#76200 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 3:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ i... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Swee Boon & Sarah) - In a message dated 9/9/2007 9:36:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hi Howard (Swee and Sarah), - The discussion is now near the end, it seems. > >Swee: > >Because they take only the aggregates to be real (paramattha dhammas) and any other things as unreal (concepts), they take the 'person' to be a concept that doesn't exist, which is why they say there is no person, no devas, no brahmas and no buddhas. > > >However, if they had said that there is no self of a person/deva/ brahma/buddha to be found in the aggregates, I would agree with them because that self is an assumption, a fabrication of the mind. > .......... > > Howard: > Item 2 says "there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known conventionally as a person or living being." There are the phenomena comprising the 5 aggregates, interrelated in manifold complex ways. There also is the sum of these, but only in a sense. Where is that sum? My answer: In "the mind of the beholder," and nowhere else. The "summing" is done by thought. > T: Swee found the three right components; he performed the synthesis to make a valid statement about no-self, i.e. "self is an assumption, a fabrication of the mind" (i.e. the acquisition of self in the Category 3). And so I agree with you about the summing that concocts a person is in "the mind of the beholder" and nowhere else. That's how the person is conceived by the self view(attanuditthi) and that's why it is not real. Are we in agreement up to this point? I think we are. >Howard: All there is to be found independent of thought are the interrelated dhammas - the namas and rupas. There is no person, per se, independent of conceptualization. T: Now I am not sure anymore. Are you saying that besides the conceptualized/conceived person in the mind of the beholder, there is "no person" to be found anywhere outside the beholder's mind as well? If the answer is yes, then your view about "no person, no Buddha" is not different from Sarah's view. But if you say that there is a real person outside in a given moment (that is real only in that moment) and it of the Case 2.1 (gross acquisition of a self, feeding on food), then I agree with you. Forgive me if I have misunderstood you. Tep ===================================== Sorry to disappoint, Tep. I agree with Sarah. There are the following: 1) Paramattha dhammas, interrelated in manifold complex ways, and 2) the thinking which mentally combines (the ideas of) these dhammas into a projected being/entity that is mere concept, but which is typically thought of as a reality independent of thought, whereas only the dhammas upon which "a being" is imputed are independent of thought. (And usually even those dhammas are misconstrued by atta-bound reification.) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #76201 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 6:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ÁÑerson¡¦quot; - "The controversy on ÁÑerson¡¦is ended" dcwijeratna Dear Colette, Delighted with your response. I agree with your comments, this is how I understnad sammuti: What we call "truth" is sammuti or sammuti sacca. The term in the suttas is vohara. However, it need not be a belief. Suppose I see an apple. You also see it. If both of us agree to call it an apple, then that is the vohara. It is a mere name or a designation, that is a name. In some other place it may be called by some other name. That is why it is a relative truth. It is true only with respect to a group. So in way, it is a belief of the group. This is why according to the Dhamma, human beings are subject to 'avijja', 'moha' or delusion. The two Pali words have sense of in ability to see properly, confusion, without meaning and of course delusion. Belief is essentially a non-Dhammic concept. It is better not to bring when you discuss dhamma. With metta D. G. D. C. Wijeratna ----- Original Message ---- From: colette To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2007 12:18:58 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ÁÑerson¡¦quot; - "The controversy on ÁÑerson¡¦is ended" Dear D.G.D.C., Hi, glad to have you here with all that experience behind you and that access to info. you've got in those Buddhist univesities. Only time for one comment: --- In dhammastudygroup@ yahoogroups. com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > The word "sammuti" does not occur in the Sutta Pi.taka. But you get it in the Vinaya Pi.taka in the sense of agreed or agreement. It is not connected with truth. > colette: if two or more people are in agreement of the definition of a word, phrase, act, action, etc, then there is collusion, a conspiracy of sorts since it is more than a single person. It is however a shared belief in something "other" and it is mind generated. With this said, THEN, isn't evereything concerning this word that is said to be "sammuti" nothing less than "Truth" or "Pravda"? <...> #76202 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 7:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge dcwijeratna Dear Scott, Your (6) questions are very interesting and provocative. I thought I would put down my thinking on them. 1. Dhamma-eye (dhamma-cakkhu) is the state of the stream-enterer or a sotapanna. 2. The word 'exist' is not appropriate for describing dhammas. They are born and then die (uppaada-vaya) 3. Reality is the same (whatever it is) for ariyans; it is the perception of reality that is different for ariyans and non-ariyans 4. Does not arise 5. Does not arise 6. Does not arise Hope I haven't bothered you as your message is addressed to Tep. With metta, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna ----- Original Message ---- From: Scott Duncan To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 9, 2007 9:25:25 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge Dear Tep, Who could resist such an obviously Darwinian challenge?: T: "Sorry to drag on the discussion issue that may be compared with a big pot of stew that has been served repeatedly for several days. Now only a few adults are left at the dinner table..." It is suggested that: T: "It is very true that 'it is only dhammas that can be, and are to be, directly known and thus directly understood'. But the 'dhammas' are only seen by ariyans who 'see' emptiness and lack of substance in all sankhra dhammas...only ariyans see dhammas the way they truly are with the Dhamma Eye, which is the direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths (see MN 2). The Dhamma Eye of the Sotapanna is the first insight to be developed by virtuous Buddhists... " Scott: I've yet to get a clear response to questions such as: 1) Why this insistence on Dhamma Eye? 2) Does the above mean that dhammas only exist when 'seen by ariyans'? 3) Do you posit a separate reality for non-ariyans? 4) If so, of what does this consist? 5) In what way would this separate reality be 'real'? 6) And how might it differ from another reality for ariyans? Thanks very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Scott. #76203 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 7:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dependent origination dcwijeratna Dear azita, I saw your message addressed to Sarah and thought I would also join in the fun. I think it is difficult to understand Dependent-Origination. See for example, Mahaanidaana sutta DN. Actually DO is the Buddha's realization. See Vinaya Mahaavagga-Bodhikathaa According to my reading of the texts, you can understand only by travelling the path. It is well known that anicca, dukkha anatta or the three signata or the three characteristics of the world-really our perception. Of this first thing to understand is anicca. When you understand that you become a stream-enterer, sotaapanna. "ya.m ki~nci samudaya dhamma.m sabba.m ta.m nirodha dhamma.m. Actually anicca is continuous change incessant. Never still. DO is based on this perception and anatta. So we can't use this birth, next birth in trying to understand the DO. This change is so fast, In the Anguttara Nikaaya, the Buddha says that it is not possible to even find a simile to express the speed of that change. [Ekadhamma] There are other difficulties as well. DO or the Four Noble Truths are not things that can be understood by reading about them. They can be understood only by travelling the path-Fourth Noble Truth. I come to the above conclusion as follows. If we can understand these truths then what is the use of the Noble Eighfold Path. Further, it also means that one can become an arahant without practising the path. These are the difficulties I am also having with respect to DO. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna ----- Original Message ---- From: gazita2002 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 6:59:21 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] dependent origination Hello Sarah, followed the links you recommended - thanks again, and here's my short summary. Clinging conditions becoming. There is clinging in this current existence [for example]. Depending on what is clung to, or more specific the tendancies for sense-sphere, form-sphere of formless sphere objects, this will be the condition for becoming/bhava, which in turn, conditions birth. Maybe oversimplfied, what do you think? <....> #76204 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 9, 2007 5:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dependent origination TGrand458@... Send Email Hi D. G. D. C. Wijeratna and Azita Two comments regarding the post below... 1) It is by understanding the principles of DO that impermanence and nonself are understood, not the reverse. 2) The speed of change that is "difficult to make an analogy of" ... referred to in the Suttas ... is in reference to "consciousness," not to "change in general." Indeed, the fact that change is generally so slow is the reason we are saddled with the perception of permanence! However, I agree completely that it is continuous. TG In a message dated 9/9/2007 9:49:25 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, dcwijeratna@... writes: Dear azita, I saw your message addressed to Sarah and thought I would also join in the fun. I think it is difficult to understand Dependent-OriginatiI t See for example, Mahaanidaana sutta DN. Actually DO is the Buddha's realization. See Vinaya Mahaavagga-BodhikatAct According to my reading of the texts, you can understand only by travelling the path. It is well known that anicca, dukkha anatta or the three signata or the three characteristics of the world-really our perception. Of this first thing to understand is anicca. When you understand that you become a stream-enterer, sotaapanna. "ya.m ki~nci samudaya dhamma.m sabba.m ta.m nirodha dhamma.m. Actually anicca is continuous change incessant. Never still. DO is based on this perception and anatta. So we can't use this birth, next birth in trying to understand the DO. This change is so fast, In the Anguttara Nikaaya, the Buddha says that it is not possible to even find a simile to express the speed of that change. [Ekadhamma] There are other difficulties as well. DO or the Four Noble Truths are not things that can be understood by reading about them. They can be understood only by travelling the path-Fourth Noble Truth. I come to the above conclusion as follows. If we can understand these truths then what is the use of the Noble Eighfold Path. Further, it also means that one can become an arahant without practising the path. These are the difficulties I am also having with respect to DO. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #76205 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 1:37 am Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" sukinderpal Hi Phil, I've got construction workers in my house to keep an eye on, so feeling bored I have decided to write one post to DSG. This is from post #76075 which you wrote to Robert: ================= Robert: who you accuse of giving teachings too advanced for her > students - yet now you run on about anapansati the most difficult of > all samatha objects. Phil: Yes, Bhikkhu Bodhi also acknowledges it as a difficult samatha subject, so I know that here, at least, AS is not alone. I don't know the *right* way to develop mindfulness of breathing, but I know it is not by discussing it. It has to be experimented with, and that's what I'm doing now. Sukin: Not knowing the right way you have decided to try out one of the many methods offered. You say that there is no value in discussing it, but you choose to follow the `idea' of it. How did you come to the conclusion that it is worth following, did you not *reason* about what it is and how it is related to the Path? Or are you going by authority, namely that of the Burmese Sayadaws and what they have said about the particular teaching? Is there any place for "experimentation" in Dhamma? When the Buddha taught about the importance of hearing the Teachings, associating with the wise and wise consideration, are these not to be found in Dhamma discussions? When the Buddha talked about not following a teacher or a tradition does this not imply that we need to carefully consider what we hear? Rather than jumping into some prescribed practice, should we not carefully consider what is being proposed? When the Buddha asked us to "test it out" the Dhamma, I don't think that he meant something that happened in time. Before hearing the dhamma we see, hear, taste, think, feel and so on and "know" them as such. After hearing the Dhamma the same experiences occur, only now little by little we begin to appreciate that these are in fact fleeting elements of experience and not something that happens to a "self" as we have so far thought to be. *This* imo, is the test and proof the Buddha was referring to. If `intellectual understanding' is all that can be had now, the test and proof is of that level. By ideally holding on to the idea that the proof is in the experience of insight and ending up bypassing this stage of pariyatti on to some prescribed practice, one places oneself to be deluded. If on the other hand one patiently stays with whatever level of understanding there is, views corrected would confirm with any subsequent patipatti and finally with pativedha. These three must agree and any downplaying of pariyatti at any time is reflection of some level of delusion. Underlying this insistence on `practice' is "self view". For a correct understanding of Dhamma can never issue forth in questions of "how" and "what is to be done". "Self" reads into the Teachings a certain interpretation and seeks and finds the answer in some "method". Coming as a consequence of such methods is the illusion of result. Hence any attitude to experimentation is doomed to failure. And it would result in mistaking what is not the path to be the path. After all what can one conclude in say, comparing the Goenka method with the Mahasi method or that of the Forest monks? Nothing about the Dhamma for sure!! ================== Phil: Hopefully I'll have more understanding of it in a few years. Sukin: Since it is not the right cause, if the outlook is maintained, then it is unlikely that any good will come out of this. The illusion of result taken as something real and substantial, the knot becomes harder to untangle. Of course any past accumulation of panna may arise to see through the very practice, but this would be in spite of rather than the result of it. ================== Phil: If not, I know, already know, that having a meditation object that is based in the body and can be returned to easily is very effective in giving the mind something less harmful to feed on than it usually does when it goes hungering here and there for sense-door objects. Sukin: This reminds me of something similar which Htoo expressed. Lobha accumulates and should not in any way be encouraged. And look at it this way, if such a relatively `unexciting' object as the `breath' can be held on to by tanha, what about the more `exciting' ones that we otherwise experience and some of which you are seeking to avoid? Where do you think that the inherent tendency to attraction towards those objects go while you are experiencing the so called `less harmful' object of meditation? Are they at all being dealt with? There isn't even any suppression by force of Jhana! So there is neither Vipassana development nor Samatha. And obviously no dana, sila or any other form of kusala being accumulated. So are you not in fact increasing akusala, in this case not only avijja and tanha, but also miccha ditthi? Your reasons, could they in fact be rationalizations? ================= Phil: The fact that there is attachment to this clumsily conceptual and pleasant meditation object is not a problem. Better to be attached to the breath - whether properly understood or not - than all kinds of sense door objects that deepen greed, hatred and delusion. Sukin: Tanha which arises naturally is not a problem in that as long it has not been eradicated, it will continue to arise by conditions. But this does not mean that we encourage it, especially since in this case it is motivated by "view" and a mistaking of what is not the path for the path. ================= Phil: (The form of delusion that I am concerned about is believing pleasant sensual objects to be good for one - I am not at this time concerned about the kind of delusion that is the subtle form of wrong view that AS and her students emphasize - the wrong view that is broken through by the ariyan.) Sukin: This sounds like Mara speaking. That supramundane Right View is attained and Wrong View forever eradicated at Stream Entry is no justification to meanwhile encourage Self View. `Self' is so concerned about being without certain dhammas that sight is lost about how in fact the development of the Path proceeds. A Sotapanna still has attachments and aversions. His, even though relatively weaker akusala dhammas, are seen with greater clarity as being a "thorn" and hence `unwanted', much more than we worldlings ever perceive even the grossest akusala. He is not "moved" to want to do anything, but we *react* with aversion, ignorance and attachment to self, to blindly take on a wrong practice. :-/ ================= Phil: I'm looking forward to hearing more from Kom, since he was a student of AS (and perhaps will be again) and talked very eloquently about the need to understand the textual-supported reason for whatever practice he came across, but is now practicing in the same tradition that I'm interested in, which doesn't emphasize the texts so much and praises plunging ahead with meditation without so much theoretical analysis. Sukin: Kom is welcome to express himself here at anytime, also any of those many ex-students of A. Sujin who suddenly realized that they knew better. But what are you looking for, Phil? Arguments for and against? What good will Kom's understanding do to you? Yeah, "plunge ahead with meditation"; the Buddha didn't really have to waste his breath teaching all the Dhamma that he did. As with Thanissaro Bhikkhu who reduces "Anatta" which only a Buddha could teach, to being a psychological technique, I find such attitude to be reflective of arrogance and conceit. I believe that the more one studies (correctly) the Dhamma, the greater is the appreciation of the depth of the Buddha's wisdom and hence every utterance of his. These fellows on the other hand think that they have heard enough!! :-/ This is just one of the few posts I felt an urge to respond to. I hope you don't feel picked on. Metta, Sukinder #76206 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 2:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ i... indriyabala Hi Howard (Swee, Sarah), - It is amazing to me how you effectively carry out every discussion to the end. > T: Now I am not sure anymore. Are you saying that besides the > conceptualized/conceived person in the mind of the beholder, there > is "no person" to be found anywhere outside the beholder's mind as > well? If the answer is yes, then your view about "no person, no > Buddha" is not different from Sarah's view. But if you say that there is a real person outside in a given moment (that is real only in that moment) and it of the Case 2.1 (gross acquisition of a self, feeding on food), then I agree with you. > > Forgive me if I have misunderstood you. > Howard: Sorry to disappoint, Tep. I agree with Sarah. T: No doubt why you have received permanent membership of the gang. ............. > Howard: There are the following: 1) Paramattha dhammas, interrelated in manifold complex ways, and 2) the thinking which mentally combines (the ideas of) these dhammas into a projected being/entity that is mere concept, but which is typically thought of as a reality independent of thought, whereas only the dhammas upon which "a being" is imputed are independent of thought. (And usually > even those dhammas are misconstrued by atta-bound reification.) > T: I am relieved and happy as a consequence of this clarification of your position. I would like to make a final note in the passing that there is no atta-bound reification in the Buddha's three attapa.tilabha in DN 9. Each type is a real existence of its own. The dialogue between the Buddha and Citta (the elephant trainer) should be read again. Tep === #76207 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 12:35 am Subject: Four but One! bhikkhu0@... Send Email Friends: The Four Truths perform 4 Functions in a single Moment! The Blessed Buddha once said this: Bhikkhus, any one who sees Suffering , sees also The Cause of Suffering, sees also The End of Suffering, sees also The Way to End all Suffering.. Any one who sees The Cause of Suffering, sees also Suffering , Ending , & The Way. And any one who sees The End, sees also Pain , Cause , & The Way . Consequently any one who sees The Way to End Pain, sees also Suffering , sees also The Cause of Suffering, sees also The Ending of Suffering! Comments on Coming Through: Breakthrough to the Truths thus performs 4 functions at a single moment! 