings, perceptions, intentions, all sorts of mental activity > > including thinking, is contact. > > Suk: According to the Texts, the proliferations are three, namely tanha, > mana and ditthi. > I understand too little to analyze the DO. But contact arises with every > citta, so do feeling, perception and intention. Would you consider kusala > dhammas proliferation? In any case, you were talking about `thinking' > and this is not the same as papanca. "Kusala" is a bit like "dhamma" or "anatta". It just about means all things to all men. But in terms of the Buddhist goal, which unequivocally is nibbana, only dhammas that lead to cessation are kusala. > ========================= > Herm: > > I'm saying that in jhana contact is very narrowly restricted and > focussed. > > Suk: Would you choose to remain in jhana for as long as possible? If so > why, after all when one is out of jhana, everything comes back to > normal?! This is not true. There is no such things as returning to a default state. Every moment of consciousness changes that consciousness. For a householder that means 16 hours of directed and intentional entrenching oneself in the world, and 10 random seconds of renunciation, and for one who realises dukkha, prolonged periods of directed and intentional abstaining from feeding cravings and the senses. Neither of these activities are without consequence. > ========================= > > > 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? > > Herm: > > Yes, there is no thinking without craving. This is also taught by the > > Buddha in DO. > > Suk: Which part of the DO corresponds to `thinking'? the Buddha and > other arahats `thought', where was the craving? These are troublesome issues for me. The actions and thoughts of Arahants tend to get explained as being kiriya-citta. I have no idea as to whether this is Sutta-based, or the inventions of commentators who also found the thinking/acting Arahants devoid of craving to be a troublesome issue. > S> > > > 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. > > Herm: > > If your repeated listening to mp3's does not lead you to turning away, > > you are listening vainly and in vain. > > Suk: Unless one's accumulated wisdom has reached the level which > makes the giant step to Stream Entry or even the vipassanannanas > possible, then I think it can't be expected that changes will be dramatic. > But yes, every little step in the right direction *does* have effect, re: > the adze handle. So no, listening does not have to be in vain, even if the > changes are not apparent. If wisdom could be accumulated by listening to mp3's, there would be quite a few sages on this forum :-) > ============================ > > > 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? > > Herm: > > Well, I don't know. What are you usefully going to think about these > things? > > Suk: That they are `dukkha" for example….. Thinking that something is dukkha, and understanding that something is dukkha are not necessarily related. The former does not lead to the latter. If it did, there would be arahants a plenty. The former is no more than a phrase coming to mind. Understanding that something is dukkha conditions behaviour. Thinking about dukkha is dukkha, unrealised dukkha at that . Understanding dukkha conditions turning away. > ============================ > > > 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. > > Herm: > > Well, I'm glad you've got that all sorted out. Not ! > > Suk: Are you referring to your own experience which states otherwise?:- > ) The suggestion, if I read you correctly, that the absence of thinking is wrong thinking, doesn't gel. > ============================ > Herm: > > 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 > > Suk: You are referring to this: > > " And what is Right Resolve? Being resolved in renunciation, on freedom > from ill will, on harmlessness:" > > From my understanding, as with Right Concentration and Right Effort in > their respective cases, this is a description of what Samma Sankappa > does at the ultimate level. Though this is a conventional description, it is > not saying that Right Resolve is "thinking in these terms". But just as > Right Effort is not thinking along the lines that, "I shall discourage > akusala and encourage kusala" and Right Concentration is not about > developing jhana itself, but that the concentration accompanying the > Path is the same as jhana, so too here with Right Thought, that this is > what in effect it does. Besides as I said above, it is the N8FP as a unit > which will lead to renunciation and so on. Yes, agreed. And one sets of on the N8FP as a consequence of the realisation of dukkha. One does not go about learning the reality of dukkha from a book or from a guru. The Buddha's teachings are not for all comers, they are for those to whom dukkha has made itself known. Herman #71848 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 5:20 pm Subject: Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi James, > > On 09/05/07, buddhatrue wrote: > > > > > > 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 sincerely hope that you never end up in a situation where you come > to regret these words. James: Hmmm…that sounds pretty ominous…almost like you are putting a hex on me. ;-)) I don't think that I will come to regret those words. I trust in kamma and whatever the future brings is what it brings. Regardless, I am not a stranger to pain and suffering. Like the Buddha taught, you can experience two darts or you can experience one. If you accept that pain and suffering are a part of life and are open to them, then you only experience one type of pain. Herman, for all your talk of not fearing death, it sounds like you are much more worried and fearful than you let on (??). > > BTW, do you think that the precept against intoxicants prohibits the > use of opiates and the like as painkillers in palliative care? > James: No, I wouldn't think so (but I am no expert). I think those would fall under the category of "medicine" and wouldn't be against the precept. Unless, of course, their use leads the person to do something immoral- as in pain medicine addicts who steal, lie, and kill to get the medicine. > > > 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. > > > > I notice you have just posted your first installment. Much appreciated already. James: Glad you appreciate it. Hope it will be of benefit to you and others. > > > Herman > Metta, James #71849 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 5:58 pm Subject: Mindfulness of Death- 2 buddhatrue Hi All, MINDFULNESS OF DEATH- EIGHT WAYS OF RECOLLECTING DEATH NUMBER ONE: But one who finds that it does not get so far should do his recollecting of death in eight ways, that is to say: (1) as having the appearance of a murderer, (2) as the ruin of success, (3) by comparison, (4) as to sharing the body with many, (5) as to the frailty of life, (6) as signless, (7) as to the limitedness of the extent, (8) as to the shortness of the moment. 1. Herein, as having the appearance of a murderer: he should do his recollecting thus, `Just as a murderer appears with a sword, thinking "I shall cut this man's head off", and applies it to his neck, so death appears'. Why? Because it comes with birth and it takes away life. As budding toadstools always come up lifting dust on their tops, so beings are born with ageing and death. For accordingly their rebirth- linking consciousness reaches ageing immediately next to its arising and then breaks up together with its associated aggregates, like a stone that falls from the summit of a rock. So to begin with, momentary death comes along with birth. But death is inevitable for what is born; consequently the kind of death intended here also comes with birth. Therefore, just as the risen sun moves on towards its setting and never turns back even for a little while from wherever it has to, or just as a mountain torrent sweeps by with a rapid current, ever flowing and rushing on and never turning back even for a little while, so too this living being travels on towards death from the time when he is born, and he never turns back even for a little while. Hence it is said; `Right from the very day a man has been conceived inside a womb `He cannot but go on and on, nor going can he once turn back' And whilst he goes on thus death is near him as drying up is to rivulets in the summer heat, as falling is to the fruits of trees when the sap reaches their attachments in the morning, as breaking is to clap pots tapped by a mallet, as vanishing is to dew-drops touched by the sun's rays. Hence it is said: `The nights and days go slipping by `As life keeps dwindling steadily `Till mortals'span, like water pools `In failing rills, is all used up' `As there is fear, when fruits are ripe, `That in the morning they will fall, `So mortals are in constant fear, `When they are born, that they will die. `As the fate of pots of clay `Once fashioned by the potter's hand, `Or small or big or baked or raw, `Condemns them to be broken up, `So mortals'life leads but to death' `The dew-drop on the blade of grass `Vanishes when the sun comes up; `Such is the human span of life; `So, mother, do not hinder me' So this death, which comes along with birth, is like a murderer with poised sword. And, like the murderer who applies the sword to the neck, it carries off life and never returns to bring it back. This is why, since death appears like a murderer with poised sword owing to its coming along with birth and carrying off life, it should be recollected as `having the appearance of a murderer'. To be continued with: EIGHT WAYS OF RECOLLECTING DEATH, NUMBER TWO. Metta, James #71850 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu May 10, 2007 6:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tibetan Buddhism, Study, and Contemplation lbidd2 Hi Howard, Like anything else if you want to understand a meditation system you have taste it and then make a meal of it. But here are a few words from "Mahamudra: The Quintessence of Mind and Meditation" by Takpo Tashi Namgyal. p. 179: All realities are generally shown to be mind-made. The consequences or benefits of not meditating or meditating on the true meaning of the mind have been stated before. The deficiencies of samsara and the virtues of nirvana are precisely dependent on the mind or originated from it; hence the importance of meditating on the mind. p. 184: A meditator should first settle his mind in tranquil equipoise, which is both clear and nondiscriminating. He should then let the mind focus sharply on itself in a relaxed manner as if "gazing" inwardly or outwardly. To determine the nature of mind, meditational analysis is applied. The examination concerns itself with structure, luminosity, basis, support, identity, and mode. The analysis begins with the structure of mind to find out if it has a certain form, like round or square, or the shape of the ground, a stone, a rock, of a human being, or of any particular animal. The examination is then shifted to other processes to find out whether the mind has any color: white, black, red, etc. and also whether the mind has an inbred basis or support, an external kind like another sentient being, a material object, or even a specific basis within one's own body. Should the mind appear to rest on one's body, the meditator should examine if it rests on any particular part or portion of the body between the head and heels or if it permeates the whole body. If the mind appears to rest on the whole body, the meditator should find out exactly where it rests, whether inside, outside, or on the integrated realm of the two. If the mind appears to rest on the integrated realm, the meditator should examine how the mind projects toward form or any objects. In determining the mind's innate identity or manifesting mode the meditator should examine if the mind can be identified with the void or with the formlessness of the void. To determine if the mind has a definite manifesting mode, the meditator examines if it is a nonexistent void or the void like that of space. Should the mind appear to be of luminosity, the meditator should examine if this luminosity is like a radiance of the sun, moonshine, or the flame of a butter lamp, or if it is inborn lucidity without light or color. Thus, the meditator should examine the mind in numerous ways. No definite understanding or determinable certainty can be achieved regarding the mind's abiding reality through mere knowledge or intellectual comprehension and without thorough examination. A meditator should therefore examine thoroughly with a persistence in the manner of an inquisitive person crushing a bone with a stone! Larry: Although this is slightly exotic I would say all Buddhist insight meditation amounts to satipatthana. Larry #71851 From: han tun Date: Thu May 10, 2007 7:11 pm Subject: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil hantun1 Dear Phil (and All), I would wish to request you to kindly start “Posts to Siila Corner” like I have started “Posts to Daana Corner.” To start the ball rolling, may I write the first message? When you presented AN X 2 Cetanaakaraniiya Sutta, you wrote: “I'm still a bit peeved from a dhamma talk in which a certain teacher failed to tell an inquiring student about any one of the many ways the Buddha urged people to apply intentional practices for the development of virtue. I have a lingering resentment towards teachings that fail to respect these intentional practices that are so clear in so many suttas.” Therefore, if you may, I would like to take up how to apply intentional practice for the development of virtue. There must be many suttas, but I want to quote the following sutta as a starter. MN 61 Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html "Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do. "While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it. "Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities. ------------------------------ "Whenever you want to do a verbal action, ---------- "While you are doing a verbal action, ----------- "Having done a verbal action, ----------- ------------------------------ "Whenever you want to do a mental action, ---------- "While you are doing a mental action, ---------- "Having done a mental action, ---------- ------------------------------- Perhaps, you may also wish to add something to this post. Respectfully, Han P.S. I hope you will take over the Siila Corner. #71852 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 8:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Will my whole world be beige? kenhowardau Hi Howard, I have made the mistake of speculating on the state of my own accumulations. It is a pointless exercise, in my opinion, and not something I normally like to do: --------------- KH: >> I cling too much to existence to crave enlightenment and the parinibbana that will inevitably follow. --------------- Can I take that back? :-) It is a pointless sort of thing to say. How would I know the object of lobha in "my" particular case? I have never directly identified lobha, let alone its object. -------------------------------------- H: > Ah, okay. I understand. You think of complete awakening as an annihilation. -------------------------------------- Yes and no. At moments of wrong view there can be belief in annihilation, whereas at other moments of wrong view there can be belief in continuation. The uninstructed worldling has countless moments of wrong view - of every possible kind - every day. They are conditioned to arise, and we are not even aware of them when they do. They don't only arise when we are enunciating an opinion on DSG, for example. So I can't say, "I am the kind of worldling that believes in annihilation," or, "I am the kind of worldling that believes in eternal existence." It doesn't work that way. A worldling is nothing more than a moment of consciousness, and consciousness changes more rapidly than can possibly be described. --------------------------- H: > Of course, if someone actually *wanted* that, it would be abhaava tanha. So, you are avoiding one of the extremes to be sure. The fact that you are Buddhist at all suggests that you haven't succumbed fully to the opposite extreme either, which I would say puts you in a pretty good position. :-) ---------------------------- Thanks, but, as I was saying, I don't think you or can know these things. It would be better to leave you and me out of it, and just learn about the various kinds of wrong view (and all the other dhammas), how they come to arise or not arise, and how their final cessation can eventually come about. -------------------------- > H: >Seriously, Ken, you aren't claiming to be free of desiring, are you? <. . .> Still you are quite the expert on what happens, hmm? ;-)) ------------------------------------ I hope you won't mind my saying this, Howard, but you do have a tendency to confuse theoretical understanding with belief. When someone (not just me, but others too) expresses a theoretical understanding you often respond as if they were claiming sure and certain knowledge. I don't think anyone has sure and certain knowledge of the Dhamma until they reach the stage of Stream-entry. -------------------------------------- <. . .> H: >>>But desire aside, Ken, if this is the only moment, and you are not an arahant now, then I guess that's it, huh? >>> KH: > > Yes! >> H: >Hmm. --------------------------------------- Well, isn't it? :-) How else could it be? You are not suggesting, are you, that there is some one or some thing that continues on to become an arahant? ------------------------- <. . .> KH: > > You sometimes say categorically that the Buddha urged us to take conventional actions. Conventional actions (so called) exist over a period of time - not in a single moment. >> H: > At any time during the "taking of a conventional action" it is a single moment, and what is in process then is what is in process then - consciousness of some object and various other mental operations pertaining to that object all in effect. --------------------------------------------- Once again, I am having trouble with one of your more complicated sentences. :-) If I may assume from what you have written in the past, you are referring again to "a complex network of dhammas." To me, that always seems like a roundabout way of negating the difference between concepts and realities. It tends to give concepts the ultimate efficacy that only realities can have. --------------------------------------------------- <. . .> KH: >> > If that were the case, there would be no escape from ignorance. If > there is to be an escape from ignorance then there must be a > mechanism by which consciousness can become the object of > consciousness. Thankfully, there is such a mechanism (whether you > believe it or not). :-) H: >Tell me about it, Ken. I'd like to hear. -------------------------------------------------- I have nothing to add to the similes (blotting paper, photocopies, the resonance of a gong, etc) that are usually given to explain how this happens. There is no exact equivalent in conventional reality, and so, at this stage in our understanding, we can only rely on similes. ------------------- KH: > > The ancient commentaries accept both definitions - doer and doing. That must mean they do not see either as a contradiction of the other. H: > The notion of "doer" is an atta-view. <. . .> --------------------- Maybe in some other schools it is, I don't know, but in Theravada Buddhism it isn't. Ken H #71853 From: "Robert" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 9:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Will my whole world be beige? avalo1968 Hello Herman, Thanks for your reply. I enjoyed your answer. I think you and others did a very good job in regard to the last of the three questions I included in my original post - the beige one. I was surprised though that no one seemed to want to deal directly with the first two. Care to take a shot at them? "Can you live without craving and attachment and still have drive and ambition?" "Will my intimate relationships become good friendships?" Your answers to my posts here at DSG have been helpful and clear. I would genuinely be interested in your opinion on these questions, if you would care to offer it. Thank you, Robert A. #71854 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu May 10, 2007 5:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance TGrand458@... Hi Jon, All I wanted to follow up on this post with a few more ideas.... In a message dated 5/10/2007 4:13:14 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Here's what I think. Impermanence as spoken of in the teachings is a characteristic of dhammas (one of the 3 universal characteristics)character is to be seen by developed panna. It is not a quality that is to be imputed to the world or things in the world. The Buddha did not suggest that we 'think' impermanence, that we try to see the impermanence in things. ..................................................... NEW TG: Let's consider the Satipatthana Sutta because I think its highly regarded by most in this group. In the contemplation of body regarding charnel grounds, the Buddha speaks of the dead body in, I believe, nine stages of decomposition. Is this not "trying to see impermanence in things"? In the "insight review" that follows each category: body, feelings, mind, mind states; the Buddha speaks about developing mindfulness/awareness of "the rise and fall of external states, the rise and fall of internal states, the rise and fall of external and internal states." Now, the practice of developing awareness/mindfulness of the rise and fall of external states....isn't this "trying to see impermanence in things"? And isn't this the Buddha's teaching on developing insight? "Insight" is a much broader venue than it is given credit for by many. It is not merely "direct awareness," it is also a conceptual understanding of the principles of conditionality, or at least the ramifications of conditionality. After all, everyone directly experiences things, the different as to whether its with insight or not, is whether there is proper understanding of what the experience constitutes. I view insight as anything that clarifies impermanence, affliction, and no-self so that the mind tends toward detachment. Seems to me this is the way the Buddha taught it to. Sometimes that means being aware of altering feelings, sometimes that means interpreting the activities of "external events," and hopefully it is knowledge that the nature of both, "internal and external," is the same and interacting. THAT very interaction is the same nature. .............................................................................. ......... Jon: Given the foregoing, the question of the cause of impermanence does not really arise. The impermanence of dhammas becomes apparent in due time as panna of dhammas is developed. Before then it cannot really be known. So to try to come to terms with it by theorising about its cause is bound to put us in the realm of speculation, and may not be to our advantage. .............................................................................. ........ NEW TG: I believe that the cause of impermanence can be directly known and directly verified through experience. But only after significant "reasoning out" takes place. This process is no different than other direct insight experiences. .............................................................................. ........ Jon: Hoping this clarifies why I hesitate to attempt an answer to the question you have posed. Jon TG #71855 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 9:32 pm Subject: Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil philofillet Hello Han > I would wish to request you to kindly start > "Posts to Siila Corner?Elike I have started > "Posts to Daana Corner.?E> To start the ball rolling, may I write the first > message? > > When you presented AN X 2 Cetanaakaraniiya Sutta, you > wrote: > > "I'm still a bit peeved from a dhamma talk in which a > certain teacher failed to tell an inquiring student > about any one of the many ways the Buddha urged people > to apply intentional practices for the development of > virtue. I have a lingering resentment towards > teachings that fail to respect these intentional > practices that are so clear in so many suttas.?E> > Therefore, if you may, I would like to take up how to > apply intentional practice for the development of > virtue. There must be many suttas, but I want to quote > the following sutta as a starter. Thanks for this, yes, there are so many suttas to quote from. (And more importantly put into practice, of course.) The suttas that inspire me the most are, like the following one you quote, so straight forward that it is impossible to believe that one need to rely on a commentary to be guided by them. > > MN 61 Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html > > > "Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should > reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do ?E> would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of > others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily > action, with painful consequences, painful results?' > If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to > self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to > both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with > painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily > action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. > But if on reflection you know that it would not cause > affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action > with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any > bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do. > > "While you are doing a bodily action, you should > reflect on it: 'This bodily action I am doing ?Eis it > leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of > others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, > with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on > reflection, you know that it is leading to > self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to > both... you should give it up. But if on reflection > you know that it is not... you may continue with it. > > "Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on > it: 'This bodily action I have done ?Edid it lead to > self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to > both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful > consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you > know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction > of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily > action with painful consequences, painful results, > then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to > the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the > holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise > restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know > that it did not lead to affliction... it was a > skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, > pleasant results, then you should stay mentally > refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful > mental qualities. > ------------------------------ > "Whenever you want to do a verbal action, ---------- > "While you are doing a verbal action, ----------- > "Having done a verbal action, ----------- > ------------------------------ > "Whenever you want to do a mental action, ---------- > "While you are doing a mental action, ---------- > "Having done a mental action, ---------- > ------------------------------- > > Perhaps, you may also wish to add something to this > post. > > Respectfully, > Han > P.S. I hope you will take over the Siila Corner. Ph: I would like to, but can't commit the time now, I'm afraid Han. Of course, there is nothing more important that developing one's understanding of the Buddha's teaching. Perhaps once a week I can post something to be discussed. Would that be all right? The other thing is that, as with the sutta above, it is so straight forward that there is not much to discuss. It's all in the application! :) Thanks again for quoting it. Metta, Phil #71856 From: "Phil" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 9:38 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? philofillet Hi Robert > > Phil: > Yes, we become more sober. A kind of distrust ps > sense pleasures develops, but not in a weird way that separates us > from other people. > > Robert A: > Sober is an interesting word, but it is sober in the sense that a > sober person can see more clearly than an intoxicated one, > definitely not sober used in the sense of being more serious or > grim. > > Distrust is also an interesting word. It is so very difficult to > put the experience of Buddhist practice into words. Definitely our > illusions that sense pleasure can deliver anything more than the > most fleeting happiness lose some of their allure over time. > > Our relationship to sense pleasures changes, but in a way that is > just the opposite of separating us from other people. Nothing could > separate us for other people more than an unquestioning faith in > sense pleasure as a way to happiness. Well said! "Nothing could separate us from other people more than an unquestioning faith in sense pleasure as a way to happiness." I think that is one of the best "lines" that I've ever read at DSG. It also occured to me to add yesterday that we come to see that the world is burning with greed, hatred and desire, in their mild to strong forms. I think sensing this makes us tend to be less harmless, tread lightly, not wanting to add anything to the fire that is already blazing. I think reflecting on this every morning at the end of my meditation conditions a lot of metta during the day, really in my case I think it does away with the need to intentionally practice metta meditation. Metta seems to be conditioned by reflection on the "burning" sutta. ("The All is burning with the fires of hatred, greed and delusion.) Metta, Phil #71857 From: "Robert" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 10:12 pm Subject: Re: Will my whole world be beige? avalo1968 Hello Phil, Phil: > It also occured to me to add yesterday that we come to see that > the world is burning with greed, hatred and desire, in their mild to > strong forms. I think sensing this makes us tend to be less > harmless, tread lightly, not wanting to add anything to the fire > that is already blazing. I think reflecting on this every morning at > the end of my meditation conditions a lot of metta during the day, > really in my case I think it does away with the need to > intentionally practice metta meditation. Metta seems to be > conditioned by reflection on the "burning" sutta. ("The All is > burning with the fires of hatred, greed and delusion.) > > Metta, > > Phil > Yes, this is a very good and useful reflection, seeing this struggle and not wanting to contribute to it. It is so easy to get caught up in it; anything you can do to break the spell and step back, as you do with your morning meditation, is a good thing. I wish you well with your practice. Robert A. #71858 From: "Robert" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 11:48 pm Subject: meditation article in the NYT avalo1968 All, Some may be interested in this article on how meditation can help to train attention. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/health/psychology/08medi.html? ex=1336276800&en=10a5ebea9ac6b609&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss Regards, Robert A. #71859 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 2:35 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] The Problem! - Herman dacostacharles Hi Herman, You asked ... I am trying to become happily married with children! I had to get out of the US - it was driving me crazy - Denmark was just an opportunity to get away in the beginning. It is tough now though. Charles DaCosta _____ 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) #71860 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 2:49 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Leading to stream entry - questions dacostacharles Hi all, Maybe We should not consider the titles as representing something high-mighty. I would like to think that all Buddhists practicing morality have entered the steam of Dharma. Charles DaCosta _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of buddhatrue <....> 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 #71861 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 3:02 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] a question dacostacharles Very good point! You could have just posted that. Charles DaCosta _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 17:29 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] a question Hello Charles, The reason I asked the question is that most people think they are angry or frustrated because of something going on outside themselves, but I like to believe that it is possible for someone to be at peace with the world, no matter how the world is choosing to be. I think this is a very important point for many people who come to Buddhism not as an interesting philosophy, but as a way to find some relief in life circumstances that are very difficult or stressful, circumstances they have little opportunity to change. I also believe it is an important milestone in their practice of Buddhism as people shift from trying to rearrange the external circumstances of their lives to training and knowing their own minds. Someone only does this as they come to recognize that rearranging the externals has very limited power to bring more than transient happiness and working with the inside is a better way to live. With metta, Robert A #71862 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu May 10, 2007 10:46 pm Subject: Ways to the Barbeque! bhikkhu5 Friends: What causes most humans to fall right into Hell at Death? The Blessed Buddha once took up a little bit of soil on his fingernail and asked: What do you think, Bhikkhus, which is more: The little bit of soil on my fingernail or this great planet earth? Venerable Sir, the great planet earth is much more. The little bit of soil that the Blessed One has taken up on his fingernail is a trifle... It is not calculable, does not bear any comparison, does not amount even to a minute microscopic fraction of this great planet Earth!!! The Blessed Buddha then made his forceful point clear by saying: Similarly, Bhikkhus: So few humans are reborn among human beings! Many human beings experience the downfall & are reborn in Hell... For what reasons? Because few humans honour ascetics and recluses. The majority of humans do not honour or revere neither ascetics nor recluses.... Because few humans avoid taking what is not given. The majority of humans do indeed take or swindle what is not openly & freely given! Because few humans avoid false speech. The majority of humans do indeed lie, deceive, misrepresent, bending truth misleading others... Because few humans avoid false weights and estimates, false prices, false measures, false papers, false information and false metals... Because few humans avoid the crooked & warped ways of bribery, deception, trickery, insincerity, cheating, dishonesty and fraud... But many & numerous are the human beings who do not so refrain!!! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:474] section 56: The Truths: Thread 102: Passing Away as Humans. Ex: A sure way to the Barbeque is cheating or stealing from the Noble Bhikkhu Sangha or pure ones in need… Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #71863 From: han tun Date: Fri May 11, 2007 12:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil hantun1 Dear Phil, Ph: I would like to, but can't commit the time now, I'm afraid Han. Of course, there is nothing more important that developing one's understanding of the Buddha's teaching. Perhaps once a week I can post something to be discussed. Would that be all right? The other thing is that, as with the sutta above, it is so straight forward that there is not much to discuss. It's all in the application! :) Han: Please take your own time, and post them only when it is convenient to you. And your postings need not necessarily be for discussions. If you come across anything interesting, even if it is so straightforward that no discussion is necessary, I think it will be useful for the application of Buddha’s teachings. With metta and respect, Han #71864 From: "Robert" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 12:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a question avalo1968 Hello Charles, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Charles DaCosta" wrote: > > Very good point! You could have just posted that. > > > > Charles DaCosta I suppose I could have, but I come more to hear the thoughts of others than to express my own. Thanks you, Robert A. #71865 From: "nilovg" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 12:53 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Posts to Daana Corner (2) nilovg --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Nina, > > Thank you very much for your very good explanation > about the truth of "this moment." In particular, I > like what you wrote: "Thus, seeing that arises now did > not come from the past nor is it going anywhere. These > are many words but when there is firm sanna that > remembers there are conditions for the arising of sati > that can be aware of nama and rupa without thinking." > > The reason for my looking for book reference on the > subject of the life of living beings lasting only for > a single conscious moment, is to brace myself from the > fear of death. I want to assure myself that death is > nothing strange, and nothing to be afraid of, as we > are dying million of times in a day, and there is no > difference between the falling away of a consciousness > (say eye-consciousness) and the falling away of cuti > citta. > > Your advice on the conditions for arising of sati that > can be aware of naama and ruupa appearing at "this > monent" is very helpful. I love to read your posts on > any subject. Thank you very much. > ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Dear Han, Please come back to this thread, and the preceding ones, I cannot keep anything here on the computer. What you raise is important. We may think and think about death, but it is only thinking, a kind of nama that is conditioned. But we still take thinking as very important, as mine. I do too. But we can learn that being aware now of what appears is the only way that can help us not to take realities for self. The less we cling to self, the less we fear death. When we study the present moment with awareness we have no time to have fear of death, but easier said than done. We have to discuss this more.One can begin little by little. Nina. #71866 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri May 11, 2007 1:08 am Subject: At least we're never too old for satipatthana!! sarahprocter... Dear Nina, (Lodewijk & all), Thanks for your e-cards from Paris! I'm sure Lodewijk has been following all the election issues with keen interest. I liked your:"We had some rock climbing today. I needed courage,but,more courage to continue with satipatthana." Now, Nina, if we are too old for surfing, are you sure you're not too old for rock-climbing, lol!! As you say, the greatest courage is needed for the development of satipatthana - the acceptance and understanding of conditioned namas and rupas now. No rock climbing, no surfing, no Paris, no election issues, no you or me in reality - just seeing, just visible object, just thinking.... You & Lodewijk will be interested to hear that we had a very long lunch with Khun Chatchai (from Chengmai) today. He was visiting his brother in Hong Kong and wished to meet us, so we invited him out and had a very pleasant time together. As you know, he runs: http://www.dhammahome.com/ This is the website for the Foundation and has a Thai and English section. We talked a lot about technical issues, ways we could help each other with editing problems and so on. As you know Thai students, many with keen interest in the Dhamma, meet at his home, 'dhammahome' and A.Sujin visits a couple of times a year. People often suggest there is some difference in the questions and understanding of Thai students of dhamma and we discussed and agreed that actually the questions and problems are just the same as in an English speaking group. When I asked him what the most common question at Dhammahome was, without the slightest hesitation, he said it was about the way to practice ('patipad'). People want to just follow instructions, they want to 'Do' something and would like to know what this is. He said they also want to know why they have to know about nama and rupa. They don't understand the relevance of understanding about seeing and visible object now. He mentioned that generally they want to know about making merit ('tham-boon' and finding out about what the results will be. For example, if they make offerings and donations at the temple, will this lead to a happy rebirth and so on. Generally Thai Buddhists don't understand the Abhidhamma and don't think it's necessary to understand it. They also don't appreciate that it's about this moment, he was saying. All very familiar:-) I hope you enjoy the rest of your stay in France - we'll 'speak' again on your return. Metta, Sarah ======= #71867 From: "gazita2002" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 2:46 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' gazita2002 Hello Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Azita - > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Azita, an actual visible object you see: Is it multicolored or not? I, azita, see multicolored shapes, resembling people, forests, rivers etc...... conventional truth, not ultimate truth!! Seeing consciousness [cakkhu vinnana] arises, experiences visible object, and falls away; arises and falls xtremely fast; no time for 'multicolored etc' .....ultimate truth. Do > you find it more comfortable to not consider the question? azita; not sure how many ways I can answer this question Howard, seems like you dont like my answers. I know I often > consider some questions uncomfortable to consider. I think that when that > happens, we should take that as a sign of our clinging to view and of fear of views > being threatened. Easier to say than to do, I am the first to admit. > -------------------------------------------- Thro ignorance do we see many colors and > > shapes, 'we' mix up all the realities and then are confused about > > what is real. > > -------------------------------- > Howard: > Does eye consciousness not see the actual visible object as it is? azita: of course, and I dont know why you want to make it 'multicolored'. Is > the sa~n~na that recognizes the visible object not based in the nature of the > object? azita: not sure what you mean here. Maybe you are talking about conditions. IN that case, I guess the visible object conditions sa~n~na by way of being the object that sa~n~na marks. Is the vivisble object without characteristics? Is visible object not > something real with an actual nature? Whatever happened tothe vaunted sabhava > of paramattha dhammas? azita: lots of questions Howard, and the last one gives me the creepy feeling that you are being a bit sarcastic....or am I too sensitive :-) > Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #71868 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 3:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance egberdina Hi TG, On 10/05/07, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Is there any relation between this reciprocal interacting and changing > of namas and rupas and Nibbana? How, if at all, does nibbana fit in? > > Herman > > .............................................. > > Hi Herman > > Seeing the unsatisfactoriness of conditions, the mind turns-away from > conditions. By the ceasing of consciousness and all mental formations, by the > ending of perception and feeling, one attains Nibbana. > > I don't believe Nibbana is something that arises, but rather, is merely the > result of insight bringing an end to a afflicting system....i.e., a human. > Insight essentially kills the momentum of "ignorance generated states." > > I'm not at all sure if this addressed in any way the issue you were raising. > But I took a shot. How do you see this? > Much the same as you. Isn't agreement boring :-) Herman #71869 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 4:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ways to the Barbeque! egberdina Hi Bhikku Samahita, On 11/05/07, Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: > > > Friends: > > What causes most humans to fall right into Hell at Death? > What causes most people to believe this sort of shit? Herman #71870 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 4:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi James, On 11/05/07, buddhatrue wrote: > > James: Hmmm…that sounds pretty ominous…almost like you are putting a > hex on me. ;-)) I don't think that I will come to regret those > words. I trust in kamma and whatever the future brings is what it > brings. Regardless, I am not a stranger to pain and suffering. Like > the Buddha taught, you can experience two darts or you can experience > one. If you accept that pain and suffering are a part of life and > are open to them, then you only experience one type of pain. Herman, > for all your talk of not fearing death, it sounds like you are much > more worried and fearful than you let on (??). > Many years ago, I sat with a loaded pistol in my hand, the barrel in my mouth, with my finger on the trigger. I had quite a serious debate with myself that night, and I am quite comfortable in saying that it is not because I fear death that I am alive today. However, I am not comfortable with promoting a fear of death. Teachings of the fear of death come from organised religion. The fear of death is the life-blood of all institutional religions. The more one can preach with authority about life after death, the more one can control the ignorant. Give me food, give me robes, and your dead relatives, and yourselves, will be reborn in higher realms. I wouldn't even spit on the bloodsuckers who call this Dhamma. Herman #71871 From: han tun Date: Fri May 11, 2007 5:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Posts to Daana Corner (2) hantun1 Dear Nina, The preceding posts are as follows. In Posts to Daana Corner (1), I gave the definition of Giving as per AN 7.6 Dhana Sutta: Treasure http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.006.than.html which deals with the seven treasures of the noble ones. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/71692 Nothing special. ------------------------------ In Posts to Daana Corner (2), I wrote to you whether you have come across in the literature about the life of living beings is only for one conscious moment http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/71765 Then I wrote to you that I have found what I was looking for in Vism. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/71825 My post crossed with your post saying that you like to discuss this with me and asked me to keep this thread for when you are back, next week. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/71826 Then you explained to me that when there is firm sanna that remembers there are conditions for the arising of sati that can be aware of nama and rupa without thinking. That is the way to learn about the truth of this moment. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/71842 I thanked you for the explanation and I explained to you why I wanted to know the shortness of the life of living beings http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/71844 You are now replying to my last post. ------------------------------ I agree with what you wrote in the current post. “But we can learn that being aware now of what appears is the only way that can help us not to take realities for self. The less we cling to self, the less we fear death. When we study the present moment with awareness we have no time to have fear of death, but easier said than done. We have to discuss this more. One can begin little by little.” Respectfully, Han --- nilovg wrote: > Dear Han, > > Please come back to this thread, and the preceding > ones, I cannot keep > anything here on the computer. What you raise is > important. We may > think and think about death, but it is only > thinking, a kind of nama > that is conditioned. But we still take thinking as > very important, as > mine. I do too. But we can learn that being aware > now of what appears > is the only way that can help us not to take > realities for self. The > less we cling to self, the less we fear death. When > we study the > present moment with awareness we have no time to > have fear of death, > but easier said than done. We have to discuss this > more.One can begin > little by little. > > Nina. > > #71872 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 5:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Many years ago, I sat with a loaded pistol in my hand, the barrel in > my mouth, with my finger on the trigger. I had quite a serious debate > with myself that night, and I am quite comfortable in saying that it > is not because I fear death that I am alive today. James: Okay, sorry to hear of this. It is not for me to say what thoughts and feelings were going through you mind at that moment. However, I would suggest that your level of mindfulness was probably not very high at that time. Also, I hope you never do such a foolish thing again! > > However, I am not comfortable with promoting a fear of death. > Teachings of the fear of death come from organised religion. The fear > of death is the life-blood of all institutional religions. The more > one can preach with authority about life after death, the more one can > control the ignorant. Give me food, give me robes, and your dead > relatives, and yourselves, will be reborn in higher realms. James: If you are suggesting that the Buddha taught that giving dana to the Sangha as some sort of selfish propagada campaign, you are quite mistaken. He simply revealed the truth of kamma. Additionally, there were many people who donated to the Sangha, died, and went to the diva realms. We know because they came back to talk about it! > > I wouldn't even spit on the bloodsuckers who call this Dhamma. James: You are angry. When you are angry you can't think straight...that is delusion at work. The BuddhaSangha are not bloodsuckers. It is the finest and most beautiful institution ever created by mankind. (I speak of the original Sangha, not what it has become today). > > Herman > Metta, James #71873 From: connie Date: Fri May 11, 2007 6:21 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (55) nichiconn friends, 5 of 17 Athekadaa mahaapajaapatigotamii satthari vesaaliya.m viharante mahaavane kuu.taagaarasaalaaya.m saya.m vesaaliya.m bhikkhunupassaye viharantii pubba.nhasamaya.m vesaaliya.m pi.n.daaya caritvaa bhatta.m bhu~njitvaa attano divaa.t.thaane yathaaparicchinnakaala.m phalasamaapattisukhena viitinaametvaa phalasamaapattito vu.t.thaaya attano pa.tipatti.m paccavekkhitvaa somanassajaataa attano aayusa"nkhaare aavajjentii tesa.m khii.nabhaava.m ~natvaa eva.m cintesi- "ya.mnuunaaha.m vihaara.m gantvaa bhagavanta.m anujaanaapetvaa manobhaavaniiye ca there sabbeva sabrahmacariye aapucchitvaa idheva aagantvaa parinibbaayeyyan"ti. Yathaa ca theriyaa, eva.m tassaa parivaarabhuutaana.m pa~ncanna.m bhikkhunisataana.m parivitakko ahosi. Then one day, when the Teacher was dwelling in Vesaalii in the Great Wood in the Kuu.taagaara Hall and Mahaa Pajaapatii Gotamii herself was dwelling in the residence of the bhikkhuniis, in the morning she went on her alms round in Vesaalii. She ate the food and spent the appropriate time in her daytime quarters in the happiness of the acquisition of the fruition state, she considered her own attainment. Then full of gladness, she thought about her own life-forming elements and recognized that they were exhausted. She thought, "What if I were to attain final quenching after going to the monastery, obtaining permission from the Blessed One, and taking leave of all the theras who are mentally composed and of my fellows in leading the holy life, then returning here? And just as the therii had this thought, so did the five hundred bhikkhunis who formed her entourage. Tena vutta.m apadaane (apa. therii 2.2.97-288)- "Ekadaa lokapajjoto, vesaaliya.m mahaavane; kuu.taagaare kusaalaaya.m, vasate narasaarathi. "Tadaa jinassa maatucchaa, mahaagotami bhikkhunii; tahi.m kate pure ramme, vasii bhikkhunupassaye. "Bhikkhuniihi vimuttaahi, satehi saha pa~ncahi; rahogataaya tasseva.m, citassaasi vitakkita.m. "Buddhassa parinibbaana.m, saavakaggayugassa vaa; raahulaanandanandaana.m, naaha.m lacchaami passitu.m. As it is said in the Apadaana: Once, the Light of the World, the Charioteer of Men, was dwelling in the good hall of Kuu.taagaara in the Great Wood at Vesaalii. At that time, Bhikkhunii Mahaa-Gotamii, the aunt of the Conqueror, lived there in the delightful town in a residence for bhikkhunis built there. With the five hundred bhikkhunis who were free, being alone, she reflected thus in her mind: "I shall not be able to see the final quenching of the Buddha or of the two chief disciples [Saariputta and Mahaa-Moggallaana] or of Raahula, Aananda, or Nanda. "Buddhassa parinibbaanaa, saavakaggayugassa vaa; mahaakassapanandaana.m, aanandaraahulaana ca. "Pa.tikaccaayusa"nkhaara.m, osajjitvaana nibbuti.m; gaccheyya.m lokanaathena, anu~n~naataa mahesinaa. "Tathaa pa~ncasataanampi, bhikkhuniina.m vitakkita.m; aasi khemaadikaanampi, etadeva vitakkita.m. "Bhuumicaalo tadaa asi, naaditaa devadundubhii; upassayaadhivatthaayo, devataa sokapii.litaa. "Vilapantaa sukaru.na.m, tatthassuuni pavattayu.m; mittaa bhikkhuniyo taahi, upagantvaana gotami.m. "Nipacca sirasaa paade, ida.m vacanamabravu.m; tattha toyalavaasittaa, mayamayye rahogataa. "[Before] the final quenching of the Buddha, the two chief disciples, Mahaa-Kassapa and Nanda, Aananda, Raahula, "Before giving up the life-forming elements and [final] peace, may I go to the Protector of the World, the Great Sage for permission." The five hundred bhikkhuniis reflected in the same way. With Khemaa at their head, they reflected thus. At that time, there was an earthquake and thundering of the drum of the devas. The devataas in their own abodes were oppressed with grief. Lamenting very pitifully, their tears poured forth there, they went up to Gotamii with her friends the bhikkhuniis. [The bhikkhuniis] fell down head first at her feet and spoke these words: "O noble lady, sprinkled with drops of water there, you were alone. "Saa calaa calitaa bhuumi, naaditaa devadundubhii; paridevaa ca suyyante, kimattha.m nuuna gotamii. "Tadaa avoca saa sabba.m, yathaaparivitakkita.m; taayopi sabbaa aaha.msu, yathaaparivitakkita.m. "Yadi te rucita.m ayye, nibbaana.m parama.m siva.m; nibbaayissaama sabbaapi, buddhaanu~n~naaya subbate. "Maya.m sahaava nikkhantaa, gharaapi ca bhavaapi ca; sahaayeva gamissaama, nibbaana.m padamuttama.m. "Nibbaanaaya vajantiina.m, ki.m vakkhaamiiti saa vada.m; saha sabbaahi nigga~nchi, bhikkhuniinilayaa tadaa. "The earth together with its mountains trembled, the thundering of the drum of the devas is to be heard. What does it mean, O Gotamii?" Then she explained everything just as she had thought it over. And they all explained just as they had thought it over. "O noble lady, if [acquiring final] quenching is pleasing to you," [the bhikkhuniis said,] "with the Buddha's permission, devoutly we will all be quenched. "We departed from the home and birth together. So as friends we will go to quenching, the supreme place." She said, "What shall I say concerning going to quenching?" Then all of them together left the bhikkhunii dwelling. === tbc, connie #71874 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 11, 2007 3:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Will my whole world be beige? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/10/07 11:58:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I have made the mistake of speculating on the state of my own > accumulations. It is a pointless exercise, in my opinion, and not > something I normally like to do: > > --------------- > KH: >>I cling too much to existence to crave enlightenment and the > parinibbana that will inevitably follow. > --------------- > > Can I take that back? :-) It is a pointless sort of thing to say. How > would I know the object of lobha in "my" particular case? I have > never directly identified lobha, let alone its object. ------------------------------------------- Howard: As far as I'm concerned, it was a non-event. No big deal at all, and nobody's judging anything here. (I'm not, in any case.) Suggestion: While, of course, always trying to do what's right, as possible, and while calm regret and intention to "do better" is good, we should give ourselves a break and not be judgemental when it comes to ourselves (as well as others). Remember - metta, like charity (as the slogan goes), begins at home. As to the issue: We certainly do know a lot about our "accumulations" if we are attentive. But as in all areas, our knowledge is quite imperfect and we are very prone to error, which is why I think beliefs should be held lightly and even apparent certainties should be recognized as possibly misunderstood or misperceived. ------------------------------------------------------ > > -------------------------------------- > H: >Ah, okay. I understand. You think of complete awakening as an > annihilation. > -------------------------------------- > > Yes and no. At moments of wrong view there can be belief in > annihilation, whereas at other moments of wrong view there can be > belief in continuation. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. Each is a wrong view. Subtle, though. --------------------------------------- The uninstructed worldling has countless > > moments of wrong view - of every possible kind - every day. They are > conditioned to arise, and we are not even aware of them when they do. > They don't only arise when we are enunciating an opinion on DSG, for > example. > > So I can't say, "I am the kind of worldling that believes in > annihilation," or, "I am the kind of worldling that believes in > eternal existence." It doesn't work that way. A worldling is nothing > more than a moment of consciousness, and consciousness > changes more rapidly than can possibly be described. -------------------------------- Howard: That's true. Though often one or the other tendency predominates, occurring more frequently and more forcefully. --------------------------------- > > --------------------------- > H: >Of course, if someone actually *wanted* that, it would be abhaava > tanha. So, you are avoiding one of the extremes to be sure. The fact > that you are Buddhist at all suggests that you haven't succumbed > fully to the opposite extreme either, which I would say puts you in a > pretty good position. :-) > ---------------------------- > > Thanks, but, as I was saying, I don't think you or can know these > things. It would be better to leave you and me out of it, and just > learn about the various kinds of wrong view (and all the other > dhammas), how they come to arise or not arise, and how their final > cessation can eventually come about. > > -------------------------- > >H: >Seriously, Ken, you aren't claiming to be free of desiring, are > you? > <. . .> > Still you are quite the expert on what happens, hmm? ;-)) > ------------------------------------ > > I hope you won't mind my saying this, Howard, but you do have a > tendency to confuse theoretical understanding with belief. When > someone (not just me, but others too) expresses a theoretical > understanding you often respond as if they were claiming sure and > certain knowledge. I don't think anyone has sure and certain > knowledge of the Dhamma until they reach the stage of Stream-entry. -------------------------------------- Howard: I think then it is good to say either "the buddha teaches" or "the suttas claim" or "it is said in the Dhammasangani" or things along that line, or to say "I believe such & such to be so" or "I believe the Buddha's teaching that" or things along those lines, whatever happens to be the case, but to attempt to avoid saying things like "Things are this way" or "Things are that way". Of course, we all fall into the trap of using that latter sort of locution. When we do so though, at least according to the Buddha, and I agree with this, we aren't safeguarding the truth, unintentional though that may be. In any case, when someone makes an assertion without further qualification, I do tend to take that as expressing their belief. I think that is standard operating procedure. ----------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------- > <. . .> > H: >>>But desire aside, Ken, if this is the only moment, and you are > not an arahant now, then I guess that's it, huh? > >>> > > KH: >>Yes! > >> > > H: >Hmm. > --------------------------------------- > > Well, isn't it? :-) How else could it be? You are not suggesting, > are you, that there is some one or some thing that continues on to > become an arahant? > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, you just said "you"! What could you mean??? Ken, if one can't use ordinary speech, then one can't have conversations! And switching back & forth willy nilly without announcement, or even with, creates nothing but confusion. Sometimes folks suddenly abandon odrinary language as a means of escaping something they'd rather not deal with in a conversation. I've seen that happen frequently here, and I've felt the urge, myself. I think it's good to keep an eye out for that. ---------------------------------------------- > > ------------------------- > <. . .> > KH: >>You sometimes say categorically that the Buddha urged us to > take conventional actions. Conventional actions (so called) exist > over a period of time - not in a single moment. > >> > > H: >At any time during the "taking of a conventional action" it is a > single moment, and what is in process then is what is in process > then - consciousness of some object and various other mental > operations pertaining to that object all in effect. > --------------------------------------------- > > Once again, I am having trouble with one of your more complicated > sentences. :-) > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry, but that's what my speech is like when I'm trying to be precise. -------------------------------------------- If I may assume from what you have written in the > > past, you are referring again to "a complex network of dhammas." To > me, that always seems like a roundabout way of negating the > difference between concepts and realities. It tends to give concepts > the ultimate efficacy that only realities can have. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Huh? You're right.You didn't understand me. But, with apologies, I don't think I can do better on that, so we'd better let that item go. ------------------------------------------ > > --------------------------------------------------- > <. . .> > KH: >> > >If that were the case, there would be no escape from ignorance. If > >there is to be an escape from ignorance then there must be a > >mechanism by which consciousness can become the object of > >consciousness. Thankfully, there is such a mechanism (whether you > >believe it or not). :-) > > H: >Tell me about it, Ken. I'd like to hear. > -------------------------------------------------- > > I have nothing to add to the similes (blotting paper, photocopies, > the resonance of a gong, etc) that are usually given to explain how > this happens. There is no exact equivalent in conventional reality, > and so, at this stage in our understanding, we can only rely on > similes. ----------------------------------- Howard: Whatever figures of speech are used, it comes down to memory as far as I can see. ------------------------------------ > ============================ With metta, Howard #71875 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 11, 2007 3:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, Azita - In a message dated 5/11/07 5:47:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gazita2002@... writes: > >Howard: > > Azita, an actual visible object you see: Is it multicolored > or not? > > I, azita, see multicolored shapes, resembling people, forests, > rivers etc...... conventional truth, not ultimate truth!! > ==================== I didn't ask about apparent people, forests, rivers etc. Iasked only whether in truth visible objects are multicolored or not. With metta, Howard #71876 From: "sukinder" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 2:30 am Subject: RE: [dsg] A Meditation Tip 4 different types- the Path sukinderpal Dear Dieter, Another long and bold post, so brace yourself. :-) --------------------------------------- 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? S> But why this particular reading with explanations, why not simply ask me to read the text from anywhere? Or better still, why don't you bring up any part you wish to draw my attention to? No, I don't know this sutta in detail, however I am not sure "details" is important to consider here. I think I know enough of what 'Satipatthana' means in principle for there to have been and continue to be further reflections of its implications. If at any point there would arise some doubt, perhaps based on what you or anyone else says, then I might consult the sutta some more, but so far this has not happened. There has been and will continue to be discussion on this list about the sutta and its commentaries, and I will be interested to read them. Also, I have listened to the second track of your recommended recording but found as before, nothing new, and I won't be listening to more........ ==================== 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? S> It depends. No ariyan will say that he doesn't need to hear the Dhamma at any time and in whatever context. A worldling on the other hand, often likes to oversimplify and reduce the Dhamma to what he thinks are the essential elements. In doing so, this overly smart worldling will pick and choose only what he likes to hear. :-) ==================== D: Goenka possibly would ask you whether sati , awareness of the Here -and Now, is contradictory to any religion.. ? S> And I would ask him to define 'Sati' and 'satipatthana'. Dhammas are ultimate realities and conventions are conventions. Sati of the level of Dana, Sila and Samatha Bhavana is taught by all religions; however in asking me such a question in the context of Satipatthana, this reflects Goenka's own lack of understanding of the Path. In fact he does not even teach 'ordinary sati'. For in teaching to pay attention, the kind in which the commentaries refer to as being no different from that of 'jackals', he is inadvertently putting 'miccha sati' and 'miccha ditthi' at pinnacle of his teaching. His being utterly confused about the Dhamma and dhammas is also reflected in his 'formalized Metta meditation'. ======================= D: 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? S> :-) So you know that I'm a Sikh. If after hearing the Dhamma, this Sikh still insists on being Sikh (in beliefs and not just socially), then he has not yet understood the Dhamma in principle, let alone being mindful of body in body, feelings in feelings and mind objects. But this is not what Goenka's teaching leads to anyway. ======================== D: Please remember Sati is only the first of the 7 wings of enlightenment (Bojjhanga) S> So? Do you mean to say that the other factors can be developed /accumulated without sati? ======================== Suk: But of course this is already seeded in the very idea of 'retreat', 'formal practice' and ''doing' vipassana'. 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 S> There is a need in the practice of Jhana to, at one point, be removed from distractions. This is because there is no concern with the understanding of 'conditionality'. In such a case, 'self' and 'situation' does matter, therefore the concepts of 'family' and 'life in the town' stands in contrast to 'being alone in the forest at the foot of a tree'. Also here, the fact of bodily posture, one which does not cause tiredness and drowsiness is important. However, this is not so to the kind of wisdom which sees the importance of eradicating ignorance. Here the very idea of a better place and posture is reflection of wrong understanding about the nature of realities, hence to go along with any story projected, would only be encouraging of such a wrong understanding. Dhammas are as fleeting here as they are there, any "problem" that we have with sounds, sights and so on, is reaction to 'situations', a failure to acknowledge that in fact dhammas have arisen and fallen away already. ========================= D: 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 . S> Don't know this ' Sermon on the Mount'. If satipatthana is the 7th link of the Path training as you say, are you implying that other links are developed without mindfulness and understanding? ======================== 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 . S> No, in Dhamma the function of learning (about the way things are) is performed by 'panna', anything else is accumulating more of the same, but not learning. True, that panna at the level of patipatti is higher than that of pariyatti, hence the learning is deeper, but this is *not* in any "doing" as you are suggesting. Pariyatti is not 'theory' in the sense that you think it is, but is a level of 'understanding', the difference in why one appreciates the Dhamma when hearing it and another who doesn't. The difference in how more deeply one understands after hearing over and over again. If it were a matter of just 'theory' then there would be little chanda to listen to more, after all one may even be able to recite by heart the texts! Your comparing the process to swimming is not appropriate. Swimming, you don't even need to read about to be able to 'just do it'. In Dhamma "Ignorance" is of the 4NT, the conditions for overcoming this would therefore start with "hearing the Teachings". And as this is not a 'theory' in the sense that theories are understood, any idea to apply by any 'self' is reflection of wrong understanding. Pariyatti being a level of understanding, is accumulated to the level that patipatti is conditioned to arise. It doesn't come about by any decision to apply; such application can only result in more 'thinking'. Moreover, patipatti can arise even while one is reading, listening or discussing, swimming on the other hand, can take place only in water. ;-) One more point to consider, if patipatti does not arise prompted by the Buddha's words as it did for many during his time, do you think your own prompt to "do" will do the job? ==================== 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 ! S> :-) But it would have been better if you commented on it..? ==================== 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') . S> I'm ADD. I can't sit cross legged for more than a few minutes. I am very attached to eating meat. But I did attend two 10 day retreats in five months and decided to take at least one if not two such retreats per year till I die. And I became a vegetarian up to the time that I was introduced to the Abhidhamma. And yes, I had such ideas as 'controlling the monkey mind' as well. Also there was this self-congratulatory attitude of having 'gone through' and 'done it', which is the impression I got when listening to the audio talk you recommended. And while you consider others to be avoiding "sitting down" for whatever reason, the impression I get from all this, is that it is all about "Self" and nothing to do with developing wisdom or detachment, but a 'goal oriented activity' strongly clung to. There is no question that those of us who do not meditate, that we do value kusala of all levels and most of all the development of panna. If 'sitting' was a kusala with panna, we would do it with great enthusiasm. However sitting is not a kusala dhamma, so there is no particular attraction. ;-) ======================= 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. S> O yes, I did and can listen to the here and now, but what I hear more and more clearly is the voice of tanha and miccha ditthi. And what I thought to be mindfulness is clearly only "thinking". Yes, in the end it is patipatti which counts, pariyatti gets one only so far. But to get to patipatti, this is not by decision to note or sit for an extended period with the idea that satipatthana will eventually arise. The process as I see it, involves in part, becoming more and more familiar with all those states which in fact keep us away from attending to the moment, and this would be of paramattha dhammas and not concepts. Concepts, one can decide to pay attention to there and then, and this exactly is what meditators do. But isn't this too easy? But of course, because such noting does give rise to a corresponding illusion of result, you will not question this. In fact you will try to have more of it, re: constant mindfulness. ========================= D: 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.. S> They will think what they like, just as the Zen think that know sati without studying Dhamma. ======================= 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.. S> By rite and ritual I am referring exactly to what you label "necessary practice". ======================= D: wondering whether there is any progress of understanding in our communication .. ;-) S> Maybe we shouldn't try to measure? ;-) Metta, Sukinder #71877 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri May 11, 2007 3:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi again, Azita - I quote your whole post now. In a message dated 5/11/07 5:47:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gazita2002@... writes: > > Hello Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi, Azita - > > >------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Azita, an actual visible object you see: Is it multicolored > or not? > > I, azita, see multicolored shapes, resembling people, forests, > rivers etc...... conventional truth, not ultimate truth!! > > Seeing consciousness [cakkhu vinnana] arises, experiences visible > object, and falls away; arises and falls xtremely fast; no time > for 'multicolored etc' .....ultimate truth. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Don't worry about time. Not all visible objects are identical in form. You know that. That means that they differ in quality. And for sure a visible object consists of several shades. Nina speaks of that. And even if she didn't, by what qualities do visible objects differ? What is the basis for distinguishing them. And the fact that you and I conceptually analyze a scene after the fact does not imply we are thinking about what was not there. Forget the *naming* of "multicolored". I'm talking about the reality. -------------------------------------------------- > > Do > >you find it more comfortable to not consider the question? > > azita; not sure how many ways I can answer this question Howard, > seems like you dont like my answers. ------------------------------------- Howard: An answer that seems to imply that visible objects have no nature isn't satisfactory to me. It seems to just avoid answering. --------------------------------------- > > > I know I often > >consider some questions uncomfortable to consider. I think that > when that > >happens, we should take that as a sign of our clinging to view and > of fear of views > >being threatened. Easier to say than to do, I am the first to > admit. > > >-------------------------------------------- > Thro ignorance do we see many colors and > >>shapes, 'we' mix up all the realities and then are confused > about > >>what is real. > > > >-------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Does eye consciousness not see the actual visible object as > it is? > > azita: of course, and I dont know why you want to make > it 'multicolored'. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Well, you see visible objects. Tell me about them. What do you see? (I'm talking about what is actually seen, not stories about trees and mountains and rivers, but the visible object per se.) I see what I later call a mosaic of colors. ------------------------------------------ > > Is > >the sa~n~na that recognizes the visible object not based in the > nature of the > >object? > > azita: not sure what you mean here. Maybe you are talking about > conditions. IN that case, I guess the visible object conditions > sa~n~na by way of being the object that sa~n~na marks. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I'm talking about recognition - the second, later, phase of sa~n~na, not the initial marking phase. The recognition is based on the nature of the seen object, not solely on mental imputation. ------------------------------------------- > > Is the vivisble object without characteristics? Is visible object > not > >something real with an actual nature? Whatever happened tothe > vaunted sabhava > >of paramattha dhammas? > > azita: lots of questions Howard, and the last one gives me the > creepy feeling that you are being a bit sarcastic....or am I too > sensitive :-) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: No, it's not sarcasm. It's an expressed *acceptance* that paramattha dhammas actually have natures that distinguish them, a point very much emphasized here on DSG. I am pointing out that it is very relevant to this matter. --------------------------------------------- > > > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > azita > > > ========================= With metta, Howard #71878 From: "nilovg" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 9:22 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Posts to Daana Corner (2) nilovg --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > > "But we can learn that being aware now of what appears > is the only way that can help us not to take realities > for self. The less we cling to self, the less we fear > death. When we study the present moment with awareness > we have no time to have fear of death, but easier said > than done. We have to discuss this more. One can begin > little by little." > Dear Han, thank you for your summaries, I shall note the number of the post for later. During our walk I thought more about your remarks. Thinking about conditions also helps to see dying as not different from this moment. I remember Kh Sujin saying about a friend's cremation: just like now and how we were shocked. But she explained that it is a good reminder.It depends on kamma how long we shall live and we cannot predict anything. Before we know time has come and cittas arise and fall away so fast, no time to have fear.The transition from the cuticitta to the rebirth-consciousness is extremely fast. I found all the examples in the Visuddhimagga study very helpful, describing what kind of rebirth follows upon what kind of cuticitta and what kind of object these cittas experience. Do you know in Birma the expression kalyana putthujjana? I heard it in Thailand.We listen to the Dhamma, discuss it, learn about satipatthana and do the best we can.If we believe that we can have many moments of sati we do not see that it cannot be controlled, that it is anatta.How could we predict when it will arise? Nina. Nina. #71879 From: "nilovg" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 9:46 am Subject: Re: At least we're never too old for satipatthana!! nilovg --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Nina, (Lodewijk & all), > > Thanks for your e-cards from Paris! ....they also want to know why they have to know about nama and rupa. > They don't understand the relevance of understanding about seeing and > visible object now. Dear Sarah, thank you for your Email.Very good Kh Chatchai visited you. Kh Sujin explained to the group time and agin what is dhamma, there is dhamma now. These are not mere words. And much about patience in the practice. If one wants to see result it is all wrong: lobha, and one misleads oneself into thinking that there is sati when there is not. Same problems for the Thais: one does not°let° sati arise, without trying to do something about it. We have another day in Paris, in the Louvre, and Lodewijk and I shall discuss again what sati is.I shall report! Nina. #71880 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 4:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi James, On 11/05/07, buddhatrue wrote: > > > > James: Okay, sorry to hear of this. It is not for me to say what > thoughts and feelings were going through you mind at that moment. > However, I would suggest that your level of mindfulness was probably > not very high at that time. Also, I hope you never do such a foolish > thing again! > Thanks for your concern. > > James: If you are suggesting that the Buddha taught that giving dana > to the Sangha as some sort of selfish propagada campaign, you are > quite mistaken. He simply revealed the truth of kamma. > Additionally, there were many people who donated to the Sangha, died, > and went to the diva realms. We know because they came back to talk > about it! > Did they? I haven't heard about this. It might be important to publish this, don't you think? Or are you talking about what is said in the Suttas and associated literature? Surely you don't believe everything that is said in there, or do you James? For example, in the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta, the Buddha gives eight explanations for the causes of earthquakes. The one more nonsensical then the next. I would suggest that if you wished to benefit other beings and share something about Buddhism with them, don't go telling them why Buddhists think earthquakes occur :-). > > > > I wouldn't even spit on the bloodsuckers who call this Dhamma. > > James: You are angry. When you are angry you can't think > straight...that is delusion at work. I assure you that I am not angry, nor was I when I wrote the above. Being angry with ignorance would be quite an ignorant reaction, IMO. The BuddhaSangha are not > bloodsuckers. It is the finest and most beautiful institution ever > created by mankind. (I speak of the original Sangha, not what it has > become today). > Herman #71881 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 5:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi Jon, On 10/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Are you suggesting that not thinking about (not 'analysing') what you're > reading in the suttas is an option? ;-)) > Yes, I do. When given a clear instruction by someone who is dear and trusted, it is normally just carried out, isn't it? > > 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). I think that the constructing of an Abhidhamma from the Suttas is an example of a mindset in progress. I take your point about the difference between a tentative view and a held view. Herman #71882 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 5:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi Jon, On 10/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > I assume that death, > > in the absence of pain, is like going to sleep. I don't have a fear of > > going to sleep, do you? > > > > Not sure what you mean when you say that death, in the absence of pain, > is like going to sleep. Do you mean the act of dying, or the state of > being dead? The experience of falling into sleep is slipping from a state of knowing into not-knowing, consciousness into non-consciousness, from experiencing into non-experiencing. That is how I see the process of dying as well. Is that clearer? But the question remains, do you have a fear of going to sleep? Actually, I can't see that the presence of bodily pain in > the period leading up to death would make much difference in either case. People in pain don't tend to fall asleep real easily. Neither do people in pain, whether that be physical or mental, die real easily. It is funny to watch little toddlers "fighting" against sleep, especially when they're not your toddlers, and you want them to go to sleep. People fight death as well, for years even. There is nothing funny about that, however. > > I suspect that everybody has the same basic fear of death, but I also > think this fear can be temporarily supplanted by other emotions, for > example, where a person believes they are going to a better realm to be > reunited with their loved one (to give but one example -- there would be > many others). > Sure, and the belief that it will all be over and done with upon death is another one of those beliefs. All the speculations are possible only because nobody, and I mean nobody, knows. Herman #71883 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 5:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence egberdina Hi Larry, On 10/05/07, LBIDD@... wrote: > > > L: I was arguing that ignorance conditions the impermanence of rupa. > 'Ignorance' is of course consciousness rooted in ignorance. One way to > understand this is that ignorance is the root cause of kamma formations > (which are also consciousnesses) and all the sense doors are kamma > produced. How much rupa is there without a sense door? I know, "ask a > tree" ;-) > I like your ask a tree comment, but I don't understand how the rest explains the conditioning of the impermanence of rupa. Also as an aside, it is common ground, I believe, that the body is required as support for consciousness, and I assume that the sense doors are equivalent to the body. Now, I happen to believe that my body was a product of my mother and father's action, not my own. In that sense, I am a product of my parent's ignorance, not my own. So much for being only heir to my own kamma :-) Herman #71884 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 5:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) egberdina Hi Han, On 10/05/07, han tun wrote: > > > Taken separately, Giving has the characteristic of > relinquishing; its function is to dispel greed for > things that can be given away; its manifestation is > non-attachment, or the achievement of prosperity and a > favorable state of existence; an object that can be > relinquished is its proximate cause. > The interesting double-bind that we are presented with is that in order to give material gifts, one must have them first. To acquire and have possessions requires stinginess. A possession must become mine first before I can relinquish it. The possibility of material dana is conditioned by stinginess. The pursuit of material dana requires the pursuit of stinginess. Best to leave both of these well alone, don't you think? Herman #71885 From: han tun Date: Fri May 11, 2007 5:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Posts to Daana Corner (2) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your reply. I also appreciate your comments on how to allay the fear of death, and your comments on the arising of sati. Yes, Nina, we have the expression of “kalyaana putthujjana.” It is one way of classifying (putthujjanas) into two groups. (1) kalyaana putthujjana (2) andha putthujjana Kalyaana putthujjana is the one who knows khandhaa, aayatana, dhaatu, and saccaa. Andha putthujjana is the one who does not know the above. He/she is like a blind person who is groping in the world of darkness; even so, andha putthujjana is mentally blind and is groping in the world of ignorance (avijjaa). Respectfully, Han --- nilovg wrote: > Dear Han, > thank you for your summaries, I shall note the > number of the post for > later. #71886 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 6:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Will my whole world be beige? egberdina Hi Robert A, On 11/05/07, Robert wrote: > > I was surprised though that no one seemed to want to deal directly > with the first two. Care to take a shot at them? > > "Can you live without craving and attachment and still have drive and > ambition?" > > "Will my intimate relationships become good friendships?" > Thanks for your comments. I'll take a shot at these questions. No, I