4 of these breakthroughs occur at each path-entry-moment to Nobility... The effect is each time an even deeper irreversible mental purification! When these 4 Truths are flashing forth & forever transforms one's life and mentality, NibbÄ?na is the single object pointed to as possible escape! There is only one single Exit out of this burning cinema of appearances... A Matrix of Clinging! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:436-7] section 56: Saccasamyutta. Thread 30: Gavampati... More on these 4 Noble Truths (Cattari Ariya Saccani): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Ignorance.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Actually_So.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/True_Wisdom.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Clustered_Truths.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Ultimate_Fact.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Simple_yet_Complex.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4_Noble_Truths.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Sour_Sense_Sources.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_1st_Noble_Truth_on_Suffering.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_2nd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Cause_of_Sufferi\ ng.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_3rd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Ceasing_of_Suffe\ ring.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4th_Noble_Truth_on_The_Way_to_End_Suffe\ ring.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net <...> #76208 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:06 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Scott, - Ah, this time you're back with a new round of tough questions. But I would appreciate reading your answers to these questions too. .......... Scott: Who could resist such an obviously Darwinian challenge?: T: "Sorry to drag on the discussion issue that may be compared with a big pot of stew that has been served repeatedly for several days. Now only a few adults are left at the dinner table..." It is suggested that: T: "It is very true that 'it is only dhammas that can be, and are to be, directly known and thus directly understood'. But the 'dhammas' are only seen by ariyans who 'see' emptiness and lack of substance in all sankhra dhammas...only ariyans see dhammas the way they truly are with the Dhamma Eye, which is the direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths (see MN 2). The Dhamma Eye of the Sotapanna is the first insight to be developed by virtuous Buddhists..." Scott: I've yet to get a clear response to questions such as: 1) Why this insistence on Dhamma Eye? 2) Does the above mean that dhammas only exist when 'seen by ariyans'? 3) Do you posit a separate reality for non-ariyans? 4) If so, of what does this consist? 5) In what way would this separate reality be 'real'? 6) And how might it differ from another reality for ariyans? Thanks very much for your consideration. .......... T: My answers follow ... 1) To inform that direct knowing begins at Stream-entry. 2) No. They exist regardless. 3) No. I only posit that the reality that non-ariyans experience is not of the pure Dhamma. 4) It consists of what you call conventional truths. 5) A reality can be experienced the same way by others who have same understanding. 6) It differs mainly because the ariyans have direct knowledges. Is there a reward for each correct or satisfactory answer ? {:-) BTW What does Darwinian approach have anything to do with this? Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Who could resist such an obviously Darwinian challenge?: > #76209 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:55 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge scottduncan2 Dear Tep and D.C.D.G., Thanks for the replies. The original statement: T: "It is very true that 'it is only dhammas that can be, and are to be, directly known and thus directly understood'. But the 'dhammas' are only seen by ariyans who 'see' emptiness and lack of substance in all sankhra dhammas...only ariyans see dhammas the way they truly are with the Dhamma Eye, which is the direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths (see MN 2). The Dhamma Eye of the Sotapanna is the first insight to be developed by virtuous Buddhists... " The questions: 1) Why this insistence on Dhamma Eye? 2) Does the above mean that dhammas only exist when 'seen by ariyans'? 3) Do you posit a separate reality for non-ariyans? 4) If so, of what does this consist? 5) In what way would this separate reality be 'real'? 6) And how might it differ from another reality for ariyans? The answers: "D.C.D.G: 1. Dhamma-eye (dhamma-cakkhu) is the state of the stream-enterer or a sotapanna. 2. The word 'exist' is not appropriate for describing dhammas. They are born and then die (uppaada-vaya) 3. Reality is the same (whatever it is) for ariyans; it is the perception of reality that is different for ariyans and non-ariyans 4. Does not arise 5. Does not arise 6. Does not arise" "Tep: 1) To inform that direct knowing begins at Stream-entry. 2) No. They exist regardless. 3) No. I only posit that the reality that non-ariyans experience is not of the pure Dhamma. 4) It consists of what you call conventional truths. 5) A reality can be experienced the same way by others who have same understanding. 6) It differs mainly because the ariyans have direct knowledges." T: "Ah, this time you're back with a new round of tough questions. But I would appreciate reading your answers to these questions too." Scott: 1) I'll accept that Dhamma-cakkhu relates to the sotapanna; textual support would be good. I'd suggest that this refers to Path moments - the sotaapatti-magga and the sotaapatti-phala and not to the conventional designation of the conceptual 'Stream Enterer'. I don't accept that 'direct knowing begins at Stream Entry' as Tep suggests. This would then serve to eliminate all the early 'stages' of the development (bhaavanaa) of pa~n~naa, since, as I understand (subject to correction), these also involve the direct knowing of dhammas but in ways 'less than' sotaapatti-magga and sotaapatti-magga. (i.e. the difference between naama and ruupa). Pa~n~naa-cakkhu functions to differing degrees depending on level of development and takes paramattha-dhammas as objects from the beginning. Tep, you've not clarified this, but why do you say that it must be after sotaapatti-magga and sotaapatti-phala that 'direct knowing' can begin? Or do you accept that pa~n~naa can 'know' dhammas in 'lesser ways' prior to the arising of the Path? 2) D.C., would you accept 'exist' when it is a rendering of the Paa.li 'bhava', such as 'sense-existence or kaama-bhava'? I don't believe this contradicts the point about 'uppaada-vaya'. Rather than 'born' and 'die' I'd say 'arise' and 'cease' or 'fall away' but who's splitting hairs at this point? (Well, I am, as usual...). At any rate, the panel is in agreement that dhammas arise and fall away regardless of whether they are known by Dhamma-cakkhu. 3) I favour the response of D.C. here, he puts it very well: "...Reality is the same (whatever it is) for ariyans; it is the perception of reality that is different for ariyans and non-ariyans." However, I suggest again that 'perception of reality' would be a function of, say, pa~n~naa and not the 'experience' of a conceptual designate referred to as 'ariyan' or 'non-ariyan.' Tep when you note, "the reality that non-ariyans experience is not of the pure Dhamma," to what do you refer? I'd suggest a) that this refers to the perception based on a reliance on conceptually rendered and fabricated constructs involving wholes and persisting states and things, and b) that this is so because pa~n~naa does not begin to arise and develop. 4) I asked, 'in what way would this be real'? I'd say that the world of 'conventional truth' is fabricated and not 'real' in the sense that paramattha-dhammas are 'real'. D.C. says 'it does not arise', which I take to mean is conceptual, therefore free of time, therefore not 'real' in the ultimate sense. If this is what is being said, then I agree. Tep, there seems to be an insistence that 'conventional truth' has some sort of 'reality'? Why is this so? How can this be? 5) Again, I would favour 'it does not arise' over '[a] reality can be experienced the same way by others who have same understanding'. I do so because of what I said above regarding 'conventional truth', that is, it does not have any ultimate reality. Tep, what are you referring to when you use the term 'a reality'? 6) Again, I side with 'it does not arise'. I don't think that magga- and phala-citta are necessary conditions for pa~n~naa to arise and know dhammas at the stages of tender insight. Were this the case then no development could proceed such that magga- and phala-citta of the Path could arise. Once the Path arises, I understand that certain classes of citta and cetasika no longer arise; this, then, has an effect on 'perception' but only because of what is no longer fabricated. T: "BTW What does Darwinian approach have anything to do with this?" Scott: This was a so-called 'instance of humour' referring to, 'Now only a few adults are left at the dinner table...'. I just thought of 'survival of the fittest' and, as I said, could not resist the challenge of showing myself (this non-existent concept) to be fit enough to remain at the table to the bitter end. T: "Is there a reward for each correct or satisfactory answer ? {:-)" Scott: Just my seal of approval. Thanks you both for a good discussion. Sincerely, Scott. #76210 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge sarahprocter... Hi Scott, Tep & D.C., --- Scott Duncan wrote: > 1) I'll accept that Dhamma-cakkhu relates to the sotapanna; textual > support would be good. I'd suggest that this refers to Path moments - > the sotaapatti-magga and the sotaapatti-phala and not to the > conventional designation of the conceptual 'Stream Enterer'. ... See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/56792 Here the commentary note says: "(ii) the Dhamma eye (dhammacakkhu), the knowledge of the three lower paths and fruits" Metta, Sarah ========== #76211 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:32 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 13, no 10 nilovg Dear friends, When the five “spiritual faculties” are still weak we should realize that also in the past they were weak. That is the reason why there are not enough conditions for their arising at the present time. When we keep on listening to the Dhamma and considering what we heard the five “spiritual faculties” can develop. They lead to the experiencing of the “Deathless”, of nibbåna, but we do not know in which life that will happen. It is useless to have desire for the attainment of enlightenment, desire is counteractive to the development of understanding. We should only be intent on our task of this moment: developing more understanding of the reality which appears now. There are three faculties which are lokuttara paññå. They control the purity of understanding at the moment of enlightenment and they condition the accompanying dhammas by way of conascent faculty- condition. The first one is the faculty of “I-shall-come-to-know-the- unknown” and this is the lokuttara paññå which accompanies the magga- citta (lokuttara kusala citta) of the sotåpanna. The sotåpanna comes to know what was not known before, nibbåna. Lokuttara paññå is conditioned by the sobhana cetasikas which have been accumulated from life to life. These cetasikas which are included in sankhårakkhandha (the khandha of “formations”, consisting of all cetasikas except feeling and remembrance, saññå) are supporting one another and together they constitute the conditions for attaining enlightenment. It is encouraging to know that all good qualities such as generosity, patience and kindness, all the “perfections” [1] developed together with right understanding, are never lost. They have to be developed life after life and thus they can constitute the conditions for the realisation of the four noble Truths later on. --------- 1. The Bodhisatta developed the “perfections” during aeons, with the purpose of becoming a Buddha. They are the following wholesome qualities: liberality, morality, renunciation, wisdom, energy, patience, truthfulness, determination, lovingkindness and equanimity. ******** Nina. #76212 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for: Sarah: See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/56792 Here the commentary note says: "(ii) the Dhamma eye (dhammacakkhu), the knowledge of the three lower paths and fruits" Scott: How could I forget the vast and cavernous Useful Posts? Sincerely, Scott. #76213 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ÁÑerson¡¦quot; - "The controversy on ÁÑerson¡¦is ended" sarahprocter... Dear DC*, Firstly, thank you very much for introducing yourself and telling us about your Buddhist studies. We do have other mostly lurking friends from Sri Lanka here as well. I have a special affection for your beautiful country and its people. I've spent quite a lot of time there in all (for dhamma purposes). ... --- DC Wijeratna wrote: > Now with regard to the two references you gave, I have a few comments. > > 1. I couldn't locate the first reference: SN I.25 .... S: I apologise for not being clearer: "Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, He still might say, 'I speak,' He might say too, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions." SN 1:25 This is in Samyutta Nikaya 1, Devatasamyutta,Ch 3,A Sword, #25 'The Arahant'. I was using B.Bodhi's translation and way of referring to suttas in English. Here is a further note to it from the commentary: [Note: Vohaaramattena so vohareyya. Spk: “Although arahants have abandoned talk that implies belief in a self,they do not violate conventional discourse by saying, ‘The aggregates eat,the aggregates sit, the aggregates’ bowl, the aggregates’ robe’; for no one would understand them.”} ..... > 2. Second reference [Po.t.thapaada] is a little complex. > I read the whole paragraph. It reads: "So too, whenever the gross > acquired self is present, we do not speak of the mind-made or formless > acquired sefl; ... But, Citta, these are merely names, ..., designations > in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without > misapprehending them." So the word used is present. > > Previous paragraph gives the example of cow, milk, curds and so on. So I > understand the "atta" that way. I have a bigger problem here. I cannot > understand the three different "attas." .... S: I think they are referring to the concepts of self arising as a result of kamavacara, rupavacara and arupavacara dhammas. I think the important point is not this, but what I quoted: >"....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them," (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) The footnote (224) to M.Walshe’s translation adds: "...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: “Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who’s skilled in this world’s speech , can use it, and not lie.” ..... > The word "sammuti" does not occur in the Sutta Pi.taka. But you get it > in the Vinaya Pi.taka in the sense of agreed or agreement. It is not > connected with truth. > > It is in the commentaries. But they are later compositions. Moreover, > only the Theravadins have it. > > Word paramattha is also like the above. .... S: Yes, different words are used to express the same meaning in different contexts/texts. This is what a friend wrote here before: Rob Ed: “Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense)? If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the Suttas, though I would suggest that the notion is present. That is to say, the idea that something may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the Suttas, even though it is expressed in different terms. "What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamañña), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti), 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapaññatti). "What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha-sacca) Is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). E.g."....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what Belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta) ..... > Attha is used in the canon mainly to indicate: benefit, meaning, welfare > and so on. Paramttha can be interpreted as ultimate benefit, which is > Nibbana. .... S: I would prefer 'ultimate/highest + meaning/reality'. The texts (in which it is used, such as the Abhidhamma and commentaries), make it clear that it refers to cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana. .... > These are some of the difficulties I am having. Hope I am not troubling > you by pouring out all these difficulties ... S: On the contrary, I welcome your points and the discussion very much. Let's keep discussing any of these topics further. Please explain your 'difficulties' more. In your Pali studies at the Uni of Kelaniya, do you study the Abhidhamma or just the suttas? I'd be interested to hear more about it. Metta, Sarah * p.s We are rather informal here. May we call you D.C or how would you like to be addressed? ======= #76214 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Casting Dies sarahprocter... Hi Colette & all, --- colette wrote: > Good Day Group, > > Sarah, I'm gonna have to play off you since you were, at one time, > cast in the mold of a "little red book representative", here since > the humor is way beyond some of my best stuff ... S: Sure, happy to oblige! ... > Enjoy: > > China Bans Reincarnation Without Government Permission > > By Matthew Philips > Source: Newsweek .... S: Actually, very funny (even putting aside the wrong view of 'reincarnation' theories...) .... <..