don't think that one can have drive and ambition in the absence of craving and attachment. Personally, I don't even think that it is possible to do anything consciously, at all, without craving. All action is goal-oriented, and directed towards changing the present into something else. Claiming an acceptance of the way things are while changing the way things are is less than honest, IMO. Intimate relationships that are good friendships are well worth striving for. They certainly are not mutually exclusive. Feel free to ask if you would like more clarification. Herman #71887 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 6:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > Did they? I haven't heard about this. It might be important to publish > this, don't you think? Or are you talking about what is said in the > Suttas and associated literature? Surely you don't believe everything > that is said in there, or do you James? > > For example, in the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta, the Buddha gives eight > explanations for the causes of earthquakes. The one more nonsensical > then the next. I would suggest that if you wished to benefit other > beings and share something about Buddhism with them, don't go telling > them why Buddhists think earthquakes occur :-). > > I assure you that I am not angry, nor was I when I wrote the above. > Being angry with ignorance would be quite an ignorant reaction, IMO. You're not angry? Well, then you have definitely lost your marbles! You are ranting and raving about things you have no first-hand knowledge of, and are really of no consequence. Generosity is its own reward. What the suttas have to say about earthquakes and what the suttas have to say about devas are not comparable. This is a fallacious argument. Devas from the deva realm noticed a sizeable increase in their numbers during the Buddhasasana. This was because of the faithful who donated to the Sangha and followed the rules of morality. Do research into the matter thoroughly before you shoot your mouth off about it. Metta, James #71888 From: han tun Date: Fri May 11, 2007 7:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) hantun1 Dear Herman, Your line of thinking is very interesting. I have never thought of it that way. You caught me off-balance. I think we should not leave both of these alone. But how to get to the core of the issue that you have raised? At the moment I am at a loss. I don’t know how to respond. I will have to think about it. Meanwhile, I wonder if someone has some idea about this. With metta and respect, Han --- Herman Hofman wrote: > Hi Han, > > On 10/05/07, han tun wrote: > > > > > > Taken separately, Giving has the characteristic > of > > relinquishing; its function is to dispel greed > for > > things that can be given away; its manifestation > is > > non-attachment, or the achievement of prosperity > and a > > favorable state of existence; an object that can > be > > relinquished is its proximate cause. > > > > The interesting double-bind that we are presented > with is that in > order to give material gifts, one must have them > first. To acquire and > have possessions requires stinginess. A possession > must become mine > first before I can relinquish it. The possibility of > material dana is > conditioned by stinginess. The pursuit of material > dana requires the > pursuit of stinginess. Best to leave both of these > well alone, don't > you think? > > > Herman > #71889 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri May 11, 2007 7:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence lbidd2 Hi Herman, H: "I like your ask a tree comment, but I don't understand how the rest explains the conditioning of the impermanence of rupa. Also as an aside, it is common ground, I believe, that the body is required as support for consciousness, and I assume that the sense doors are equivalent to the body. Now, I happen to believe that my body was a product of my mother and father's action, not my own. In that sense, I am a product of my parent's ignorance, not my own. So much for being only heir to my own kamma :-)" L: So much also for your body being a product of ignorance. Nina will explain this in great detail when we get to para. 201 in the Vism. thread on dependent arising. However, there is another question that I don't understand. Physical impermanence is "derived" materiality as is all other materiality except the four great primaries. Ven. ~Nanamoli writes "derived [by clinging] (upadaya)". I don't know what that bracketed "by clinging" refers to. "Upadaya" probably comes from "upadana" (clinging), but what is the implication there? Also, since physical impermanence is derived [by clinging] from the four great primaries does that mean that the four great primaries are not impermanent? Larry #71890 From: "Robert" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 8:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Will my whole world be beige? avalo1968 Hello Herman, Robert A: I was surprised though that no one seemed to want to deal directly with the first two. Care to take a shot at them? "Can you live without craving and attachment and still have drive and ambition?" "Will my intimate relationships become good friendships?" Herman: Thanks for your comments. I'll take a shot at these questions. No, I don't think that one can have drive and ambition in the absence of craving and attachment. Personally, I don't even think that it is possible to do anything consciously, at all, without craving. All action is goal-oriented, and directed towards changing the present into something else. Claiming an acceptance of the way things are while changing the way things are is less than honest, IMO. Robert A: This was interesting to me. I have always thought it possible to act with intention that is free from craving and attachment - to practice pure generousity for example. Pure generousity would be free from any thought of myself as a generous person, free from any thought that the act of generousity is admirable and worthy of a note in the society pages, free from any thought about whether the recipient is worthy of generousity, free from any requirement that my generousity bring about any particular result. The intention would be in accordance with the 2nd step of the Noble Eightfold Path - motivated by renunciation, lovingkindness, and compassion. The example I give is generousity, but any other act could be approached in the same way and these acts could be pursued quite vigorously and with energy. The way I have heard it described in the past is to focus on the intention, while letting go of the result. Do you think these ideas have any validity? Herman: Intimate relationships that are good friendships are well worth striving for. They certainly are not mutually exclusive. Robert A: This is very true. The question I asked was more in response to ideas I have sometimes heard expressed that as you let go of attachment, all relationships become platonic. However, I think there is another way to look at it. As people let go of attachment their relationships can only improve, for the sources of much of the strife in a relationship go with the attachment, to be replaced by a cooler, wiser appreciation for the other person and a greater willingness to allow the other person to be as they want to be, which can enhance the intimacy and closeness of the relationship, contrary to the idea that less attachment makes relationships more aloof and distant. Traditional Buddhist teaching has that at some point on the spiritual path, you will naturally become celibate, and that could very well be true. But I am always greatly interested in how people live with Buddhism at all stages, from the first hearing of the teachings to enlightenment. When people are just being introduced to the Buddhist teachings, there is sometimes an initial negative reaction to the way the teachings are presented - people come away from that first Dharma class hearing about dukkha and not-self and non-attachment and think it all a terrible downer. This is a shame if they stop there and never get the chance to learn how Buddhist practice can bring joy and beauty to our lives, even while we are still very much at the householder stage. Thank you for your responses to my questions. Robert A. #71891 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 8:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last Death is the Absolute Climax = Perfectly Pure Peace! egberdina Hi James, On 12/05/07, buddhatrue wrote: > > > You're not angry? Well, then you have definitely lost your marbles! > You are ranting and raving about things you have no first-hand > knowledge of, and are really of no consequence. Generosity is its > own reward. I agree that generousity is its own reward, but that is in the realms of the brahma-viharas, of which there is an infinite supply. Material generousity, on the other hand, initially requires the taking of what has not been given. > > What the suttas have to say about earthquakes and what the suttas > have to say about devas are not comparable. This is a fallacious > argument. Devas from the deva realm noticed a sizeable increase in > their numbers during the Buddhasasana. This was because of the > faithful who donated to the Sangha and followed the rules of > morality. Do research into the matter thoroughly before you shoot > your mouth off about it. > I am unable to do research on deva populations, but it is an accepted fact that the population of the world is in the order of 100x larger than it was at the time of the Buddha. To date, predictions about the difficulty of being (re)born as a human, and the numbers of beings (re)born as humans are just plain wrong. Add to this the dire predictions of life times shortening as opposed to the increase in life span of which we are witnesses, and one must wonder what all that predicting was about. Herman #71892 From: "nilovg" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 11:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) nilovg --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Herman, > > Your line of thinking is very interesting. I have > never thought of it that way. > You caught me off-balance. > I think we should not leave both of these alone. > But how to get to the core of the issue that you have > raised? > > > Hi Han, > > > > On 10/05/07, han tun wrote: > > > > > > > > > Taken separately, Giving has the characteristic > > of > > > relinquishing; its function is to dispel greed > > for > > > things that can be given away; its manifestation > > is > > > non-attachment, or the achievement of prosperity > > and a > > > favorable state of existence; an object that can > > be > > > relinquished is its proximate cause. > > > > > The pursuit of material > > dana requires the > > pursuit of stinginess. Best to leave both of these > > well alone, don't > > you think? > > > > Herman > > Dear Han and Herman, Being wealthy or poor depends on kamma, not on stinginess.If one has much one can give much, and if one has little one can still give. We have to consider the citta with generosity arising at a particular moment. Nina. #71893 From: "nilovg" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 11:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Posts to Daana Corner (2) nilovg --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Nina, > > Thank you very much for your reply. > I also appreciate your comments on how to allay the > fear of death, and your comments on the arising of > sati. > > Yes, Nina, we have the expression of "kalyaana > putthujjana." It is one way of classifying > (putthujjanas) into two groups. > > (1) kalyaana putthujjana > (2) andha putthujjana > > Kalyaana putthujjana is the one who knows khandhaa, > aayatana, dhaatu, and saccaa. > > Andha putthujjana is the one who does not know the > above. He/she is like a blind person who is groping in > the world of darkness; even so, andha putthujjana is > mentally blind and is groping in the world of > ignorance (avijjaa). Dear Han, I like your definitions very much, good to think over. Gradually there can be a change from being a person who is blind to being someone who knows paramattha dhammas.There is feeling now and it is a khandha. We can learn that it is not my feeling. There are ayatanas time and again when there is association of eyesense, visible object and seeing. We are fortunate to be able to hear the Dhamma so that there can be a change. Nina. #71894 From: "nilovg" Date: Fri May 11, 2007 11:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' nilovg --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Azita - > > Not all visible objects are identical in form. > You know that. That means that they differ in quality. And for sure a visible > object consists of several shades. Nina speaks of that. And even if she > didn't, by what qualities do visible objects differ? Is the vivisble object without characteristics? Is visible object > > not > > >something real with an actual nature? Hi Howard and Azita, Ha, quoting me. There are many moments of seeing arising and falling away, so fast that it seems one moment. It seems that one moment can see many colours at once. It is so fast that we cannot make out which colour is seen at a particular moment. We should not try to know. True, because of different compositions of elements arising together with visible object in one group, kalapa, colours are different, but, as said, we cannot know all this. Is it not sufficient to know that whatever can be seen through the eyes is what is visible, a kind of rupa that does not belong to us? The aim is detachment from the idea of my seeing, my visible object. If we try to find out too much we shall grope in the dark, to use Han's definition. Too much defining does not help. Let us be aware of seeing and visible object when there is seeing, no other way. Howard, I like to take part of this thread when I am back. Now I am going to Paris again. Nina. #71895 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 12, 2007 12:07 am Subject: Posts to Daana Corner (5) sarahprocter... Dear Han, I'm appreciating your series and everyone's contributions. Here is an extract from a text on daana which I'd like to share. It's from the commentary(to stanza6) to the Mangala Sutta in the Paramatthajotikaa, translated by Nanamoli (PTS) as 'The Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning': .... "Giving is of two kinds, namely, giving of material things and giving of the True Idea [Dhamma] (see A.i.91). Herein, giving of material things is of the kind already stated'; but giving of the True Idea is the teaching, out of desire for others' welfare, of the True Idea proclaimed by the Enlightened One, and that brings about the kind of pleasure (bliss) that is due to the exhaustion of suffering both in this world and the other world. Of these two kinds of giving, this is the best, according as it is said: 'The gift of the True Idea conquers all gifts, 'The taste of the True Idea conquers all tastes, 'The joy of the True Idea conquers all joys, 'The termination of craving conquers all pain' (Dh.354). Herein, it has been stated how the giving of material things is a good omen. But the giving of the True Idea is called a good omen because it is the footing for such special qualities as the experiencing of the meaning (aim); for it is said by the Blessed One 'Bhikkhus, in proportion as a bhikkhu teaches in detail the True Idea to others as he has heard (learned) and mastered it, he accordingly comes to experience the meanings and experience the ideas in that True Idea'(so tasmi'm dhamme atthapatisa'mvedii ca hoti dhammapatisa'mvedi ca)* (A iii. 21), and so on." .... * a footnote also gives a similar line to this last one in M.i. 37; "'he gains experience in ideas, and so he finds the gladness that is connected with the True Idea' (labhati atthaveda'm labhati dhammaveda'm labhati dhammuupasa'mhita'm paamujja'm).' Metta, Sarah ======== #71896 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 12, 2007 12:26 am Subject: Posts to Siila Corner (2) sarahprocter... Dear Phil, Han & all, The text I was just quoting continues with the following which I'd like to submit to the Siila Corner. Again, it's from the commentary(to stanza6) to the Mangala Sutta in the Paramatthajotikaa, translated by Nanamoli (PTS) as 'The Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning': .... "True-Ideal conduct (dhammacariya) is conduct consisting in the ten profitable courses of action, according as it is said 'Householders, there are three kinds of bodily conduct in accordance with the True Idea (Dhamma), fair conduct (M i. 287), and so on. That True-Ideal conduct should be understood as a good omen (mangala) since it is a cause for rebirth in the heavenly world; for this is said by the Blessed One 'Householders,it is by reason of conduct in accordance with the True Idea, by reason of fair conduct, that creatures here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, in the heavenly world' (M i. 285)." .... The commentary to the following stanza (7) includes the following on 'appamaado ca dhammesu' as a supreme good omen. I know Phil is always interested in references to 'appamaado' or diligence: "Diligence (appamaado) in profitable ideals (dhammesu) should be understood as the habit of never being without mindfulness of profitable ideas, which, as to meaning, is the converse of the negligence stated as follows: 'There is carelessness, inattentiveness, heedlessness, hanging back (oliinavuttitaa), unzealousness, uninterestedness, non-repetition, non-maintenance-in-being, non-development, non-resolution, non-application, negligence, concerning the maintenance of profitable ideas in being: any such negligence, neglecting, neglectedness, is called negligence' (Vbg. 350). This [diligence] is called a good omen since it is a cause for achieving the various kinds of what is profitable and since it is a cause for reaching the Deathless. And the Master's message to be recalled here is that in such passages as follows 'When [a bhikkhu abides] diligent, ardent [and self-controlled] his.....' (M. i. 350) and 'The way to deathlessness is diligence' (Dh. 21)." ***** Metta, Sarah ========= #71897 From: han tun Date: Sat May 12, 2007 1:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) hantun1 Dear Nina (and Herman), Nina: Being wealthy or poor depends on kamma, not on stinginess. If one has much one can give much, and if one has little one can still give. We have to consider the citta with generosity arising at a particular moment. Han: Thank you very much for your kind clarification. Respectfully, Han #71898 From: han tun Date: Sat May 12, 2007 1:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Posts to Daana Corner (2) hantun1 Dear Nina, Nina: I like your definitions very much, good to think over. Gradually there can be a change from being a person who is blind to being someone who knows paramattha dhammas. There is feeling now and it is a khandha. We can learn that it is not my feeling. There are ayatanas time and again when there is association of eyesense, visible object and seeing. We are fortunate to be able to hear the Dhamma so that there can be a change. Han: We are fortunate indeed to be able to hear the Dhamma. There are dvi-hetuka puggalas (who are born with ~naana-vippayutta mahaa-vipaaka cittas which lacks wisdom) and ti-hetuka-puggalas (who are born with ~naana-sampayutta mahaa-vipaaka cittas which have wisdom), and although I do not know which class to which I belong, I feel fortunate to be able to hear the Dhamma. Respectfully, Han #71899 From: han tun Date: Sat May 12, 2007 1:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (5) hantun1 Dear Sarah, I thank you very much for your very valuable contribution. The Daana Corner belongs to the Group, and active participation by the Group members are greatly appreciated. Respectfully, Han --- sarah abbott wrote: > Dear Han, > > I'm appreciating your series and everyone's > contributions. Here is an > extract from a text on daana which I'd like to > share. > #71900 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 1:25 am Subject: In this very Life! bhikkhu5 Friends: What Five things cause Awakening in this very Life? The Blessed Buddha once said: If, Bhikkhus and Friends, anyone wishes: Oh, may I in this very life be able to eliminate the mental fermentations, and thereby come to fully experience mental release, release through understanding, by directly realizing it and make it my own! Then he should practise to perfect morality (sÄ«la ), be devoted to mental tranquillity (samatha ), not neglect the mental absorptions, cultivate insight (vipassanÄ? ), and often frequent lonely, remote & peaceful places for training! Source Text (extract): Majjhima Nikaya 6 http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/siila.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/samatha.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/g_m/jhaana.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/u_v/vipassanaa.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/DPPN/wtb/s_t/samatha_vipassanaa.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #71901 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 4:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' gazita2002 hello Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Azita - > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Don't worry about time. Not all visible objects are identical in form. > You know that. That means that they differ in quality. And for sure a visible > object consists of several shades. Nina speaks of that. And even if she > didn't, by what qualities do visible objects differ? azita: visible objects differ by the mere fact that 'this' v.o. is different from 'this' one - eg in Abhidhamma terms, rupa that is v.o. lasts no longer than 17 moments of citta, so that is very,very fast. The point I'm trying to make is that it doesnt matter to me what v.o. actually consists of, the important thing is that there is v.o. and seeing consciousness sees just that rupa, no other. Likewise, with sound, it can only be experienced by hearing consciousness not seeing consciousness. Do you have as many questions about sound as you do about v.o.? What is the basis for > distinguishing them. And the fact that you and I conceptually analyze a scene after > the fact does not imply we are thinking about what was not there. Forget the > *naming* of "multicolored". I'm talking about the reality. Azita: "I" dont have the developed sati and pa~n~na to know a reality, the characteristic of a nama or a rupa. I suggest I am at pariyatti stage - learning the wording of the doctrine, therefore I wont be drawn into stating that v.o. is multicolored, ..... > > > > > Do > > >you find it more comfortable to not consider the question? > > > > azita; not sure how many ways I can answer this question Howard, > > seems like you dont like my answers. > > ------------------------------------- > Howard: > An answer that seems to imply that visible objects have no nature > isn't satisfactory to me. It seems to just avoid answering. Azita: visible object appears tho the eye-door, it is that which can be seen, that is its nature. Call it color if you must, however v.o. is fine for me. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita #71902 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat May 12, 2007 5:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil jonoabb Hi Han Thanks for kicking off the Sila Corner, and for quoting the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta (MN 61). I'd be interested to know how you understand this sutta. What would be an example of the kind of reflecting mentioned in the sutta? Jon han tun wrote: > > > ... > Therefore, if you may, I would like to take up how to > apply intentional practice for the development of > virtue. There must be many suttas, but I want to quote > the following sutta as a starter. > > MN 61 Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html > > > "Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should > reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — > would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of > others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily > action, with painful consequences, painful results?' > If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to > self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to > both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with > painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily > action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. > But if on reflection you know that it would not cause > affliction... it would be a skillful bodily action > with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any > bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do. > > "While you are doing a bodily action, you should > reflect on it: 'This bodily action I am doing — is it > leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of > others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, > with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on > reflection, you know that it is leading to > self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to > both... you should give it up. But if on reflection > you know that it is not... you may continue with it. > > "Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on > it: 'This bodily action I have done — did it lead to > self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to > both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful > consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you > know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction > of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily > action with painful consequences, painful results, > then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to > the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the > holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise > restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know > that it did not lead to affliction... it was a > skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, > pleasant results, then you should stay mentally > refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful > mental qualities. > ------------------------------ > "Whenever you want to do a verbal action, ---------- > "While you are doing a verbal action, ----------- > "Having done a verbal action, ----------- > ------------------------------ > "Whenever you want to do a mental action, ---------- > "While you are doing a mental action, ---------- > "Having done a mental action, ---------- > ------------------------------- > > Perhaps, you may also wish to add something to this > post. > > Respectfully, > Han #71904 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 2:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) upasaka_howard Hi, Han & Herman - In a message dated 5/11/07 10:23:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, hantun1@... quotes Herman, writing: > The interesting double-bind that we are presented > >with is that in > >order to give material gifts, one must have them > >first. To acquire and > >have possessions requires stinginess. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: There are likely to be many intent factors leading to acquiring possessions, some often quite admirable. Some possessins are for purpose of sustaining life and health of oneself and of others.Sometimes wealth is acquired (by honest earning,effort,and proper trade) for the express purpose giving away what one has toiled to produce. Not all attempts at acquisition are without kusala intention. Correspondingly, not all donation fits the description of proper dana. The motivations are frequently mixed, and often self-serving. At those moments that the intention is wholesome, motivated by such things as love and compoassion and a genuine sense of relinquishment, giving away of possessions is true dana. At those times the motivation is self-pride, seeking praise of others,and other benefits to oneself such as tax advantages, while this is not "evil", it is not a time of true dana either. So, as usual, intention is the primary determinant. ------------------------------------------- A possession> > >must become mine > >first before I can relinquish it. The possibility of > >material dana is > >conditioned by stinginess. The pursuit of material > >dana requires the > >pursuit of stinginess. Best to leave both of these > >well alone, don't > >you think? > > > ======================= With metta, Howard #71905 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 2:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 5/12/07 2:51:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: > Howard, I like to take part of this thread when I am back. Now I am > going to Paris again. > ===================== Thank you for writing. Have much fun in Paris.My best to Lodewijk! With metta, Howard #71906 From: connie Date: Sat May 12, 2007 6:42 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (55) nichiconn hi, part 6 of 17: "Upassaye yaadhivatthaa, devataa taa khamantu me; bhikkhuniinilayasseda.m, pacchima.m dassana.m mama. "Na jaraa maccu vaa yattha, appiyehi samaagamo; piyehi na viyogotthi, ta.m vajissa.m asa"nkhata.m. "Aviitaraagaa ta.m sutvaa, vacana.m sugatorasaa; soka.t.taa paridevi.msu, aho no appapu~n~nataa. "Bhikkhuniinilayo su~n~no, bhuuto taahi vinaa aya.m; pabhaate viya taaraayo, na dissanti jinorasaa. "Nibbaana.m gotamii yaati, satehi saha pa~ncahi; nadiisatehiva saha, ga"ngaa pa~ncahi saagara.m. "May the devataas inhabiting the monastery [of the bhikkhuniis] forgive me. This is my last look at the bhikkhunii's dwelling. "What if I were to go to the unconditioned where there is no old age, no death, no association with the unpleasant nor separation from what is dear?" Hearing her words, those not free from passion, those legitimate heirs of the Sublime One were afflicted by grief and lamented, "Alas, our merit is small! "The dwelling of the bhikkhuniis has become empty without them. These legitimate offspring of the Conqueror who are like stars at dawn are not to be seen. "Gotamii is going to quenching together with the five hundred [bhikkhunis] just as the Ganges [goes to] the ocean with five hundred rivers." "Rathiyaaya vajantiyo, disvaa saddhaa upaasikaa; gharaa nikkhamma paadesu, nipacca idamabravu.m. "Pasiidassu mahaabhoge, anaathaayo vihaaya no; tayaa na yuttaa nibbaatu.m, iccha.t.taa vilapi.msu taa. "Taasa.m sokapahaanattha.m, avoca madhura.m gira.m; ruditena ala.m puttaa, haasakaaloyamajja vo. "Pari~n~naata.m mayaa dukkha.m, dukkhahetu vivajjito; nirodho me sacchikato, maggo caapi subhaavito. "Parici.n.no mayaa satthaa, kata.m buddhassa saasana.m; Ohito garuko bhaaro, bhavanetti samuuhataa. Seeing them going along the road, faithful women lay followers came out of their houses, fell down at their feet, and said this: "O you of great wealth, be reconciled with us. Do not abandon us without a protector. Do not be intent on being quenched." Thus the lamented, being afflicted. [Gotami] spoke a sweet speech in order to eliminate their grief: "Enough of crying, children. Today is a time of joy for you. "I have comprehended misery. Abandoning the cause of misery, cessation has been realized by me. And the path has been properly developed. "I have attended on the Teacher. I have done the Buddha's teaching. I have put down the heavy burden; everything that leads to renewed existence has been rooted out. "Yassatthaaya pabbajitaa, agaarasmaanagaariya.m; so me attho anuppatto, sabbasa.myojanakkhayo. "Buddho tassa ca saddhammo, anuuno yaava ti.t.thati; nibbaatu.m taava kaalo me, maa ma.m socatha puttikaa. "Ko.n.da~n~naanandanandaadii ti.t.thanti raahulo jino; sukhito sahito sa"ngho, hatadabbaa ca titthiyaa. "Okkaakava.msassa yaso, ussito maaramaddano; nanu sampati kaalo me, nibbaanatthaaya puttikaa. "Cirappabhuti ya.m mayha.m, patthita.m ajja sijjhate; aanandabherikaaloya.m, ki.m vo assuuhi puttikaa. "The aim for which one goes forth from the home to the homeless state, that aim has been attained by me - all bonds are destroyed. "The Buddha and his true Doctrine remain undiminished. Now it is time for me to become quenched. Do not grieve for me, my children. "Ko.n.da~n~na, Aananda, Nanda, etc, Raahula, and the Conqueror remain. The Order is happy and united. The sectarians have cut down their trees. "The followers of the Okkaaka dynasty have risen up, crushing Maara. Children, is it not time now for me to be extinguished through quenching? "That which I sought after for a long time is accomplished today. This is the time for [beating] the drum of joy. Children, why these tears? tbc, connie #71907 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 7:11 am Subject: Right View scottduncan2 Dear All, I found the following passage while reading in Sammohavinodanii (Dispeller of Delusion), pp.138-9, and submit it for your consideration. Please note the role of 'mundane' learning: "In the description of Right View, by dukkhe ~naa.na.m ('knowledge concerning suffering) and so on are pointed out the four truths as meditation subject. Herein, the first two are process [of existence], the last two standstill. Among these the bhikkhu's laying to heart (abhiniveso) of the meditation subject is in the process, there is no laying to heart in the standstill. For the meditator works on his meditation subject by learning in from a teacher in brief thus: 'Which are the five aggregates?' and he goes over it verbally again and again. But as regards the other two truths, he does his work by hearing: 'the Truth of Cessation is agreeable, desirable, pleasing, the Truth of the Path is agreeable, desirable, pleasing.' Doing his work thus, he penetrates the four truths with a single penetration. He achieves them with a single achievement. He penetrates suffering with the penetration of full understanding, origination with the penetration of abandoning, cessation with the achievement of realisation and the path with the achievement of development. Thus for him there comes to be in the prior stage penetration by learning, questioning, hearing, remembering and comprehending in regard to two truths; and penetration; and penetration by hearing only in regard to two. In the later stage there comes to be penetration as function in regard to three, and penetration as object in regard to cessation. Herein, all penetration knowledge is supramundane; knowledge of hearing, remembering and comprehending is mundane of the sense sphere. But there comes to be reviewing (paccavekkha.naa) for one who has reached the truths. But this one is a beginner, therefore that is not stated here. For this bhikkhu there is no concern, ratiocination, bringing to mind, and reviewing thus: 'I am fully understanding suffering, I am abandoning origination, I am realising cessation, I am developing the path' before laying hold; but there is since laying hold. But in the later stage suffering has just been penetrated...the path has just been developed. Herein, two truths are profound because of being difficult to see, and two are difficult to see on account of being profound. For the Truth of Suffering is evident once it arises because one has to say: 'Ah, the pain!' in respect of encounters with stumps and thorns, etc.; and origination is evident once it arises as desire to chew, desire to eat, and so on. But as to the penetration of their characteristics, both are profound; accordingly these are profound because of being difficult to see. But the work for seeing the other two is like extending the hand for the purpose of seizing the summit of existence, like extending the foot for the purpose of seizing [the hell called] Avicii, like the placing (pa.tipaadana.m) end to end of a hair split a hundred times. Accordingly these are difficult to see because of being profound. Thus this passage 'knowledge concerning suffering', etc. is stated with reference to the arising of knowledge in the prior stage by learning etc. in regard to the four truths which are profound because they are difficult to see and difficult to see because they are profound. But at the moment of penetration the knowledge is only one." Sincerely, Scott. #71908 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 3:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' upasaka_howard Hi, Azita - In a message dated 5/12/07 7:34:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, gazita2002@... writes: > hello Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > >Hi again, Azita - > > > >-------------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > Don't worry about time. Not all visible objects are > identical in form. > >You know that. That means that they differ in quality. And for > sure a visible > >object consists of several shades. Nina speaks of that. And even > if she > >didn't, by what qualities do visible objects differ? > > > azita: visible objects differ by the mere fact that 'this' v.o. is > different from 'this' one - eg in Abhidhamma terms, rupa that is > v.o. lasts no longer than 17 moments of citta, so that is very,very > fast. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: This says that differ because they differ. This is not so very helpful to me. ;-) ----------------------------------------- The point I'm trying to make is that it doesnt matter to me > > what v.o. actually consists of, the important thing is that there is > v.o. and seeing consciousness sees just that rupa, no other. ------------------------------------------ Howard: But my point was that a visible object is not a simple, indeomposable phenomenon. Now, of course if that issue doesn't matter to you that's fine. :-) ------------------------------------------ > Likewise, with sound, it can only be experienced by hearing > consciousness not seeing consciousness. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: I surely don't disagree with that. I don't get the point. It is, in fact, definitional, the knowing of a visible object is called "visual consciousness". ------------------------------------------ Do you have as many > > questions about sound as you do about v.o.? ------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't have questions about either. As regards a visible object or a sound object, each is an amalgam. I emphasized visible objects, because they are discussed far more often here. I did give a sound example. ------------------------------------------ > > > What is the basis for > >distinguishing them. And the fact that you and I conceptually > analyze a scene after > >the fact does not imply we are thinking about what was not there. > Forget the > >*naming* of "multicolored". I'm talking about the reality. > > > Azita: "I" dont have the developed sati and pa~n~na to know a > reality, the characteristic of a nama or a rupa. I suggest I am at > pariyatti stage - learning the wording of the doctrine, therefore I > wont be drawn into stating that v.o. is multicolored, ..... ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I quote Khun Sujin from Realities and concepts: "If satipatthana arises it can distinguish visible object, it can consider it and be aware of it, so that it can be correctly known that what appears are just different colours." This article can be found at the following url: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:43BJh9NPE9EJ:www.