> > At 72, the Dalai Lama, who has lived in India since 1959, is > beginning to plan > his > succession, saying that he refuses to be reborn in Tibet so long as > it's under > Chinese > control. Assuming he's able to master the feat of controlling his > rebirth, as > Dalai Lamas > supposedly have for the last 600 years, .... S: Yes, well....lots of issues of Atta and control involved here! I'm not sure which would be the more misguided: the Chinese Government who think they can get permission for such or those who think they have control over a Self and its reincarnation. A friend of mine was telling me a couple of days ago about his trip to Tibet and Mt Kailash in the summer. Sadly, one lady in his group of about my age (50s), died whilst climbing down the mountain. He said opinions were mixed as to whether this lady who was very unfit should not have gone on the trip or whether it was her really good fortune because many believe that to die on Mt Kailash means no more reincarnation....:-/ Let's get back to namas and rupas, unless you think there is a self and reincarnation which can be controlled or stopped altogether. Metta, Sarah ========= #76215 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:36 am Subject: Asoka, Ch 4, no 7. nilovg Dear friends, We may think of ourselves as being of such nationality, of having such status in society, of having had such education, with craving, conceit or wrong view: “I am such”. As we just read in the Commentary, even when we do not compare ourselves with someone else, but only think, “I am such, I am of this kind”, we may still have conceit, because we cling to the importance of our personality. We may cling to ourselves as belonging to a special group, a group of Dhamma students: “I am such”. When we compare ourselves with someone else we may see ourselves as being equal, higher or lower: “I am also”, or “I am otherwise”. The Book of “Analysis” gives the examples: “As he is a ruler (Khattya), so also am I a ruler”... or “As he is a ruler, I am not a ruler in the same way”. We may compare ourselves with others who have sati more often or who lack sati. Comparing is useless because sati is a type of nåma which arises because of its appropriate conditions. The “Book of Analysis” points out that one may also think of oneself with regard to the future: “I shall be”. One may also think: “I am eternal”, and that is the wrong view of eternalism, or “I am not eternal”, and that is, as explained here, the wrong view of annihilism: one believes to be annihilated, that there is no rebirth. We should not try to pinpoint all these different moments, because they can only be known through the development of satipatthåna. So long as the difference between nåma and rúpa has not been realized by the insight knowledge of the first stage, it is not possible to clearly understand the different defilements which are anattå, which arise because of conditions. Defilements are nåma, but so long as we take nåma and rúpa as a unit, as a “whole”, it cannot be clearly understood what nåma is. However, studying details and considering them in daily life is useful, because we can be reminded of the many different ways of clinging to “our personality”, of thinking of ourselves. We may be inclined to think ,“He loses his temper, I am different”, or “His memory is weak, I am different” or “He practises vipassanå in the wrong way, I am different”. Instead of criticizing someone else we can see the urgency of developing the way leading to the eradication of the clinging to ourselves. ***** Nina. #76216 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. sarahprocter... Dear Nina (& Lodewijk), --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > It is good you stressed understanding as the condition for the > paramis. And this begins with listening. We have to know what the > paramis are and have more understanding of them and how they are > conditions leading to the other shore. We have to know in what ways > they can be medicines strengthening us on our long journey. > Thank you for your kind wishes to Lodewijk. Our walk was very good, > like a medicine for physical needs! ... S: Yes, we need lots of medicines and the walking and fresh air is always a good one! Even the Buddha used this medicine: "And in the evening, the Lord rose from his secluded meditation and came out of the mansion, and started walking up and down in its shade." (DN:27, Walshe transl) Pali: atha kho bhagavaa saaya.nha-samaya.m pa.tisallaanaa vu.t.thito paasaadaa orohitvaa paasaada-pacchaayaaya.m abhokaasa ca"nkamati." Two brahmins noticed the Buddha and decided to join him in the hope of hearing a Dhamma talk. So they fell into step with him and walked together! Metta, Sarah ====== #76217 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Parts I, II, III nilovg Dear Tep, thank you for the answers and Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's comment referring to aruupa-jhaana. The mind-made acquisition of a self" is more complicated, I agree. The note PTS of the Potthabadasutta refers to the Brahmajaalasutta. Here it is mentioned under eternalism but all this is very complex, there are so many subdivisions of this belief. Nina. Op 9-sep-2007, om 14:45 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > T: You suggested that 2.1 "could refer to kaamaavacara citta', but > how can such a citta possess of the four great elements and feed on > food? > > Concerning "mind-made acquisition of a self", 2.2, I have a sutta > evidence that indicates that it is acquired by supernormal power. > > DN 2: From this body he creates another body, endowed with form, made > of the mind, complete in all its parts, not inferior in its > faculties. Just as if a man were to draw a reed from its sheath. The > thought would occur to him: 'This is the sheath, this is the reed. > The sheath is one thing, the reed another, but the reed has been > drawn out from the sheath.' > > T: I also incline to believe that 2.3 could refer to arupa-jhana > citta like you said. Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's comment below might be > helpful in this regard. #76218 From: "m. nease" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] dependent origination m_nease Hi DC (and Scott, Azita and All), Really enjoying your posts--a belated 'welcome' to dsg. mike #76219 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ÁÑerson¡¦quot; - "The controversy on ÁÑerson¡¦is ended" dcwijeratna Dear Sarah, Please do call me DC [deecee]. That is how friends usually address me. Thanks for all those nice words about Sri Lanka and its people. Dear DC*, Firstly, thank you very much for introducing yourself and telling us about your Buddhist studies. We do have other mostly lurking friends from Sri Lanka here as well. I have a special affection for your beautiful country and its people. I've spent quite a lot of time there in all (for dhamma purposes). ... --- DC Wijeratna wrote: > Now with regard to the two references you gave, I have a few comments. > > 1. I couldn't locate the first reference: SN I.25 .... S: I apologise for not being clearer: "Though the wise one has transcended the conceived, He still might say, 'I speak,' He might say too, 'They speak to me.' Skilful, knowing the world's parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions. " SN 1:25 This is in Samyutta Nikaya 1, Devatasamyutta, Ch 3,A Sword, #25 'The Arahant'. I was using B.Bodhi's translation and way of referring to suttas in English. Here is a further note to it from the commentary: [Note: Vohaaramattena so vohareyya. Spk: “Although arahants have abandoned talk that implies belief in a self,they do not violate conventional discourse by saying, ‘The aggregates eat,the aggregates sit, the aggregates’ bowl, the aggregates’ robe’; for no one would understand them.”} DC: Many thanks, I located that. This is how I understand that sutta. A deity poses the question to the Buddha: Why does an arahant use expressions with "I" or "me". The Buddha tells him that: that is to conform to the world's usage. The world here implies the world according to the vision of a puthujjana. That is one who has I, me or mine. An arahant has a different vision. What that vision is we don't know. We have no experience of that. There is another little point the Pali word 'matta' is difficult to translate. It has the sense of only, measure, confine to etc. The word kusalo seem to mean the arahant rather than skilful. Thus we can't really make any inferences about paramattha from this passage. > 2. Second reference [Po.t.thapaada] is a little complex. > I read the whole paragraph. It reads: "So too, whenever the gross > acquired self is present, we do not speak of the mind-made or formless > acquired sefl; ... But, Citta, these are merely names, ..., designations > in common use in the world, which the Tathaagata uses without > misapprehending them." So the word used is present. > > Previous paragraph gives the example of cow, milk, curds and so on. So I > understand the "atta" that way. I have a bigger problem here. I cannot > understand the three different "attas." .... S: I think they are referring to the concepts of self arising as a result of kamavacara, rupavacara and arupavacara dhammas. I think the important point is not this, but what I quoted: >"....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them," (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) The footnote (224) to M.Walshe’s translation adds: "...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: “Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who’s skilled in this world’s speech , can use it, and not lie.” DC: This verse is not found in the sutta pi.taka, I think. ..... > The word "sammuti" does not occur in the Sutta Pi.taka. But you get it > in the Vinaya Pi.taka in the sense of agreed or agreement. It is not > connected with truth. > > It is in the commentaries. But they are later compositions. Moreover, > only the Theravadins have it. > > Word paramattha is also like the above. .... S: Yes, different words are used to express the same meaning in different contexts/texts. This is what a friend wrote here before: Rob Ed: “Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense)? If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the Suttas, though I would suggest that the notion is present. That is to say, the idea that something may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the Suttas, even though it is expressed in different terms. DC: The second sentence is the problem here. It is an opinion (inferable) of the writer. What is meant by paramattha sacca? To me 'truth in the highest sense' is not very meaningful. How do you interpret it? "What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca) , the Suttas call 'worldly consensus' (lokasamañña), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti) , 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara) , or 'worldly convention' (lokapaññatti) . "What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha- sacca) Is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). E.g."....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what Belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found [i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta) ..... > Attha is used in the canon mainly to indicate: benefit, meaning, welfare > and so on. Paramttha can be interpreted as ultimate benefit, which is > Nibbana. .... S: I would prefer 'ultimate/highest + meaning/reality' . The texts (in which it is used, such as the Abhidhamma and commentaries) , make it clear that it refers to cittas, cetasikas, rupas and nibbana. DC: Cittas, cetasikas are all evanascent. Are such things part of ultimate reality? In what sense is nibbana real. .... > These are some of the difficulties I am having. Hope I am not troubling > you by pouring out all these difficulties ... S: On the contrary, I welcome your points and the discussion very much. Let's keep discussing any of these topics further. Please explain your 'difficulties' more. DC: I think, I have raised some issues above. In your Pali studies at the Uni of Kelaniya, do you study the Abhidhamma or just the suttas? I'd be interested to hear more about it. We study both abhidhamma, and suttas also the commentaries. I personally do not attach much importance to abhidhamma because there is a general consensus that abhidhamma pi.taka is a later creation. But I have a different position. Today only two recensions of the Abhidhamma Pi.taka exist. Theravaada and Sarvastivaada. They are completerly different. So I disregard both. It is not possible that the Buddha preached two different abhidhammas. By the way, scholars do not agree even on the meaning of the word Abhidhamma. The word Abhidhamma occurs only at two places in the Pali canon--of course sans Abhidhamma Pi.taka. I really consider Abhidhamma in the same category as Maadhyaika, Yogaacaara or Mahaayana. Metta, Sarah * p.s We are rather informal here. May we call you D.C or how would you like to be addressed? With metta, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #76220 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge dcwijeratna Dear Scott, These are some further thought on the subject under discussion Scott: 1) I'll accept that Dhamma-cakkhu relates to the sotapanna; textual support would be good. I'd suggest that this refers to Path moments - the sotaapatti-magga and the sotaapatti-phala and not to the conventional designation of the conceptual 'Stream Enterer'. DC: I think it really relates to a vision (cakkhu in English could mean either eye or vision). Abhadhammic analysis usint the theory of moments may not be appropriate. I don't accept that 'direct knowing begins at Stream Entry' as Tep suggests. This would then serve to eliminate all the early 'stages' of the development (bhaavanaa) of pa~n~naa, since, as I understand (subject to correction), these also involve the direct knowing of dhammas but in ways 'less than' sotaapatti-magga and sotaapatti-magga. (i.e. the difference between naama and ruupa). Pa~n~naa-cakkhu functions to differing degrees depending on level of development and takes paramattha-dhammas as objects from the beginning. Tep, you've not clarified this, but why do you say that it must be after sotaapatti-magga and sotaapatti-phala that 'direct knowing' can begin? Or do you accept that pa~n~naa can 'know' dhammas in 'lesser ways' prior to the arising of the Path? 2) D.C., would you accept 'exist' when it is a rendering of the Paa.li 'bhava', such as 'sense-existence or kaama-bhava' ? DC: No, bhava is becoming rather than being. This is process language or language of anicca, dukkha and anatta. On the other hand for mortals (puthujjana) exist is rite. But if it is seen as a continous changing process exists has no meaning. Exist involves a duration. I don't believe this contradicts the point about 'uppaada-vaya' . Rather than 'born' and 'die' I'd say 'arise' and 'cease' or 'fall away' but who's splitting hairs at this point? (Well, I am, as usual...). At any rate, the panel is in agreement that dhammas arise and fall away regardless of whether they are known by Dhamma-cakkhu. 3) I favour the response of D.C. here, he puts it very well: "...Reality is the same (whatever it is) for ariyans; it is the perception of reality that is different for ariyans and non-ariyans. " However, I suggest again that 'perception of reality' would be a function of, say, pa~n~naa and not the 'experience' of a conceptual designate referred to as 'ariyan' or 'non-ariyan. ' DC: Pa~n~naa has many meanings in the teaching of the Buddha in the suttas. But what I meant by reality is the object of one's perception. "ruupa, sadda, etc." And by perception cakkhu-vinnana etc. The differences are in vedana and sa~n~naa. Tep when you note, "the reality that non-ariyans experience is not of the pure Dhamma," to what do you refer? I'd suggest a) that this refers to the perception based on a reliance on conceptually rendered and fabricated constructs involving wholes and persisting states and things, and b) that this is so because pa~n~naa does not begin to arise and develop. 4) I asked, 'in what way would this be real'? I'd say that the world of 'conventional truth' is fabricated and not 'real' in the sense that paramattha-dhammas are 'real'. D.C. says 'it does not arise', which I take to mean is conceptual, therefore free of time, therefore not 'real' in the ultimate sense. If this is what is being said, then I agree. Tep, there seems to be an insistence that 'conventional truth' has some sort of 'reality'? Why is this so? How can this be? DC: The sutta term for conventional truth is vohara. As I mentioned in the previous answer. It is real according to our (non-ariyan) vision. This paramattha sacca is a later term. The suttas have the terms sacca and ariyasacca. First is what we mean by true and the second refer to the four Noble Truths. 5) Again, I would favour 'it does not arise' over '[a] reality can be experienced the same way by others who have same understanding' . I do so because of what I said above regarding 'conventional truth', that is, it does not have any ultimate reality. Tep, what are you referring to when you use the term 'a reality'? 6) Again, I side with 'it does not arise'. I don't think that magga- and phala-citta are necessary conditions for pa~n~naa to arise and know dhammas at the stages of tender insight. Were this the case then no development could proceed such that magga- and phala-citta of the Path could arise. Once the Path arises, I understand that certain classes of citta and cetasika no longer arise; this, then, has an effect on 'perception' but only because of what is no longer fabricated. DC: My opinion is abhidhammic analysis is not very helpful and would lead to confusion. We cannot experience the world the way an arahant does. So we really cannot discuss such things. T: "BTW What does Darwinian approach have anything to do with this?" Scott: This was a so-called 'instance of humour' referring to, 'Now only a few adults are left at the dinner table...'. I just thought of 'survival of the fittest' and, as I said, could not resist the challenge of showing myself (this non-existent concept) to be fit enough to remain at the table to the bitter end. T: "Is there a reward for each correct or satisfactory answer ? {:-)" Scott: Just my seal of approval. Thanks you both for a good discussion. Sincerely, Scott. I am enjoing this discussion. Many thanks With mettaa, (friendliness) D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #76221 From: "colette" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Casting Dies ksheri3 good Day Sarah, > Let's get back to namas and rupas, unless you think there is a self and > reincarnation which can be controlled or stopped altogether. Thats an idea, coltroling reincarnation! Never thought of either of those aspects mentioned above. But you've got this obsession with namas & rupas so. Man, am I getting some good s<...> from this book Wild Awakening! It is EXCELLENTLY WRITTEN toodles, colette #76222 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:52 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) nichiconn dear friends, 13. Viisatinipaato XIII. The Section of the Groups of Twenty [Verses] 1. Ambapaaliitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa part 4 261. "Kaananamhi vanasa.n.dacaarinii, kokilaava madhura.m nikuujiha.m; ta.m jaraaya khalita.m tahi.m tahi.m, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 262. "Sa.nhakamburiva suppamajjitaa, sobhate su giivaa pure mama; saa jaraaya bhaggaa vinaamitaa, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 263. "Va.t.tapalighasadisopamaa ubho, sobhare su baahaa pure mama; taa jaraaya yathaa paa.talibbalitaa, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 264. "Sa.nhamuddikasuva.n.nama.n.ditaa sobhare su hatthaa pure mama; te jaraaya yathaa muulamuulikaa, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 265. "Piinava.t.tasahibhuggataa ubho, sobhare su thanakaa pure mama; thevikiiva lambanti nodakaa, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. RD: Sweet was my voice as the bell of the cuckoo *341 through woodlands flitting. Now with the waste of the years broken the music and halting. So and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (261) Softly glistened of yore as mother-of-pearl the throat of me. Now with the waste of the years all wilted its beauty and twisted. So and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (262) Beauteous the arms of me once shone like twin pillars cylindrical. They with the waste of the years hang feeble as withering branches. *342 So and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (263) Beauteous of yore were my soft hands with rings and gewgaws resplendent. They with the waste of the years like roots are knotted and scabrous. *343 So and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (264) Full and lovely in contour rose of yore the small breasts of me. They with the waste of the years droop shrunken as skins without water. So and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (265) *341 Kokilaa, rendered by lexicons 'Indian cuckoo.' The name seems to point to somewhat similar bird-notes. *342 Lit., as the weak trumpet-flower (plant), the Commentary adding phalita, broken, or fruit-laden, and so heavily drooping. *343 Lit., more simply, 'like one little root after another.' PRUITT: 261. I warbled sweetly like a cuckoo wandering in the grove in a jungle thicket. Because of old age, it has faltered here and there. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 262. Formerly my neck looked beautiful like a well-rubbed delicate conch shell. Because of old age, it is broken and bowed down. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 263. Formerly both my arms looked beautiful, like round crossbars. Because of old age, they are like pale [branches of] the trumpet-flower tree. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 264. Formerly my hands looked beautiful, with delicate signet rings, decorated with gold. Because of old age, they are like onions and radishes. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 265. Formerly, both my breasts looked beautiful, swelling, round, close together, lofty. [Now,] they hang down like empty water bags. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. ===tbc, connie #76223 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" buddhatrue Hi Sarah and Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > .... > S: As Scott and I both mentioned, the term for being here is satta. This > is exactly the same term as used in the other sutta I quoted which > clearly says "there is no being". > > http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn05/sn05. 010.bodh. > html > > "Why now do you assume 'a being'? > Mara, have you grasped a view? > This is a heap of sheer constructions: > Here no being is found. > ***** > As we've also both pointed out, in the other context about 'a state of > being', it is not satta that is being referred to but continued samsara, > continued rebirth. No more of such when there is the eradication of all > wrong views. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > I hope you don't take this the wrong way but you two are utterly ridiculous. Neither one of you are Pali experts to be correcting my interpretation of a sutta based on your extremely limited knowledge of Pali. You are both a joke. Now, strop trying to be something you are not and just look at the sutta as it is written. It states that when the five clinging aggregates are present there is said to be a being. The Buddha also goes on to explain how it is important to escape that state of being. Now, your junior Pali detective work is not going to convince me that beings don't exist when I most clearly see that they do! Get over yourselves and leave the Pali interpretations to those who are experts- monks who chant in Pali everyday, attend Pali universities, and pass Pali examinations. Those wannabes with Pali dictionaries are not experts, they are just annoyances. Metta, James #76225 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views; Parts I, II, III indriyabala Hi Nina, - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Tep, > thank you for the answers and Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu's comment > referring to aruupa-jhaana. > The mind-made acquisition of a self" is more complicated, I agree. > The note PTS of the Potthabadasutta refers to the Brahmajaalasutta. > Here it is mentioned under eternalism but all this is very complex, > there are so many subdivisions of this belief. > Nina. > T: I appreciate the acknowledgement. The Brahmajaala Sutta is another difficult one. Even with Co., the complexity remains. Tep === #76226 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 7:54 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi DC (Scott, Sarah and others), - Please be welcome to this discussion. The discussion is more lively after you have participated. To make it easy for me to reply/discuss I am pasting the pieces of your reply (message #76220) below. Take my words as opinion; they are not intended for debating now (maybe later, Scott). 1)(About Dhamma Eye) DC: "I think it really relates to a vision (cakkhu in English could mean either eye or vision). Abhadhammic analysis using the theory of moments may not be appropriate." T: The meaning of Dhamma Eye, the cognizance(citta) that is free from doubts about the rise-and-fall of all conditioned phenomena (dukkha sacca), is seen in the following sutta quote: "Then Ven. Assaji gave this Dhamma exposition to Sariputta the wanderer: Whatever phenomena arise from a cause: their cause & their cessation, such is the teaching of the Tathagata, the Great Contemplative. "Then to Sariputta the wanderer, as he heard this exposition of Dhamma, there arose the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye: Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation. [Mv I.23.5] 2) (Does 'exist' mean 'bhava'?) DC: "No, bhava is becoming rather than being. This is process language or language of anicca, dukkha and anatta. On the other hand for mortals(puthujjana) exist is rite. But if it is seen as a continous changing process exists has no meaning. Exist involves a duration." T: Some unreal stuff like a fairy tale exists (in the lierature). So, unreal things may exist. Abhidhammikas tell us that citta is a reality that exists in a moment with no duration. But no ordinary person can experience that. So, is the citta not real to non-ariyans? The Gotama Buddha existed and taught people for 45 years (and we can prove that), but I have been told by Abhidhammikas that there was "no Buddha". In other words, Buddha was not a reality ! So, real existence may not be a reality, Scott? 3) DC: "Pa~n~naa has many meanings in the teaching of the Buddha in the suttas. But what I meant by reality is the object of one's perception. "ruupa, sadda, etc." And by perception cakkhu-vinnana etc. The differences are in vedana and sa~n~naa." T: So, you are saying that what we can perceive is real, right? But, I don't follow the last sentence. What about vedana and sa~n~naa ? 4) DC: "The sutta term for conventional truth is vohara. As I mentioned in the previous answer. It is real according to our (non- ariyan) vision. This paramattha sacca is a later term. The suttas have the terms sacca and ariyasacca. First is what we mean by true and the second refer to the four Noble Truths." T: I like it : the reality "according to our (non-ariyan) vision"! I also understand that 'sacca' means actuality or truth. I think it makes sense that all truths are real, whether conventional or not. Ariyasacca is the (very special) truths that are penetrated by real ariyans through their "practice" of the Fourth Noble Truth (following the Path). 5)& 6) DC: "My opinion is abhidhammic analysis is not very helpful and would lead to confusion. We cannot experience the world the way an arahant does. So we really cannot discuss such things." T: I have to warn you that it was too late -- you had just opened the DSG's box that is more dangerous than the Pandora's box! Tep === #76227 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:15 pm Subject: Re: "there is no 'person'" - "The controversy on 'person' is ended" nichiconn ..wannabes with Pali dictionaries are not experts, they are just annoyances. -James the Doubter, who believes even Buddhas make mistakes! Following Tep's manner, I urge you go back and re-read The Path of Purification (see, for example, vii,32) or some other text on Qualities of the Buddha. You do remember them, don't you? Daily. Please put down the big stick and walk softly. We all walk in dark alleys. connie, believer in hearsay. #76228 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" indriyabala Hi Sarah, Scott, and James, - May I join you for a brief moment ? ........... > Sarah (#76223): > "Why now do you assume 'a being'? > Mara, have you grasped a view? > This is a heap of sheer constructions: > Here no being is found. > ***** > As we've also both pointed out, in the other context about 'a state of being', it is not satta that is being referred to but continued samsara, continued rebirth. No more of such when there is the eradication of all wrong views. > ................ > James: .... just look at the sutta as it is written. It states that when the five clinging aggregates are present there is said to be a being. The Buddha also goes on to explain how it is important to escape that state of being. > ................ T: May I throw in my one-yen comment? (One Yen is much less than one Cent!) "No being is found" because the Bhikkhuni had no assumption on the five aggegates that was tainted by attanuditthi. It is the right view in the mind of an ariyan. The existence "heap of sheer constructions" implies that there is a gross acquisition of self(patilaabha, Case 2.1 in "Some Findings About Self...") that is made of the four elements and consumes food. I believe the Bhikkhuni consumed food too !! ............. "Potthapada, there are these three acquisitions of a self: the gross acquisition of a self, the mind-made acquisition of a self, and the formless acquisition of a self. And what is the gross acquisition of a self? Possessed of form, made up of the four great existents, feeding on physical food: this is the gross acquisition of a self." "Suppose they were to ask you: 'Did you exist in the past? Did you not not exist? Will you exist in the future? Will you not not exist? Do you exist now? Do you not not exist?' Thus asked, how would you answer?" "... Thus asked, lord, I would answer: 'I existed in the past. I did not not exist. I will exist in the future. I will not not exist. I exist now. I do not not exist.'... That's how I would answer." ............ Yes, the convention (of speech) 'a being' has been used; it is just a name/label for the real gross acquisition of a self. Yes, Vajira Bhikkhuni's gross acquisition of self consumed food; so she was a real and existing person, according to the Buddha's definition of patilaabha. The 'DSG gang' always says 'citta practices, not a person'. That is like saying citta can exist without a body. Only when there is a body with citta & cetasika, the sum is clearly 'a person'(gross acquisition of self, feeding on food). Tep === #76229 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 8:53 pm Subject: Re: "there is no 'person'" - "The controversy on 'person' is ended" indriyabala Dear Connie, the believer in hearsay: - Thank you very much for citing Tep as an example. But that was a mistake. C: .. who believes even Buddhas make mistakes! Following Tep's manner, I urge you go back and re-read The Path of Purification .. T: If he did, then he would soon become another soup spoon ! ........... C: We all walk in dark alleys. > T: Fortunately, some parts of the alleys may have dim lights. Tep === #76230 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: See especially: knowledge of the absolute > is True Wisdom>. Direct knowledge: that is not of concepts like > people. The five khandhas are dukkha as we read in another sutta. The > five khandhas are nama and rupa. Dukkha is the arising and falling > away of realities. Insight is direct understanding of realities. That > is explained also in many suttas. > Nina. Thank you for the sutta quote. Of course "the absolute" could be interpreted in different ways. I choose to view the absolute in both conventional and paramattha terms. I don't believe that one has to be exclusive to the other. Anyway, the Buddha described the Four Noble Truths in conventional terms and paramattha terms. I don't believe you should deny conventional reality when it is a reality. Metta, James #76231 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 9:41 pm Subject: Re: "there is no 'person'" - "The controversy on 'person' is ended" buddhatrue Hi Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" wrote: > > ..wannabes with Pali dictionaries are > not experts, they are just annoyances. > > -James the Doubter, > > who believes even Buddhas make mistakes! James: Yep, I do...but isn't it comforting to know that even the pinnacle of existence, a Buddha, can make a mistake? Of course, it could also be argued that the Buddha wasn't responsible: the monks in question should have known to change their meditation subject by being more mindful of their mental state. The Buddha can't be there all the time for everyone! And, from what I read, Mara also had some hand in how events unfolded. Following Tep's manner, I urge you go back and re-read The Path of Purification (see, for example, vii,32) or some other text on Qualities of the Buddha. You do remember them, don't you? James: I quoted all of the qualities of the Buddha in DSG....and there are many of them. But I don't believe "Never makes a mistake" is an official quality of the Buddha- you would have to point that out to me. Daily. > Please put down the big stick and walk softly. James: Sorry, that's not my style. I will leave the walking softly to Han ;-)). If you don't like my style then don't read my posts- no one is forcing you. We all walk in dark alleys. James: Very true....but you expect otherwise of me? You do have high expectations! ;-)) > > connie, believer in hearsay. Metta, James #76232 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:07 pm Subject: Perfectly Self-Enlightened! bhikkhu0@... Send Email Friends: What does it really mean to be Perfectly Self-Enlightened? The Blessed Buddha once said this: Those who do not understand Suffering Who do not know how Suffering comes into being, Nor where Suffering ceases without remaining trace! Who do not know this Noble Way & unique Method, Which leads straight to stilling of all Suffering! They are indeed lacking all mental release; They are neither released through understanding; Thus Incapable of making an end, stranded, helpless, They tumble on in birth, ageing, and eternal decay... But those who do understand this Suffering , Who also know Craving as The Cause of Suffering, And where Suffering ceases completely, Who understand This Noble Way and Method, Which leads straight to The End of all Suffering! They are endowed both with mental release; And also released through understanding! Being thus ready and able of making an end, They stop tumbling on in birth, ageing & decay... It is because one all alone has fully awakened to these 4 Noble Truths as they really & actually are, that the Tathagata is called a worthy Arahat , is called a Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, is called a SammÄ?SamBuddha ... Therefore, Bhikkhus, an effort should be dedicated to really understand: All this is Suffering! An effort should be made much of to truly comprehend: Craving is the Cause of Suffering! An effort should be cultivated to realize: No Craving is the End of Suffering! Effort should be made to break through, reinforce, and develop: This Noble 8-fold Way which Ceases all Suffering... Comments: Only a SammÄ?SamBuddha can rediscover & teach these Four Noble Truths! Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:433] section 56: Saccasamyutta. Thread 22-3: KotigÄ?ma & Perfectly Enlightened ... More on these 4 Noble Truths (Cattari Ariya Saccani): http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Ignorance.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Actually_So.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/True_Wisdom.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Four_but_One.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Clustered_Truths.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_Ultimate_Fact.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Simple_yet_Complex.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4_Noble_Truths.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Sour_Sense_Sources.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_1st_Noble_Truth_on_Suffering.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_2nd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Cause_of_Sufferi\ ng.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_3rd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Ceasing_of_Suffe\ ring.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_4th_Noble_Truth_on_The_Way_to_End_Suffe\ ring.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net <....> #76233 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" sarahprocter... Hi James, Thanks for your note - certainly an 'in-your-face' which gets an immediate response:). --- buddhatrue wrote: > > S: As Scott and I both mentioned, the term for being here is satta. > This > > is exactly the same term as used in the other sutta I quoted which > > clearly says "there is no being". > > > > http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ sn/sn05/sn05. 010.bodh. > > html > > > > "Why now do you assume 'a being'? > > Mara, have you grasped a view? > > This is a heap of sheer constructions: > > Here no being is found. > > ***** > > As we've also both pointed out, in the other context about 'a state of > > being', it is not satta that is being referred to but continued > samsara, > > continued rebirth. No more of such when there is the eradication of > all > > wrong views. ... S: This should read 'all wrong views and other clinging'. When wrong views are eradicated (at sotapatti magga), there are a max. of 7 further rebirths as you know. Thx for reminding me to correct it. .... > I hope you don't take this the wrong way but you two are utterly > ridiculous. Neither one of you are Pali experts to be correcting my > interpretation of a sutta based on your extremely limited knowledge of > Pali. You are both a joke. .... S: Joke or no joke, ridiculous or not, it doesn't need anything other than the most rudimentary Pali knowledge (yes, my beginner wannabe level!), to know that ***'jaati' means birth or rebirth*** and not 'human being' or 'person' in: SN: 22:152 "Seeing thus....He understands:'......there is no more for this state of being.'" Remember the 1st NT: "Monks, what is the noble truth about suffering? ***Birth (jaati)*** is suffering, old age is suffering, death is suffering, grief, lamentation, discomfort, unhappiness, despair are suffering: to wish for something and not obtain it is suffering: briefly, the five factors of attachment (pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhaaa) are suffering."(DN 11, 305, Johansson transl). As for the Buddha making mistakes, that seems like a real clutching at straws, James!! Do you really think 'omniscient knowledge' could make mistakes? >Patisambhidamagga (PTS, Nanamoli translation), Ch LXX111, 'Omniscient and Unobstructed Knowledge': "What is the Perfect One's omniscient knowledge? It knows without exception all that is formed and unformed, thus it is omniscient knowledge: it is without obstruction there, thus it is unobstructed knowledge. All that is past it knows,......................All that is future it knows,...........All that is presently-arisen it knows,........Eye and visible objects: all that it knows......Ear and sounds:....Nose and odours:........Tongue and flavours:......Body and tangible objects:....Mind and ideas: all that it knows,...." {S: The text continues for a few more pages on this subject of the Buddha's omniscience.)< .... S: Thanks for your other comments, all taken in good humour!! Metta, Sarah ======= #76234 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:21 pm Subject: Re: "there is no 'person'" - "The controversy on 'person' is ended" nichiconn Dear James, J: ...but isn't it comforting to know that even the pinnacle of existence, a Buddha, can make a mistake? <...> If you don't like my style then don't read my posts- no one is forcing you. C: I don't believe he did & no, can't say I'd find that a comforting thought. The part of PPn.vii.32 that I hoped you might reconsider reads <>. Which brings me to the **dark** alley: PPn ch.XXI: << 82. Revilers of Noble Ones: beings desirous of harm for Noble Ones consisting of Buddhas, Pacceka Buddhas, and disciples, and also of householders who are Stream Enterers, they revile them with the worst accusations or with **denial of their special qualities** (see Ud.44 and M.Sutta 12); they abuse and upbraid them, is what is meant. 83. Herein, it should be understood that when they say, 'They have no asceticism, they are not ascetics', they revile them with the worst accusation; and when they say 'They have no jhana or liberation or path or fruition, etc.', they revile them with denial of their special qualities. And whether done knowingly or unknowingly it is in either case reviling of Noble Ones; it is weighty kamma resembling that of immediate result, and it is an obstacle both to heaven and to the path. But it is remediable. >> You needn't draw the same conclusions I do, of course, but who do we think we're beating with our sticks? peace, connie #76235 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ¡person¢" - "The controversy on ¡person¢ is ended" dcwijeratna Dear Sarah, Just for fun. Did Buddha ever claim 'omniscient knowledge'? With metta, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #76236 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ¡person¢" - "The controversy on ¡person¢ is ended" dcwijeratna Little point for clarification, I hear daily numerous times, here in Sri Lanka: "sabbe sattaa bhavantu sukhitattaa" meaning 'May all beings be well.' How would one attach any meaning to this without postulating beings? May all beings be well and happy (I think this is the meaning of mettaa.) D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #76237 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - metta. nilovg Dear DC, Op 11-sep-2007, om 10:41 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven: > "sabbe sattaa bhavantu sukhitattaa" meaning 'May all beings be > well.' How would one attach any meaning to this without postulating > beings? > -------- N: Metta has as object the concept of a human being and this is no problem. We can have metta and at the same time learn not to be attached to the person we extend metta to. This is a learning process. If we do not gradually learn that what we take for a person are nama and rupa that do not last many selfish thoughts arise. We may expect pleasant objects in return, such as being liked or esteemed for our metta. We also cling with attachment, with conceit or with wrong view to an idea of my metta that I own and can create. We have to learn that metta arises when there are conditions for it, that is, seeing its benefit, knowing what true metta is, different from attachment to people. If one wants to develop metta without understanding of nama and rupa, one is bound to limit metta to persons one likes, one takes for kusala what is akusala. ***** Nina. #76238 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 12:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. sarahprocter... Dear Han, Mike (& Scott & all), --- han tun wrote: > Han: > Thank you very much for your best wishes. I always do > my best to help them. > > (1) You have quoted Khun Sujin on equanimity: “I heard > her talking about its characteristic of being 'stable > with understanding of kamma, and not swayed by lobha > or dosa', no matter anyone's good or bad fortune.” > Theoretically, it is true. But when I am only a > puthujjana and when the party concerned is my loved > ones, it is difficult (for me) to have real kusala > upekkhaa. .... S: It's the same for all of us, as Nina commented, I think. Mike, you're very knowledgeable about Fijian affairs. 'The Fijian warrior' returns tomorrow. Meanwhile, I've been wandering around like the 'lost deer', the 'teasurer of beings' in the great quote Scott gave (#76030). The point though, which I think Nina also stressed, is that it's not a question of trying to have different, kusala mind-states arise, but of understanding just that which is conditioned now. So, I don't fret at all about any lack of upekkha or at the 'mess' of akusala that arises instead. To do so (to mind, to fret about it) would just mean more clinging to self, to my personality! .... >It is easier towards neutral persons, but if > loved ones are involved, it tends to become “the > equanimity of unknowing based on the home life” > (upekkhaa gehasitaa a~n~naa.nupekkhaa), which is the > near enemy of Equanimity. Perhaps, one day I may be > able to have real kusala upekkhaa towards everybody > including my loved ones. .... S: Better to just understand what is kusala, what is akusala, what dhammas are apparent now. No need to think about 'one day'! .... > > (2) You have also quoted that equanimity > (tatramajjhattataa) supports metta, it is > indispensable. I believe that the perfection of > upekkhaa supports not only the perfection of mettaa > but also all other perfections. That’s why I started > off with the perfection of upekkhaa in Perfections > Corner. .... S: Yes, full of good reminders, thank you! I liked the comments on the aspects of mettaa which we may not consider in #76186. Giving because of mettaa, mettaa as the foundation of generosity. Also, "when they abstain from ill deeds through body and speech the foundation of their kusala is also mettaa. They do not want to cause suffering and distress to others by their actions or speech." Very nice! .... > > (3) You have also quoted Khun Sujin that without an > understanding of anattaa, the mettaa is always very > limited. Here again, I believe that the understanding > of anattaa is necessary for all perfections, because > anattaa and upekkhaa are closely inter-twined. But my > understanding of atta and anattaa are very confusing. > I am still trying to sort it out. ... S: This came up in a 'No Nina, no Lodewijk' discussion. KS was commenting that while we cling to the idea of particular beings, mettaa is just to these people. As an understanding of anatta grows, mettaa can arise anywhere, anytime. Of course, the understanding of anatta has to grow slowly. Again, any concern about one's confusion, any wishing it were another way, merely hinders such development of understanding. Again, I liked this quote you gave (#76018): "We should not have expectations as to the moment when we shall realize the four noble Truths. So long as we have many defilements which arise time and again and have desire for the realization of the four noble Truths, we are very far away from the goal." I think the same can refer to expectations about any knowledge or insight as I remember you also saying before as well. So, I know we agree here! Metta, Sarah ======= #76239 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:20 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views jonoabb Hi Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon - > > In a message dated 9/9/2007 4:50:58 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > Now I must explain that your Abhidhammika status is only probationary > at this stage, and I may have to refer this post to the next meeting > of the membership sub-committee ;-)) > =============================== > LOLOL! ;-)) > I envisage myself as a poor waif, caught outside in a fierce winter > storm with nose pressed up against the window of a warm, inviting restaurant, > with blazing fireplace - a poor beggar enviously watching a happy family within, > enjoying the warmth, conviviality, and sharing a wonderful repast. Ah, how > that beggar prays for the miracle that he might be let in! (Well, maybe not!! > ;-))) My pespective is a little different. We of the so-called 'happy family' are taking a simple picnic in the park, which we are happy to share with any passers by. But the passers-by who look our way don't see anything appetising in our modest fare; in fact they tend to hint that we'd do better with something from a fast-food shop!! ;-)) Jon #76240 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:22 am Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views jonoabb --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Jon, > > Parapraxic analysis: > > J: "...nimination..." > > Scott: nimitta + nomination = nimination > > Wherein 'nimitta' is "...outward appearance, mark, characteristic, > attribute, phenomenon.." and, of course, refers to pa~n~natti. You got it!! > J: "Do I have a seconder?" > > Scott: (Visualise the concept of ruupa made to move in a sequence of > iterations which look to the eye as if 'someone' has raised 'a hand'). Meanwhile the nominee has disappeared ... Jon #76241 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:42 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Jon, - > ... > Yes, there is a real disadvantage of going, going, gone! It seems to > me that too heavy a leaning on the Abhidhamma, that goes deep down to > the nitty-gritty details, can condition a bias in an Abhidhammika's > mind toward unnecessary detail(anubyañjana)-- instead of helping him > see the whole picture of the truth. The Abhidhamma itself, wonderful > as it is, has nothing to do with such illusion in the abhidhammika's > mind. I think we all agree that there can be 'wrong' study or interest in the teachings (sutta, vinaya or abhidhamma). > Yours is not unlike the perspective of a physicist with a training in > the molecular theories. He is so absorbed in his knowledge that he > may see the whole world as nothing but atoms and empty spaces. That > way-too-far perspective is indeed a disadvantage; it can even lead to > a disaster. Not sure what I've said that leads you to the conclusion that I'm too absorbed in the Abhidhamma, but I'll think about it! ... > T: If I understand your nitty-gritty details of the seeing & hearing > processes correctly, I think the citta-vithi is the same in any > person, ariyan or not. The only difference between them, therefore, > is that an ariyan does not conceive an atta because of a wrong self > view(attanuditthi), i.e. the fetter of view. The important point is > about the wrong view and how to eradicate it: it is not about 'no > person', 'no-self', or "nothing can be found except the paramattha > dhammas". > ........... I certainly agree with your comment that "The important point is about the wrong view and how to eradicate it". The question on which we differ (I suspect) is how, according to the Buddha, that eradication can be effected. To my understanding, it is by the development of a direct understanding of what is appearing at the present moment that there is progress towards that eradication. There is a direct connection between the two (understanding of presently arising dhammas and wrong view of self). ... > Tep: By definition Dhamma Eye is the insight of a Sotapanna, who has > no fetter of views(attanuditthi). S/he still has mana-samyojana, > though. > ........... We can agree on this much, then! ;-)) ... > T: I am suggesting that wrong perception of the world(loka) or the > five aggreagtes of clinging is due to the following view: "this is > mine" or "this is what I am" or "this is my self" > ......... OK. > Jon: If it's got my agreement, it can't be worth that much ;-)). > > T: A mexican Peso is about 8.97 US cents > One Indian Rupee is about 2.46 US cents. > But the Japanese Yen is cheapest! 1.00 JPY = 0.0088 USD. > > Is your opinion cheaper than 1 JPY? Well, they're not for sale, but if they were I don't think there'd be any bidders! Jon #76242 From: "jonoabb" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:49 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge jonoabb Hi Tep --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Hi Jon, - > > >Jon: > > You say "the real Buddha (who existed)". Isn't there a sutta where > > the Buddha deals with the question of whether the Tathaagatha can > >be said to exist or not? > > > > T: Can you quote the part you want to discuss, so we can start with > that in the next message? Perhaps someone could help me out with a reference (I'm writing this from the transit lounge at Auckland, New Zealand on my way back to Hong Kong; feeling a little travel-weary right now). > I wonder why doubt whether the Buddha existed!! How can anyone call > himself/herself a Buddhist without the faith that the Buddha existed > and that He taught the Dhamma that is "lovely at the beginning, > lovely in the middle, lovely at the ending, with the spirit and the > letters" ? > > Of course, He existed. But who can confirm the truth that the Buddha > existed more convincingly than the Buddha himself? > > "Even so, Aggivessana, does a Tathagata arise here in the world, a > perfected one, fully Self-Awakened One, endowed with right knowledge > and conduct, well-farer, knower of the worlds, the matchless > charioteer of men to be tamed, the Awakened One, the Lord. Yes, we all agree that in the conventional sense the Buddha existed. > T: If the Tathagata did not exist, then who discovered the Dhamma and > how could the Dhamma be made known to this world with the devas, > Mara, Brahma, and men? A good question. Let's come back to it after we've looked at the sutta passage. Jon #76243 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:56 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Jon (and Howard), - I just wrote in another post that Howard was good at effectively directing/manipulating a discussion to the end every time (without any serious problem). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Tep > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Jon, - > > ... > > Yes, there is a real disadvantage of going, going, gone! It seems > to > > me that too heavy a leaning on the Abhidhamma, that goes deep down > to > > the nitty-gritty details, can condition a bias in an Abhidhammika's > > mind toward unnecessary detail(anubyañjana)-- instead of helping > him > > see the whole picture of the truth. The Abhidhamma itself, > wonderful > > as it is, has nothing to do with such illusion in the > abhidhammika's > > mind. > > I think we all agree that there can be 'wrong' study or interest in > the teachings (sutta, vinaya or abhidhamma). > > > Yours is not unlike the perspective of a physicist with a training > in > > the molecular theories. He is so absorbed in his knowledge that he > > may see the whole world as nothing but atoms and empty spaces. That > > way-too-far perspective is indeed a disadvantage; it can even lead > to > > a disaster. > > Not sure what I've said that leads you to the conclusion that I'm too > absorbed in the Abhidhamma, but I'll think about it! > > ... > > T: If I understand your nitty-gritty details of the seeing & > hearing > > processes correctly, I think the citta-vithi is the same in any > > person, ariyan or not. The only difference between them, therefore, > > is that an ariyan does not conceive an atta because of a wrong self > > view(attanuditthi), i.e. the fetter of view. The important point is > > about the wrong view and how to eradicate it: it is not about 'no > > person', 'no-self', or "nothing can be found except the paramattha > > dhammas". > > ........... > > I certainly agree with your comment that "The important point is > about the wrong view and how to eradicate it". > > The question on which we differ (I suspect) is how, according to the > Buddha, that eradication can be effected. To my understanding, it is > by the development of a direct understanding of what is appearing at > the present moment that there is progress towards that eradication. > There is a direct connection between the two (understanding of > presently arising dhammas and wrong view of self). > > ... > > Tep: By definition Dhamma Eye is the insight of a Sotapanna, who > has > > no fetter of views(attanuditthi). S/he still has mana-samyojana, > > though. > > ........... > > We can agree on this much, then! ;-)) > > ... > > T: I am suggesting that wrong perception of the world(loka) or the > > five aggreagtes of clinging is due to the following view: "this is > > mine" or "this is what I am" or "this is my self" > > ......... > > OK. > > > Jon: If it's got my agreement, it can't be worth that much ;-)). > > > > T: A mexican Peso is about 8.97 US cents > > One Indian Rupee is about 2.46 US cents. > > But the Japanese Yen is cheapest! 1.00 JPY = 0.0088 USD. > > > > Is your opinion cheaper than 1 JPY? > > Well, they're not for sale, but if they were I don't think there'd be > any bidders! > > Jon > T: Now I can count you as the second person in the same group with Howard. Thank you very much for wrapping up the conversation "without any serious problem". Tep === #76244 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] dependent origination sarahprocter... Hi Azita, --- gazita2002 wrote: > followed the links you recommended - thanks again, and here's my > short summary. > > Clinging conditions becoming. There is clinging in this current > existence [for example]. Depending on what is clung to, or more > specific the tendancies for sense-sphere, form-sphere of formless > sphere objects, this will be the condition for becoming/bhava, which > in turn, conditions birth. > > Maybe oversimplfied, what do you think? .... S: Fine - we can say kamma for bhava here. In other words, D.O. is about the 3 rounds of kamma-vatta, vipaka-vatta and kilesa-vatta. On account of past kamma, there is birth and all kinds of vipaka. On account of this vipaka, there is kilesa (defilements) which leads to more kamma, bringing further births and vipaka....on and on and on.....in ignorance! Metta, Sarah =========== #76245 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re Q: Some Questions Arising Out of Abhidhamma Study sarahprocter... Hi Dieter, Thanks for your clarifications and further comments. --- Dieter Möller wrote: > D: what I mean is, that in D.O. kamma is stated by the fact of > action (body, speech ,thought) only whereas Abhidhamma adds the quality > (kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya ) . .... S: Kamma (-patha) refers to cetana (intention) when actions are 'completed' through body, speech or mind. Such kamma can bring results by way of birth and other vipaka throughout life. When we read that 'avijja paccaya sankhara', here sankhara refers to (past) kamma which conditions birth and subsequent vipaka cittas. This cetana (kamma) is kusala or akusala only. The result of it, such as the brith consciousness, seeing consciousness, hearing consciousness and so on, is vipaka. For the arahant, instead of having kusala cittas, he has kiriya cittas which are not kamma and won't bring results. So there is no more fuel being added to the fire. Just the vipaka (result) in that last life as a result of past kamma. .... > D: Our approach to the teaching is different due to individual > (previous) kamma... e.g.first contact, teachers, friends, motivation > etc.. ... S: It's partly because of the results of past kamma, but more importantly, we all have different accumulated tendencies. Because of these, our habits, motivations, interests and so on are different. The result of past kamma just refers mainly to brief moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and body consciousness. (There are a few other vipaka cittas too). The Abhidhamma is very precise. When we talk about meeting teachers, there are so many different kinds of consciousness involved. We say conventionally, 'Oh it was good kamma', but this is speaking very, very gernerally. ... >and I believe it is best to agree on common ground first , > otherwise we may already engage in the discussion, whether the khandas > should not be understood to present the aggregates/function for the > process of arising and ceasing dhammas, i.e. mental and bodily > phenomena. .. or talking about sankhara khanda, > you mention to be ignorance. .... S: Sorry, I'm lost here. Namas and rupas (mental and bodily phenomena) ARE khandhas. Ignorance is included in sankhara