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de/grou\ ps/amj/People/Sanae.Rujivan /my_religion_thoughtlinux.htm+visible+object+%2B+sujin&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14& gl=us&ie=UTF-8 ------------------------------------------ > > > > >> > >>Do > >>>you find it more comfortable to not consider the question? > >> > >>azita; not sure how many ways I can answer this question Howard, > >>seems like you dont like my answers. > > > >------------------------------------- > >Howard: > > An answer that seems to imply that visible objects have no > nature > >isn't satisfactory to me. It seems to just avoid answering. > > Azita: visible object appears tho the eye-door, it is that which can > be seen, that is its nature. Call it color if you must, however v.o. > is fine for me. > > Patience, courage and good cheer, > azita > > ========================== With metta, Howard #71909 From: "Robert" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 7:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) avalo1968 Hello Herman and Han, Herman: The interesting double-bind that we are presented with is that in order to give material gifts, one must have them first. To acquire and have possessions requires stinginess. A possession must become mine first before I can relinquish it. The possibility of material dana is conditioned by stinginess. The pursuit of material dana requires the pursuit of stinginess. Best to leave both of these well alone, don't you think? Robert A: Is it possible that the teaching on generousity in regards to material gifts is simply a suggestion to householders that it is good to hold things with a looser grip, to gradually be more open-handed and free to let things go? We all have to start where we are and many of us are householders with material possessions who could find our lives are better as we gradually learn to be generous. Things don't have to be absolute, you don't necessarily need to give away all you own to experience the truth of how generousity can be beneficial to both the giver and the receiver. As with everything else, generousity has be coupled with wisdom, and you have to operate within your own capacity to do things wisely, based on where you are on the continuum of enlightenment. But everyone can wisely be less stingy and more generous to at least some degree and to the extend that they can, they should. Respectfully, Robert A. #71910 From: "Phil" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 7:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil philofillet Hello Han Thanks to your suggestion re the Sila Corner, I have had an impetus to reflect more on just what it is that motivates me in Dhamma these days, and I've come to realize more clearly that, though I often speak of Sila, it is more precisely guarding of the sense doors that I am oriented towards. I forget the Pali word, but I guess it doesn't matter in this case. And this has been going on for a few years now. My interest in the Salayatana Samyutta (SN 35) was in regard to all the suttas that get at cutting off akusala proliferation. And all the suttas in AN that grab me deal with guarding the sense doors. Perhaps this passage gets at the reason for this: "If there is no sense control, o monks, then the basis for virtue is destroyed for one who lacks sense control. If there is no virtue..." (I think you know the rest, the basis for concentration is not established, adn then "the basis for knowledge and vision fo the way things are." So perhaps without knowing it, my interest in guarding the sense doors (which of course doesn't mean trying-not-to- see/taste/smell/hear/touch, but is stopping at seeing/tasting/smelling/hearing/touching without proliferating, or with less proliferating) is a sign that "I" am on the right track! :) Really, for me these days, it comes down to the first and second right efforts. Are you familiar with the English expression "don't go there?" (If you find your mind headed in a harmful direction, stop.) Really, for me these last few months, at least, Dhamma has come down to "Don't go there" and "Went there? Get out!" It's nothing deep, all very much on the surface of the mindstream, dealing with conceptual objects. But that's where I'm at and what motivates me. So I suspect I will be posting passages from the many suttas that help guide us in guarding the sense doors. The MN 61 passage you quoted was an excellent example. I suppose I may be incorrect in academic terms about whether this is really "guarding the sense doors." I don't care. I know what it is for me and I am very confident that it is in line with the teaching the Buddha provided for people like me. (Busy householders who are prone to gross proliferation of unwholesome tendencies. Metta, Phil p.s as you say below, I will take my time and post sutta passages now and then. I can't really "lead" the corner because I have no intention of getting into discussions that will inevitably lead me into "thundering" against Acharn Sujin, as Nina puts it. I think I will just share sutta passages that guide me in the hope that they will help others as well, letting them speak for themselves. The passages that inspire me tend to be the ones that speak for themselves. > Please take your own time, and post them only when it > is convenient to you. > And your postings need not necessarily be for > discussions. > If you come across anything interesting, even if it is > so straightforward that no discussion is necessary, I > think it will be useful for the application of > Buddha's teachings. > #71911 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 3:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant' TGrand458@... Hi Howard and Azita Just happened to read your posts and found it interesting. Just a single comment below... In a message dated 5/12/2007 5:34:42 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, gazita2002@... writes: > Howard: > Don't worry about time. Not all visible objects are identical in form. > You know that. That means that they differ in quality. And for sure a visible > object consists of several shades. Nina speaks of that. And even if she > didn't, by what qualities do visible objects differ? azita: visible objects differ by the mere fact that 'this' v.o. is different from 'this' one - eg in Abhidhamma terms, rupa that is v.o. lasts no longer than 17 moments of citta, so that is very,very fast. The point I'm trying to make is that it doesnt matter to me what v.o. actually consists of, the important thing is that there is v.o. and seeing consciousness sees just that rupa, no other. ............................................................. TG: This confuses me Azita. You say "it doesn't matter to you" what visual object consists of yet you claim it consists of rupa and even know the exact time rupa lasts vs citta. This sounds like far more a bombastic claim then anything Howard is promoting. However, I do like you patience, courage, and good cheer "sign off" !!! Nice combination and actually affective. ........................................................... TG OUT #71912 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 4:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and Han) - In a message dated 5/12/07 10:53:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: > ... perhaps without knowing it, my interest in guarding the > sense doors (which of course doesn't mean trying-not-to- > see/taste/smell/hear/touch, but is stopping at > seeing/tasting/smelling/hearing/touching without proliferating, or with > less proliferating) is a sign that "I" am on the right track! :) > > Really, for me these days, it comes down to the first and second > right efforts. Are you familiar with the English expression "don't go > there?" (If you find your mind headed in a harmful direction, stop.) > Really, for me these last few months, at least, Dhamma has come down > to "Don't go there" and "Went there? Get out!" It's nothing deep, all > very much on the surface of the mindstream, dealing with conceptual > objects. But that's where I'm at and what motivates me. > ====================== Phil, I think this is very well said. I also think that this practice of yours is an extremely important aspect of Dhamma practice, and in the course of engaging in it one enhances the quality and frequency of occurrence of mindfulness and other path factors, so that much benefit is obtained, even beyond the enhancement of sila and calm. The ongoing mindfulness required and further cultivated feeds into a cultivation of vijja as well. With metta, Howard #71913 From: "Phil" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 8:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil philofillet Hi Howard We've discussed "don't go there" in the past, and your encouragement in this direction was very helpful, reinforcing. Thanks. Metta, Phil > Phil, I think this is very well said. I also think that this practice > of yours is an extremely important aspect of Dhamma practice, and in the > course of engaging in it one enhances the quality and frequency of occurrence of > mindfulness and other path factors, so that much benefit is obtained, even > beyond the enhancement of sila and calm. The ongoing mindfulness required and > further cultivated feeds into a cultivation of vijja as well. > #71914 From: "Robert" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 8:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil avalo1968 Hello Phil, Phil: I think I will just share sutta passages that guide me in the hope that they will help others as well, letting them speak for themselves. The passages that inspire me tend to be the ones that speak for themselves. Robert A: I for one would be very interested in sutta passages you would like to post on guarding the sense doors or sila. Thank you, Robert A. #71915 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat May 12, 2007 8:33 am Subject: A Meditation Tip 4 different types- the Path moellerdieter Dear Sukinder , thanks for your answer. I don't think there is progress of mutual understanding , our views simply do not meet eachother... obviously too different types.. ;-) Fritz Perls put that so nicely: 'I am I, and you are you. I do my thing, and you do your thing. I am not in this world to live up to your expectations, and you are not in this world to live up to mine. If by chance we meet, it's beautiful. If not, it can't be helped. ' all the best for you! with Metta Dieter #71916 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 9:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence TGrand458@... In a message dated 5/11/2007 8:53:39 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Also, since physical impermanence is derived [by clinging] from the four great primaries does that mean that the four great primaries are not impermanent? Larry Hi Larry I posted this quote to you a couple of days ago. Perhaps a closer look will clear up the 4 Great Elements impermanent status as the Suttas describe them... “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) This quote, which may appear basic on the surface, has a lot of clues about impermanence, The Four Great Elements, and consciousness. TG #71917 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 9:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Larry) - In a message dated 5/12/07 4:28:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Larry > > I posted this quote to you a couple of days ago. Perhaps a closer look > will > clear up the 4 Great Elements impermanent status as the Suttas describe > them... > > > “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great > elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled > rice and > porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to > dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported > by it > and bound up with it.â€? > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, > Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) > This quote, which may appear basic on the surface, has a lot of clues about > > impermanence, The Four Great Elements, and consciousness. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: TG, how about talking a bit about the clues you see here and what you infer from them? It may be interesting, I think. ----------------------------------------------- > TG > > > ======================== With metta, Howard #71918 From: "colette" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 8:49 am Subject: Re: I want to play. ksheri3 Good Morning Ken H, I don't have much time so lets go with at least one problem I'm having. > > So I have to wonder if, according to you, the assertion that dhammas > are real (concrete, tangible) is an assertion that the self is real. colette: NO, you keep flip-flopping which just doesn't work. Look: You are the dhamma. If you maintain that you have a self then that self has to be tangible. If, according to the buddha, that you are the dhamma, and according to you your self is tangible, then I can reach out and touch your self and your person, your body, all at the same time. I can even manipulate your body then abuse it to make it fit the dhamma that I may dream up at any given time. ----------------------- > That might explain the way you interpreted my statements. But I would > have to disagree with you. According to my understanding, colette: this is where you begin to fishtail, zig-zag your course in an attempt to make an escape manuever. --------------------------------- dhammas are > real colette: you're flipping here. ------------------------ (even though they are very short-lived). It is only the thoughts > they sometimes create that are unreal. > colette: wow, "THOUGHTS ARE UNREAL" zoiks, I can't waite to take that statement to a judge & jury, more importantly I can't wait to take that statement to a college professor and medical doctors. if thoughts are unreal then the brain and the mind are unreal. Can we have the Body Snatchers on stage please since I want to know how they reaped profits from the sale of a brain that physically does not exist. gotta go toodles, colette <....> #71919 From: "colette" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 9:14 am Subject: Re: I want to play. ksheri3 Hi Ken H, One more time, 8 minutes. > Eye consciousness is a dhamma that experiences visible object (which > is also a dhamma). colette: what are the characteristics of an object? I mean if an object is nothing more than a configuration of atoms then why does that object have to conform to this name that people cling to having for this object? <...> Why am I forced into this tiny little preconceived world where only the old boy network has any power? I can re-name anything to fit into a world I create, a dhamma I write. =-------------------------- A tiny fraction of a second after eye > consciousness has arisen, performed its functions and fallen away, > there can be other dhammas that think colette: is the dhamma doing the thinking or am I or you? what is doing this astronomical task called thinking? -------------------------- in terms of "my self "or "your > self." colette: so the dhamma is human and I am not, the dhamma looks at me or you while we are nothing more that centerfolds? I bet that staple in the bellybutton would get anoying after a few years huh? You're a crafty one Ken H. gots ta go. toodles, colette #71920 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 11:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Howard But, but .... damn you! In a message dated 5/12/2007 2:33:16 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: > “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great > elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled > rice and > porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to > dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported > by it > and bound up with it.â€? > (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, > Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) > This quote, which may appear basic on the surface, has a lot of clues about > > impermanence, The Four Great Elements, and consciousness. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: TG, how about talking a bit about the clues you see here and what you infer from them? It may be interesting, I think. ----------------------------------------------- .............................................................. NEW TG: By popular demand, (one guy), I am going to try to analyze the above quote sections at a time .... SUTTA "This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the Four Great Elements..." TG COMMENTS: This series describes the body as consisting of The Four Great Elements. (I'm not sure how accurate "material form" is, but I think "physical form" is a more appropriate description with less problematic errors.) In essence, only the Four Great Elements are being posited for bodily structure. SUTTA "...procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge,..." TG COMMENTS: A mother and father "ignite" the Four Great Elements "life process" interaction. Food/sustenance, abbreviated as "rice and porridge" here, sustains and nurtures this "life process interaction" i.e., Four Great Elements. SUTTA "...is subject to impermanence..." TG COMMENTS: The "entire complex" so far described IS the Four Great Elements...localized as "this body." The Four Great Elements is the "core" of this system because it identified as "what this system (i.e., body) consists of." Being that the four Great Elements are "altering," the body must alter in conformity. KEEP IN MIND, the Four Great Elements are PRINCIPLES. As principles, we speak of them structuring things, but "they" don't exist "individually" or as "their own thing." "They are impermanent in the sense that "they alter." Just as the body is impermanent in the sense "it alters." In essence the Four Great Elements are momentums and "directionalities." As there are only conditions and "no person" to speak of as arising or ceasing, these conditions associated with a body (the Four Great Elements) are just altering. "Arising and ceasing" is merely a viewpoint. SUTTA "...being worn and rubbed away, subject to dissolution and disintegration..." TG COMMENTS: What a clear rendition of the "activity" of impermanence. THE original question for this topic! Formations are worn away, are rubbed away. Contact (or interaction) between formations, or better yet -- dare I say it ... energies (the Four Great Elements), causes impermanence. What a shocking disappointment this must be to some! The Buddha saw impermanence in much the same way we ordinarily do today. Yet this question almost always stumps Buddhists in my experience. hehehe (I'm sure no one's listening by now so I can pretty much say whatever I want.) :-) Continuing....... The wearing away, rubbing away causes the dissolution and disintegration of formations. I.E., formations are torn apart by the interaction of the Four Great Elements. And Finally ... SUTTA "...and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it." TG COMMENTS: In essence this is saying that "consciousness is supported by the Four Great Elements and bound up with it." Supported by the Four Great Elements means that consciousness is "resting" on "that" platform. "Bound up with it" means that consciousness is "bound up," inter-twinned, interacting, with the Four Great Elements. Since consciousness is supported by the Four Great Elements, it would seem that the Four Great Elements are a necessary foundation for consciousness. As consciousness is bound up with the Four Great Elements, it might even be possible that consciousness is merely a "different mode" OF the Four Great Elements. For example: -- Just as "light" is a different mode of physicality than wood, yet comes from it or "out of it"; so too consciousness may just come from or come out-of a Four Great Element dynamic. If that being the case, the separation of nama and rupa would also just be a conceptual tactic. Physicality and mentality would just be different modes of the same thing...energy! Forming systematic continuums we think of as life forms. Please address all hate mail to Howard for requesting this explanation. LOLOL BTW, there's a whole lot of material addressed above and much of it will be somewhat radical for some; needs much contemplation and mindfulness time applied to "see it happening." TG #71921 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/12/07 6:38:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > But, but .... damn you! > ======================== LOLOL! I'll be reading the rest later or tomorow. With metta (and sly smile), Howard #71922 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 5:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Will my whole world be beige? egberdina Hi Robert A, On 12/05/07, Robert wrote: > > Herman: > Thanks for your comments. I'll take a shot at these questions. > > No, I don't think that one can have drive and ambition in the absence > of craving and attachment. Personally, I don't even think that it is > possible to do anything consciously, at all, without craving. All > action is goal-oriented, and directed towards changing the present > into something else. Claiming an acceptance of the way things are > while changing the way things are is less than honest, IMO. > > Robert A: > This was interesting to me. I have always thought it possible to act > with intention that is free from craving and attachment - to practice > pure generousity for example. Pure generousity would be free from > any thought of myself as a generous person, free from any thought > that the act of generousity is admirable and worthy of a note in the > society pages, free from any thought about whether the recipient is > worthy of generousity, free from any requirement that my generousity > bring about any particular result. The intention would be in > accordance with the 2nd step of the Noble Eightfold Path - motivated > by renunciation, lovingkindness, and compassion. The example I give > is generousity, but any other act could be approached in the same way > and these acts could be pursued quite vigorously and with energy. > The way I have heard it described in the past is to focus on the > intention, while letting go of the result. You write very well, and I understand what you are saying, but my next question would be, what is a generous act? Or what is a compassionate act? Or a kind act? It may seem that I am taking a skeptical position here, but I simply would like to get to the heart of the matter. I know how the average person in my town would define generousity, kindness, compassion and the like, and I assure you that these notions would all be derived from the Christian perspective. The attitudes of which we are speaking are relations with others, and the overriding principle would be to treat others as one would like to be treated oneself. And very much at the core of this would be a wish to be happy well into the future. Is this the Buddhist position? I would say that for the average person in Buddhistville, it would be much the same, though the particular expressions of generousity etc may differ. But the question remains, what is a generous act? Or what is a compassionate act? Or a kind act? Is it more generous to lengthen a helpless person's stay in samsara, by feeding them, than to let nature take it's course? Is it an act of kindness to bring children into the world, and treat them well, or would it be kinder to leave them unborn? It seems to me that the value of any action derives from a goal one has in acting, and that the notion of acting with indifference as to result would simply indicate a lack of direction. In the absence of a goal, all actions are of the same value, as would all inaction. But the reality is that all actions, as well as inaction, has consequences, for oneself, and for others. The idea of being unattached to the outcomes of one's actions amounts to no more than a denial of personal responsibility. > > Do you think these ideas have any validity? > I would like to think they do. I would like to ask you what sorts of actions you would consider to be generous in the light of seeking an end to suffering? > Herman: > Intimate relationships that are good friendships are well worth > striving for. They certainly are not mutually exclusive. > > Robert A: > This is very true. The question I asked was more in response to > ideas I have sometimes heard expressed that as you let go of > attachment, all relationships become platonic. However, I think > there is another way to look at it. As people let go of attachment > their relationships can only improve, for the sources of much of the > strife in a relationship go with the attachment, to be replaced by a > cooler, wiser appreciation for the other person and a greater > willingness to allow the other person to be as they want to be, which > can enhance the intimacy and closeness of the relationship, contrary > to the idea that less attachment makes relationships more aloof and > distant. Well said. Herman #71923 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 5:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) egberdina Hi Nina, Han, Howard, well, all really :-) On 12/05/07, nilovg wrote: > > Being wealthy or poor depends on kamma, not on stinginess.If one has > much one can give much, and if one has little one can still give. We > have to consider the citta with generosity arising at a particular moment. I had alarm bells going off for a moment, it seemed that Nina and I agreed :-) On reflection, we probably don't agree :-) I agree that being wealthy or poor depends (partially) on kamma. By which I mean action. In order to have possessions, one must take them. And you only have, what you can prevent others from taking from you. This is all kamma, action. I disagree that wealth is not dependent on stingyness. The wealthier a person is, the more they have taken. One takes because one is stingy. It may well be that a person accumulates great wealth (by taking much), and then is "generous". But of course, this is just being blind to the fact that they have taken much. Herman #71924 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 5:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) egberdina Hi Howard, On 13/05/07, upasaka@... wrote: > > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > There are likely to be many intent factors leading to acquiring > possessions, some often quite admirable. Some possessins are for purpose of > sustaining life and health of oneself and of others.Sometimes wealth is acquired (by > honest earning,effort,and proper trade) for the express purpose giving away > what one has toiled to produce. Not all attempts at acquisition are without > kusala intention. There are many indigenous peoples around the world to whom the concept of private property is totally foreign. It is an enormous paradigm shift from being, as a group, custodians of Mother Earth or some such designation, to the personal ownership of goods. Needless to say, I am not being a romantic here, and certainly admit that tribal people fight with other tribes over territory and the like. But in the light of the Dhamma, all possessions are "I making". Our possessions, as much as our thoughts and actions, define who we are. It is also of our possessions that we say, this is me, this is mine. The basis of any private property is the taking of what is not given. I accept the impracticality of systems that share the wealth and produce of the earth equally to all beings, but let's face it, samsara is very impractical. :-) > Correspondingly, not all donation fits the description of proper dana. > The motivations are frequently mixed, and often self-serving. At those > moments that the intention is wholesome, motivated by such things as love and > compoassion and a genuine sense of relinquishment, giving away of possessions is > true dana. At those times the motivation is self-pride, seeking praise of > others,and other benefits to oneself such as tax advantages, while this is not > "evil", it is not a time of true dana either. So, as usual, intention is the primary > determinant. I agree that intention is the key. And realising that accepting what was never someone else's to give, and giving what was never yours to give away, helps to put a wet blanket on our perceptions of munificence. Herman #71925 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 5:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence lbidd2 Hi TG, TG: "In essence, only the Four Great Elements are being posited for bodily structure." Larry: It is my understanding that all derived materiality consists of only the four great elements. I had a thought that possibly "derived" (upadaya), which is apparently rooted in "clinging" (upadana) might mean "combined", but in a physical rather than psychological way. In that case only kamma produced and possibly consciousness produced rupa could be said to have ignorance as a source. However, since sensitive matter is kamma produced one might make a case that all experience that arises dependent on sensitive matter (and resultant consciousness) has ignorance as its source. As to the possible non-impermanence of the four great elements, it could be that the combinations are impermanent but the basic elements are not. There is a precedence for this, I think (?), in the Indian conception of the four gunas which are regarded as energies that make up both the physical and psychological world. >>I probably don't have this right. It is based on a vague memory.<< Just a guess. Larry #71926 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 5:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) egberdina Hi Robert A, On 13/05/07, Robert wrote: > > Is it possible that the teaching on generousity in regards to > material gifts is simply a suggestion to householders that it is good > to hold things with a looser grip, to gradually be more open-handed > and free to let things go? We all have to start where we are and > many of us are householders with material possessions who could find > our lives are better as we gradually learn to be generous. Things > don't have to be absolute, you don't necessarily need to give away > all you own to experience the truth of how generousity can be > beneficial to both the giver and the receiver. As with everything > else, generousity has be coupled with wisdom, and you have to operate > within your own capacity to do things wisely, based on where you are > on the continuum of enlightenment. But everyone can wisely be less > stingy and more generous to at least some degree and to the extend > that they can, they should. > I agree with you, teachings about material dana are for the householder. The sangha is not allowed to own anything. There would be a bit of a problem if everyone took robes all at once :-) Which raises an interesting point, in that the survival of the sangha is predicated on there being a steady supply of people who are not intent on renunciation. I agree with you that the Buddha would have taught generousity to householders to show the suffering inherent in gain and loss.In the end, whether we remain tightly attached to our possessions, or define ourselves less and less in terms of what we have, death will always show that the ownership of material goods is a zero-sum game. In death, everything that was gained is lost. Herman #71927 From: "Phil" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 6:23 pm Subject: Re: Posts to Siila Corner (2) philofillet Hi Sarah and all Thanks for this. > .... > "True-Ideal conduct (dhammacariya) is conduct consisting in the ten > profitable courses of action, according as it is said 'Householders, there > are three kinds of bodily conduct in accordance with the True Idea > (Dhamma), fair conduct (M i. 287), and so on. That True-Ideal conduct > should be understood as a good omen (mangala) since it is a cause for > rebirth in the heavenly world; for this is said by the Blessed One > 'Householders,it is by reason of conduct in accordance with the True Idea, > by reason of fair conduct, that creatures here on the dissolution of the > body, after death, reappear in a happy destination, in the heavenly world' > (M i. 285)." I think sometimes it seems like wrong view to have any anticipations re one's rebirth, but there are enough teachings like this that it certainly feels right! I like this one: "IF any ascetic or brahmin quickly abandons, dispells , obliterates and annihilates the unrighteous perceptions that have arisen in him, he dwells happily in this very life, without vexation, despair and fever and with the breakup of the body a good destination can be expected by him." (Sorry, don't have the reference, probably in AN, if any one would like to provide it...) We wouldn't want to think too much about this, but it is a refreshing teaching for when we are feeling worn out by our diligent struggle! Thanks also for the commentarial pasasge on appamada (heedfulnes, diligence.) Indeed, one can never be reminded often enough of the importance of appamada! Metta, Phil > .... > > The commentary to the following stanza (7) includes the following on > 'appamaado ca dhammesu' as a supreme good omen. I know Phil is always > interested in references to 'appamaado' or diligence: > > "Diligence (appamaado) in profitable ideals (dhammesu) should be > understood as the habit of never being without mindfulness of profitable > ideas, #71928 From: han tun Date: Sat May 12, 2007 6:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil hantun1 Dear Jon, Jon: Thanks for kicking off the Sila Corner, and for quoting the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta (MN 61). I'd be interested to know how you understand this sutta. What would be an example of the kind of reflecting mentioned in the sutta? -------------------- Han: Jon, Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta (MN 61) is a straightforward sutta, very easy to understand if you read the whole sutta, and not just the passages I have quoted, bearing in mind the fact that the Buddha gave this advice to his son who was at that time only seven years old, and the advice should necessarily be very simple. So I am still thinking why you asked this question? Is there any hidden agenda that I do not know? I still cannot figure it out. Anyway, if I have to give examples of reflection (in the sutta Pali word paccavekkhana was used) I would go for the ten unwholesome courses of action (akusala-kammapatha). (1) paanaatipaataa, killing (2) adinnaadaanaa, stealing (3) kaamesu-macchaacaaraa, sexual misconduct (4) musaavaadaa, false speech (5) pisunavaacaa, slandering (6) pharusavaacaa, harsh speech (7) samphappalaapavaacaa, frivolous talk (8) abhijjhaa, covetousness (9) vyaapaada, ill-will (10) micchaaditthi, wrong view For example, please take the first one: killing. (1) Whenever I want to kill a living being, I would reflect on it: 'This killing I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, I know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; and it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then I would not kill. (2) If by chance I failed to reflect as above, and if I remember the advice only during the act of killing, I would reflect on it: 'This killing I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, I know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both, and it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then I would resolve never to kill again in the future. (3) If by chance I failed to reflect as above, and if I remember the advice only after I have done the killing, I would reflect on it: 'This killing I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, I know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; and it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then I would resolve never to kill again in the future. I would repeat with the other nine actions. I do not know whether my answer answers your question. If not, I will be grateful to know what you have in your mind. Respectfully, Han --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Hi Han > > Thanks for kicking off the Sila Corner, and for > quoting the > Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta (MN 61). I'd be > interested to know how you > understand this sutta. What would be an example of > the kind of > reflecting mentioned in the sutta? > > > Jon > #71929 From: "Robert" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 6:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Will my whole world be beige? avalo1968 Hello Herman, Herman: You write very well, and I understand what you are saying, but my next question would be, what is a generous act? Or what is a compassionate act? Or a kind act? Robert A: Well, for example, it was a kind act on your part to compliment my writing. Thank you for the kind words. Herman: But the question remains, what is a generous act? Or what is a compassionate act? Or a kind act? Is it more generous to lengthen a helpless person's stay in samsara, by feeding them, than to let nature take it's course? Is it an act of kindness to bring children into the world, and treat them well, or would it be kinder to leave them unborn? Robert A: Sometimes it is not so hard to figure out what to do. A kind word to a coworker or friend is often a no-brainer. There are many situations every day where we have the opportunity to be generous in small ways, even if it is just letting someone else go ahead in line at the bank or helping an old person up a flight of stairs. Don't underestimate the value of these small acts as a part of training in kindness and generousity - developing the habit of loosening your grip. So the first practice is to be mindful of these small opportunities and not let any go by out of carelessness. It is true that if we are householders, parents, children, friends, we are often confronted with very real dilemmas. If we have an adult child or friend who repeatedly gets into problems with substance abuse, bad decisions, or generally irresponsible conduct, the question is always if our generousity can help them start again, or perpetuate their dependence. We know what outcome we want - for this person to become someone able to take care of himself or herself and live happily. But we also know there is no sure way to know whether the path of action we choose will truly help bring about this outcome. So, do we end up frozen in place and unable to act? How can the Buddhist Teachings help us make decisions as to what is the right thing to do? I believe the answer is to look deeply at two things - our intention and our capacity to deal with the situation at hand. The intention is the easier part. We should study carefully the teachings of Right Intention from the Noble Eightfold Path and resolve to act from the three motivations cited there - renunciation, lovingkindness, and compassion. We need to study the teachings to really know what Nekkhamma, Metta, and Karuna are, what are their near and far enemies, how we cultivate them, and how we put them into practice. After intention, we need to know what is our capacity to deal with the situations with which we are confronted. I think it is possible to know this to a great extent, but it is difficult to describe how you do this. It depends on your ability to see clearly in the situation in question, and this is where the mindfulness training comes in, developing the skill to be able to know how well you can see someone without all of your judgements, resentments, hopes, and fears muddling up the picture. In the case where you think the situation beyond your capacity, then I believe the wise course is generally not to act. But many times you can learn to work with your capacity, and it is in being with these kinds of situations as a practice, always trying to develop your skill to see clearly and act wisely, that we grow in our spiritual path. We use all of the Buddhist teachings to this end. Herman: It seems to me that the value of any action derives from a goal one has in acting, and that the notion of acting with indifference as to result would simply indicate a lack of direction. In the absence of a goal, all actions are of the same value, as would all inaction. But the reality is that all actions, as well as inaction, has consequences, for oneself, and for others. The idea of being unattached to the outcomes of one's actions amounts to no more than a denial of personal responsibility. Robert A: Are two actions of the same value if one is motivated by lovingkindness and the other by ill-will? I would say the intention matters in this equation. You don't act with indifference to the result, but with recognition that you cannot be attached to a particular result - equanimity rather than indifference - and I contend there is a big difference between these two terms. You are right that all actions have consequences, so we only act when we believe we have the capacity to act wisely - to be helpful and not harmful. The ultimate personal responsibility is to devote yourself to developing that capacity through conscientious practice of the Noble Eightfold Path, to do the best we can, to try to make amends when we make mistakes, and to always come back to our intentions and try to see that they are Right Intention. Thank you for you good comments. The points you bring up are very helpful for me in working with these issues. With metta, Robert A. #71930 From: han tun Date: Sat May 12, 2007 8:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) hantun1 Dear Howard, Howard: There are likely to be many intent factors leading to acquiring possessions, some often quite admirable. Some possessions are for purpose of sustaining life and health of oneself and of others. Sometimes wealth is acquired (by honest earning, effort, and proper trade) for the express purpose giving away what one has toiled to produce. Not all attempts at acquisition are without kusala intention. Correspondingly, not all donation fits the description of proper dana. The motivations are frequently mixed, and often self-serving. At those moments that the intention is wholesome, motivated by such things as love and compassion and a genuine sense of relinquishment, giving away of possessions is true dana. At those times the motivation is self-pride, seeking praise of others, and other benefits to oneself such as tax advantages, while this is not "evil", it is not a time of true dana either. So, as usual, intention is the primary determinant. Han: Thank you very much. Very useful comments. Respectfully, Han --- upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Han & Herman - > > In a message dated 5/11/07 10:23:04 PM Eastern > Daylight Time, > hantun1@... quotes Herman, writing: > > > The interesting double-bind that we are presented > > >with is that in > > >order to give material gifts, one must have them > > >first. To acquire and > > >have possessions requires stinginess. > > #71931 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 4:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence upasaka_howard Hi, TG - A few comments on your comments. :-) In a message dated 5/12/07 6:38:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > NEW TG: By popular demand, (one guy), I am going to try to analyze the > above quote sections at a time .... > > SUTTA "This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the Four > Great Elements..." > > TG COMMENTS: This series describes the body as consisting of The Four > Great > Elements. (I'm not sure how accurate "material form" is, but I think > "physical form" is a more appropriate description with less problematic > errors.) > In essence, only the Four Great Elements are being posited for bodily > structure. > SUTTA "...procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled > rice and porridge,..." > > TG COMMENTS: A mother and father "ignite" the Four Great Elements "life > process" interaction. Food/sustenance, abbreviated as "rice and porridge" > here, > sustains and nurtures this "life process interaction" i.e., Four Great > Elements. > > > SUTTA "...is subject to impermanence..." > > TG COMMENTS: The "entire complex" so far described IS the Four Great > Elements...localized as "this body." > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Four great elements "localized". Sounds like Platonic ideals being made particular. This doesn't seem so"Dhammic" to me. ------------------------------------------ The Four Great Elements is the "core" of this > > system because it identified as "what this system (i.e., body) consists > of." > Being that the four Great Elements are "altering," the body must alter in > conformity. > > KEEP IN MIND, the Four Great Elements are PRINCIPLES. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't see experienced hardness or fluidity or warmth or motion as "principles" at all, but as specific phenomena, all of course fleeting, conditioned, ungraspable, and not sources of satisfaction. The generalized notion of them, the abstraction, is, concept only. ---------------------------------------------- As principles, we > > speak of them structuring things, but "they" don't exist "individually" or > as > "their own thing." > --------------------------------------------- Howard: They aren't "their own thing," because they are dependently arisen. This has nothing to do with an idea of their being "principles".What ARE "principles? --------------------------------------------- "They are impermanent in the sense that "they alter." Just > > as the body is impermanent in the sense "it alters." In essence the Four > Great Elements are momentums and "directionalities." ------------------------------------------- Howard: They are impermanent in the sense that they don't remain. Now there is hardness, later there is not. Now there is warmth, later there is not. If something alters, it must have remained during the alteration. So long as it alters, it is still in existence. (If not, it makes no sense to speak of it as altering.) It's impermanence lies not in the alteration but in the fact that at some point it will no longer be in existence. ------------------------------------------ > > As there are only conditions and "no person" to speak of as arising or > ceasing, these conditions associated with a body (the Four Great Elements) > are > just altering. "Arising and ceasing" is merely a viewpoint. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: "Arising and ceasing" may be just a manner of speaking, but not merely a viewpoint. When something is not present, but later is present, we *refer* to that as "arising". When something is occurring, but later does not, we call that "ceasing". ------------------------------------------ > > SUTTA "...being worn and rubbed away, subject to dissolution and > disintegration..." > > TG COMMENTS: What a clear rendition of the "activity" of impermanence. > THE > original question for this topic! Formations are worn away, are rubbed > away. Contact (or interaction) between formations, or better yet -- dare I > say > it ... energies (the Four Great Elements), causes impermanence. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: This "...being worn and rubbed away, subject to dissolution and disintegration..." is descriptive of what happens to compounds. It is due to the arising and cessation of the paramattha dhammas underlying the compounds. Think of the aanalogy of the ship which is rebuilt by steady removaland replacement of planks. The planks come & go. The ship disintegrates and reintegrates. ----------------------------------------- What a > > shocking disappointment this must be to some! The Buddha saw impermanence > in much > the same way we ordinarily do today. Yet this question almost always > stumps > Buddhists in my experience. hehehe (I'm sure no one's listening by now > so > I can pretty much say whatever I want.) :-) Continuing....... ---------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha was pointing to alteration - dissolution and regrowth - at the macroscopic level there. --------------------------------------------- > > The wearing away, rubbing away causes the dissolution and disintegration of > > formations. I.E., formations are torn apart by the interaction of the Four > > Great Elements. And Finally ... > > SUTTA "...and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up > with it." > > TG COMMENTS: In essence this is saying that "consciousness is supported by > > the Four Great Elements and bound up with it." Supported by the Four Great > > Elements means that consciousness is "resting" on "that" platform. > > "Bound up with it" means that consciousness is "bound up," inter-twinned, > interacting, with the Four Great Elements. Since consciousness is > supported by > the Four Great Elements, it would seem that the Four Great Elements are a > necessary foundation for consciousness. As consciousness is bound up with > the > Four Great Elements, it might even be possible that consciousness is merely > a > "different mode" OF the Four Great Elements. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha wasn't a materialist. In particular, he taught of formless realms in which disembodied consciousness occurred. ------------------------------------------- For example: -- Just as > > "light" is a different mode of physicality than wood, yet comes from it or > "out of > it"; so too consciousness may just come from or come out-of a Four Great > Element dynamic. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Not a teaching of the Buddha to the best of my knowledge. ------------------------------------------ If that being the case, the separation of nama and rupa would > > also just be a conceptual tactic. Physicality and mentality would just be > > different modes of the same thing...energy! Forming systematic continuums > we > think of as life forms. > > Please address all hate mail to Howard for requesting this explanation. > LOLOL -------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! I expect some "hate mail" from you, too, my friend! ;-) -------------------------------------------- > > BTW, there's a whole lot of material addressed above and much of it will be > > somewhat radical for some; needs much contemplation and mindfulness time > applied to "see it happening." > > TG > ====================== With metta, Howard #71932 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 9:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > > I agree that being wealthy or poor depends (partially) on kamma. By > which I mean action. In order to have possessions, one must take them. > And you only have, what you can prevent others from taking from you. > This is all kamma, action. > > I disagree that wealth is not dependent on stingyness. The wealthier a > person is, the more they have taken. One takes because one is stingy. > It may well be that a person accumulates great wealth (by taking > much), and then is "generous". But of course, this is just being blind > to the fact that they have taken much. ++++++++++++ Dear Herman your understanding is opposed to what is true. The reason for attaining wealth is not stinginess- it is by dana that anyone becomes wealthy. http://www.abhidhamma.org/Paramis-%20perfections%20of%20insight.htm Dhammapala: "He should arouse a desire to give things away without concern by reflecting: "Good returns to the one who gives without his concern, just as the boomerang returns to the one who threw it without his concern." " Robert #71933 From: han tun Date: Sat May 12, 2007 9:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) hantun1 Dear Herman and All, Herman: The interesting double-bind that we are presented with is that in order to give material gifts, one must have them first. To acquire and have possessions requires stinginess. A possession must become mine first before I can relinquish it. The possibility of material dana is conditioned by stinginess. The pursuit of material dana requires the pursuit of stinginess. Best to leave both of these well alone, don't you think? -------------------- Han: I will pick up one sentence from your above statement: “To acquire and have possessions requires stinginess.” I think to acquire possessions by right livelihood cannot be said that “to acquire and have possessions requires stinginess.” What is right livelihood? Here, I would like to quote a passage from The Noble Eightfold Path, by Bhikkhu Bodhi. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html#ch4 Quote: Right Livelihood (samma ajiva) Right livelihood is concerned with ensuring that one earns one's living in a righteous way. For a lay disciple the Buddha teaches that wealth should be gained in accordance with certain standards. One should acquire it only by legal means, not illegally; one should acquire it peacefully, without coercion or violence; one should acquire it honestly, not by trickery or deceit; and one should acquire it in ways which do not entail harm and suffering for others.34 The Buddha mentions five specific kinds of livelihood which bring harm to others and are therefore to be avoided: dealing in weapons, in living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), in meat production and butchery, in poisons, and in intoxicants (AN 5:177). He further names several dishonest means of gaining wealth which fall under wrong livelihood: practicing deceit, treachery, soothsaying, trickery, and usury (MN 117). Obviously any occupation that requires violation of right speech and right action is a wrong form of livelihood, but other occupations, such as selling weapons or intoxicants, may not violate those factors and yet be wrong because of their consequences for others. The Thai treatise discusses the positive aspects of right livelihood under the three convenient headings of rightness regarding actions, rightness regarding persons, and rightness regarding objects.35 "Rightness regarding actions" means that workers should fulfill their duties diligently and conscientiously, not idling away time, claiming to have worked longer hours than they did, or pocketing the company's goods. "Rightness regarding persons" means that due respect and consideration should be shown to employers, employees, colleagues, and customers. An employer, for example, should assign his workers chores according to their ability, pay them adequately, promote them when they deserve a promotion and give them occasional vacations and bonuses. Colleagues should try to cooperate rather than compete, while merchants should be equitable in their dealings with customers. "Rightness regarding objects" means that in business transactions and sales the articles to be sold should be presented truthfully. There should be no deceptive advertising, misrepresentations of quality or quantity, or dishonest manoeuvers.] End Quote. --------------------- Furthermore, in AN 4.62 Anana Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.062.than.html the Buddha talked about the bliss of having as follows. Quote ["And what is the bliss of having? There is the case where the son of a good family has wealth earned through his efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of his arm, and piled up through the sweat of his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained. When he thinks, 'I have wealth earned through my efforts & enterprise, amassed through the strength of my arm, and piled up through the sweat of my brow, righteous wealth righteously gained,' he experiences bliss, he experiences joy. This is called the bliss of having.] End Quote. -------------------- Therefore, I think to acquire possessions by right livelihood cannot be said that “to acquire and have possessions requires stinginess.” Respectfully, Han #71934 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat May 12, 2007 9:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil kenhowardau Hi Howard (and Phil), This is going to sound like jealous pique, but I can't help comparing your reaction to Phil's posts to your reaction to mine. I get "LOL" "Absurd!" and "Hilarious!" whereas Phil is treated like the golden haired boy! In my posts, I try to express the Dhamma as it is found in the ancient texts. In them, effort, for example, is taught as being a cetasika. It is not the effort we conventionally know - something performed by sentient beings. The paramattha dhamma known as effort (viriya) is conditioned. It is beyond anyone's control, and it performs its functions in a single, fleeting moment of consciousness. That sort of teaching is profound, and way beyond my puny comprehension, but I try my best. On the other hand, we see Phil describing effort in exactly the same way his doting grandma might have taught him when he was a toddler: Don't got there, Phil! Phil, I told you not to go there, now come away! Good boy Phil! And what reception does he receive for this? ------- H: > Phil, I think this is very well said. I also think that this practice of yours is an extremely important aspect of Dhamma practice, and in the course of engaging in it one enhances the quality and frequency of occurrence of mindfulness and other path factors, so that much benefit is obtained, even beyond the enhancement of sila and calm. The ongoing mindfulness required and further cultivated feeds into a cultivation of vijja as well. -------- Where's the justice? :-) Ken H #71935 From: han tun Date: Sat May 12, 2007 10:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil hantun1 Dear Phil, Phil: Though I often speak of Sila, it is more precisely guarding of the sense doors that I am oriented towards. I forget the Pali word, but I guess it doesn't matter in this case. And this has been going on for a few years now. My interest in the Salayatana Samyutta (SN 35) was in regard to all the suttas that get at cutting off akusala proliferation. And all the suttas in AN that grab me deal with guarding the sense doors. Phil: So perhaps without knowing it, my interest in guarding the sense doors (which of course doesn't mean trying-not-to-see/taste/smell/ hear/touch, but is stopping at seeing/tasting/ smelling/hearing/touching without proliferating, or with less proliferating) is a sign that "I" am on the right track! :) Phil: So I suspect I will be posting passages from the many suttas that help guide us in guarding the sense doors. The MN 61 passage you quoted was an excellent example. Phil: As you say below, I will take my time and post sutta passages now and then. I can't really "lead" the corner because I have no intention of getting into discussions that will inevitably lead me into "thundering" against Acharn Sujin, as Nina puts it. I think I will just share sutta passages that guide me in the hope that they will help others as well, letting them speak for themselves. The passages that inspire me tend to be the ones that speak for themselves. -------------------- Han: I am also interested in guarding the sense doors. Observing the precepts by guarding the sense doors is called “indriya-samvara-siila.” I think we can share a lot on this subject as we go along. Okay, Phil, if it is not convenient to you to lead the Corner, we will do it collectively with the participation of all members. It will be good enough if you would kindly share, from time to time, sutta passages that guide you, and I am sure they will help others as well. Respectfully, Han #71936 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 6:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Larry In a message dated 5/12/2007 6:52:56 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi TG, TG: "In essence, only the Four Great Elements are being posited for bodily structure." Larry: It is my understanding that all derived materiality consists of only the four great elements. I had a thought that possibly "derived" (upadaya), which is apparently rooted in "clinging" (upadana) might mean "combined", but in a physical rather than psychological way. In that case only kamma produced and possibly consciousness produced rupa could be said to have ignorance as a source. ...................................... NEW TG: I'm not aware of the Suttas dealing with "derived materiality." That may be just more conceptualization on top of the already conceptual idea of the Four Great Elements. .......................................... LARRY However, since sensitive matter is kamma produced one might make a case that all experience that arises dependent on sensitive matter (and resultant consciousness) has ignorance as its source. .................................................... NEW TG: That's one way of looking at it. I think there are other legitimate ways to look at it too. ..................................................... As to the possible non-impermanence of the four great elements, it could be that the combinations are impermanent but the basic elements are not. There is a precedence for this, I think (?), in the Indian conception of the four gunas which are regarded as energies that make up both the physical and psychological world. >>I probably don't have this right. It is based on a vague memory.<< Just a guess. ............................................................ NEW TG: Not aware of the Indian thing, but sounds a little like my thinking from what you wrote but I don't know. I think I know what you mean about the Four Great Elements not being impermanent. As they are underlying energies, even though they alter in form, they continue as underlying energies....just taking on different forms. That may or may not be the case, but ... it is kind of like saying -- "the motion of the universe is permanent." But motion is actually impermanence "in action." Therefore, its like saying, "impermanence is permanent." Really what we're saying though is -- "impermanence is a consistent principle...i.e., regarding conditionality." The Four Great Elements might be thought of as the "core engine" of impermanence. THAT IS the alteration, THAT IS the impermanence. So I think to think of the 4GE's as permanent is deceptive and counterproductive. After all, we can only conceive of formations (or in relation to formations) and whatever form the Four Great Elements happen to be in is constantly changing. ..................................................................... TG OUT Larry #71937 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat May 12, 2007 11:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View sarahprocter... Dear Scott & all, Thanks for the good passage you quoted. Do you have any further reflections on it? --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear All, > > I found the following passage while reading in Sammohavinodanii > (Dispeller of Delusion), pp.138-9, and submit it for your > consideration. Please note the role of 'mundane' learning: > > "In the description of Right View, by dukkhe ~naa.na.m ('knowledge > concerning suffering) and so on are pointed out the four truths as > meditation subject. <...> >Thus this passage 'knowledge concerning suffering', etc. is > stated with reference to the arising of knowledge in the prior stage > by learning etc. in regard to the four truths which are profound > because they are difficult to see and difficult to see because they > are profound. But at the moment of penetration the knowledge is only > one." .... Sarah: This reminds me of sacca ~naa.na - the firm (intellectual) knowledge of the 4NT. Without sacca ~naa.na, there won't be kicca ~naa.na, the development of direct understanding of the Truths, let alone kata ~naa.na, the realization of the Truths. Yet, when we read about 'the four truths as meditation subject' or about 'the prior stage by learning etc.' we may still think it's a question of 'doing something', such as sitting quietly and focussing on the Truths or a particular amount of book study. Again we go wrong so easily by following a ritual (siilabbata-paraamaasa), as soon as we have any idea of any action in order to realize the Truths. The Truths are indeed profound because even such learning and right study has to be the development of right understanding of dhammas at this very moment, regardless of the conventional activity. Even whilst reading the Abhidhamma, there can of course be right view or wrong view arising, right practice or wrong practice. Very profound, as the good quote states. Always glad to read the passages you quote, Scott. Metta, Sarah ========= #71938 From: "Phil" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 12:46 am Subject: Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil philofillet Hi Ken I know what you mean here > > On the other hand, we see Phil describing effort in exactly the same > way his doting grandma might have taught him when he was a toddler: > Don't got there, Phil! Phil, I told you not to go there, now come > away! Good boy Phil! In a sense, I do feel that the teaching of the Buddha that is most valuable for people like me is not so far removed from the common sense advice that would be provided by any wise person who had experienced the benefits of not letting the mind run amok. But my grandmother would not have said this. (By the way, my grandmother's name was Nina, but I hardly remember her and she is said to have been quite the bitch.) "If any ascetic or brahmin quickly abandons, dispells, obliterates and annihilates the unrighteous perceptions that have arisen in him, he dwells happily in this very life, without vexation, despair and fever and with the breakup of the body a good destination can be excpected by him." When I say "don't go there" it is shorthand for the above teaching and the many other teachings of the Buddha that express the same, straight-forward common sense approach. I think Abhidhamma is deep and fasctinating, but the Buddha does not teach in terms of cetasikas in the suttas that are inspiring me these days. He teaches in terms of bhikkhus, brahmins and householders following certain recommended practices. When understanding is developed, the truth that there is nothing but paramattha dhammas will be discovered by those developed cittas, but not until then. Useful and important to refer on occasion to the deepest teachings, but to seek firm guidance from them when one's understanding is shallow is of questionable value, in my opinion. The Buddha does provde firm guidance to beginners (ie people of shallow understanding and strong greed, hatred and delusion such as myself) and that firm guidance is expressed in conventional (non-paramattha) terms - there is no doubt about that in my mind. I could be wrong! Metta, Phil #71939 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2007 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness of Death-1 jonoabb Hi James buddhatrue wrote: > > Hi Jon, ... > > On the question of the arahant's death we were discussing in > another > > thread, the issue really is whether the Arahant's "termination of > the > > suffering of the round" is excluded here because it does not fall > within > > the general description of the "interruption of the life faculty > > included with the limits of a single becoming", or for some other > reason > > altogether. > > James: Oh, I think that this subject is quite dead ('dead'...get > it! ;-)). Well, I wasn't trying to resurrect ('resurrect' ... get it?!) a dead subject, but simply to make a passing comment. > Anyway, you will be very pleased because later in the > series I will quote extensively how the Vism. describes the "death" > of arahants and the Buddha. Hmmm....seems Buddhaghosa can't quite > make up his mind. ;-)) On your interpretation, but not on mine ;-)) ... > > > One who wants to develop this should go into solitary retreat and > > > exercise attention wisely in this way: `Death will take place; > the > > > life faculty will be interrupted', or `Death, death'. > > > > > > > This description needs to be read in the light of the general > comments > > at the beginning of the 'Samadhi' section of the work. As I see it, > it > > is not being suggested for the average layperson. > > James: Oh, I'm not even going to rise to that bait!! :-) But I thought you liked de-bait ... That was not meant to be a provocative comment. It's a matter of context. The whole of Chapter III is relevant, because Chapters IV onwards assume a certain amount of preparatory 'work'. Note also the words "... exercise attention wisely ..." in your quoted passage. Whether layperson or monk, the development of samatha requires panna of the appropriate level, so it is something more than just concentrating on the mental object. Where is the kusala in reciting 'Death, death'? Surely that is not what is being recommended. Jon #71940 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2007 12:51 am Subject: What is visible object? (was:: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant') sarahprocter... Dear Howard (& Azita), I appreciate your concerns and questions about visible object. --- upasaka@... wrote: >Az: The point I'm trying to make is that it doesnt matter to me > > > what v.o. actually consists of, the important thing is that there is > > v.o. and seeing consciousness sees just that rupa, no other. > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > But my point was that a visible object is not a simple, > indeomposable phenomenon. <...> [S: indecomposable phenomenon??] .... >H: As regards a visible object > or a sound object, each is an amalgam. ... S: As you've been stressing, each visible object (or sound) has its own characteristic which is quite different from that of any other. If we look one way, what is seen is different from if we look another way. Even when we look the same way, the visible object is never the same. If it were otherwise, as you've also been rightly pointing out, sa~n~naa (perception) would not be able to distinguish visible objects and they wouldn't be a condition for the different kinds of proliferation which invariably follow due to our accumulations for such. However, I think as Azita has been stressing, all we can really say about visible object is that it is just that element which is seen. When there is awareness and direct understanding (as opposed to the usual latching onto signs and details), it is just visible object which is known. There is no idea of it as being multi-faceted or 'an amalgam'. As we read repeatedly in the texts, like other paramattha dhammas (as opposed to concepts): “An element is defined as that which bears its own intrinsic nature. It cannot be split up or transformed into another.” So, to try to 'decompose it' or consider it as 'an amalgam' of multi-faceted aspects would not be to appreciate it as an element. ... <...> > Howard: > I quote Khun Sujin from Realities and concepts: "If satipatthana > arises it can distinguish visible object, it can consider it and be > aware of it, so that it can be correctly known that what appears are just different > colours." ... S: As Azita said, usually she just emphasises that what is seen is visible object. With the development of satipatthana, visible object (or colour) is distinguished from seeing consciousness and other dhammas appearing. One dhamma can be known at a time when it appears. Usually, we think we see people and things, but actually it's just visible object which appears, just as it is. This reminds me of a question Nina asked us to raise with K.Sujin a couple of years back with regard to visible object and some details she was reading about and translating in the Tiika (sub-commentary) to the Visuddhimagga. (You can also hear the audio of the discussion when we raise the point for her. It's at the very beginning of the ' Bangkok, 28 August 2004' series.) The following is a long quote from an earlier message I wrote on our return from the trip. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/35947 (I wrote to Nina): >>Jon & I also raised your qu below from the Tika which led to a long discussion. I’ll quote and summarise K.Sujin’s comments which were quite strong. ***** N: > I have a Q. for Bgk. on visible object. I read in the Tiika of Visuddhimagga that it is said that visible object could not be as tiny as a the 36th part of an a.nu which is very minute. This is refuted, it is said. Does what is visible consists of many groups, kalapas, containing colour, is there impingement of many such groups on the eyesense one after the other? One minute rupa that is visible object or colour would not be visible. I know that such thinking is not seeing, and not awareness of what i visible. I also know that we cannot count visible object rupas and that we have to attend just to the characteristic that appears. But what about the pariyatti? > **** Jon gave a short summary of the qu first -- KS: >Is it not thinking? J: >Pariyatti is also thinking. KS: >Pariyatti talks about reality - reality which can be seen. That’s the meaning of what it says in the Tipitaka, Visuddhimagga or commentary. It’s just like now. J: >Because of ignorance, we don’t know what can be seen... KS: >So we start from that which can be seen now - just a reality, developing understanding of it. Otherwise we’ll follow the words - we’re floating in the sea of words and concepts while reality is now appearing. J: >Doesn’t it help us to understand visible object as it is..... KS: >It helps for thinking about words and concepts, but not understanding reality as it is. No matter what is said in the commentary, what appears, appears *now* according to the commentary. Now it (visible object) is seen, no matter if we think about the shape, colour or size - it’s that which can be seen (known) in order to become detached from clinging or paying attention as before (as we’re used to). Otherwise we’re following words and concepts instead of understanding it. The only way to become detached is to understand reality appearing in order to understand there’s no one in it. Otherwise there’s only thinking about visible object all the time in a day. **** Jon started to read the actual question, but was interrupted after the first line;-) K.Sujin stressed that we can’t know these details and there’s no point in talking about them -- ‘following concepts’ -- instead of knowing present realities appearing. I read out the last two or three lines. KS: >Pariyatti just tells us to understand reality as it is, so when one begins to understand the meaning of it, one stops the idea of how many % [or nth part] and so on no matter who said that. She continued to stress that when we read the Tipitaka or commentaries we forget that they are showing the Buddha’s wisdom. “We say everything is dhamma. Is everything dhamma? Not yet, so we start with our own understanding of reality which we used to know by concepts.....now there is seeing and thinking. Do they appear one by one or just by thinking about them?” Sukin and I mentioned the value of translation work and the need for you (Nina) to check the details accurately, but again K.Sujin stressed that we need to understand the purpose of talking and study in order to develop the understanding of anattaness, not to learn details which we’ll just forget at the end of this life. She also suggested that no one can know these details and so it was more profitable to talk about the reality we can know. She said that when she reads these details she knows “it’s beyond anyone’s expectation or calculation. It’s like talking about animals in the Himalayan forest with horns and so on (!!). Who sees that and what is seen now?” She added that she knows no one can answer that question exactly by his (or her) own wisdom. “Are we helping others to have their own wisdom?” she asked at the end.<< [S: end of earlier post] ***** S: Again, I'd like to stress that I understand and appreciate your questions, Howard. You are right to stress that each visible object is different in the same way that each sound is different. Without the distinctions, there couldn't be the recognitions, the immediate latching onto the signs and details of each. However, we are already experts when it comes to such analysis of detail. What we're not experts at is the direct awareness of visible objects, sounds as so on as *just* that which is seen, that which is heard and so on. To quote a line again which I know you appreciate: "That with respect to the seen there will be merely the seen." (Udaana, Enlightenment Chapter #10, Baahiya). Further from the commentary to this (Masefield, PTS transl): “For, in this connection, the sight-base is called ‘the seen’ (di.t.tha.m)in the sense that it is something that is to be beheld,(as is) eye-consciousness, together with the consciousness associated with the doors therefor, in the sense of seeing, both of these, occurring (as they do) in accordance with conditions, being solely and merely dhammas; there is, in this connection, neither a doer nor one who causes things to be done, as a result of which, since (the seen) is impermanent in the sense of being non-existent after having been, dukkha in the sense of being oppressed by way of rise and fall, not-self in the sense of proceeding uncontrolled, whence the opportunity for excitement and so on with respect thereto on the part of one who is wise?...” ***** S: Thanks again to both you and Azita for your discussion on this important topic. I don't actually think there are any major disagreements here, just a difference in emphasis, perhaps? Metta, Sarah ======= #71941 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2007 1:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: flashbacks and guilt sarahprocter... Dear Antony, (Phil & Scott), --- Antony Woods wrote: > 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. ..... S: I remember writing in quite strong language (for me) because I felt that whatever you had been suggesting with regard to giving importance to various kinds of imagery, had led to/might lead to a lot of disturbance. 'Let them go!' is similar to Phil's 'Don't go there', I think. Of course it doesn't mean that any self or any willing not to will prevent such proliferation or fantasising. However, appreciating what is 'real' and what is 'fantasy', what is wise attention and what is unwise attention, is of itself a condition for just a little more 'guarding', a little more awareness (at different levels) in one's day, I think. I find it helps so much when I'm troubled by this or that to remember (if even just at a thinking level), that there really only is this moment. At this moment, there is just a moment of seeing or hearing or thinking. The flashback, the fantasy, the personal mind-body', the 'I' don't exist. 'Let them go!', 'Don't go there!'.....Amazing as it might seem, even when the flashbacks/imagery/ fantasies are extremely disturbing as in a nightmare, it is the lobha (attachment) which propels the proliferations, the disturbed ways of thinking. This is how I see it. I'd be interested to hear any further comments Phil, Scott or yourself have on your message below or my message above. Thank you for always carefully considering comments made, Antony. Metta, Sarah > ++++ > 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. #71942 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 1:14 am Subject: The 3-fold Way! bhikkhu5 Friends: Into which 3 domains are the Noble 8-Fold Way divided? A former husband of a Buddhist Nun (=Bhikkhuni) once asked her: Venerable Dhammadinna , are these 3 domains of morality (sÄ«la ), concentration (samÄ?dhi ), and understanding (pañña ) included in the Noble 8-fold Way , or is it rather instead the Noble 8-fold Way that is included & divided into the 3 core domains of the training? The 3 domains, VisÄ?kha , are not included in the Noble 8-fold Way , but the Noble 8-fold Way is included in those 3 domains like this: Right speech, right action, and right livelihood: These 3 things are included in the domain of morality... Right effort, right awareness, & right concentration: These things are included in the domain of concentration... Right view and right motivation: These things are included in the domain of understanding. Source Text (extract): Majjhima Nikaya 44: Culavedalla Sutta: The Shorter Set of Questions-and-Answers http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.044.than.html Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <...> #71943 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) egberdina Hi Han, On 13/05/07, han tun wrote: > > > Dear Herman and All, > > Herman: > The interesting double-bind that we are presented with > is that in order to give material gifts, one must have > them first. To acquire and have possessions requires > stinginess. A possession must become mine first before > I can relinquish it. The possibility of material dana > is conditioned by stinginess. The pursuit of material > dana requires the pursuit of stinginess. Best to leave > both of these well alone, don't you think? > > -------------------- > > Han: > I will pick up one sentence from your above statement: > "To acquire and have possessions requires stinginess." > > I think to acquire possessions by right livelihood > cannot be said that "to acquire and have possessions > requires stinginess." What is right livelihood? Here, > I would like to quote a passage from The Noble > Eightfold Path, by Bhikkhu Bodhi. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html#ch4 > > Quote: > Right Livelihood (samma ajiva) > > Right livelihood is concerned with ensuring that one > earns one's living in a righteous way. For a lay > disciple the Buddha teaches that wealth should be > gained in accordance with certain standards. One > should acquire it only by legal means, not illegally; > one should acquire it peacefully, without coercion or > violence; one should acquire it honestly, not by > trickery or deceit; and one should acquire it in ways > which do not entail harm and suffering for others.34 > The Buddha mentions five specific kinds of livelihood > which bring harm to others and are therefore to be > avoided: dealing in weapons, in living beings > (including raising animals for slaughter as well as > slave trade and prostitution), in meat production and > butchery, in poisons, and in intoxicants (AN 5:177). > He further names several dishonest means of gaining > wealth which fall under wrong livelihood: practicing > deceit, treachery, soothsaying, trickery, and usury > (MN 117). Obviously any occupation that requires > violation of right speech and right action is a wrong > form of livelihood, but other occupations, such as > selling weapons or intoxicants, may not violate those > factors and yet be wrong because of their consequences > for others. > > The Thai treatise discusses the positive aspects of > right livelihood under the three convenient headings > of rightness regarding actions, rightness regarding > persons, and rightness regarding objects.35 "Rightness > regarding actions" means that workers should fulfill > their duties diligently and conscientiously, not > idling away time, claiming to have worked longer hours > than they did, or pocketing the company's goods. > "Rightness regarding persons" means that due respect > and consideration should be shown to employers, > employees, colleagues, and customers. An employer, for > example, should assign his workers chores according to > their ability, pay them adequately, promote them when > they deserve a promotion and give them occasional > vacations and bonuses. Colleagues should try to > cooperate rather than compete, while merchants should > be equitable in their dealings with customers. > "Rightness regarding objects" means that in business > transactions and sales the articles to be sold should > be presented truthfully. There should be no deceptive > advertising, misrepresentations of quality or > quantity, or dishonest manoeuvers.] End Quote. > > --------------------- > > Furthermore, in AN 4.62 Anana Sutta > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.062.than.html > > the Buddha talked about the bliss of having as > follows. > > Quote ["And what is the bliss of having? There is the > case where the son of a good family has wealth earned > through his efforts & enterprise, amassed through the > strength of his arm, and piled up through the sweat of > his brow, righteous wealth righteously gained. When he > thinks, 'I have wealth earned through my efforts & > enterprise, amassed through the strength of my arm, > and piled up through the sweat of my brow, righteous > wealth righteously gained,' he experiences bliss, he > experiences joy. This is called the bliss of having.] > End Quote. > > -------------------- > > Therefore, I think to acquire possessions by right > livelihood cannot be said that "to acquire and have > possessions requires stinginess." > > Respectfully, > Han > Thank you very much for your very-well-reasoned post. I appreciate your effort. I get the feeling, not only from you, but from the posts of many others, that there is a teaching that of the Buddha that is somehow in praise of the householders life. But it is not my understanding that the Buddha's teaching is for the householder, or that the ending of suffering is something that the householder aspires to, or is capable of. For instance, from MN14: "Mahanama, that very mental quality ( ie greed, aversion and delusion) is what is unabandoned within you so that there are times when the mental quality of greed... the mental quality of aversion... the mental quality of delusion invades your mind and remains. For if that mental quality were abandoned in you, you would not live the household life and would not partake of sensuality. It's because that mental quality is not abandoned in you that you live the household life and partake of sensuality." Realistically, the noble 8-fold path and material dana have no connection whatsoever. And it would be, in my opinion, a perversion of the teachings of the Buddha to read in them a justification for seeking an on-going, middle-class, comfortable existence. In fact, there is a certain contempt in the way that the Buddha speaks of worldlings. Udana 2:5 "For a long time, Sire, I have desired to approach and see the Blessed One, but I have been deterred by business, so I have been unable to approach and see the Blessed One." And the Blessed One, in this connection, on that occasion, breathed forth this solernn utterance:-- "Happy is that upright and learned one who has no possessions! See how the rich man is troubled; How one man is in bondage to another." Herman #71944 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat May 12, 2007 10:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Howard I'm going Christian dude. This is just too much trouble. ;-) In a message dated 5/12/2007 9:45:30 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG - A few comments on your comments. :-) In a message dated 5/12/07 6:38:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) writes: > NEW TG: By popular demand, (one guy), I am going to try to analyze the > above quote sections at a time .... > > SUTTA "This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the Four > Great Elements..." > > TG COMMENTS: This series describes the body as consisting of The Four > Great > Elements. (I'm not sure how accurate "material form" is, but I think > "physical form" is a more appropriate description with less problematic > errors.) > In essence, only the Four Great Elements are being posited for bodily > structure. > SUTTA "...procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled > rice and porridge,... rice > > TG COMMENTS: A mother and father "ignite" the Four Great Elements "life > process" interaction. Food/sustenance, abbreviated as "rice and porridge" > here, > sustains and nurtures this "life process interaction" i.e., Four Great > Elements. > > > SUTTA "...is subject to impermanence. SU > > TG COMMENTS: The "entire complex" so far described IS the Four Great > Elements...localize Elements...lo > -------------------------------------------- Howard: Four great elements "localized". Sounds like Platonic ideals being made particular. This doesn't seem so"Dhammic" to me. ------------------------------------------ .......................................................... NEW TG: Maybe you're misreading my meaning. I merely mean that the Sutta is referring to the body. I.E., "this body of mine." When the Sutta talks about the Four Great Elements here, it is in reference to the Four Great Elements comprising "this body." I'm very simple. I don't even know what Plato's ideas were. :-/ ................................................................. HOWARD The Four Great Elements is the "core" of this > > system because it identified as "what this system (i.e., body) consists > of." > Being that the four Great Elements are "altering," the body must alter in > conformity. > > KEEP IN MIND, the Four Great Elements are PRINCIPLES. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't see experienced hardness or fluidity or warmth or motion as "principles" at all, but as specific phenomena, all of course fleeting, conditioned, ungraspable, and not sources of satisfaction. The generalized notion of them, the abstraction, is, concept only. ---------------------------------------------- .............................................................. NEW TG: I didn't say they were. I said the Four Great Elements were principles. I think in talking about the Four Great Elements we are looking at the principles that underly or compose the things you often mention, i.e., hardness, colors. We don't "see" the 4GE's in a sense, we see colors. OK, but those colors, from my viewpoint, are made up of a complex combination of the 4GE's. So in a sense we do see the 4GE's. But in thinking of the 4GE's, we are in an analysis mode are we not? So I think we can correctly call them principles (as conceptual models of nature) and activities ( as actual occurrences). Damn you! LOL The point in dealing with principles (and experience) from my point of view, is to inculcate into the mind complete confidence and knowledge of the absolute totality of impermanence. More on this further down. ......................................................... As principles, we > > speak of them structuring things, but "they" don't exist "individually" or > as > "their own thing." > --------------------------------------------- Howard: They aren't "their own thing," because they are dependently arisen. This has nothing to do with an idea of their being "principles"This has n "principles? --------------------------------------------- ........................................................ NEW TG: A principle is a "fundamental law of nature" in this case. Impermanence and no-self are also principles. .............................................................. "They are impermanent in the sense that "they alter." Just > > as the body is impermanent in the sense "it alters." In essence the Four > Great Elements are momentums and "directionalities. ------------------------------------------- Howard: They are impermanent in the sense that they don't remain. Now there is hardness, later there is not. Now there is warmth, later there is not. If something alters, it must have remained during the alteration. So long as it alters, it is still in existence. (If not, it makes no sense to speak of it as altering.) It's impermanence lies not in the alteration but in the fact that at some point it will no longer be in existence. ------------------------------------------ .............................................................. NEW TG: Let's say you touch something hot. That complex formation/experience doesn't remain, it alters...those energies may now be deeply imprinted as memory. The memory with affect actions in the present and future....to avoid the "hot things." Formations/structures come and go but the momentums associated with them alter. Altering is just a way of conceiving change. The Buddha called it -- "changing while persisting" or something to that effect. Applying the idea of existence to such is not my doing. There are no things to exist or not exist. But you are saying that something, an experience, "will no longer exist." Did it exist at some stage? Let's change the wording to arise and cease so we don't play "the existence game." What is it that arises and ceases? (OK, I see you already changed the wording below.) .................................................................. > > As there are only conditions and "no person" to speak of as arising or > ceasing, these conditions associated with a body (the Four Great Elements) > are > just altering. "Arising and ceasing" is merely a viewpoint. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: "Arising and ceasing" may be just a manner of speaking, but not merely a viewpoint. When something is not present, but later is present, we *refer* to that as "arising". When something is occurring, but later does not, we call that "ceasing". ------------------------------------------ ............................................................... NEW TG: Rereading this section again... I'd say that "arising" and "ceasing" tends to give the idea of existence and non-existence. Hard not to. I think it is more accurate to see arising and ceasing as a process of alteration. As alteration, nothing really arises and ceases, there is just change....change that we call arising and ceasing based on our subjective viewpoint. At any rate, this discussion between us usually ends up being mostly a matter of "point of view" and wording preferences. My intent is more simple, though I may have gotten off track. It is merely to try to highlight the mechanics of impermanence. If it is clear conceptually, yes conceptually; that the 4GE's are generating continuous change, then, when we are mindful of that change, it will be realized "inside and out" as it were. This makes for a more comprehensive experience of impermanence IMO. Especially when the principles and activities of impermanence are learned/experienced deeply enough that they become understood intuitively. This is not to say I don't highly recommend charnel ground contemplation too...or the like. Anyway, you have a good point. .............................................................................. ... > > SUTTA "...being worn and rubbed away, subject to dissolution and > disintegration. di > > TG COMMENTS: What a clear rendition of the "activity" of impermanence. > THE > original question for this topic! Formations are worn away, are rubbed > away. Contact (or interaction) between formations, or better yet -- dare I > say > it ... energies (the Four Great Elements), causes impermanence. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: This "...being worn and rubbed away, subject to dissolution and disintegration.disintegration..." is descriptive of what happens to compounds. I arising and cessation of the paramattha dhammas underlying the compounds. Think of the aanalogy of the ship which is rebuilt by steady removaland replacement of planks. The planks come & go. The ship disintegrates and reintegrates. ----------------------------------------- .................................................................... NEW TG: I understand the 4GE's to be interactively "rubbing/displacing 'each' other." Therefore, the core (or paramattha dhammas if you rather) of formations has just the same activities of impermanence, in principle, that "we see on the surface." As for the analogy, I understand the planks and the ship both to be altering due to conditions/contacts. The "reintegrating" is also just alteration...in every way, shape, and form. As for arising and ceasing of paramattha dhammas; if you're taking about feeling, perceptions, etc.; those are compounds to as you've been pointing out a lot lately. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you'd be talking about. I see no justification for the "on off" theory of dhammas that the "commentarialists" espouse. BTW, is there anything that is not a compound in the conditioned world? .............................................................. What a > > shocking disappointment this must be to some! The Buddha saw impermanence > in much > the same way we ordinarily do today. Yet this question almost always > stumps > Buddhists in my experience. hehehe (I'm sure no one's listening by now > so > I can pretty much say whatever I want.) :-) Continuing.. I ca ---------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha was pointing to alteration - dissolution and regrowth - at the macroscopic level there. --------------------------------------------- ............................................................... TG: Yes, and microscopic, and in principle I think. He is talking about the 4GE's as a basis. What is it that's doing the rubbing and wearing away. I'd say its the interaction of the elements. Whether it is seen on a "large or small scale." ................................................................. > > The wearing away, rubbing away causes the dissolution and disintegration of > > formations. I.E., formations are torn apart by the interaction of the Four > > Great Elements. And Finally ... > > SUTTA "...and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up > with it." > > TG COMMENTS: In essence this is saying that "consciousness is supported by > > the Four Great Elements and bound up with it." Supported by the Four Great > > Elements means that consciousness is "resting" on "that" platform. > > "Bound up with it" means that consciousness is "bound up," inter-twinned, > interacting, with the Four Great Elements. Since consciousness is > supported by > the Four Great Elements, it would seem that the Four Great Elements are a > necessary foundation for consciousness. As consciousness is bound up with > the > Four Great Elements, it might even be possible that consciousness is merely > a > "different mode" OF the Four Great Elements. > -------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha wasn't a materialist. In particular, he taught of formless realms in which disembodied consciousness occurred. ------------------------------------------- ......................................................... TG: A materialist? Who's a materialist? Are you talking to me? Cause I don't see anyone else here. ;-) I don't see the 4GE's as material. I see them as energy ... as I see consciousness. It is my understanding that those formless worlds are the product of the activities in the "form world." Hence they are based on those energies. It comes as no surprise, from my point of view, that energy will move in the direction that momentum carries it. A mind whose habit is formless meditation here, should "theoretically" move in that direction. Of course I don't know any of the rebirth info as fact, but I've satisfied my mind as to that possibility with that logic. ...................................................................... For example: -- Just as > > "light" is a different mode of physicality than wood, yet comes from it or > "out of > it"; so too consciousness may just come from or come out-of a Four Great > Element dynamic. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Not a teaching of the Buddha to the best of my knowledge. ------------------------------------------ ....................................................................... NEW TG: That's correct. That's my own analogy. The Buddha did say the following... “…just as heat is generated and fire is produced from the conjunction and friction of two fire-sticks, but when the sticks are separated and laid aside the resultant heat ceases and subsides; so too, these three feelings [pleasant, painful, neutral] are born of contact, rooted in contact, with contact as their source and condition. In dependence on the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings arise; with the cessation of the appropriate contacts the corresponding feelings cease.â€? (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1270) Is it possible to think of "contact" (phassa), as being generated by the 4GE's? I would say definitely yes. Although it is arguable, if one can see such a thing, then my analysis above IS possibly based on the Buddha's teaching. ................................................................... If that being the case, the separation of nama and rupa would > > also just be a conceptual tactic. Physicality and mentality would just be > > different modes of the same thing...energy! Forming systematic continuums > we > think of as life forms. > > Please address all hate mail to Howard for requesting this explanation. > LOLOL -------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! I expect some "hate mail" from you, too, my friend! ;-) -------------------------------------------- ........................................................... NEW TG: No way dude. Although it is a pain, such posts can be good for clarifying/practice. ........................................................ TG > > BTW, there's a whole lot of material addressed above and much of it will be > > somewhat radical for some; needs much contemplation and mindfulness time > applied to "see it happening." > .............................................................................. NEW TG: I see you spent a whole 2 seconds contemplating my ideas before "charging." LOLOL Glad my warning was well heeded. ;-) ....................................... ............................................. TG OUT > TG > ====================== With metta, Howard #71945 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 2:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ways to the Barbeque! egberdina Hey Bhikkhu Samahita, I did ask you a question. You do not have to answer me, though. If you don't want to answer the other question, perhaps you want to tell me about the sangha in Ceylon. Do they really have monks in parliament? Are there really monks who act to silence anyone who opposes their view that Ceylon is for the Sinhalese? What is your position on the matter? Do you think any of your brothers are destined for the barbeque? > > > > Friends: > > > > What causes most humans to fall right into Hell at Death? > > > > What causes most people to believe this sort of shit? Herman #71946 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 3:15 am Subject: Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil kenhowardau Hi Phil, Thanks for taking this in good spirits. I am glad you didn't take me too seriously. I do get a little annoyed when I see the Dhamma being IN MY OPINION trivialised. But that's just my opinion, and I don't stay annoyed for long. Never long enough to write and send a post. ------------ Ph: > In a sense, I do feel that the teaching of the Buddha that is most valuable for people like me is not so far removed from the common sense advice that would be provided by any wise person who had experienced the benefits of not letting the mind run amok. ------------- I agree it does not contradict common decency, but what a terrible waste it would be if we didn't see more in the Dhamma than that. Ken H #71947 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2007 3:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi Jon ... > [Jon:] [Impermanence] is not a quality that is to be > imputed to the world or things in the world. The Buddha did not suggest > that we 'think' impermanence, that we try to see the impermanence in things. > > ............................................ > > New TG: OMG. ;-) The Buddha most certainly DID suggest that we think > about impermanence and try to see the impermanence of things. Over and over and > over again!!! Do you remember the Sutta where the Buddha describes a "lovely > girl" and then talks about her condition when old, when sick, when dead, > etc. Oh yes, he wants us to think about impermanence and to see the > impermanence of things. There are many many more examples of the Buddha trying to make > us very aware of "external" impermanence. But did he say "This is what I mean by impermanence", or is that your interpretation of the message? I agree that he spoke about old age, illness and death and the fragility of life, but as far as I'm aware these are not generally regarded as coming under the general rubric of impermanence as spoken of by the Buddha. > Mindfulness of impermanence through direct experience is also important and > taught by the Buddha. I would say even more important, but they are both > important. Then we are talking about 2 different meanings of impermanence: the conventional meaning (as in the changes in things that occur over time) and impermanence as a characteristic of dhammas. Does your question about cause relate to both these meanings or only one? > Given the foregoing, the question of the cause of impermanence does not > really arise. The impermanence of dhammas becomes apparent in due time > as panna of dhammas is developed. Before then it cannot really be > known. So to try to come to terms with it by theorising about its cause > is bound to put us in the realm of speculation, and may not be to our > advantage. > > ................................................... > > New TG: Given the foregoing was shown to be wrong, the question is still > legitimate. ;-) Not wrong, but a different meaning of 'impermanence' to the one you had in mind ;-)) > Ahhhh, but the "commentary crowd" are always theoriziing and speculating > about the nature of impermanence --- "Dhammas, namas, rupas, arising then > immediately falling away. 17 namas per one rupa, etc." > > If we are going to develop a "mental model" of what is occurring, lets make > it in the best way, so it has maximum impact in detaching the mind from > afflicting states....i.e., all conditions. Not clear what you mean here. Jon #71948 From: han tun Date: Sun May 13, 2007 3:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) hantun1 Dear Herman, I sincerely appreciate very much your quotes from MN 14 and Udana 2:5. And I cannot say anything against those quotes because they are the Buddha’s words. What I was commenting on, in my last post, was just on your one sentence. “To acquire and have possessions requires stinginess.” And what I was saying was, if a person acquires and has possessions by means of right livelihood (samma ajiva) it cannot be said that it requires stinginess to acquire and have possessions. Of course, the ideal situation will be, as the Buddha has said, we must abandon the mental quality of greed, of aversion, and of delusion, because if that mental qualities were abandoned, one would not live the household life and would not partake of sensuality. It's because that mental qualities are not abandoned, that one lives the household life and partakes of sensuality. We must also pay attention to the Buddha’s words that "Happy is that upright and learned one who has no possessions! See how the rich man is troubled." Therefore, the best thing will be not to have any possessions at all, except bare necessities. That’s why the Buddha allowed the bhikkhus to possess only eight items (attha parikkhaaraa). Besides, if one has possessions there is an additional burden of protecting and guarding the possessions which could lead to various evil, unskillful phenomena such as taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies, as shown in the following sutta. DN 15 Maha-nidana Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html "Now, craving is dependent on feeling, seeking is dependent on craving, acquisition is dependent on seeking, ascertainment is dependent on acquisition, desire and passion is dependent on ascertainment, attachment is dependent on desire and passion, possessiveness is dependent on attachment, stinginess is dependent on possessiveness, defensiveness is dependent on stinginess, and because of defensiveness, dependent on defensiveness, various evil, unskillful phenomena come into play: the taking up of sticks and knives; conflicts, quarrels, and disputes; accusations, divisive speech, and lies.” ------------------------------ Respectfully, Han #71949 From: "Charles DaCosta" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 3:50 am Subject: RE: [dsg] a question dacostacharles Hi Robert, Again, point well taken. Charles DaCosta _____ #71950 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2007 4:18 am Subject: Introduction dsgmods introduction from Ven Pannabahulo (Phra Alan), f/w from the mod account --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ -------------------------- Hallo friends in the Dhamma, I am a 60 year old Englishman who has lived in SE Asia for nearly 18 years. I was a "war baby' having been conceived in 1945 and born - I guess - 9 months later. I was taken away from my mother at birth and adopted 7 months later. My adopted childhood was hell; continually beaten and put down I ran away from my home at 15. With a a strong christian background - even wanting to become an Anglican priest - I turned away from such belief systems in my early teens. I first became a beatnik and the youngest recorded heroin and cocaine addict. The acid rains of the late 60's washed over me; in 1971 I entered a rehab program. My hard drug addiction was completely cured; but I drank, smoked ganja everyday and still took a lot of acid. Since my early teens I had been very active in the anti nuclear movement and was a sort of libertarian anarchist. But underpinning all this was the sense of right and wrong I had internalised as a child. The church building had proved my only escape from the misery of 'home': I spent hours in there just by myself. Politics replaced religion. I worked as a building labourer, gardener and bricklayer. Eventually I went to an adult residential college and gained a diploma and a place at university. I gained a good BA (Hons) and MA in Western philosophy. I later took my PGCE becoming a qualified teacher. During a trip to India in 1986 I sat a vipassana meditation course taught by SN Goenka Ji. This introduced me to the Buddha's Dhamma. I did another couple of retreats on my return to the UK. I returned to India 3 years later with the intention of going into intensive, long term practise, at Goenka Ji's main centre. But a friend suggested I went to Wat Ram Poeng in Chiang Mai and I did. I met my current teacher and preceptor in 1990. For 17 years I practised the Mahasi Sayadaw practice with certain variations. I ordained as a monk for two years in 1975. But yearned for lay life. Although I had been teaching English at Thai universities I decided to take a well paid school teaching job in Brunei.I got married and off we went. I was determined to save enough to build a house. I stayed 4 years. They were very unhappy ones. My students, for the most part had no interest in learning. They were teenagers living in a culture where the only option for meeting the opposite sex was at school. Education was a chore for most of them. I came home to misery. The marriage didn't work. I returned to Thailand and in 2003 re-ordained as a monk. My ex-wife came to see me and, as a result, ordained as a nun. As monk and nun we were really positive influences on each other. But we were no good as husband and wife. After so much intensive Mahasi style meditation, I started to feel that I was getting no benefit at all. It was a routine I was going through. I changed back to Goenka Ji's style of practice and have done 7 retreats in the last year. Now I feel this too has become a routine. I have tried Kayanupassana and recently cittanupassana (Which is really Satipatthana).This last has given me the feeling I can gain a lot from it. I intend to remain a monk for the remainder of my life. My commitment to the Buddha's path is 100% - even though my speech and actions are certainly far from the 100% I would wish. I suffer from bipolar disorder (Manic depression) and have been obliged to take medication which does interfere with my practice. Worst of all I have a real problem with anger when it arises (Which is a bit too frequent for my wishes). I hope I have found in you all a lot of very good future friends. I will be returning - as a monk - to England next year. I hope I can be a very good friend to all of you. With my metta and every blessing, Phra Alan Phra Alan Cooper (Pannabahulo Bhikkhu) #71951 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2007 4:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ways to the Barbeque! jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > Hey Bhikkhu Samahita, > > I did ask you a question. You do not have to answer me, though. > Did you really expect an answer to that question? ;-)) If you disagree with a text that is quoted, why not explain your disagreement in a pleasant manner? > If you don't want to answer the other question, perhaps you want to > tell me about the sangha in Ceylon. Do they really have monks in > parliament? Are there really monks who act to silence anyone who > opposes their view that Ceylon is for the Sinhalese? What is your > position on the matter? Do you think any of your brothers are destined > for the barbeque? > I'm aware you don't hold the present-day sangha in very high regard, but what is the relevance of such issues to an understanding of the teachings? Jon #71952 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2007 4:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? jonoabb Hi Herman Herman Hofman wrote: > > Hi Jon, ... > > > Anything covered by the Sabba Sutta. > > > > > > > Does that include concepts? If so, what is *not* included? > > > > I don't know anything that is not concept. Neither does Sariputta. > MN43 clearly spells out that consciousness, feeling and perception are > not seperable from each other. > > "Feeling, perception, & consciousness are conjoined, friend, not > disjoined. It is not possible, having separated them one from another, > to delineate the difference among them. For what one feels, that one > perceives. What one perceives, that one cognizes. Therefore these > qualities are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is not possible, having > separated them one from another, to delineate the difference among > them." > > Nibbana is not included. Putting aside the matter of Nibbana for a moment, I don't follow why you cite this passage as supporting the proposition that everything is concept. If certain dhammas are conjoined (as in, arise and fall away together), that does not make them concepts. It just makes them dhammas that arise in dependence of the co-arising of the other(s). Jon #71953 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 4:17 am Subject: Re: I want to play. kenhowardau Hi Colette, Thanks for sharing your limited computer time with me. Life is like computer time, isn't it? Being limited, I mean. But as you said once before, every moment is an opportunity for some kind of good to arise. Apart from that brilliant piece of wisdom, you and I don't seem to see the Dhamma in the same way, do we?. That is to say; you don't share my understanding of exactly what constitutes good and evil. I believe good and evil can be explained in terms of conditioned dhammas. ----------- <. . .> colette: > NO, you keep flip-flopping which just doesn't work. Look: You are the dhamma. If you maintain that you have a self then that self has to be tangible. If, according to the buddha, that you are the dhamma, and according to you your self is tangible, then I can reach out and touch your self and your person, your body, all at the same time. I can even manipulate your body then abuse it to make it fit the dhamma that I may dream up at any given time ------------ Certainly, dhammas are devoid of self, but they are no less real for that. And that's why I spend my computer time at DSG learning about them. ----------------- colette: > this is where you begin to fishtail, zig-zag your course in an attempt to make an escape manuever. KH: >> dhammas are real colette: > you're flipping here KH: >> (even though they are very short-lived). It is only the thoughts they sometimes create that are unreal. colette: > wow, "THOUGHTS ARE UNREAL" zoiks, I can't waite to take that statement to a judge & jury, more importantly I can't wait to take that statement to a college professor and medical doctors. if thoughts are unreal then the brain and the mind are unreal. Can we have the Body Snatchers on stage please since I want to know how they reaped profits from the sale of a brain that physically does not exist. gotta go -------------------- If your judge and jury have studied the Abhidhamma I think they will decide in my favour. See you later. Ken H #71954 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2007 4:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction sarahprocter... Dear Ven Pannabahulo (Phra Alan), Thank you very much for your very detailed, honest and interesting introduction. Welcome to DSG! I look forward to exploring the Dhamma further with you. Just briefly, I'd like to apologise for the wierd formatting of your post which we just forwarded from the mod account. Of course, it was fine in the original. Also, your photo doesn't show here - if possible, pls put it in the DSG photo album (see home-page). I know James will be happy to help if you have any difficulties with this. You'll find out in due course that many friends here have also suffered many difficulties and losses, yet, like you have found refuge in the Buddha's teachings. I have great respect for this. Please join in or start any threads of interest to you by posting directly to the DSG address here. Which temple in Thailand are you living in now, if I may ask? Interesting that your ex-wife followed the same course. Metta, Sarah (also from England, but living in Hong Kong for the last 20+ yrs) ========= #71955 From: "sukinder" Date: Mon May 14, 2007 12:05 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Introduction sukinderpal Dear Sarah and Ven Pannabahulo, Sarah, Ven Pannabahulo was at the foundation last Saturday; he had come the Sunday before that as well thinking that there were English discussions on the day. A. Sujin however spent one and half hours with him alone until one of the Thai students had to go into the room to ask her to give the Thai talk. :-) This turned out to be good, I think, since it got the Ven very interested in Acharn's interpretation of the Dhamma. At the time Ven Pannabahulo was staying with Ven Dhammanando in Wat Benjamabophit, and it was the latter who directed him to the foundation. Ven Pannabahulo, I am so very happy to see that you have joined DSG, Knowing was asking about this yesterday. I look forward to your joining in the discussions. With Metta, Sukin #71956 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 13, 2007 1:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 5/13/07 12:52:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowa@... writes: > Hi Howard (and Phil), > > This is going to sound like jealous pique, but I can't help comparing > your reaction to Phil's posts to your reaction to mine. I > get "LOL" "Absurd!" and "Hilarious!" whereas Phil is treated like the > golden haired boy! -------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, I just speak in favor of what I find favorable, and the opposite with regard to what I disagree with. But when I write to you "negatively", PLEASE know that I wish you everything good in the world and only that, my friend. Please do note that among thethings I wrote to you in my last post were the following: 1) As far as I'm concerned, it was a non-event. No big deal at all, and nobody's judging anything here. (I'm not, in any case.) Suggestion: While, of course, always trying to do what's right, as possible, and while calm regret and intention to "do better" is good, we should give ourselves a break and not be judgemental when it comes to ourselves (as well as others). Remember - metta, like charity (as the slogan goes), begins at home. 2) I agree. Each is a wrong view. Subtle, though. 3) That's true. Though often one or the other tendency predominates, occurring more frequently and more forcefully. These, I think show caring about you,and areas of agreement with you. As to agreement, I think that you ane I are reasonably close as regards the issue of atta/anatta, especially with respect to "personal self", and the issue of concept/paramattha dhamma. All that aside, you are very strong when it comes to criticizing as mere rite and ritual the "formal meditation" and other intentional actions I think of as practice. That is how you think of it - rite and ritual. I think you're way off base with that, but I don't feel that you're not in my corner. I *do* think you are. Neither one of us requires approval from the other, just friendship, and I surely do think we each have that. --------------------------------------------- > > In my posts, I try to express the Dhamma as it is found in the > ancient texts. In them, effort, for example, is taught as being a > cetasika. It is not the effort we conventionally know - something > performed by sentient beings. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, I understand. But the effort we know is what we know, not an unseen effort. I do also see quite clearly that underlying what thinking views as "effort" lie many paramattha dhammas, including cetana (impulsion) and viriya (energy). When "we" exert effort in the conventional sense, the underlying cetasikas are in action. ------------------------------------------ The paramattha dhamma known as effort > > (viriya) is conditioned. It is beyond anyone's control, and it > performs its functions in a single, fleeting moment of consciousness. > That sort of teaching is profound, and way beyond my puny > comprehension, but I try my best. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree that what you say here is true and deep, but I think that not all you conclude from it is valid. That's all, Ken, that and my wish for you to benefit from what I see as the practice teachings of the Buddha. ------------------------------------------- > > On the other hand, we see Phil describing effort in exactly the same > way his doting grandma might have taught him when he was a toddler: > Don't got there, Phil! Phil, I told you not to go there, now come > away! Good boy Phil! -------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, I think you should more carefully examine the Buddha's teachings on guarding the senses and right effort. I think that your hard separation of conventional from ultimate by way of not really relating them but simply dismissing conventional, is causing you to miss some things. This is not a criticism or disapproval, but just an opinion and a regret. --------------------------------------------- > > And what reception does he receive for this? > ------- > H: >Phil, I think this is very well said. I also think that this > practice of yours is an extremely important aspect of Dhamma > practice, and in the course of engaging in it one enhances the > quality and frequency of occurrence of mindfulness and other path > factors, so that much benefit is obtained, even beyond the > enhancement of sila and calm. The ongoing mindfulness required and > further cultivated feeds into a cultivation of vijja as well. > -------- > > Where's the justice? > > :-) > Ken H > > ======================== Ken I do very much hope you find some justice and pleasure in my telling you that I respect you very, very much, that I am well aware of your keen devotion to the Dhamma, that I appreciate our contact which forces me to think long and hard, and, most of all, that I consider you a close friend of long standing whom I care dearly about. With metta, Howard #71957 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 13, 2007 2:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil upasaka_howard Hi, Phil - In a message dated 5/13/07 3:46:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: > But my grandmother would not have said this. (By the way, my > grandmother's name was Nina, but I hardly remember her and she is > said to have been quite the bitch.) > ========================= LOLOL! I guess that shows Shakespeare got it right: "What's in a name?" ;-)) With metta, Howard #71958 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2007 5:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View jonoabb Hi Scott Thanks for the passage from the Sammohavinodani. I always appreciate being reminded of the fact that right view means an understanding of the Four Noble Truths. I also appreciate this kind of analysis of the Truths. I am reminded of the 'similarities and dissimilarities' treatment of the Truths in the Visuddhimagga, at XVI, 103 of The Path of Purification. Some of the description there is the same as in your passage, but other things in your passage are new to me (standstill, laying to heart). The earlier part of Ch. XVI, from par. 84, is well worth a read any time. Jon Scott Duncan wrote: > > Dear All, > > I found the following passage while reading in Sammohavinodanii > (Dispeller of Delusion), pp.138-9, and submit it for your > consideration. Please note the role of 'mundane' learning: > > "In the description of Right View, by dukkhe ~naa.na.m ('knowledge > concerning suffering) and so on are pointed out the four truths as > meditation subject. Herein, the first two are process [of existence], > the last two standstill. Among these the bhikkhu's laying to heart > (abhiniveso) of the meditation subject is in the process, there is no > laying to heart in the standstill. ... #71959 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 13, 2007 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is visible object? (was:: 'Impermanent' Versus 'Inconstant') upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Azita) - In a message dated 5/13/07 3:51:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: > S: Thanks again to both you and Azita for your discussion on this > important topic. I don't actually think there are any major disagreements > here, just a difference in emphasis, perhaps? > ------------------------------------------ Howard: Quite possibly so, Sarah. ==================== With metta, Howard #71960 From: connie Date: Sun May 13, 2007 7:15 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (55) nichiconn dear friends, Mahaa-Pajaapatii the Gotamid, part 7 of 17: "Sace mayi dayaa atthi, yadi catthi kata~n~nutaa; saddhamma.t.thitiyaa sabbaa, karotha viiriya.m da.lha.m. "Thiina.m adaasi pabbajja.m, sambuddho yaacito mayaa; tasmaa yathaaha.m nandissa.m, tathaa tamanuti.t.thatha. "Taa evamanusaasitvaa, bhikkhuniihi purakkhataa; upecca buddha.m vanditvaa, ida.m vacanamabravi. "Aha.m sugata te maataa, tva~nca viira pitaa mama; saddhammasukhada naatha, tayi jaataamhi gotama. "Sa.mvaddhitoya.m sugata, ruupakaayo mayaa tava; anindito dhammakaayo, mama sa.mvaddhito tayaa. "If you have any sympathy for me, and if you have any gratitude, then make a firm effort, all of you, for the continuation of the true Doctrine. "The Fully Awakened One gave women the going forth when I entreated him. Therefore, just as I would delight in it, so should you practise it." {} Having urged them on in this way, at th head of the [five hundred] bhikkhuniis, she went to the Buddha, paid homage to him, and spoke these words: "O Sublime One, I am your mother, and you, O Hero, are my father. O Giver of the Happiness of the True Doctrine; O Protector, I am born in you, O Gotama. "O Sublime One, this physical body of yours was raised by me. This blameless body of the Doctrine of mine was raised by you. "Muhutta.m ta.nhaasama.na.m, khiira.m tva.m paayito mayaa; tayaaha.m santamaccanta.m, dhammakhiira~nhi paayitaa. "Bandhanaarakkha.ne mayha.m, a.na.no tva.m mahaamune; puttakaamaa thiyo yaaca.m, labhanti taadisa.m suta.m. "Mandhaataadinarindaana.m, yaa maataa saa bhava.n.nave; nimuggaaha.m tayaa putta, taaritaa bhavasaagaraa. "Ra~n~no maataa mahesiiti, sulabha.m naamamitthina.m; buddhamaataati ya.m naama.m, eta.m paramadullabha.m. "Ta~nca laddha.m mahaaviira, pa.nidhaana.m mama.m tayaa; a.nuka.m vaa mahanta.m vaa, ta.m sabba.m puurita.m mayaa. "For a short period I gave you milk to drink to assuage your thirst. You gave me the milk of the Doctrine to drink, peace for all time. "O Great Sage, you are without debt, protecting me from bondage. May women desirous of a child obtain such a son as their request. "Whoever was mother to kings such as Mandhaataa, she was plunged into the sea of [continued] existences, O son. "It is easy for women to obtain the title 'chief queen, mother of the kind,' but it is extremely difficult to obtain the title, 'mother of the Buddha'. "And that aspiration of mine, O Great Hero, has been fulfilled through you. Everything [I aspired to], whether great or small, has been fulfilled by me. "Parinibbaatumicchaami vihaayema.m ka.levara.m; anujaanaahi me viira, dukkhantakara naayaka. "Cakka"nkusadhajaaki.n.ne, paade kamalakomale; pasaarehi pa.naama.m te, karissa.m putta-uttame. "Suva.n.naraasisa"nkaasa.m, sariira.m kuru paaka.ta.m; katvaa deha.m sudi.t.tha.m te, santi.m gacchaami naayaka. "Dvatti.msalakkha.nuupeta.m, suppabhaala"nkata.m tanu.m; sa~njhaaghanaava baalakka.m, maatuccha.m dassayii jino. "Phullaaravindasa.mkaase taru.naadiccasappabhe; cakka"nkite paadatale, tato saa sirasaa pati. "I wish to attain final quenching, abandoning this body. Grant me permission, O Hero, O Ender of Misery, O Leader. "Stretch forth your feet, soft as a lotus and covered with [the marks of] wheels, hooks, and banners. I will make obeisance to you, O Best of Sons. "Make your body have the appearance of a mass of gold. Having made it plain, your body is well seen [by me]. I will go to peace, O Leader." "Then the Conqueror caused his aunt to see his body possessed of the thirty-two marks, adorned and very radiant like the newly risen sun [appearing] from a dense cloud. Then she fell down head first at the soles of his feet marked with the wheel that had the radiance of a new sun and that was like a lotus in blossom. ===tbc, connie #71961 From: "Larry" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 7:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence lbidd2 HI TG, TG: "I'm not aware of the Suttas dealing with "derived materiality." " L: It's an abhidhamma category. All materiality except the four great elements is considered to be derived (upada). It is derived from the four great elements. Visible data, sound, etc. is made up from the four great elements. Physical impermanence is also "derived" from the four great elements. "Upada" seems to have an etymological link to "upadana" (clinging). TG: " I think I know what you mean about the Four Great Elements not being impermanent. As they are underlying energies, even though they alter in form, they continue as underlying energies....just taking on different forms. That may or may not be the case, but ... it is kind of like saying -- "the motion of the universe is permanent." But motion is actually impermanence "in action." Therefore, its like saying, "impermanence is permanent." L: It's more like saying nothing is added or subtracted from the universe. TG: "The Four Great Elements might be thought of as the "core engine" of impermanence." L: Only in a materialistic system and even then we haven't really identified a cause. In Buddhism ignorance is the core engine of impermanence. "Ignorance" might be characterized as "combination". Abhidhamma would agree with that on the nama side and you might be able to find someone that would agree that "upada" (derived) means "combined", which would cover rupa, except the four great elements. Then there are the madhyamikas. In their system whatever is without own-nature (sabhava) is non-arising. Larry #71962 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 8:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: flashbacks and guilt scottduncan2 Dear Antony, (& Sarah), 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." Sarah: "...Amazing as it might seem, even when the flashbacks/imagery/ fantasies are extremely disturbing as in a nightmare, it is the lobha (attachment) which propels the proliferations, the disturbed ways of thinking." Scott: I've been slowly working my way through Sammohavinodanii (The Dispeller of Delusion). This passage seems relevant: "Such bodily and mental afflictions as earache, toothache, fever born of lust, fever born of hate, etc. are called 'concealed suffering' because they can only be known by questioning, and because the attack is not openly evident: they are also called 'unevident suffering'. Affliction produced by the 32 tortures and so on is called 'exposed suffering' because it can be known without questioning, and because the attack is openly evident. It is also called 'evident suffering' ..." Scott: Wouldn't hatred be a root in the case of the flashbacks mentioned ('...being the perpetrator of cruelty...')? It (dosa) then, I suppose, would 'propel the proliferations' as Sarah notes. And then all that might be called 'domanassa', I'm not sure. I suppose this would apply to lobha-rooted proliferations as well (although depending on one's temperament, these might be less disturbing and more compelling, as it were). And I think Sarah is correct if she's suggesting that it is lobha at root that conditions the proliferation of thought about 'flashbacks' and how to deal with them. Here, though, are we not dealing with unbidden mental 'productions'? I don't know, but it seems to me that it would be less taxing to 'counteract' the unbidden with a waiting and a watching. I'd say that since these 'flashbacks' just arrive, then they will depart. The subject is in passive mode. I don't think that 'waiting and watching' is to be understood as an alternate 'technique'. If these (sati, khanti) arise then they do. That they don't for a person is also so by conditions. As to 'techniques' (this is just an opinion, of course): Based on experience, I'm not a great believer in the overall efficacy of attempts to force the products of the mind to be other than they are. Such a statement, even though directed to 'mundane' matters such as attempts to deal with psychological 'disturbances' such as intrusive thoughts. Yes, one can imagine actively, which seems to be what you describe, but the original thought had to come from somewhere, and anyway, whether one thinks one thing or its opposite its all the same thing in relation to the root (dosa, in this case). The proliferation of the self-help industry is, in my mind, founded on the hopes of everyone concerned that some technique or other can hasten things along. No, for me, and this is again just from experience, the underpinnings of intrusive thoughts are not easily penetrated. This is what I understand the Commentator to be referring to when naming 'concealed suffering' or 'unevident suffering'. The 'attack' is not evident, and yet, I think, it comes from no more than dosa ('fever born of hate'). To me, this goes more to a lesson in anatta: suddenly the thought is there intruding. This goes back to the whole discussion of hating hate (defilements). Its just more hate and more clinging to hate. I see Dhamma to be other than Psychology. 'Fever born of hate' can be known 'by questioning' or it can be known as dosa and left at that. It will come and go as it will by conditions. I'm afflicted with more confidence in Dhamma than wisdom in these matters, but offer an opinion nonetheless... Sincerely, Scott. #71963 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 8:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: flashbacks and guilt scottduncan2 Dear Antony, (& Sarah), Two corrections I feel compelled to make: 1) Me: "I've been slowly working my way through Sammohavinodanii (The Dispeller of Delusion). This passage seems relevant...:" Scott: The reference is to p. 113. 2) Me: "As to 'techniques' (this is just an opinion, of course): Based on experience, I'm not a great believer in the overall efficacy of attempts to force the products of the mind to be other than they are. Such a statement, even though directed to 'mundane' matters such as attempts to deal with psychological 'disturbances' such as intrusive thoughts..." Scott: The unfinished phrase should be: "...Such a statement, even though directed to 'mundane' matters such as attempts to deal with psychological 'disturbances' such as intrusive thoughts, reflects what I consider to be a correct understanding of anatta, which is that one has no control. This fact (no control), I think, is a cause of much Anxiety." Sincerely, Scott. #71964 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 13, 2007 5:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Larry In a message dated 5/13/2007 8:28:43 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: HI TG, TG: "I'm not aware of the Suttas dealing with "derived materiality.TG: L: It's an abhidhamma category. All materiality except the four great elements is considered to be derived (upada). It is derived from the four great elements. Visible data, sound, etc. is made up from the four great elements. Physical impermanence is also "derived" from the four great elements. "Upada" seems to have an etymological link to "upadana" (clinging). ............................................. NEW TG: Yea, I know about the abhidhamma classification. My quote is from the Suttas though and I'm not aware of the Suttas dealing with that issue. Although, there is a quote in the Path of Discrimination that speaks of all of the six sense, including consciousness, as being derived from the Four Great Elements. So I even have some scant authoritative backing for my crazy beliefs. ;-) ............................................... TG: " I think I know what you mean about the Four Great Elements not being impermanent. As they are underlying energies, even though they alter in form, they continue as underlying energies....continue as underlying energies....just taking on the case, but ... it is kind of like saying -- "the motion of the universe is permanent." But motion is actually impermanence "in action." Therefore, its like saying, "impermanence is permanent." L: It's more like saying nothing is added or subtracted from the universe. ............................................................... NEW TG: Exactly! Conservation of energy. I don't know this as an absolute actuality, but it does seem to apply as a general principle from what I know. ............................................................ TG: "The Four Great Elements might be thought of as the "core engine" of impermanence.i L: Only in a materialistic system and even then we haven't really identified a cause. In Buddhism ignorance is the core engine of impermanence. "Ignorance" might be characterized as "combination"characterized as "combination". Abhidhamma would ag you might be able to find someone that would agree that "upada" (derived) means "combined", which would cover rupa, except the four great elements. .......................................................... NEW TG: I was happy with the quote you provided from the Visuddhimagga as being well along the lines of a cause. As I've discussed with Howard, I don't separate "material" from "immaterial" (or mater and mentality) as they are done in Abhidhamma and even the Suttas. I see them both as energy in different configurations. They are interacting and interchangeable. The separation to me is just for discrimination purposes, and not a matter of some sort of innate difference. Good points. ........................................................................... TG OUT Then there are the madhyamikas. In their system whatever is without own-nature (sabhava) is non-arising. Larry #71965 From: "Robert" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 9:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Posts to Daana Corner (4) avalo1968 Hello Herman, Herman: I agree with you that the Buddha would have taught generousity to householders to show the suffering inherent in gain and loss.In the end, whether we remain tightly attached to our possessions, or define ourselves less and less in terms of what we have, death will always show that the ownership of material goods is a zero-sum game. In death, everything that was gained is lost. Robert A: There is a joke I heard once of two people talking at a rich man's funeral: question: "How much did he leave" answer: "Why everything of course" Is it very good to keep this in mind, and this recollection is noted in the Visuddhimagga as one of the antidotes to anger, but it works equally well as an antidote to greed. Sometimes people can view generousity as just what our grandmothers taught us to do, believing that it is not so profound as some other teachings. But personally, I believe the most simple teachings such as generousity, patience, and Right Speech can take us very far if we take them on as a practice and devote ourselves to the perfection of that practice. What better way to come face to face with your views of impermanence and self than through generousity? Thank you very much for sharing your ideas in this conversation. Robert A. #71966 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 13, 2007 6:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermance TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 5/13/2007 4:19:47 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) wrote: > > Hi Jon ... > [Jon:] [Impermanence] is not a quality that is to be > imputed to the world or things in the world. The Buddha did not suggest > that we 'think' impermanence, that we try to see the impermanence in things. > > ............ .... .... .... > > New TG: OMG. ;-) The Buddha most certainly DID suggest that we think > about impermanence and try to see the impermanence of things. Over and over and > over again!!! Do you remember the Sutta where the Buddha describes a "lovely > girl" and then talks about her condition when old, when sick, when dead, > etc. Oh yes, he wants us to think about impermanence and to see the > impermanence of things. There are many many more examples of the Buddha trying to make > us very aware of "external" impermanence. JON But did he say "This is what I mean by impermanence"But did he say "Th interpretation of the message? ........................................................... NEWER TG: I'll have to go out on a limb as say that it is my wild assumption that in the multitudinous times the Buddha describes and gives examples of things "falling apart" that it is MY interpretation he is talking about impermanence. GMAB! LOL ......................................................... JON I agree that he spoke about old age, illness and death and the fragility of life, but as far as I'm aware these are not generally regarded as coming under the general rubric of impermanence as spoken of by the Buddha. .......................................................... NEWER TG: I don't know what "the general rubric of impermanence" is or means. (I have a feeling that's to my advantage.) ;-) ........................................................ TG > Mindfulness of impermanence through direct experience is also important and > taught by the Buddha. I would say even more important, but they are both > important. JON Then we are talking about 2 different meanings of impermanence: the conventional meaning (as in the changes in things that occur over time) and impermanence as a characteristic of dhammas. Does your question about cause relate to both these meanings or only one? ............................................................ NEWER TG: No, you're talking about two different things. I'm talking about one thing. I'm not aware of a "characteristic of dhammas" that is somehow different in one circumstance from another. That said, I suspect your idea of a "characteristic of dhammas" is different from mine. In my view, which is pretty simple, change is relative to conditions. Therefore...lots of contacts, pressure, interaction; then lots of change. Little contacts, pressure, interaction; then little change. There is continuous change regardless due to the dynamics of the universe. But, for example, if a house is on fire, it will alter much faster then one aging due to the changing seasons, etc. Hence, things change slower when frozen and undisturbed. CHANGE IS RELATIVE TO CONDITIONS. This is a single principle. .............................................................. JON > Given the foregoing, the question of the cause of impermanence does not > really arise. The impermanence of dhammas becomes apparent in due time > as panna of dhammas is developed. Before then it cannot really be > known. So to try to come to terms with it by theorising about its cause > is bound to put us in the realm of speculation, and may not be to our > advantage. > > ............ .... .... .... .... > > New TG: Given the foregoing was shown to be wrong, the question is still > legitimate. ;-) Not wrong, but a different meaning of 'impermanence' to the one you had in mind ;-)) ............................................ NEWER TG: Yea probably, I'm a little lost now. LOL ............................................... TG > Ahhhh, but the "commentary crowd" are always theoriziing and speculating > about the nature of impermanence --- "Dhammas, namas, rupas, arising then > immediately falling away. 17 namas per one rupa, etc." > > If we are going to develop a "mental model" of what is occurring, lets make > it in the best way, so it has maximum impact in detaching the mind from > afflicting states....i. afflicting states....i Not clear what you mean here. Jon NEW TG: All teachings, Suttas, Abhidhamma, etc. are just models or guides to help us understand what is happening. We study them and apply "these models" to experiences to see if they are correct and to help interpret nature and its ramifications. The better the model/teaching, the more efficacious it should be in helping us overcome suffering. The teaching "itself" is not "reality." Just a guide. It must be surpassed eventually because it is always "off the mark" to some degree. Good Challenging Comments!!! TG OUT #71967 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun May 13, 2007 9:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence upasaka_howard Warning: Lengthy post! Hi, TG - In a message dated 5/13/07 5:25:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: > Hi Howard > > I'm going Christian dude. This is just too much trouble. ;-) --------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! Hey, man! Try Islam: No debates at all! ;-)) --------------------------------------------- > > > > In a message dated 5/12/2007 9:45:30 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > Hi, TG - > > A few comments on your comments. :-) > > In a message dated 5/12/07 6:38:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) writes: > > >NEW TG: By popular demand, (one guy), I am going to try to analyze the > >above quote sections at a time .... > > > > SUTTA "This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the Four > >Great Elements..." > > > >TG COMMENTS: This series describes the body as consisting of The Four > >Great > >Elements. (I'm not sure how accurate "material form" is, but I think > >"physical form" is a more appropriate description with less problematic > > errors.) > >In essence, only the Four Great Elements are being posited for bodily > >structure. > >SUTTA "...procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled > >rice and porridge,... rice > > > >TG COMMENTS: A mother and father "ignite" the Four Great Elements "life > >process" interaction. Food/sustenance, abbreviated as "rice and porridge" > >here, > >sustains and nurtures this "life process interaction" i.e., Four Great > >Elements. > > > > > >SUTTA "...is subject to impermanence. SU > > > >TG COMMENTS: The "entire complex" so far described IS the Four Great > > Elements...localize Elements...lo > > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Four great elements "localized". Sounds like Platonic ideals being > made particular. This doesn't seem so"Dhammic" to me. > ------------------------------------------ > .......................................................... > > NEW TG: Maybe you're misreading my meaning. I merely mean that the Sutta > is referring to the body. I.E., "this body of mine." When the Sutta talks > > about the Four Great Elements here, it is in reference to the Four Great > Elements comprising "this body." I'm very simple. I don't even know what > Plato's > ideas were. > :-/ ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, he's talking about the body, no doubt. I view "the body" as a conventional something dependent on thinking that organizes a host of impressions, mainly rupas. --------------------------------------------- > > ................................................................. > > > > HOWARD > The Four Great Elements is the "core" of this > > > system because it identified as "what this system (i.e., body) consists > >of." > >Being that the four Great Elements are "altering," the body must alter in > >conformity. > > > >KEEP IN MIND, the Four Great Elements are PRINCIPLES. > > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't see experienced hardness or fluidity or warmth or motion as > "principles" at all, but as specific phenomena, all of course fleeting, > conditioned, ungraspable, and not sources of satisfaction. The generalized > notion of > them, the abstraction, is, concept only. > ---------------------------------------------- > .............................................................. > > NEW TG: I didn't say they were. I said the Four Great Elements were > principles. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: I (seriously) don't know what you mean by that. ---------------------------------------- I think in talking about the Four Great Elements we are looking at the > > principles that underly or compose the things you often mention, i.e., > hardness, colors. We don't "see" the 4GE's in a sense, we see colors. > ---------------------------------------- Howard: To the extent that there is any correctness to all rupas being derived from earth, air, fire, and water (of course in the figurative sense of solidity, etc), I don't think that "derivation" is a matter of sights, sounds, etc being composed of these or as having these underlying them in the way dhammas underlie concepts. I think that the "derivation" is a kind of conditionality. ------------------------------------------ OK, but > > those colors, from my viewpoint, are made up of a complex combination of > the > 4GE's. > ----------------------------------------- Howard: That is not my view. For me, that would just be a primitive chemistry that modern chemistry far surpasses. ----------------------------------------- So in a sense we do see the 4GE's. But in thinking of the 4GE's, we > > are in an analysis mode are we not? So I think we can correctly call them > principles (as conceptual models of nature) and activities ( as actual > occurrences). Damn you! LOL ------------------------------------------ Howard: ;-) But we really do see this differently. ------------------------------------------ > > The point in dealing with principles (and experience) from my point of > view, > is to inculcate into the mind complete confidence and knowledge of the > absolute totality of impermanence. More on this further down. > > ......................................................... > > > > > > As principles, we > > >speak of them structuring things, but "they" don't exist "individually" or > > >as > >"their own thing." > > > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > They aren't "their own thing," because they are dependently arisen. > This has nothing to do with an idea of their being "principles"This has n > "principles? > --------------------------------------------- > ........................................................ > > NEW TG: A principle is a "fundamental law of nature" in this case. > Impermanence and no-self are also principles. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Then solidity, cohesion/fluidity, warmth, motion are not principles. Principles are general statements of (intended) fact. ------------------------------------------- > > .............................................................. > > > > > "They are impermanent in the sense that "they alter." Just > > > >as the body is impermanent in the sense "it alters." In essence the Four > >Great Elements are momentums and "directionalities. > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > They are impermanent in the sense that they don't remain. Now there is > hardness, later there is not. Now there is warmth, later there is not. > If something alters, it must have remained during the alteration. So > long as it alters, it is still in existence. (If not, it makes no sense to > speak of it as altering.) It's impermanence lies not in the alteration but > in the > fact that at some point it will no longer be in existence. > ------------------------------------------ > > .............................................................. > > NEW TG: Let's say you touch something hot. That complex > formation/experience doesn't remain, it alters...those energies may now be > deeply imprinted as > memory. > ------------------------------------ Howard: Nah! When the heat is there, it is there. When it has ceased, it is gone,and only products of it are in place. Gone is gone. (Don't go Sarvastivadin on me, TG! ;-) ------------------------------------------- The memory with affect actions in the present and future....to avoid > > the "hot things." Formations/structures come and go but the momentums > associated with them alter. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I see you as taking conditionality and substantializing it. (I guess there's no such verb, but I suppose you get my drift.) --------------------------------------------- > > Altering is just a way of conceiving change. The Buddha called it -- > "changing while persisting" or something to that effect. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't deny that dhammas alter/change, including warmth, hardness, sounds,and so on. But so long as it is still hardness, it hasn't ceased. Impermanence isn't change, but cessation. ----------------------------------------------- Applying the idea of > > existence to such is not my doing. There are no things to exist or not > exist. > But you are saying that something, an experience, "will no longer exist." > Did > it exist at some stage? Let's change the wording to arise and cease so we > don't play "the existence game." What is it that arises and ceases? (OK, > I > see you already changed the wording below.) > > .................................................................. > > > > > > > > > >As there are only conditions and "no person" to speak of as arising or > >ceasing, these conditions associated with a body (the Four Great Elements) > > >are > >just altering. "Arising and ceasing" is merely a viewpoint. > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > "Arising and ceasing" may be just a manner of speaking, but not merely > a viewpoint. When something is not present, but later is present, we > *refer* > to that as "arising". When something is occurring, but later does not, we > call > that "ceasing". > ------------------------------------------ > ............................................................... > > NEW TG: Rereading this section again... I'd say that "arising" and > "ceasing" > tends to give the idea of existence and non-existence. Hard not to. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: There's no problem with existence and nonexistence. There is a probelm with countenancing inherent existence and with the cessation of an alleged inherently existing phenomenon. ----------------------------------------------- I > > think it is more accurate to see arising and ceasing as a process of > alteration. > As alteration, nothing really arises and ceases, there is just > change....change that we call arising and ceasing based on our subjective > viewpoint. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I don't think so. So there! LOLOL! ------------------------------------------------- > > At any rate, this discussion between us usually ends up being mostly a > matter of "point of view" and wording preferences. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: This time I'm not so sure about that. :-) ------------------------------------------------ My intent is more simple, > > though I may have gotten off track. It is merely to try to highlight the > mechanics of impermanence. If it is clear conceptually, yes conceptually; > that the > 4GE's are generating continuous change, then, when we are mindful of that > change, it will be realized "inside and out" as it were. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't see them generating change, continous or instantaneous, or impermanence, any more than anything else. Conditions of various sorts serve to cause arising, variation, and cessation. -------------------------------------------- This makes for a more > > comprehensive experience of impermanence IMO. Especially when the > principles > and activities of impermanence are learned/experienced deeply enough that > they become understood intuitively. > > This is not to say I don't highly recommend charnel ground contemplation > too...or the like. > > Anyway, you have a good point. --------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! What was it? I forget!! ;-)) -------------------------------------------- > > ............................................................................. > . > ... > > > > > > > > > >SUTTA "...being worn and rubbed away, subject to dissolution and > >disintegration. di > > > >TG COMMENTS: What a clear rendition of the "activity" of impermanence. > >THE > >original question for this topic! Formations are worn away, are rubbed > >away. Contact (or interaction) between formations, or better yet -- dare I > > >say > >it ... energies (the Four Great Elements), causes impermanence. > > > ----------------------------------------- > Howard: > This "...being worn and rubbed away, subject to dissolution and > disintegration.disintegration..." is descriptive of what happens to > compounds. I > arising and cessation of the paramattha dhammas underlying the compounds. > Think > of the aanalogy of the ship which is rebuilt by steady removaland > replacement > of planks. The planks come &go. The ship disintegrates and reintegrates. > ----------------------------------------- > .................................................................... > > NEW TG: I understand the 4GE's to be interactively "rubbing/displacing > 'each' other." Therefore, the core (or paramattha dhammas if you rather) > of > formations has just the same activities of impermanence, in principle, > that "we > see on the surface." > > As for the analogy, I understand the planks and the ship both to be > altering > due to conditions/contacts. The "reintegrating" is also just > alteration...in every way, shape, and form. > > As for arising and ceasing of paramattha dhammas; if you're taking about > feeling, perceptions, etc.; those are compounds to as you've been pointing > out a > lot lately. Otherwise, I'm not sure what you'd be talking about. I see no > > justification for the "on off" theory of dhammas that the > "commentarialists" > espouse. -------------------------------------------- Howard: I believe that paramattha dhammas are frequently complex and also can vary over time, but are still distinguishable from concepts. To "see" a tree, car, or house requires thinking. (I don't mean conscious reasoning, but just a rapid, subliminal thought process.) But hearing a sound, smelling an odor, and feeling hardness do not require thinking. Recognizing them, even wordlessly, as "bell sound", "frying onion smell", and "sharp stomach pain" DO require it, and they are concepts. ----------------------------------------------- > > BTW, is there anything that is not a compound in the conditioned world? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I suspect not, but there's sure a lot I haven't investigated! ;-) --------------------------------------------------- > > .............................................................. > > > > > > What a > > > >shocking disappointment this must be to some! The Buddha saw impermanence > >in much > >the same way we ordinarily do today. Yet this question almost always > >stumps > > Buddhists in my experience. hehehe (I'm sure no one's listening by now > >so > >I can pretty much say whatever I want.) :-) Continuing.. I ca > > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The Buddha was pointing to alteration - dissolution and regrowth - at > the macroscopic level there. > --------------------------------------------- > ............................................................... > > TG: Yes, and microscopic, and in principle I think. He is talking about > the 4GE's as a basis. What is it that's doing the rubbing and wearing > away. > I'd say its the interaction of the elements. Whether it is seen on a > "large > or small scale." > > ................................................................. > > > > > > > > >The wearing away, rubbing away causes the dissolution and disintegration > of > > > >formations. I.E., formations are torn apart by the interaction of the Four > > > > > Great Elements. And Finally ... > > > >SUTTA "...and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up > >with it." > > > >TG COMMENTS: In essence this is saying that "consciousness is supported by > > > > >the Four Great Elements and bound up with it." Supported by the Four Great > > > > >Elements means that consciousness is "resting" on "that" platform. > > > > "Bound up with it" means that consciousness is "bound up," inter-twinned, > > >interacting, with the Four Great Elements. Since consciousness is > >supported by > >the Four Great Elements, it would seem that the Four Great Elements are a > >necessary foundation for consciousness. As consciousness is bound up with > >the > >Four Great Elements, it might even be possible that consciousness is > merely > >a > > "different mode" OF the Four Great Elements. > > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The Buddha wasn't a materialist. In particular, he taught of formless > realms in which disembodied consciousness occurred. > ------------------------------------------- > ......................................................... > > TG: A materialist? Who's a materialist? Are you talking to me? Cause I > don't see anyone else here. ;-) I don't see the 4GE's as material. I see > > them as energy ... as I see consciousness. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Substituting energy for matter isn't much of a step from materialism. Modern physics identifies them. ------------------------------------------------ > > It is my understanding that those formless worlds are the product of the > activities in the "form world." Hence they are based on those energies. > It > comes as no surprise, from my point of view, that energy will move in the > direction that momentum carries it. A mind whose habit is formless > meditation > here, should "theoretically" move in that direction. Of course I don't > know any > of the rebirth info as fact, but I've satisfied my mind as to that > possibility with that logic. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Hey, why not just question the existence of formless realms? ------------------------------------------------ > > ...................................................................... > > > > > For example: -- Just as > > > >"light" is a different mode of physicality than wood, yet comes from it or > > >"out of > > it"; so too consciousness may just come from or come out-of a Four Great > >Element dynamic. > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Not a teaching of the Buddha to the best of my knowledge. > ------------------------------------------ > ....................................................................... > > NEW TG: That's correct. That's my own analogy. The Buddha did say the > following... > > > “…just as heat is generated and fire is produced from the conjunction and > friction of two fire-sticks, but when the sticks are separated and laid > aside > the resultant heat ceases and subsides; so too, these three feelings > [pleasant, painful, neutral] are born of contact, rooted in contact, with > contact as > their source and condition. In dependence on the appropriate contacts the > > corresponding feelings arise; with the cessation of the appropriate > contacts > the corresponding feelings cease.â€? > (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1270) ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yeah, sure. Contact, the co-occurring of knowing and known via the corresponding sense door, is a requisite condition for feeling. Not that the sense medium involved could be mind, and the object could be a mental operation, and there might be no rupa involved at all! ------------------------------------------------ > > Is it possible to think of "contact" (phassa), as being generated by the > 4GE's? I would say definitely yes. Although it is arguable, if one can > see > such a thing, then my analysis above IS possibly based on the Buddha's > teaching. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I remain unpersuaded, TG. Sorry. :-) ------------------------------------------------ > > ................................................................... > > > > > If that being the case, the separation of nama and rupa would > > > >also just be a conceptual tactic. Physicality and mentality would just be > > > >different modes of the same thing...energy! Forming systematic continuums > >we > >think of as life forms. > > > >Please address all hate mail to Howard for requesting this explanation. > > LOLOL > > -------------------------------------------- > Howard: > LOLOL! I expect some "hate mail" from you, too, my friend! ;-) > -------------------------------------------- > ........................................................... > > NEW TG: No way dude. Although it is a pain, such posts can be good for > clarifying/practice. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Now there ya go! One hundred percent agreement on my part! :-) ------------------------------------------------ > > ........................................................ > > > > > TG > > > > >BTW, there's a whole lot of material addressed above and much of it will > be > > > >somewhat radical for some; needs much contemplation and mindfulness time > >applied to "see it happening." > > > ............................................................................. > . > > NEW TG: I see you spent a whole 2 seconds contemplating my ideas before > "charging." LOLOL Glad my warning was well heeded. ;-) --------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-)) ---------------------------------------------- > > ....................................... > ............................................. > > > TG OUT > > > > >TG > > > ====================== > With metta, > Howard > ============================ With metta, Howard #71968 From: "colette" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 12:53 pm Subject: Re: I want to play. ksheri3 Hi Ken H, I'm honored to have the time to share with anybody. I prefer to share my time with people that at least make the effort to speak words to me that connect to having a meaning, a goal orientation sort of speak. I flipped out and immediately thought of some post found on an Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn, OSOGD.Org I believe, biscuits sect., that speaks directly to your post below. I must say I only have a few seconds and want to express my feelings at reading your first paragraph. concerning your adoration of the concepts of "good and evil", you are putting yourself into a box when you speak of these concepts in terms of tangibility. You automatically take all dhammas and throw them out the window with the baby and the dirty bath water. Ya gotta let them go in this theological system called buddhism. You also speak of having to make a sacrifice where in order to enjoy something you must sacrifice something else. We can see this in terms of capitalism but that's just getting a bit too shallow, almost as shallow as those water bugs that walk on water, huh? ;-) I've gotta go but look forward to the time when I can sit down and read your material and see what I can learn as well as teach you. toodles, colette #71969 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 2:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for your reply: Sarah: "This reminds me of sacca ~naa.na - the firm (intellectual) knowledge of the 4NT. Without sacca ~naa.na, there won't be kicca ~naa.na, the development of direct understanding of the Truths, let alone kata~naa.na, the realization of the Truths." Scott: This is how I was seeing it (without the above clarification, which I appreciate). I think that the domain has to be known intellectually. This is what struck me about the passage, that the utility of an intellectual consideration of the Dhamma was made mention of. For reasons I don't accept, study of the Dhamma is often villified, but groundlessly, in my opinion. But is this according to inclinations, don't you think? In Visuddhimagga, XVII,84: "...Faith, virtue, learning, generosity, understanding, are conditions, as decisive-support condition, for [the repeated arising of] faith, virtue, learning, generosity, understanding." Scott: It all goes together though, these factors arising in interaction and separable only for didactic purposes. Sarah: "Yet, when we read about 'the four truths as meditation subject' or about 'the prior stage by learning etc.' we may still think it's a question of 'doing something', such as sitting quietly and focussing on the Truths or a particular amount of book study. Again we go wrong so easily by following a ritual (siilabbata-paraamaasa), as soon as we have any idea of any action in order to realize the Truths." Scott: I agree that it is never a question of 'doing something'. Despite all the arguments to the contrary, I'm convinced of this. There might be resolve to study the Dhamma, and this might result in the creation of a schedule, but if, when the time comes to study, one prefers to pick up a novel, then the novel is what is read. I think that when one is studying Dhamma, then the conditions must have been right. Again, Visuddhimagga,IV,47: "However, what is particularily recommended is balancing faith with understanding, and concentration with energy. For one strong in faith and weak in understanding has confidence uncritically and groundlessly. One strong in understanding and weak in faith errs on the side of cunning and is as hard to cure as one sick of a disease caused by medicine. With the balancing of the two a man has confidence only when there are grounds for it." Scott: This comes from a section about balance in the faculties. This, also, can't be understood to be an instruction to do anything. Faculties achieve balance in the same way they are developed - in the absence of a person who does anything for it to happen; the controversial point again. For me, I find a desire to learn the Dhamma intellectually to be a natural consequence of the confidence that is already present. I fail to grasp arguments to the contrary. Sarah: "The Truths are indeed profound because even such learning and right study has to be the development of right understanding of dhammas at this very moment, regardless of the conventional activity. Even whilst reading the Abhidhamma, there can of course be right view or wrong view arising, right practice or wrong practice." Scott: Yeah. Just reading and thinking about what is read and coming to my own 'interpretation' is not the same as right understanding in the moment. I still think it all depends on the one basic fact that Dhamma - the teachings - were only taught to be in ONE FORM, and, as such, can only be understood in one way. Sincerely, Scott. #71970 From: "Phil" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 4:40 pm Subject: Re: Introduction philofillet Dear Van Pannabahulo (Phra ALan) Welcome to the group. Frankness about the difficulties in one's life combined with devotion to the Buddha's teaching is a wonderful combination so I look forward to learning a lot from you. Metta, Phil #71971 From: "Phil" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 4:47 pm Subject: Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil philofillet Hi Ken > Ph: > In a sense, I do feel that the teaching of the Buddha that is most > valuable for people like me is not so far removed from the common > sense advice that would be provided by any wise person who had > experienced the benefits of not letting the mind run amok. > ------------- > > I agree it does not contradict common decency, but what a terrible > waste it would be if we didn't see more in the Dhamma than that. Absolutely. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying stop at common decency. The decency gets deeper and deeper. I think one sutta that really gets at the kind of elementary discretionary wisdom that must develop early on is in MN, but I can'T find it. Could someone help? It is the one about 4 kinds of behaviour. It is easy to choose not to do the painful thing that it is bad for us, and it is easy to choose to do the pleasant thing that is good for us, but wisdom comes in doing the hard thing that is good for us, and avoiding the pleasant thing that is bad for us. This is akin to the advice that a wise grandmother would give, but of course it is only the starting point for development of forms of wisdom that only the Buddha could teach. Can someone give the sutta reference? Thanks in advance. Metta, Phil #71972 From: "pannabahulo" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 4:53 pm Subject: please help - anger and aversion pannabahulo Dear Dhamma friends, I m new to this group: An english a Buddhist monk living in Thailand. (I submitted my personla review yesterday). Diagnosed as bipolar (manic depressive) I wswing from deep depression to hyper staes where i have so much energy and do not sleep. The manic end of the spectrum is not elation and optimism as many peole think;my usualreactions are anger, extreme irritation and agitation. These moods can get me into a lot of trouble.I say and do things - feeling very self justified about my anger and aversion at the time - but later being very remorseful. Vipassana meditaion practicehas only helped a little. In those moods I can't meditate at all. Can anybody help or advise me? Can anyone one suggest a practice/ perception that would catch the aversion and anger before it explodes? I look forward to hearing any new angle on it all. I remain a fellow suffering trying towalk straight along the road; but am morelike a blind stumbler who at least knows in which diresctin the light source is. With Metta, Phra Alan (Pannabahulo bhikkhu) #71973 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 13, 2007 5:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence lbidd2 Hi TG, TG: "Although, there is a quote in the Path of Discrimination that speaks of all of the six sense, including consciousness, as being derived from the Four Great Elements." L: Can you find it. Very surprising! Larry #71974 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 5:25 pm Subject: Re: Mindfulness of Death-1 buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > But I thought you liked de-bait ... Ha ha > > That was not meant to be a provocative comment. It's a matter of > context. The whole of Chapter III is relevant, because Chapters IV > onwards assume a certain amount of preparatory 'work'. James: I guess you just aren't going to be happy unless I mix it up with you. There is no preparatory `work' described in Chapter 3. I'm not sure what you mean. Chapter 3 simply describes the various types of concentration and gives some `suggestions' for the best ways to cultivate that concentration. As far as Mindfulness of Death, Chapter 3 states that it is well suited for one of `Intelligent Temperament'. > > Note also the words "... exercise attention wisely ..." in your quoted > passage. Whether layperson or monk, the development of samatha requires > panna of the appropriate level, so it is something more than just > concentrating on the mental object. James: When the text states "exercise attention wisely in this way" what it means is that the attention is not unwise. The text then goes on to explain what unwise attention is: thinking about the death of a beloved, an enemy, a neutral person, or oneself. The attention will be wise as long as it is on the general theme of death and not directed toward a specific person. That is what wise attention means in the text. The text even goes on to reiterate this, "...he can exercise his attention in the way beginning 'Death will take place'. By so doing he exercises it wisely. He exercises it as a [right] means, is the meaning (upaya-manasikara; attention as a [right] means)". Jon, as far as your idea that it implies some sort of level of `prerequisite' wisdom, that just isn't supported by the text. Such a standard is vague and impossible to measure- but I am used to you putting forth this argument because it is the typical KS outlook used to avoid any type of practice. *yawn* Where is the kusala in reciting > 'Death, death'? Surely that is not what is being recommended. James: The text doesn't say to recite out loud `Death, death', it says to exercise attention wisely in this way. Therefore, one simply thinks "death, death, etc." or "Death will take place; the life faculty will be interrupted". As far as how this practice is wholesome, I will get to that at the end of the series. The text explains the various wholesome benefits of the practice at the end of the section. > > Jon > Metta, James #71975 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 13, 2007 5:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] please help - anger and aversion lbidd2 Hi Ven. Pannabahulo, Welcome to the group. We actually have a lot in common: same age, same sex, not married, and no hair on top of the head. But I live in Boulder Colorado, US. As for anger I certainly know what you mean. It has been my experience that nothing actually works. You just have to live with it. However, we can learn, little by little, and things change because of that. The Buddha advised that we ask ourselves, "why be angry". There's no good reason. The basic insight is simply to recognize anger. In that moment it is seen as not me (anatta). In general, the better you understand anatta the calmer you will become. Plus getting older kind of wears you out. Having a Buddhist name is like a window into your mind so anyone can look inside. Would you tell us what "Pannabahulo" means? Larry #71976 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 13, 2007 2:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence TGrand458@... “eye… ear… nose… tongue… body… mind; are derived from the Four Great Elements...