khandha. .... >Sankhara Khanda is conditioned by > ignorance ( avijja-sankhara - vinnaya-nama/ rupa. etc., i.e. part of > nama ... ..... Pause! You are confusing sankhara khandha with sankhara in D.O. Different meanings! Sankhara khandha refers to cetana and all the other 50 cetasikas (not vedana and sanna). Sankhara, as in avijja paccaya sankhara, refers as I've said to (past) cetana only, i.e kamma-patha. .... (recently Nina called S.K: the habitual tendencies.. I think a > very interesting translation ) .... S: Yes, the habitual or accumulated tendencies. It includes all the likes, dislikes, intentions, ignorance, wisdom and so on. .... > I found in many years of study that it is most useful to keep the > relation with the 4NT in mind when considering the finer details of the > Dhamma , to avoid getting lost in the ' thickicht' .. so you may not > be surprised about my base of understanding involving a sequence of > mundane understanding of the N.T. , then D.O. and then Abh. ... > leading to supramundane N.T. understanding. I believe this is in line > with the gradual approach the Buddha told us to penetrate the teaching > but I am not sure whether you or other members > see that likewise.. .... S: I think that whatever we're talking about - whether it's the 4NT, D.O. or the khandhas, we have to start with the basics and consider these over and over again. For example, what do you understand dukkha to mean in the 1st NT? .... > S: Vinnaya and nama-rupa in D.O. have particular meanings. We need to > be > careful. Not all cittas, namas and rupas are included here. > > > D: you said before: > S: Let's just make this clear for everyone: > All cittas are included in vinnana khandha, > All cetasikas are included in sanna, vedana and sankhara khandhas > All rupas are included in rupa khandha. > Another way of saying the same is that all the khandhas are included in > citta, cetasika and rupa. > > the qualities of action are not included in D.O. as mentioned already > ..but what do you mean by 'Not all cittas, namas and rupas are included > here' ? .... S: In the context of D.O., nama refers to the cetasikas, i.e the 3 khandhas or sanna-, vedana- and sankhara-khandha, arising with vinnana (which means cittas. In this context, patisandhi and other vipaka cittas). [For more detail on this, you might take a look at Nina's recent detailed study from the Visuddhimagga, #76061.] .... > S: : I gave all those examples from the Dhammasangani to indicate that > these > are what are referred to as paramattha, including nibbana. The Ab. > Sangaha is a concise summary of all the Abhidhamma texts and > commentaries. No disagreement at all. > > D: my question is whether in the Abh.pitaka we can find the exact > grouping of the 4 categories defined as Paramattha Dhamma like in § 2 > by Ven. Anuruddha .. i.e. though seemingly not in contradiction but > still the Venerabble's interpretation ..? .... S: The same exact categories of paramattha dhammas were given in the quotes from the Dhammasangani as I read them. Sorry, I can't understand why there could seem to be any contradiction...? Perhaps you'd check them again carefully and let me know where the problem is. .... > S: Actually, the 'Dhamma-Vinaya' refers to the 'three baskets'. > >From the commetary to this line you quote: > > "But in the list beginning with sutta, sutta means the three baskets > which > the three Councils recited...." See this post for more: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/58033 > > D: this issue has been discussed several times before .. the commentary > can not overcome D.N. 16 in which the Buddha refered to suttas and > vinaya.. ( the third basket not yet in existence) .. but we may > compare the arguments. .... S: At the First Council, the texts refer to the teachings throughout as the 'Dhamma-Vinaya' and it's made very clear that this includes all 3 baskets, the 84,000 units of text. You refer to the Mahaparinibbana Sutta. Here is a quote from the commentary to the sutta – MahaKassapa’s words: .... “ ‘Even while the body of the ascetic Gotama survives, his disciples are quarrelling.’ Let me just be patient, for the Dhamma which the Blessed One taught is like a heap of flowers not yet tied together. As flowers blown by the wind scatter here and there, so by the influence of people like this (S: Subhadda), as time passes, a rule of training or two will be lost from the Vinaya. A question or two will be lost from the Sutta; a difference between stages or two will be lost from the Abhidhamma, so in due course, when the root is destroyed, we will become like demons. Therefore I will have the Dhamma and Vinaya recited. When it is done, this Dhamma and Vinaya will be immovable like the flowers tied together by strong string.” Keep up the questioning - they are all good points for discussion! Metta, Sarah ====== #76246 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:39 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge scottduncan2 Dear DC, Thanks for the reply: DC: "I think it [Dhamma-cakkhu] really relates to a vision (cakkhu in English could mean either eye or vision)..." Scott: Do you mean to use 'vision' here as literal? DC: "No, bhava is becoming rather than being. This is process language or language of anicca, dukkha and anatta. On the other hand for mortals (puthujjana) exist is rite. But if it is seen as a continous changing process exists has no meaning. Exist involves a duration." Scott: We may differ here, in part. The difference between 'mortals' and 'ariyans' is in the development of pa~n~naa, not, I think, in the nature 'existence'. 'Bhava' and 'kamma' are related. Bhava is because of kamma. Bhava is 'becoming', as you say. I agree that 'a continuous changing process' is a problem. 'Change' is moment to moment. I think, however, that 'duration' is unavoidable. With arising and before ceasing there is duration, brief as it may be. But then gone, condition for new arising without a gap. DC: "Pa~n~naa has many meanings in the teaching of the Buddha in the suttas. But what I meant by reality is the object of one's perception. "ruupa, sadda, etc." And by perception cakkhu-vinnana etc. The differences are in vedana and sa~n~naa." Scott: Okay, I see your meaning here. DC: "The sutta term for conventional truth is vohara. As I mentioned in the previous answer. It is real according to our (non-ariyan) vision. This paramattha sacca is a later term. The suttas have the terms sacca and ariyasacca. First is what we mean by true and the second refer to the four Noble Truths." Scott: We differ here. Conventional truth is real by convention only, not literally. When conventional vision sees a mirage, it can be known that this is not really water. DC: "My opinion is abhidhammic analysis is not very helpful and would lead to confusion." Scott: I see this otherwise. DC: "We cannot experience the world the way an arahant does. So we really cannot discuss such things." Scott: Well, sure we can. To suggest the above is to limit pretty well all discussion of Dhamma. It is all open to discussion. The Buddha decided to teach despite his knowledge that Dhamma is very deep. Good discussion, as you say. Sincerely, Scott. #76247 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:45 am Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" philofillet Hi Sukin > I've got construction workers in my house to keep an eye on, so feeling > bored I have decided to write one post to DSG. I think it would be great if you could write more - not for me, personally, because I am getting away from Acharn Sujin, but as a person who hears her teaching every week I'm sure many here would benefit. I think you all will find that I will no longer be a dojo buster. AS has her place in the world, and when it comes to the internet, this is it. I will come to let her be, I think, and let all who find benefit in her teaching be as well. > Phil: > Yes, Bhikkhu Bodhi also acknowledges it as a difficult samatha > subject, so I know that here, at least, AS is not alone. > > I don't know the *right* way to develop mindfulness of breathing, but > I know it is not by discussing it. It has to be experimented with, and > that's what I'm doing now. Ph: Before I read any further, let me say that afterwards I thought this sounded a bit dumb. Experimented with, yes, but under the influence or with the guidance of a teacher and dhamma friends who are following a similar path. In the future I hope I will be able to tap the minds/experience of people here who practice meditation on the breath. Maybe next year, at that other site. > > Sukin: > Not knowing the right way you have decided to try out one of the many > methods offered. You say that there is no value in discussing it, but you > choose to follow the `idea' of it. How did you come to the conclusion that > it is worth following, did you not *reason* about what it is and how it is > related to the Path? Or are you going by authority, namely that of the > Burmese Sayadaws and what they have said about the particular > teaching? Is there any place for "experimentation" in Dhamma? Ph: I am more with the Thai forest guys now. I find the saydaws are very stirring when it comes to Dhamma talks, and I still listen, but the meditation technique is a little too rigid and there is a little too much of a cult-like feeling with respect to Mahasi Sayadaw. (eg, all participants at retreats listening to a recorded talk by him) We'll see. For abhidhamma, they are the best, certainly. And for rousing talks to encourage people to overcome gross defilements, they are unparalleled. > > When the Buddha taught about the importance of hearing the > Teachings, associating with the wise and wise consideration, are these > not to be found in Dhamma discussions? Ph: Well, yes, if one has time for it. I would love to be like Tep and others who take the time to develop thoroughly reasoned, text based discussions to try to point out the shortcomings/glaring flaws in the AS approach, but don't have time. And as I said, perhaps it is best to just let her be, for me. Even when I was listening with respect and deep attention to her and therefore resented the activity at DSG of those who attacked her, the reason was not that I wanted her to be respected, but that I thought useful Dhamma discussion is between those who are basically on the same track, and can help guide along that track. I'm sure there is a place to learn from debate between people whose approaches are radically different, but that's not for me, not now. So these days I would love to discuss only with peole who are on the same track as me. I could still learn a lot from that. > > When the Buddha talked about not following a teacher or a tradition > does this not imply that we need to carefully consider what we hear? > Rather than jumping into some prescribed practice, should we not > carefully consider what is being proposed? Ph: Sukin, maybe I'm nothing but a bookstore Buddhist seeking solace through Dhamma, but I have seen a very noticeable momentum building towards mindfulness, wholesomeness, clarity in my life. I ascribe this to the meditation practice I am following. (As much of a hodgepdge as it is.) I'M sure the Abhidhamma study I did for a couple of years is helping as well, and I hope I return to abhidhamma study again. AS's approach eventually turned me off it, but if I get some clearance from her approach I might get into it again. Should also be noted that my goals in Dhamma are pretty basic. I want to reduce the prevalence of gross defilements reaching the transgression level, that's all. So my learning curve, my ability to see clear results from the Dhamma is steep, I can see big wholesome changes. All this talk about Ariyans is irrelevant to me now, but that might change someday. The AS approach may really be good Dhamma for people who do not need firm guidance on the sila front. Fr those of us that do (and frankly, I think that' all of us, negating what I just wrote!) this talk of abstaining from evil deeds not being kusala if there is self involved is pretty unhelpful. AS has *got* to learn that different Dhamma approaches are suitable for different people with different needs. She is a terribly inflexible teacher, leaning on strict adherence to the "ancient texts" no doubt. Other teachers turn to the same texts, and provide the kind of protective guidance beginners needs to get started with the heavy lifting. > > When the Buddha asked us to "test it out" the Dhamma, I don't think > that he meant something that happened in time. Before hearing the > dhamma we see, hear, taste, think, feel and so on and "know" them as > such. After hearing the Dhamma the same experiences occur, only now > little by little we begin to appreciate that these are in fact fleeting > elements of experience and not something that happens to a "self" as > we have so far thought to be. Ph: Right. But I'm afraid I don't by into the pariyatti > patipati approach. I think there is an idea that perfected intellectual udnerstanding falls into direct understanding, just slides on in. I think this is a kind of belief in magic, that belief in rites and rituals. Listen listen listen and PING! I don't believe in that. I think "formal meditation" is the way to go. The "self" involved is much clearer when close attention can be paid to the fleetingness of what is going on. Yes, close attention can arise anytime, anywhere, of course. But I am interested in probabilities. Results- oriented? Absolutely. The mind is buurning with greed, hatred and delusion and *I*, Phil, intend to do something about it. Insight into anatta will deepen, or not. I think the annica/dukkha dynamic is where I am soaking these days... > *This* imo, is the test and proof the Buddha was referring to. > If `intellectual understanding' is all that can be had now, the test and > proof is of that level. By ideally holding on to the idea that the proof is in > the experience of insight and ending up bypassing this stage of pariyatti > on to some prescribed practice, one places oneself to be deluded. If on > the other hand one patiently stays with whatever level of understanding > there is, views corrected would confirm with any subsequent patipatti > and finally with pativedha. These three must agree and any > downplaying of pariyatti at any time is reflection of some level of > delusion. Ph* Who knows, Sukin. I could be back to this approach someday. As I said, you are one of the most eloquent advocates of the AS approach, so I think it's a shame you don't post more often at DSG. And Matt Roke, also very eloquent. Sukin, I just have to say one thing. I heard you say in a talk once "I hardly ever read suttas." I think that's very tragic, please reconsider! :) And I also heard you say "I have never had a moment of sati" or something like that. Betty said "you probably have." You bloody well better have, my friend, or you're a right nutter! :) The ASapproach to sati is too difficult to understand. Lodewijk has listened to it for years and says he still doesn't understand it. That shows that AS is not teaching it properly, I suspect. Thanks to you and all students of AS for your patience with my vitriol. I really do think it's going to be "over and out" for me soon. Perhaps we can talk at another forum on occasion, or I'll drop by. Yes, that's what I should do. Metta, Phil p.s I just stopped reading your long post halfway through, sorry. Gotta go. #76248 From: "sjackson07513" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:31 am Subject: mindfulness of death or the elements sjackson07513 Nina and all, I would appreciate any input regarding your opnions on the practice of mindfulness of death or mindfulness of the elements. Which would you consider a better "main practice/" Thank you, Steve #76249 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 9/11/2007 5:20:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, you quote me saying "I envisage myself as a poor waif, caught outside in a fierce winter storm with nose pressed up against the window of a warm, inviting restaurant, with blazing fireplace - a poor beggar enviously watching a happy family within, enjoying the warmth, conviviality, and sharing a wonderful repast. Ah, how that beggar prays for the miracle that he might be let in! (Well, maybe not!! ;-)))," and you reply as follows: << My perspective is a little different. We of the so-called 'happy family' are taking a simple picnic in the park, which we are happy to share with any passers by. But the passers-by who look our way don't see anything appetising in our modest fare; in fact they tend to hint that we'd do better with something from a fast-food shop!! ;-)) >> ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-) The passers-by, and I also, who am not one of those just passing by, but am sitting on a bench, watching from the sidewalk adjoining the park, might go for the fast food because of the seen urgency (samvega) to get on with Dhamma practice! LOLOL! ============================== With metta, Howard #76250 From: han tun Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:16 am Subject: Perfections Corner (13) hantun1 Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 10: The Perfection of Equanimity, taken from the book “The Perfections leading to Enlightenment” by Sujin Boriharnwanaket and translated by Nina van Gorkom. Questions, comments, or different opinions are welcome. ------------------------------ The Commentary to the “Basket of Conduct”, in the “Miscellaneous Sayings” explains with regard to each of the perfections to which kind of akusala it is opposed. We read about generosity: “Further, giving is opposed to greed, hatred, and delusion, since it applies the qualities of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion to gifts, recipients, and the fruits of giving, respectively.” As we read, the perfection of generosity is opposed to akusala, to lobha, dosa and moha, because when one is generous and accumulates the perfection of generosity, one practises the quality of non-attachment to one’s gift. If someone still clings to the object he intends to give, he cannot give, he regrets the loss of his gift. He may think of giving, but he cannot give, he desires to wait for an opportunity to give. If someone is not firmly established in his determination to give, he may think of giving, but he does not give. At such a moment there is no generosity. Whereas, when there is true generosity, it is accompanied by nonattachment; one does not cling to the object one is giving. At the moment of kusala citta there is also non-aversion towards the person who receives the gift. If one is displeased and dislikes the receiver, one will not give. This may happen when someone sees a beggar and notices that he has physical strength; he may be irritated and hence does not give. Or when someone sees a handicapped child the beggar takes along, he may be irritated about the beggar causing affliction to his child, and then he does not give. When generosity arises it has to be accompanied by the good qualities of non-attachment to the gift, non-aversion towards the receiver and it may be accompanied by non-delusion or paññå as well. When paññå knows the result of generosity, when it realizes that generosity is wholesome, there is true liberality and defilements are abandoned. ---------------------------- To be continued. Metta, Han #76251 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge dcwijeratna Dear Tep, Many thanks for welcoming me into the discussion. 1. I agree with you about dhammacakkhu. Is it necessary to bring the word 'citta' there? It has a specific technical meaning in "Abhidhamma," but when we discuss Dhammacakkhu, we are in the suttas. There the mind is meant by citta. In the suttas citta, mano, and vi~n~naana are used without much distinction. Cakkhu in Pali is the eye. If one has an eye one sees it with. Dhamma in this context means the impermanence or the anicca or uppaada-vaya. Thus dhamma-cakkhu gives the one who has it, the ability to see things as changing phenomena. This is how I think about it. See whether it makes sense to you, please. And if something is amiss, please write back. Doubt is one of the three things that is abandoned. The other two are sakkaaya di.t.thi and siilabbata paraamasa. (Ratana sutta). Of these the most fundamental is sakkayaditthi. Until you get rid of this you can't even enter the path. 2. With regard to 3, I agree. Think also of the fact, that in certaind Mahayaana sects the Buddha is still living and will be living for ever. 3. With regard to your response 3, I certainly agree with you that what we percieve is real. Or we have to take as real what we cannot percieve. What is the first Noble Truth? "...san.khittena pancupaadanakkhandhaa dukkhaa" Put together, the five aggregaes of grasping are dukkha. Are the Noble Truths real or not? A naama-ruupa is real or not. This is an interesting discussion. But we need to start from the beginning with the defintions of words. For example, we must first agree what we mean by say 'real'. Otherwise we will be talking in circles. Actually, the correct word to use is not real or unreal but 'moha' or delusion. Just to illustrate what I mean. We know we are mortal. But we are afraid of death. And when one of our loved one's die we moan and wail. We take what is impermanent (anicca) as permanent (nicca). This is really the issue. 4. This is what I meant by vedanaa and sa~n~naa. There is a sutta in the MN called madhupindika sutta, which explains the process of perception. The Pali runs as follows: cakkhu.m pa.ticca ruupeca uppajjati cakkhuvi~n~naana.m. tinna.m san.gati phasso, phassa paccayaa vedanaa, ya.m vedeti, ta.m san.jaanaati... An arahant has upekkhaa so his vedana does not give rise to sa~n~naa in the same manner as for a puthujjana. [Remeber the advice to Baahiya. "di.t.the ditthamatta.m bhavissati..' This is in Udana, if my memory serves me right.] Up to vedanaa are causal processes. Thereafter, they are I based processed. This is seen by the change of language: "vedeti" etc. Hope I make sense. A detailed analysis of this is in "Concept and Reality" by Bhikkhu Gnananada. Buddhist Publication Society. This is an extremely difficult sutta. 5 Pandoras box: I had no intention of opening a Pandora's box. If I had done so, my apologies to everybody concerned. We here in Sri Lanka think of abhidhamma as a very difficult subject to understand and leave abhidhamma to very highly learned monks. Our standard books are the Jatakas, Dhammapada and Sutta Pitaka. So without the necessay proficiency in the subject I thought trying to do an abhidhammic analysis would lead to confusion. Again I am sorry, With mettaa D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #76252 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" nilovg Hi James, Op 11-sep-2007, om 6:28 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Anyway, the Buddha described the Four Noble Truths in conventional > terms and paramattha terms. I don't believe you should deny > conventional reality when it is a reality. ------- N Yes, that is true. He spoke about many aspects of dukkha in daily life. But at the end of the Buddha's description of the four noble Truths he stated: in short the khandhas of grasping are dukkha. Here he teaches ultimates. Conventional truth should not be denied, we are engaged with it all the time. But if the Buddha had not taught paramatthic truth we would be lost in ignorance and clinging, we would continue in the cycle of birth and death forever. I think that you also see this fact. When we pay attention only to conventional truth we think that a person lasts, we cling to people and we cling to ourselves. We believe that we can control and manipulate the world. When we develop understanding of paramattha dhammas we learn that each moment of experience and each object that is experienced is a 'bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp', using Howard's logo. They go so fast, like a flash of lightning, but little by little understanding of the experiences and the object that is experienced can be known. They have different characteristics that appear, though for a very short while. This is the way leading to detachment. If we are totally absorbed in conventional truth there is no way out of this 'dark path'. I think you know this too, but you are, like Lodewijk, concerned that people despise conventional truth. See also my post on metta to DC. Nina. #76253 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, > > Thanks for your note - certainly an 'in-your-face' which gets an immediate > response:). :-) Glad I got your attention. > .... > S: Joke or no joke, ridiculous or not, it doesn't need anything other than > the most rudimentary Pali knowledge (yes, my beginner wannabe level!), to > know that ***'jaati' means birth or rebirth*** and not 'human being' or > 'person' in: > SN: 22:152 "Seeing thus....He understands:'......there is no more for this > state of being.'" James: Again, I am not going to discuss Pali interpretations with you. It's just plain silly. Sarah, you are not an expert in Pali and this situation requires the analysis of an expert. This is a deep sutta with deep meaning and you think that by pulling out your Pali dictionary you can have it all figured out- it really is laughable (but I guess only to me). > > Remember the 1st NT: > > "Monks, what is the noble truth about suffering? > ***Birth (jaati)*** is suffering, old age is suffering, death is > suffering, grief, lamentation, discomfort, unhappiness, despair are > suffering: to wish for something and not obtain it is suffering: briefly, > the five factors of attachment (pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhaaa) are > suffering."(DN 11, 305, Johansson transl). James: Sarah, you cannot piece together Pali used here and there and expect to come to a concrete understanding. It takes a Pali expert to know how the Pali is used what it means in each circumstance. > > As for the Buddha making mistakes, that seems like a real clutching at > straws, James!! Do you really think 'omniscient knowledge' could make > mistakes? James: No, but the Buddha did not use his 'omniscient knowledge' at all times. He didn't know everything all at once, as he explained. He would have to direct his mind to a situation to know what was going to happen or the details. Since he had gone into retreat and directed his mind away from the Sangha, he didn't know what was happening or what was going to happen. > .... > S: Thanks for your other comments, all taken in good humour!! James: Well, I am glad you took them in good humor, but I didn't mean them humorously. You are really starting to get on my nerves, in case you didn't notice. ;-)) I guess I should stop this discussion with you because it is going nowhere- and I'm sure you won't mind since to you I don't exist anyway :-( > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > Metta, James #76254 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:25 am Subject: Asoka, Ch 4, no 8. nilovg Dear friends, We may, without noticing it, cling to ourselves as a person who has sati: “I am such”, “I am the same”, “I am otherwise”. Or we conceive ourselves as a person who should reach the goal very soon, and then we shall certainly not reach it. Such ways of thinking can be a condition to engage in wrong practice and that is a form of ditthi. We may hope for the arising of sati, we may wait for insight knowledge, vipassanå ñåna, or after someone has reached the first stage of vipassanå ñåna he may wait for the next ones. After a moment of sati one may cling to it and feel happy about it. One may be so keen to have sati that one clings to characteristics of paramattha dhammas which appear. For example, hardness appears and then one may cling to this characteristic and erroneously believe that that is awareness of hardness. If we cling to “my practice”, to a self who develops satipatthåna, we are on the wrong Path. There is no self who practises, only citta and cetasikas performing their functions. The conceiving of self is bound to be an obstruction time and again and only paññå which realizes such moments can be the condition to return to the right Path. We should not forget that right understanding should lead to detachment, but paññå must be very keen to realize even the more subtle kinds of akusala as not self. Måna can also obstruct the development of vipassanå. One may find oneself important and believe that one’s knowledge is already accomplished, that further study and consideration of realities is no longer necessary, or that one does not need to listen to someone else who explains the right Path. The sotåpanna who has eradicated wrong view still thinks of himself with clinging or conceit. At the subsequent stages of enlightenment clinging and conceit are attenuated, but only at the last stage, the stage of the arahat, all ways of misconceivings, even the most subtle, are eradicated. This can show us that there should be awareness and right understanding of all kinds of realities, including all ways of misconceiving, of thinking of ourselves, so that their true nature can be penetrated. (the end) ******** Nina. #76255 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:20 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 13, no 11. nilovg Dear friends, When we think of the accumulation of wholesome qualities we may believe that there is a mere “heaping up” of wholesome inclinations, but there is more to it. Conditions are formed for a completely new situation, namely, the arising of the lokuttara magga-citta which eradicates defilements and experiences nibbåna. The “higher knowledge faculty” is lokuttara paññå which accompanies the phala-citta (fruition consciousness, lokuttara vipåkacitta) of the sotåpanna, the magga-citta and the phala-citta of the sakadågåmí (once-returner who has realised the second stage of enlightenment), and those of the anågåmí (non-returner, who has realised the third stage of enlightenment), and also the magga-citta of the arahat. The “faculty of him who knows” arises with the phala-citta of the arahat. These three faculties which are lokuttara condition the lokuttara cittas and cetasikas they accompany by way of faculty-condition [1]. When the third lokuttara faculty arises there is nothing more to be realized, all defilements have been eradicated. When the characteristics of conditioned dhammas are not yet fully known nibbåna cannot be realized. The “five spiritual faculties” have to be developed during countless lives so that eventually the three faculties which are lokuttara can arise. -------- 1. Realities can be considered under different aspects and they can be a condition for other realities in different ways. As we will see, lokuttara paññå is also a condition as Path factor. When lokuttara paññå is considered under the aspect of faculty, as faculty- condition, there are three kinds. ********* Nina. #76256 From: "nidive" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:21 am Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views nidive Hi Jon, > > J: "Do I have a seconder?" > > > > Scott: (Visualise the concept of ruupa made to move in a sequence > > of iterations which look to the eye as if 'someone' has raised 'a > > hand'). > > Meanwhile the nominee has disappeared ... There is no nominee. There is no Swee Boon. Nominee is a concept that doesn't exist. Swee Boon is a concept that doesn't exist. Why are you linking these two concepts that don't even exist together? Why are you thinking that these two concepts that don't even exist in the first place have disappeared? Have you gone nuts, Jon? I will be submitting an appeal for your membership to be removed from the gang of Abhidhammikas. Swee Boon #76257 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 11-sep-2007, om 9:56 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > 'The Fijian warrior' > returns tomorrow. Meanwhile, I've been wandering around like the 'lost > deer', the 'teasurer of beings' in the great quote Scott gave > (#76030). ------- N: I am so glad. Lodewijk and I just talked about it that we were worried that you may not eat well enough when alone. Like a lost dear, where is he? Treasurer of beings. I appreciate this: What a mess of akusala arises all the time, it is so daily! You quote: I also noted in P. Corner 12 a good exhortation: In her book on Metta Kh Sujin said: . Sarah: Food for thought, thank you. Nina. #76258 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] mindfulness of death or the elements nilovg Dear Steve J, Op 11-sep-2007, om 14:31 heeft sjackson07513 het volgende geschreven: > Nina and all, I would appreciate any input regarding your opnions on > the practice of mindfulness of death or mindfulness of the elements. ------- For mindfulness of death I quote from Khun Sujin's book on the Perfections (wisdom): < The Buddha’s different methods of teaching Dhamma are in conformity with each other, there is no contradiction between them. For example, the Buddha taught mindfulness of death, maraùa sati. Moreover, he also taught that there are three kinds of death: momentary death (khanika maraùa), conventional death (sammutti marana) and final death (samuccheda marana). Momentary death is death at each moment, and this means that our life occurs during only one moment of citta. One may say that life lasts long, that a person is very old, but in reality, life is a series of cittas that arise and fall away in succession. If we reduce the duration of life that seems to be very long into just one extremely short moment of citta, we can understand that life occurs during only one moment of seeing. At this moment of seeing, there is just one moment of life that arises and sees; if there would not be seeing there would be no life. Seeing has arisen and sees, and then it dies, it lasts for an extremely short moment. At the moment we are hearing, life occurs only during one short moment of hearing and then there is death. When someone who develops the perfection of paññå is mindful of death, he should not merely think of death in conventional sense, sammutti marana. It is not enough to think, even with some degree of detachment, that there is nobody who can own anything, and that one day we shall be separated from all things, that all we used to take for self or mine will disappear. Merely intellectual understanding cannot lead to the eradication of defilements. The true understanding of momentary death, death occurring at each moment of citta, is different from understanding of death in the conventional sense. We should understand momentary death: each moment we are seeing, seeing arises and then dies. It is the same in the case of hearing, the other sense-cognitions and thinking. If we have right understanding of momentary death, we will be able to investigate and know as they are the characteristics of the realities that are appearing. This is mindfulness of death. There are different levels of mindfulness of death, in accordance with a person’s understanding. There is mindfulness of death of the level of someone who develops calm and this is different from the level of someone who develops understanding by considering and investigating the characteristic of death which occurs each moment. If we are mindful of momentary death we come to see the disadvantage of clinging to what falls away immediately. > (end quote) Thus, in the ultimate sense there is death at each moment of citta that arises and then falls away. To penetrate this truth there is only one way: learning more about the different namas and rupas that appear now in our daily life and when understanding is firmly established there will be conditions to be mindful of them. As to elements, nama and rupa have been classified as elements. Elements are devoid of self, they have no owner, they cannot be controlled. Awareness of elements: awareness of nama and rupa as they appear one at a time. Then we shall learn that they are elements, that there is no person who can create them. This also goes for sati, it is an element. **** Nina. #76259 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ¡person¢" - metta. dcwijeratna Dear Nina, Many thanks for the explanation. Dear DC, > Op 11-sep-2007, om 10:41 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven: > -------- >N: Metta has as object the concept of a human being and this is no problem. DC: My understanding of metta is that it is one of the 'appamana dhammas'. It includes all beings (karaniiyametta sutta). It is really a mental condition or a state wherein you are friendly to all without without any distinction (sabba bhuuta hitaanukampaaya viharati). Considerations of nama-rupa does not arise. For example, the sutta describes as (ye keci paana buutattha, tasaavaa thaavaraava...etc.) Each pair here covers the whole universe. >N: "...knowing what true metta is, different from attachment to people..." DC: Certainly, if there is is any attachment, then it is not mettaa but pema. [pemato jaayati soko, pemato jaayati bhaya.m--Dhammapada] From love arises unhappines and fear...in short dukkha. Further according to our understanding of the suttas, if the one who radiates mettaa has the feeling 'I radiate'. If one waits for conditions to be right what would be the meaning of sammaa vaayaam. Somebody must make and effort. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #76260 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:43 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) nichiconn Dear Friends, 13. Viisatinipaato XIII. The Section of the Groups of Twenty [Verses] 1. Ambapaaliitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa part 5 266. "Ka~ncanassa phalaka.mva samma.t.tha.m, sobhate su kaayo pure mama; so valiihi sukhumaahi otato, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 267. "Naagabhogasadisopamaa ubho, sobhare su uuruu pure mama; te jaraaya yathaa ve.lunaa.liyo, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 268. "Sa.nhanuupurasuva.n.nama.n.ditaa, sobhare su ja"nghaa pure mama; taa jaraaya tilada.n.dakaariva, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 269. "Tuulapu.n.nasadisopamaa ubho, sobhare su paadaa pure mama; te jaraaya phu.titaa valiimataa, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 270. "Ediso ahu aya.m samussayo, jajjaro bahudukhaanamaalayo; sopalepapatito jaraagharo, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa"ti.- Imaa gaathaayo abhaasi. RD: Shone of yore this body as shield of gold well-polishe'd. Now with the waste of the years all covered with network of wrinkles. So and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (266) Like to the coils of a snake *344 the full beauty of yore of the thighs of me. They with the waste of the years are even as stems of the bamboo. So and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (267) Beauteous to see were my ankles of yore, bedecked with gold bangles. They with the waste of the years are shrunken as faggots of sesamum. So and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (268) Soft and lovely of yore as though filled out with down were the feet of me. They with the waste of the years are cracked open and wizened with wrinkles. So and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (269) Such hath this body been. Now age-weary and weak and unsightly, Home of manifold ills; old house whence the mortar is dropping. So and not otherwise runneth the rune, the word of the Soothsayer. (270) *344 I here follow Dr. Neumann, and not the Commentator. The latter calls naagabhoga an elephant's trunk; the Pitakas apply the term, it would seem, only as in the text. Cf. Majjhima Nikaaya, i. 134. PRUITT: 266. Formerly my body looked beautiful, like a polished sheet of gold. [Now] it is covered with very fine wrinkles. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 267. Formerly both my thighs looked beautiful like an elephant's trunk. Because of old age, they are like stalks of bamboo. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 268. Formerly my calves looked beautiful, possessing delicate anklets, decorated with gold. Because of old age, they are like sticks of sesame. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 269. Formerly both my feet looked beautiful, like [shoes] full of cotton wool. Because of old age, they are cracked and wrinkled. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. 