â€? (The Path of Discrimination, (PD), Patisambhidamagga) treatise 1, paragraphs 371-377) Hi Larry from TG #71977 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 6:35 pm Subject: Mindfulness of Death- 3 buddhatrue Hi All, MINDFULNESS OF DEATH EIGHT WAYS OF RECOLLECTING DEATH (NUMBER 2): 2. As the ruin of success: here success shines as long as failure does not overcome it. And the success does not exist that might endure out of reach of failure. Accordingly, `He gave with joy a hundred millions `After conquering all the earth, `Till in the end his realm came down `To less than half a gall-nut's worth. `Yet when his merit was used up, `His body breathing its last breath, `The Sorrowless Asoka too `Felt sorrow face to face with death', Furthermore, all health ends in sickness, all youth ends in ageing, all life ends in death; all wordly existence is procured by birth, haunted by ageing, surprised by sickness, and struck down by death. Hence it is said: `As though huge mountains made of rock `So vast they reached up to the sky `Were to advance from every side, `Grinding beneath them all that lives, `So age and death roll over all, `Warriors, priests, merchants, and craftsmen, `The outcastes and the scavengers, `Crushing all beings, sparing none. `And here no troops of elephants, `No charioteers, no infantry, `No strategy in form of spells, `No riches, serve to beat them off' This is how death should be recollected as the `ruin of success' by defining it as death's final ruining of life's success. To be continued…. EIGHT WAYS OF RECOLLECTING DEATH (NUMBER 3) Metta, James #71978 From: Sobhana Date: Sun May 13, 2007 6:34 pm Subject: What is real or unreal? shennieca Hi Ken H, I've been reading some of your posts and this sentence caught my eye. Can you please elaborate more on it? Ken H: According to my understanding, dhammas are real (even though they are very short-lived). It is only the thoughts they sometimes create that are unreal. Elaine: In the abhidhammic sense, what is defined as real or unreal? I understand that ultimate realities are real but how about conventional ones, are they real? The word Dhamma has 2 meanings (definition given from wikipedia): the teachings of the Buddha which lead to enlightenment the constituent factors of the experienced world If the dhamma is real, then the constituent factors of the experienced world (i.e. thinking) must be real too, isn't it. Let's say, I am thinking that I'm flying but of course I'm having a hallucination. The "thinking" process is real but the "thoughts" about flying is unreal. Is that what you mean by "unreal"? Thoughts, defined as the content of cognition; the main thing you are thinking about. How about "kusala intentional thoughts" or "akusala intentional thoughts", for e.g. I'm thinking "I'm going to the temple this Sunday to do dana", does it become an "unreal" kusala thoughts? Looking forward to your reply. Thank you. With metta Elaine Chin #71979 From: "Robert" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 6:42 pm Subject: Re: please help - anger and aversion avalo1968 Hello Venerable Pannabahulo, Let me suggest a few approaches to working with anger that are gleaned from various Buddhist texts or from what I have been taught by others wiser than myself. Maybe you will find some of them useful. One thing often cited as helpful is to seek out the companionship of people who show the qualities you wish to cultivate in yourself. If you want to be more calm it will generally be helpful to hang out with calm people. The Buddha always speaks of the value of wise companions, as well as suitable conversation. Listening to people who engage in unwise speech won't help your state of mind. Cultivating mindfulness is always the first line of defense for anger or any other negative state of mind. Often just labeling the anger as 'anger' can take a little bit of steam out of the emotion and allow you to let it go. Please don't judge it or condemn yourself for it, just acknowledge that anger has arisen and let it go. When you awaken each morning, make a resolution to try to be aware of anger as soon as it starts to arise and not be swept away by it. Don't make unreasonable expectations for yourself that you will avoid anger from every arising, but just resolve to see it quickly and let it go, as best you can. There are many ways we can look at the situation to try to ease the anger and restore calm. Consider the harm of anger to yourself and others. Consider that you are the owner of your deeds and restraint is a way to happiness and peace. You can consider the good qualities of the person with whom you are angry - most people have some if you think about it. You can consider the universality of confusion and ignorance and realize that someone made you angry because of their own ignorance and suffering, not because they are evil. An analogy often given is if you imagine someone bumps you in the street. You might be initially angry, but then you realize they are blind and your anger evaporates and you simply apologize. Everyone is blind with ignorance and causes harm in the same way as that blind person who bumped you in the street. Don't take it personally. Consider anger as a hot coal you pick up to throw at your enemy. There is no way you can do it without harming yourself, just as anger harms you more than the one with whom you are angry. Ask yourself the question - who is angry? Is it your head or foot or which particular part of you is angry? Is it your body, feeling, perception, mental formations, or consciousness that is angry? When you see yourself justifying your anger in your mind recognize that as just another story line like all of the story lines we tell ourselves and is not necessarily reality. Become generally more skeptical of the stories we tell ourselves. Recognize that, when anger arises, there is at its core a frustrated desire, and you can sometimes work indirectly with the anger by working on letting go of the desire or at least holding it less tightly. It is hopeless to try to find happiness by arranging the external conditions of our lives and this effort will always be frustrated, often leading to anger. We should consider gradually changing this fundamental approach, beginning to seek happiness in the internals, not the externals. Sometimes it is suggested that we should consider the example of the Buddha and reflect on the qualities of this enlightened being as a source of inspiration for our own practice. This can be done informally or as taking Recollection of the Buddha as a formal meditation practice as taught in the Visuddimagga. Finally, please consider working with the practice of Metta meditation as something that can help you work with the internals so you can find more peace with the externals. I hope that some of these suggestions will be of a little help to you. I wish you peace and happiness. Robert A. #71980 From: "sukinder" Date: Mon May 14, 2007 2:04 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? sukinderpal Hi Herman, ============================== > Suk: According to the Texts, the proliferations are three, namely tanha, > mana and ditthi. > I understand too little to analyze the DO. But contact arises with every > citta, so do feeling, perception and intention. Would you consider kusala > dhammas proliferation? In any case, you were talking about `thinking' > and this is not the same as papanca. H:"Kusala" is a bit like "dhamma" or "anatta". It just about means all things to all men. But in terms of the Buddhist goal, which unequivocally is nibbana, only dhammas that lead to cessation are kusala. S: No, you got this wrong. According to the Abhidhamma, conditioned dhammas are various each with distinct characteristics; hence lobha is not dosa is not moha is not dana is not metta is not panna. This is reference to particular/individual characteristic. These dhammas are also distinguished in terms of jati; the first three for example are akusala and the last three kusala (kiriya in case of arahats). Lobha can't be kusala and metta can't be akusala. These inhere, so to speak, in the dhammas themselves and are not values given by way of reasoning based on some conceptual observation. "Dhammas" are that which is real as distinct from that which is not, namely concept. They are "known" by their individual characteristics, jati and the general characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta. Concepts do not exhibit such directly knowable characteristics. Besides, dhammas also perform functions and have proximate causes. Hence there are dhammas, for example wrong view, which leads one away from the Path, and there is the 8FP itself and this leads to Nibbana. And then there are other dhammas for example jhana, which perform different functions and do not lead to Nibbana; however these are still kusala by nature. So no, it is not the case that only those Dhammas which lead to cessation are kusala. ========================= > Herm: > > I'm saying that in jhana contact is very narrowly restricted and > focussed. > > Suk: Would you choose to remain in jhana for as long as possible? If so > why, after all when one is out of jhana, everything comes back to > normal?! H: This is not true. There is no such things as returning to a default state. Every moment of consciousness changes that consciousness. S: I meant return to kamavacara cittas. What I also meant is that jhana does nothing to reduce any accumulated akusala. Hence even though a jhana practitioner may see the value of Jhana, especially when compared to kamavacara bhumi, his only alternative is to go back to experiencing jhana as means of escape. All his knowledge and understanding about the difference in these states does nothing to hint at the way of practice which leads to the eradication of defilements and to get out of samsara, namely the N8FP. ========================= H: For a householder that means 16 hours of directed and intentional entrenching oneself in the world, and 10 random seconds of renunciation, and for one who realises dukkha, prolonged periods of directed and intentional abstaining from feeding cravings and the senses. Neither of these activities are without consequence. S: "Directed and intentional abstaining", if this is by way of suppression, is this any good? Living the householder's life, even if there were only a few seconds of experiencing the Middle Way, isn't this much better than remaining in jhana and knowing nothing about the Path? Besides, no one can make choices in matters of dhammas. A householder is one by conditions and so is a renunciate. I think this is a problem with believing in the efficacy of "intention". If upon having a few moments of seeing danger in sense experiences one thinks that one can and should renounce, one fails to appreciate the fact of conditionality and consequently takes on a path which is not the Middle Way. =========================== > Herm: > > Yes, there is no thinking without craving. This is also taught by the > > Buddha in DO. > > Suk: Which part of the DO corresponds to `thinking'? the Buddha and > other arahats `thought', where was the craving? H: These are troublesome issues for me. The actions and thoughts of Arahants tend to get explained as being kiriya-citta. I have no idea as to whether this is Sutta-based, or the inventions of commentators who also found the thinking/acting Arahants devoid of craving to be a troublesome issue. S: Regardless of whether they are kiriya cittas or what, do you not believe that 'defilements' get eradicated? The wheel of DO having been stopped, there is no more kamma created, whether good or bad.... I am not sure what your problem is, could you elaborate? ============================ H: If wisdom could be accumulated by listening to mp3's, there would be quite a few sages on this forum :-) S: Listening which conditions "understanding". And understanding at this level needs to be accumulated over many, many lifetimes. Yet this is not wisdom at the level of patipatti. And patipatti must go on for many, many lifetimes before anyone can become a sage. ;-) =========================== > Herm: > > Well, I don't know. What are you usefully going to think about these > things? > > Suk: That they are `dukkha" for example... H: Thinking that something is dukkha, and understanding that something is dukkha are not necessarily related. The former does not lead to the latter. If it did, there would be arahants a plenty. The former is no more than a phrase coming to mind. S: Thinking can be done *with* understanding. =========================== H: Understanding that something is dukkha conditions behaviour. S: Via speech, body and/or mind. =========================== H: Thinking about dukkha is dukkha, unrealised dukkha at that . S: Yes, thinking is dukkha, however thinking with understanding of dukkha can happen. ============================ H: Understanding dukkha conditions turning away. S: For a moment, and another moment...but no guarantee. ============================ > > > 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. > > Herm: > > Well, I'm glad you've got that all sorted out. Not ! > > Suk: Are you referring to your own experience which states otherwise?:- > ) H: The suggestion, if I read you correctly, that the absence of thinking is wrong thinking, doesn't gel. S: 'Absence of thinking' is absence of thinking. Thinking that 'absence of thinking' is part of the Path is wrong thinking. =========================== > developing jhana itself, but that the concentration accompanying the > Path is the same as jhana, so too here with Right Thought, that this is > what in effect it does. Besides as I said above, it is the N8FP as a unit > which will lead to renunciation and so on. H: Yes, agreed. And one sets of on the N8FP as a consequence of the realisation of dukkha. One does not go about learning the reality of dukkha from a book or from a guru. The Buddha's teachings are not for all comers, they are for those to whom dukkha has made itself known. S: Are you saying that there is either direct/ penetrative realization of Dukkha or not at all? Metta, Sukin #71981 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 13, 2007 7:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence lbidd2 Hi TG, TG: "eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind; are derived from the Four Great Elements...? (The Path of Discrimination, (PD), Patisambhidamagga) treatise 1, paragraphs 371-377)" L: I get a different reading: paragraph 369. "How is it that understanding of defining internally is knowledge of difference in the physical bases?" "Mind" is mind base, aka heart base (brain in today's anatomy). This section doesn't have anything to do with defining consciousness. Consciousness is not made of the four great elements. My understanding is that the text has a peculiar style and the translation is experimental and preliminary. Hence odd and often misleading phraseology throughout. Larry #71982 From: "sukinder" Date: Mon May 14, 2007 2:04 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] A Meditation Tip 4 different types- the Path sukinderpal Dear Dieter, D: I don't think there is progress of mutual understanding , our views simply do not meet eachother... obviously too different types.. ;-) S: Fine. But you are welcome to change your mind at anytime. Actually I forgot to add a remark in my last post, that I wish we could go back to discussing the basic questions, namely "what is the beginnings of samatha and vipassana". My intention to discuss with you from the beginning was about this only. That we have branched off to other areas is something I've gone through many times with older members of DSG, so I wasn't even too keen on this happening. ============================ D: Fritz Perls put that so nicely: 'I am I, and you are you. I do my thing, and you do your thing. I am not in this world to live up to your expectations, and you are not in this world to live up to mine. If by chance we meet, it's beautiful. If not, it can't be helped. ' S: Of course. ========================= D: all the best for you! S: And to you. Metta, Sukinder #71983 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 7:18 pm Subject: Re: please help - anger and aversion buddhatrue Ven. Pannabahulo, Welcome to the group and thank you for your honest and heart-felt introduction. I feel a little shy giving dhamma advice to a bhikkhu, but here goes anyway. You obviously have bi-polar disorder because of the terrible, abusive childhood you had to endure. It isn't your fault and it doesn't reveal a weakness in character. As the Buddha taught, you should first take the proper medication to alleviate the symptoms of this disorder. After a quick google search, I see that some sort of mood-stabilizer is in order. Keep trying different ones until you find one that works for you. From what you are writing, you haven't found the right one yet. Also, you should avoid caffeine and alcohol (but you should already avoid the alcohol ;-)). It might also be a good idea to take Omega 3, fish oil, supplements, as Omega 3 helps the brain to better function. Additionally, you shouldn't be practicing any type of `vipassana' meditation. Vipassana meditation will bring to the surface unpleasant feelings, emotions, and thoughts which you are not properly equipped to deal with- due to your disorder. You should practice samatha meditation only, as it will calm and even out your moods and emotions. The best samatha meditation is Mindfulness of Breathing. Practice Mindfulness of Breathing during sitting sessions and throughout the day when you have any unoccupied time. Don't allow the mind to wander into unpleasant thoughts through the day, bring it constantly back to the breath. Make sure that your breathing is deep and from the diaphragm, not shallow and from the chest. Make the breath your best friend and it won't steer you wrong. Hope this helps. Feel free to write to me off-list if you would like some mp3s of guided meditations for the breath, forgiveness, and loving-kindness. Metta, James #71984 From: "sukinder" Date: Mon May 14, 2007 2:21 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Introduction sukinderpal Dear All, A friend wrote off list expressing concern about A. Sujin being alone with a monk, in this case Ven Pannabahulo. I don't know the details as I wasn't there. However, this room that I referred to is with a glass front with people always on the outside able to look in or even walk in at anytime. Also on another side is the recording room with a window connecting to this room. So in case anyone is imagining anything different, I think this should clarify. Metta, Sukin _____ From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com [mailto:dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of sukinder Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2007 7:05 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: [dsg] Introduction Dear Sarah and Ven Pannabahulo, Sarah, Ven Pannabahulo was at the foundation last Saturday; he had come the Sunday before that as well thinking that there were English discussions on the day. A. Sujin however spent one and half hours with him alone until one of the Thai students had to go into the room to ask her to give the Thai talk. :-) This turned out to be good, I think, since it got the Ven very interested in Acharn's interpretation of the Dhamma. At the time Ven Pannabahulo was staying with Ven Dhammanando in Wat Benjamabophit, and it was the latter who directed him to the foundation. Ven Pannabahulo, I am so very happy to see that you have joined DSG, Knowing was asking about this yesterday. I look forward to your joining in the discussions. With Metta, Sukin #71985 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun May 13, 2007 3:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence TGrand458@... Hi Larry You're right in what the quote means! This quote won't support a contention that consciousness is "made up" of the Four Great Elements. It just justifies that the Four Great Elements support it, I suppose.... As the Sutta quote I sent you earlier also says, "that consciousness is supported by it and bound up with it." Although this does not change my mind regarding the "mechanics of consciousness," it does remove this support, which was somewhat dubious and scant to begin with. Let me ask you... How do we make the leap from "physicality as condition" to consciousness as a result without seeing them as "mechanically connected"? In other words, how can consciousness be "something different" when it is merely a "reactant" or "respondent" to physical conditions? “Monks, consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad. And how, monks, does consciousness come to be in dependence on a dyad? In dependence on eye and forms there arises eye-consciousness. The eye is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise; forms are impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. Thus this dyad is moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. “Eye-consciousness is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-consciousness is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-consciousness has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent? “The meeting, the encounter, the occurrence of these three things is called eye-contact. Eye-contact too is impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. The cause and condition for the arising of eye-contact is also impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. When, monks, eye-contact has arisen in dependence on a condition that is impermanent, how could it be permanent? “Contacted, monks, one feels, contacted one intends, contacted one perceives. Thus these things too are moving and tottering, impermanent, changing, becoming otherwise. [The Buddha proceeds to analyze the ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind-consciousness in the same manner and finishes with...] “It is in such a way, monks, that consciousness comes to be in dependence on a dyad.â€? (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 2, pg. 1172) TG #71986 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 7:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what must we slay to live happily? egberdina Hi Jon, On 13/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Putting aside the matter of Nibbana for a moment, I don't follow why you > cite this passage as supporting the proposition that everything is > concept. If certain dhammas are conjoined (as in, arise and fall away > together), that does not make them concepts. It just makes them dhammas > that arise in dependence of the co-arising of the other(s). > We probably have a differing definition of concept. For me a concept is an aggregation of various sense data, feelings and thought, all at once. Herman #71987 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun May 13, 2007 8:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and Reasons for Impermanence lbidd2 Hi TG, TG: "Let me ask you... How do we make the leap from "physicality as condition" to consciousness as a result without seeing them as "mechanically connected"?" L: Beats me. This is kind of a science question. I think there is one sentence in the commentary to Vism. that indicates an awareness of this problem but that's as far as it goes. In my view Theravada is well established as a mind and body dualism but there is enough interpretation room to lean towards a mind-only view which doesn't have to worry about how the earth element gets into the bhavanga stream. Earth element is just an experience, in other words, consciousness or a consciousness concomitant as in Howard's version. Bottom line: not all questions are answered, or even asked. Btw, the word "result" in your question above is a little confusing. Eye consciousness is a result of previous kamma but not a result of visible data even though visible data is a condition for the arising of eye consciousness. There are many subtle distinctions here that are hard to grasp. Larry #71988 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2007 8:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil sarahprocter... Hi Ken H, Howard and Golden Boy! --- kenhowardau wrote: > Hi Howard (and Phil), > > This is going to sound like jealous pique, but I can't help comparing > your reaction to Phil's posts to your reaction to mine. I > get "LOL" "Absurd!" and "Hilarious!" whereas Phil is treated like the > golden haired boy! ... S: Very funny! Actually, it's not just Howard, but all of us, even Nina and I (often after being on the receiving end of some fierce criticism from his corner), continue to treat him like the Golden Boy:-)) Conditions, conditions...... Maybe we strongly suspect you'll still be here tomorrow, Ken H, no matter what is said, whereas the Golden Boy's always on the point of taking a super-long sabbatical....For what? For baseball!! And then there are those funny stories he comes up with about 'dog-walking in the Japanese parks' or 'life with the beautiful Naomi' or the 'naughty don't go there ones'..... Not easy to match, even with your punch-lines!! Metta, Sarah p.s Howard's comments in response to you were very touching I thought:) ---------------------- #71989 From: Sobhana Date: Sun May 13, 2007 9:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] please help - anger and aversion shennieca Hello Bhante Pannabahulo, Welcome to dsg. Thank you for your lengthy introduction. I'll try to give some of my opinions, I hope you will find them useful. I hope other learned members can correct me if I'm wrong. Bhante: Can anybody help or advise me? Can anyone one suggest a practice/perception that would catch the aversion and anger before it explodes? Elaine: Anger or any other feelings that arise must have contact "phassa" as a condition. Contact leads to feelings. Is there any particular person who makes you angry? One method that I use to avoid anger is to avoid contact with certain people. If there is someone who annoys you, try to stay far away from him/her but of course that's not always possible but whenever possible though, try to avoid contact with that person. Whenever anger arises, observe the feelings/sensations that it creates. Whenever anger arises, first thing I notice is the feeling of a burning sensation on my chest, then the heat travels to the ears and face, breathing gets heavy and sometimes I get sweaty palms. If I'm really really angry, my body will tremble. Instead of getting caught up in the anger, be aware of how anger affects the bodily sensations. When I observe anger this way, it subsides faster. It is easier to handle the angry feeling when you watch it at its beginning stage when it arises. Catch it while it is small before it becomes a full-blown anger. What are the sensations that you feel when you are angry? Another method is to try reasoning with yourself by thinking of anger as a separate entity, as a momentary feeling that comes and goes and that it is not-self. All feelings are not-self. Don't think of it as "I am angry" just watch it as anger. Understanding nama-rupa will help overcome feelings/emotions. But I don't have any direct experience of the namarupa yet though... :( All types of feelings are impermanent. The anger that arise will eventually cease because whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation. So, really it is a waste of energy in getting caught up with impermanent feelings. Bhante, I think I'm giving myself advice!! I hope to learn the Dhamma from you, please share the precious Dhamma with us too. Thank you. Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu! Metta Elaine Chin #71990 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2007 9:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View sarahprocter... Dear Scott, (Connie and anyone interested in a 'Right View' corner*!!) --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Sarah: "This reminds me of sacca ~naa.na - the firm (intellectual) > knowledge of the 4NT. Without sacca ~naa.na, there won't be kicca > ~naa.na, the development of direct understanding of the Truths, let > alone kata~naa.na, the realization of the Truths." > > Scott: This is how I was seeing it (without the above clarification, > which I appreciate). I think that the domain has to be known > intellectually. This is what struck me about the passage, that the > utility of an intellectual consideration of the Dhamma was > made mention of. For reasons I don't accept, study of the Dhamma is > often villified, but groundlessly, in my opinion. But is this > according to inclinations, don't you think? .... S: Definitely. But you know something, I don't actually think anyone would be here if they didn't have some appreciation of discussing and considering what the teachings actually say. I forget who it was, but someone once said that though he/she strongly objects to what we quote from the Abhidhamma or commentaries here at times, for example, he/she will go to lengths to explain and even quote the same material elsewhere. In a way some of us do the same when we're with K.Sujin - we may make a strong case here for what we appreciate to be correct according to the Dhamma, but then raise all the objections and doubts and uncertainties when we're with her. I'm sure you'll have heard this:-). .... > In Visuddhimagga, XVII,84: > > "...Faith, virtue, learning, generosity, understanding, are > conditions, as decisive-support condition, for [the repeated arising > of] faith, virtue, learning, generosity, understanding." > > Scott: It all goes together though, these factors arising in > interaction and separable only for didactic purposes. .... S: So true! .... > Scott: I agree that it is never a question of 'doing something'. > Despite all the arguments to the contrary, I'm convinced of this. > There might be resolve to study the Dhamma, and this might result in > the creation of a schedule, but if, when the time comes to study, one > prefers to pick up a novel, then the novel is what is read. I think > that when one is studying Dhamma, then the conditions must have been > right. .... S: To take it even further, even when one picks up the Dhamma book, even when one reads the words, it doesn't mean that there is necessarily any 'right study'. For example, take the texts on the contemplation of Death -- if one sees it as a schedule for study, a particular 'doing something' in order for samatha (or vipassana) to arise, we go wrong again. KS stresses on one of the recordings that even when there is a good understanding of the path, firm confidence and understanding of what is right, silabbataparamasa still slips in until sotapatti magga. Profound and yet, more profound... .... > > Again, Visuddhimagga,IV,47: > > "However, what is particularily recommended is balancing faith with > understanding, and concentration with energy. For one strong in faith > and weak in understanding has confidence uncritically and > groundlessly. One strong in understanding and weak in faith errs on > the side of cunning and is as hard to cure as one sick of a disease > caused by medicine. With the balancing of the two a man has > confidence only when there are grounds for it." > > Scott: This comes from a section about balance in the faculties. > This, also, can't be understood to be an instruction to do anything. > Faculties achieve balance in the same way they are developed - in the > absence of a person who does anything for it to happen; the > controversial point again. .... S: Yes. A good understanding of how the reading of the text (even a commentary!!) can easily be a condition for wrong view to arise when the understanding is not firm enought. Your comments are good. I had a discussion on this same point and the 'balancing' at this moment of right understanding with Rob M before. ... >For me, I find a desire to learn the > Dhamma intellectually to be a natural consequence of the confidence > that is already present. I fail to grasp arguments to the contrary. .... S: I personally think you can encourage others with your confidence and appreciation of Dhamma. As long as we don't take the book study in itself for being the 'study' or pariyatti, then I agree with your points. ... > > Sarah: "The Truths are indeed profound because even such learning and > right study has to be the development of right understanding of > dhammas at this very moment, regardless of the conventional activity. > Even whilst reading the Abhidhamma, there can of course be right view > or wrong view arising, right practice or wrong practice." > > Scott: Yeah. Just reading and thinking about what is read and coming > to my own 'interpretation' is not the same as right understanding in > the moment. I still think it all depends on the one basic fact that > Dhamma - the teachings - were only taught to be in ONE FORM, and, as > such, can only be understood in one way. .... S: Yes, only one way. *I have a suggestion to make: We now have the 'Dana study corner' and the 'Sila study corner', thanks to Han's and Phil's encouragement. How about a 'Right View study corner' (under your supervision/encouragement)with helpful extracts you and other find being posted and discussed, like the Samohavinodani one you quoted to start this corner rolling? I'm sure Connie & others will have contributions to add. I'd certainly welcome it. Metta, Sarah ========== #71991 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 9:32 pm Subject: Re: please help - anger and aversion rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "pannabahulo" wrote: > > I look forward to hearing any new angle on it all. > I remain a fellow suffering trying towalk straight along the road; > but am morelike a blind stumbler who at least knows in which > diresctin the light source is. > With Metta, > Phra Alan > (Pannabahulo bhikkhu) > Dear Venerable Pannabahulo, I see from your introduction that you know ven. Dhammanando. I hold him in very high regard, a prodigy and protector of the Dhamma- I think discussing Dhamma with him will be a help. My website has books by a great teacher and patient member of dsg, Nina Van Gorkom http://www.abhidhamma.org/ Also have a look at the threads under these headings at the forum as they have good dicussions about what vipassana is. http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showforum=4 http://www.abhidhamma.org/forums/index.php?showforum=18 Robert ---------------------- Venerable Dhammanando: " one will never find dhammas by looking for them, but by studying and reflecting upon Abhidhamma, and letting it work its magic, one may see dhammas in spite of oneself."" #71992 From: "Antony Woods" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 9:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: flashbacks and guilt antony272b2 Dear Sarah (& Phil, Howard, Scott), > Sarah: 'Let them go!' is similar to Phil's 'Don't go there', I think. Antony: Yes, `Don't go there' might be more effective. I found the source, #63680 Sep 06. Another memorable use of `Don't go there' from Thanissaro Bhikkhu: "Because those truths about things outside: you never really know. There's that whole issue: "Does the world really exist outside the information we get through our senses?" That's one of those issues the Buddha said "Don't Go There!" What we can know though is what we directly experience in terms of suffering and stress. You know when the mind is suffering, you can tell when it's not." http://www.dhammatalks.org 4m6s Truth as Medicine.mp3 I've been repeatedly reciting whilst facing my Buddha image: "If by deed, speech or thought, foolishly I've done wrong, may all forgive me honored ones who are in wisdom and compassion strong. I freely forgive anyone who may have hurt or injured me I freely forgive myself." A: I like the word "foolishly". I can't work out why. Don't go there? Thanks / Antony. #71993 From: "Andrew" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 10:00 pm Subject: Re: Posts to Siila Corner (1) to Phil corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > I think one sutta that really gets at the kind of elementary > discretionary wisdom that must develop early on is in MN, but I > can'T find it. Could someone help? It is the one about 4 kinds of > behaviour. It is easy to choose not to do the painful thing that it > is bad for us, and it is easy to choose to do the pleasant thing > that is good for us, but wisdom comes in doing the hard thing that > is good for us, and avoiding the pleasant thing that is bad for us. > This is akin to the advice that a wise grandmother would give, but > of course it is only the starting point for development of forms of > wisdom that only the Buddha could teach. Hi Phil Can I please take your "starting point" and look at Dhammapada verse 163 (trans. Ven Sri Acharya Buddharakkhita): Sukaraani asaadhuni attano ahitaani ca yam ve hitanca sadhunca tam ve parama dukkaram "Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and beneficial." This seems to contradict your idea that it is easy to do some things that are good for us. Why would the Buddha here say that it is "exceedingly difficult" to do good/beneficial things? Is it an exaggeration? What do you think? And why? Surely it is easy ("elementary") to intentionally will the doing of something good? Perhaps the Pali experts could chime in here. Noting that the verse does not contain "kusala", is it accurate to paraphrase this verse as - "it is easy to do akusala but exceedingly difficult to do kusala"? If not, what is the problem with this paraphrasing? Apologies in advance if I don't continue this thread for various reasons - including immersion in the Perfections book Nina was so kind as to send me. Many, many thanks, Nina & Azita! Best wishes Andrew #71994 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun May 13, 2007 10:04 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Introduction sarahprocter... Dear Sukin & Ven Pannabahulo, --- sukinder wrote: > Sarah, Ven Pannabahulo was at the foundation last Saturday; he had come > the > Sunday before that as well thinking that there were English discussions > on > the day. A. Sujin however spent one and half hours with him alone until > one > of the Thai students had to go into the room to ask her to give the Thai > talk. :-) ... S: Thx for telling us this, Sukin. I'm glad that Ven Dhammanando suggested he visit the foundation and that it all worked out on the Sunday he visited. Ven Pannabahulo, I'm glad to see that you've started another good thread. I think some of us would also be interested to hear of your impresssions (and recollection of topics) from your discussions with A.Sujin on the first Sunday and then with the group on the following Saturday. What impressed you or was useful. What was surprising or didn't seem useful? What were some of the issues you recall? Perhaps we'll have a chance to meet you there when we next visit (beg. July). Metta, Sarah ========== #71995 From: Sobhana Date: Sun May 13, 2007 10:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are we responsible for our actions? shennieca Hi Ken H, all, Ken H: No matter where we are or what we are doing, there is always a possibility for either dana or sila and/or bhavana. So we might well ask, "What about now? Is there one of those kusala cittas now?" Elaine: Can a citta be not-kusala and not-akusala? For e.g. 'indifference' a feeling which I consider "neutral", is it actually a kusala or akusala citta? It is not possible for me to do dana very often because there is no Theravada temple nearby but I try to keep the 5 precepts (pañca-sila). Whenever these precepts are kept, i.e. every moment of the day when I don't break the precepts, these moments are considered kusala, right? But most of the time, my mind is full of nonsensical type of thinking, do these thinking have to be akusala? Or does it depend on what type of thinking it is, i.e. if I think of wholesome things it becomes kusala citta and vice-versa? Do we need to categorize our every "thought" according to the 52 cetasikas and analyse them one by one? Looking forward to your reply. Metta Elaine Chin #71996 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 11:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right View buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Scott, (Connie and anyone interested in a 'Right View' corner*!!) > For example, take the texts on the contemplation of Death -- if one sees > it as a schedule for study, a particular 'doing something' in order for > samatha (or vipassana) to arise, we go wrong again. James: Mindfulness of Death is a "doing something". As the text states: "One who wants to develop this should go into solitary retreat and exercise attention wisely in this way: 'Death will take place; the life faculty will be interrupted', or 'Death, death'...When some exercise it merely in this way, their hindrances get suppressed, their mindfulness becomes established with death as its object, and the meditation subject reaches access." Sarah, can you read? Can you read and understand what you read? Pretend for a moment that you never met KS and read the above passage, and then tell me that Mindfulness of Death isn't a "doing something" for samatha to arise. The text clearly states that the person should go into a solitary retreat-- all alone, no one around, all by oneself, no one to talk to, solo- and focus the mind on the theme of death. By focusin in this way, the hindrances are suppressed and one can reach access concentration (samatha). It is sooooo completely unambiguous and yet here you are saying the exact opposite of what the text states. I really don't know how you can do that with a straight face or a clear conscience. > > KS stresses on one of the recordings that even when there is a good > understanding of the path, firm confidence and understanding of what is > right, silabbataparamasa still slips in until sotapatti magga. James: Who really cares what KS stresses or says? I don't. I take refuge in the Triple Gem, and KS is no part of that. I really hope that you don't begin a "Right View Corner" just to push the KS teaching; that would be really deplorable. Metta, James #71997 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 10:55 pm Subject: Energy as a Way to Force! bhikkhu5 Friends: How can Energy become a Way to Suprahuman Force? The Blessed Buddha once said: When a Bhikkhu develops the Ways to Force that is enriched with concentrated Energy, constructed by effort, by thinking: In this way will my Energy, 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 all open & unrestricted, he develops the dazzling bright mind, which is pervaded by luminosity... However: What is Energy that is too slack? It is Energy joined with dullness. This is called Energy that is too slack... What is Energy that is too tense? It is restless & agitated Energy. This is called Energy that is too tense... What is Energy that is constricted internally? It is Energy joined with lethargy & laziness. This is Energy that is constricted internally. What is Energy that is scattered externally? It is Energy that is all distracted & diverted externally urging for the 5 sense pleasures... This is called Energy that is scattered & distracted externally... How does one dwell experiencing both the front & what is behind? The perception of front, back, is well attended to, & thereby well comprehended, well considered, & penetrated by understanding... How does one dwell seeing as below, so above; as above, so below? One reviews this very frame of body upwards from the soles of the feet, & downwards from the tips of the hairs, enclosed in skin, as full of many kinds of impurities: There are in this body head-hairs, body-hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, intestines, mesentery, vomit in the stomach, excrement, bile, lymph, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, mucus, saliva, snot, fluid of the joints, and urine... How does one dwell as by day, so at night; as at night, so by day? Here, at night a Bhikkhu trains the Ways to Force that is enriched with concentrated Energy, constructed by effort using the same techniques, qualities, features, & aspects, as he trains during a day. And how, does one dwell with a mind that is all open & unrestricted, a dazzling bright mind, which is pervaded by luminosity...? Here, friends, the perception of day-light is well attended and well resolved upon by determination. It is in exactly this way that one dwell with a mind that is all open & unrestricted, a dazzling bright mind, which is pervaded by its own luminosity... Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:278] section 51: The 4 Forces: Thread 20: Analysis of the Ways. More on Energy (Viriya): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Energy_Viriya.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Ceylon * <....> #71998 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 10:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ways to the Barbeque! egberdina Hi Jon, On 13/05/07, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > Did you really expect an answer to that question? ;-)) > > If you disagree with a text that is quoted, why not explain your > disagreement in a pleasant manner? > I would say that I wrote what I wrote because I wanted to show my disagreement in an unpleasant way. > > I'm aware you don't hold the present-day sangha in very high regard, but > what is the relevance of such issues to an understanding of the teachings? > None at all, I'd say. Herman #71999 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun May 13, 2007 11:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Will my whole world be beige? egberdina Hi Robert A, On 13/05/07, Robert wrote: > Thank you for all your comments. > Robert A: > Are two actions of the same value if one is motivated by > lovingkindness and the other by ill-will? I would say the intention > matters in this equation. You don't act with indifference to the > result, but with recognition that you cannot be attached to a > particular result - equanimity rather than indifference - and I > contend there is a big difference between these two terms. You are > right that all actions have consequences, so we only act when we > believe we have the capacity to act wisely - to be helpful and not > harmful. The ultimate personal responsibility is to devote yourself > to developing that capacity through conscientious practice of the > Noble Eightfold Path, to do the best we can, to try to make amends > when we make mistakes, and to always come back to our intentions and > try to see that they are Right Intention. > I see nothing in what you write that does not also describe how Christians, Jews, Muslims etc etc seek to lead their life. In effect, everbody wants to live a happy life, and tries to bring that about in whatever way they can. Where Buddhism *can* stand out, I feel, is if it is recognised that it is not possible to live in a world where good and evil are possible, yet be free of suffering at the same time. If one sees the Noble Eight Fold Path as a path that leads to a pleasant ongoing existence, then one may as well be Christian, Jewish or any other faith that ultimately seeks happiness. But Buddhism and the Noble Eight Fold Path is not only for the cessation of evil, but for the cessation of good as well. The following link links to a whole section in the Anguttara Nikaya that discusses the kamma that ends kamma, which is the actual intent of Buddhism, and therefore the Noble Eight Fold Path as well. http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara2/4-ca\ tukkanipata/024-kammavaggo-e.html Herman