270. Such was this body. [Now] it is decrepit, the abode of many pains, an old house with its plaster fallen off.* The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. *On the comparison between the body and a house, cf. Th vv 183f. (mistakenly give as Th vv. 153f in EV II, p.119). ===tbc, connie. #76261 From: "colette" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 10:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Casting Dies ksheri3 Good Day Sarah, I just replied to Swee Boon, Jon, and Scott, at the end something happened that took away my last sentence. I was going to say that Swee Boon's wording that he's going to submit an appeal to some hypothetical group concerning Jon's membership that it was that wording in particular which gave rise in my nama conception which I issued in written/verbal form. Now it may be that some monks will chastise me for acting so brashly but that is my nature in this form of situation which allows us the ability to discuss things WITHOUT EMOTIONS -- eventhough I am certainly guilty of playing with, abusing, the rise and ceasation, of emotional qualities in others yet I am doing it in a way so as to raise enlightenment in those that are knee deep in the quagmire of definitions/concepts. with that said then can't we naturally admit to attempting to control "reincarnation", attempting to manifest and control another person's thoughts, which include, THEN, karma, etc.? Aren't Swee Boon, Jon, and Scott trying to reach an agreement on the actual definitions of nama and rupa which is to also control eachother's thoughts? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > good Day Sarah, > > > > Let's get back to namas and rupas, unless you think there is a self > and > > reincarnation which can be controlled or stopped altogether. > > Thats an idea, coltroling reincarnation! Never thought of either of > those aspects mentioned above. > > But you've got this obsession with namas & rupas so. Man, am I getting > some good s<...> from this book Wild Awakening! It is EXCELLENTLY WRITTEN > > toodles, > colette > #76262 From: stephen jackson Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mindfulness of death or the elements sjackson07513 Nina, Thank you very much for your kind and thorough reply. Recently, I started a thread on another forum with the question, "Is anapanasati overprescribed?" Thank you for helping me view mindfulness of death more comprehensively as well as the need to see anatta. People speak about "meditating." So little on right effort. With gratitude, Steve J. #76263 From: "Andrew" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 3:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge corvus121 Hi Scott and Ayubowan DC I hope you enjoy DSG. I drift in and out. The below prompted a line of thought: > DC: "We cannot experience the world the way an arahant does. So we > really cannot discuss such things." > > Scott: Well, sure we can. To suggest the above is to limit pretty > well all discussion of Dhamma. It is all open to discussion. The > Buddha decided to teach despite his knowledge that Dhamma is very deep. Andrew: People here have different ideas on whether it is realistic to entertain the possibility of enlightenment in this lifetime. DC's comments suggested to me a great gulf between arahants and ignorant worldlings like me. It is a gulf that I very much feel. Yet, there are many in Buddhism today striving with meditation techniques, checking their "progress" and hoping for enlightenment in this lifetime. DC, do you have any thoughts on this topic that you would like to share? If we are not being rightly humble by discussing the arahant's experience of reality, are we similarly lacking wisdom by expecting to *become* arahants in this very lifetime? Best wishes Andrew #76264 From: han tun Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) hantun1 Dear Connie, I should have said this earlier! Your presentations on Theriigaathaa are excellent. By reading Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66), I am reminded of two things. (1) First, the dangerous consequences of kamma-vipaaka. Because Ambapaali, in her previous life, had said of an Arahant Therii, "What prostitute dropped this lump of phlegm in this place?" she became a prostitute in her last life. Even the Buddha, after becoming Buddha, had to suffer kamma-vipaaka for 12 times. (2) Second, the reminder of the aging process. Respectfully, Han #76265 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:22 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi DC (Nina, Scott, James..) While reading your recent posts (e.g. 76251), a thought arose in me: Boy, DC is "at home" with the Pali, he is a learned Buddhist who has carefully studied the Sutta-pitaka for several years, perhaps. But it seems he has not swum in the Abhidhamma sea yet. (And that CAN be an advantage or a disadvantage, depending on whether or not he clings to a view.) DC: 1. I agree with you about dhammacakkhu. Is it necessary to bring the word 'citta' there? It has a specific technical meaning in "Abhidhamma," but when we discuss Dhammacakkhu, we are in the suttas. T: Yes, I realize that I was talking like an Abhidhammika, even though I am not one (yet)! But a citta that arises to know the dukkha sacca in a given moment is without any doubt a Dhamma Eye, as it is the case with Sariputta the wanderer : " .. as he heard this exposition of Dhamma, there arose the dustless, stainless Dhamma eye ...". DC: Cakkhu in Pali is the eye. If one has an eye one sees it with. Dhamma in this context means the impermanence or the anicca or uppaada-vaya. Thus dhamma-cakkhu gives the one who has it, the ability to see things as changing phenomena. This is how I think about it. See whether it makes sense to you, please. ... Doubt is one of the three things that is abandoned. T: Seeing in the insight sense, yes. But we should not forget that the 'ariya sacca' makes total sense (i.e. with zero doubt) only to ariyans. ......... DC: 3. What is the first Noble Truth? "...san.khittena pancupaadanakkhandhaa dukkhaa" Put together, the five aggregates of grasping are dukkha. T: Yes, we all are familiar with these famous words: "These are called the five aggregates for clinging/sustenance that, in short, are dukkha." DC: Are the Noble Truths real or not? A naama-ruupa is real or not. This is an interesting discussion. But we need to start from the beginning with the defintions of words. For example, we must first agree what we mean by say 'real'. Otherwise we will be talking in circles. T: Many Buddhist discussions I have seen and involved in are "talking in circles". But if you adopt the convenient paramattha approach of the DSG, then the easy answer to both questions you asked is : Yes, both Noble Truths and naama-ruupa are real because they are ultimate realities. And since "they" define the ultimate realities as the only real dhammas (and, alas, everything else is a "faked" concept -- an illusion), there is no need to define what "real" is. Smart. But are you willing to accept that approach? .............. DC: 4. This is what I meant by vedanaa and sa~n~naa. There is a sutta in the MN called madhupindika sutta, which explains the process of perception. The Pali runs as follows: cakkhu.m pa.ticca ruupeca uppajjati cakkhuvi~n~naana.m. tinna.m san.gati phasso, phassa paccayaa vedanaa, ya.m vedeti, ta.m san.jaanaati... An arahant has upekkhaa so his vedana does not give rise to sa~n~naa in the same manner as for a puthujjana. [Remeber the advice to Baahiya. "di.t.the ditthamatta.m bhavissati..' This is in Udana, if my memory serves me right.] Up to vedanaa are causal processes. Thereafter, they are I based processed. This is seen by the change of language: "vedeti" etc. Hope I make sense. A detailed analysis of this is in "Concept and Reality" by Bhikkhu Gnananada. Buddhist Publication Society. This is an extremely difficult sutta. T: I agree with you about the upekkha in an arahant. However, I am bewildered by the Pali verses that you skilfully recall and juggle with English words. My good friend James has cautioned any discusser(like Tep, for example) who is not Pali expert as follows: James: ".. you cannot piece together Pali used here and there and expect to come to a concrete understanding. It takes a Pali expert to know how the Pali is used what it means in each circumstance." He is right to some extent. So I am formally asking for a concensus that whenever we write down a string of Pali words, we should also provide an adequate English translation (given by an expert) along with it. Bhikkhu Bodhi is one of a few Pali experts that the DSG Abhidhammikas accept. ......... DC: 5. I had no intention of opening a Pandora's box. If I had done so, my apologies to everybody concerned. ... T: I was just making a partial joke (not 100% serious). Thank you very much for your very useful conversation. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Many thanks for welcoming me into the discussion. > #76266 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:39 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Hi Jon (Sarah, Swee, Howard, ...), - I perceived this discussion as being smoother than any other so far. It seems now we have only one issue left. > > T: If the Tathagata did not exist, then who discovered the Dhamma and how could the Dhamma be made known to this world with the devas, Mara, Brahma, and men? > > Jon: A good question. Let's come back to it after we've looked at the sutta passage. > T: So shall it be. Tep === #76267 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 6:54 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I think you know this too, but you are, like Lodewijk, concerned that > people despise conventional truth. > See also my post on metta to DC. > Nina. Well, I don't know exactly how Lodewijk sees it or what he is concerned about, but I do know that he must have an ocean of patience to put up with you. Nina, if I was married to you and you kept insisting that I don't exist, I would leave you in a heartbeat! You shouldn't tell people that they don't exist- it is rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling, and, most importantly, not true! When Lodewijk is dead then you can say he doesn't exist, but right now he most definitely exists! Denying the existence of people, or oneself, doesn't end clinging to the five aggregates. It might seem like a nifty strategy, especially if you don't particularly like yourself or other people, but it isn't going to work. Attachment isn't the only poison of the mind- there is also aversion. If you deny the existence of beings, and consequently don't cultivate the Brahma-viharas toward living beings, then you won't be able to purify your mind of aversion. Yes, I read your post to DC about metta, and it is complete nonsense. You cannot develop metta toward what you consider to be a "concept". That's like saying, "Let's all develop metta toward the flying, purple elephant. We know they doesn't exist, but let's develop metta toward them anyway." It's ridiculous…and impossible. Nina, you really should apologize to Lodewijk for telling him all those times that he doesn't exist- and be thankful that you have him in your life while he does exist. I don't know of many people who would put up with that kind of nonsense. Metta, James #76268 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) indriyabala Hi Han (and Connie), - I like your smooth-and-gentle writing style of a Buddhist who is dedicated to learning and appreciating the Tipitaka. You must be a nice father (and grandfather) too. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Connie, > > I should have said this earlier! > Your presentations on Theriigaathaa are excellent. > > By reading Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66), I am reminded > of two things. > > (1) First, the dangerous consequences of > kamma-vipaaka. > > Because Ambapaali, in her previous life, had said of > an Arahant Therii, "What prostitute dropped this lump > of phlegm in this place?" she became a prostitute in > her last life. Even the Buddha, after becoming Buddha, > had to suffer kamma-vipaaka for 12 times. > > (2) Second, the reminder of the aging process. > ........ T: I wonder how you yourself practice (in the real world of worldlings) in order to minimize any akusala kamma vipaka. Does it mean there is no cetana, first of all? Concerning practice, are the four foundations of mindfulness "the only way" for you? Quite often I do not even have the ordinary sati & sampaja~n~na, so I need a simpler way first -- like ladders to climb up to the samma-sati (four foundations of mindfulness) in every moment. Since there is nobody practices, I would appreciate it if you can show me how citta does the mindfulness job by itself? Forgive me for using the word "itself" to refer to citta, an ultimate dhamma. Thanks. Tep === #76269 From: "colette" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 2:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mindfulness of death or the elements ksheri3 Dear Stephen Jackson, Wait a minute, aren't you putting the cart WAAAAY out in front of the horse? Death will come to all, to all sentient beings, to everything! All illusions will cease at a given time in one way or another. Don't you think that trying to control your REINCARNATION would be a more noble effort of your time? Worrying about something that we are all lucky enough to be the recipient of at one time or another, seems like you're self-multilating, torturing yourself, giving yourself more pain and suffering BECAUSE no matter how hard you try, it is doubtful that you will escape Lord Yama -- now don't go and view the mandela of Lord Yama holding the cyclic wheel of life, death, rebirth to make yourself more affraid or worrying because of the iconography applied. Consider you motivation for having a fondness to study death, what could it possibly bring to you in terms of enlightenment? While having a healthy respect for Lord Yama is good conduct but lacking a true respect and healthy knowledge of KARMA would be, IMO, a far more useful device or seed (bija) to use or to plant. BUT that's just me. good luck toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, stephen jackson wrote: > > > > > Nina and all, I would appreciate any input > > regarding your opnions on > > > the practice of mindfulness of death or > > mindfulness of the elements. <...> #76270 From: han tun Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 7:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) hantun1 Dear Tep, > T: I wonder how you yourself practice (in the real world of worldlings) in order to minimize any akusala kamma vipaka. Does it mean there is no cetana, first of all? Concerning practice, are the four foundations of mindfulness "the only way" for you? Han: To minimize any akusala kamma, I just follow the instructions by the Buddhas: Not to do evil, to cultivate merit, and to purify one’s mind (Dhammapada Verse 183). I have said before that I am not result-oriented, but action–oriented with good cetana for whatever I do, speak and think. At present, my practice is breathing meditation and Recollection of Attributes of Buddha, on-cushion, and other meritorious deeds off-cushion. -------------------- > T: Quite often I do not even have the ordinary sati & sampaja~n~na, so I need a simpler way first -- like ladders to climb up to the samma-sati (four foundations of mindfulness) in every moment. Since there is nobody practices, I would appreciate it if you can show me how citta does the mindfulness job by itself? Forgive me for using the word "itself" to refer to citta, an ultimate dhamma. Thanks. Han: For me, it is Han Tun who is practicing! Respectfully, Han --- Tep Sastri wrote: > > Hi Han (and Connie), - > > I like your smooth-and-gentle writing style of a > Buddhist who is > dedicated to learning and appreciating the Tipitaka. > You must be a > nice father (and grandfather) too. #76271 From: Kenneth Elder Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:43 pm Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views txbodhi Ultimate answers to ultimate questions often come in the form of paradox whether in religion or science. Subatomic particles have both a particle and a wave aspect; this shows that there is both form and formless aspects to material phenomena. All boundaries are fuzzy with no absolute boundary, just a gradation of change in a conditioned polarity. It is interesting that the Western Mystics who favored the eternal individual soul view before modern relativity and quantum physics pointed to the supposedly indivisible atom as proof of an eternal “divine monad” of individuality. It seems a contradiction to logic when Buddha taught the no-self doctrine yet talked of rebirth through myriads of lifetimes, but in truth this is the deepest paradox. The deepest nature of that which is Timeless and Boundless is beyond logic, is paradoxical. The inventor-philosopher Buckminister Fuller in his book Intuition said, “Nouns are illusion only verbs are real, all is process.” It is a mental process that continues from life to life not some unchanging single self. Telepathy (the ability most proven by scientific research) shows that there is no absolute boundary between minds, this fits well with the no-self doctrine. Buddha gave a metaphor for rebirth in a Sutta of a tree producing a seed and that seed growing into a new tree. I suggest those resistant to the no-self doctrine to listen to the Beatles song I Me Mine to help them get over themselves at the emotional level. One more paradox, it only by going within ourselves in meditation that we find that there is no self. Peace, Ken Elder #76272 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge scottduncan2 Dear Andrew, Thanks for drifting in. Regarding: Andrew: People here have different ideas on whether it is realistic to entertain the possibility of enlightenment in this lifetime. DC's comments suggested to me a great gulf between arahants and ignorant worldlings like me. It is a gulf that I very much feel. Yet, there are many in Buddhism today striving with meditation techniques, checking their "progress" and hoping for enlightenment in this lifetime...If we are not being rightly humble by discussing the arahant's experience of reality, are we similarly lacking wisdom by expecting to *become* arahants in this very lifetime?" Scott: Among many other things, an understanding of anatta and the corollary of no-control is, as far as I can tell, almost totally out of fashion and for the most part seemingly completely ungraspable for many. And it does seem that one either grasps it or one doesn't. And this isn't a question of intelligence, either. The situation, I think, reflects the ongoing decline of the current Saasana. It is the way things go. No stopping it. Sincerely, Scott. #76273 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 5:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e... upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Nina, and Lodewijk-Who-Doesn't-Exist) - In a message dated 9/11/2007 9:54:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I think you know this too, but you are, like Lodewijk, concerned that > people despise conventional truth. > See also my post on metta to DC. > Nina. Well, I don't know exactly how Lodewijk sees it or what he is concerned about, but I do know that he must have an ocean of patience to put up with you. Nina, if I was married to you and you kept insisting that I don't exist, I would leave you in a heartbeat! You shouldn't tell people that they don't exist- it is rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling, and, most importantly, not true! When Lodewijk is dead then you can say he doesn't exist, but right now he most definitely exists! ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: James, you truly are hilarious! ------------------------------------------------------ Denying the existence of people, or oneself, doesn't end clinging to the five aggregates. It might seem like a nifty strategy, especially if you don't particularly like yourself or other people, but it isn't going to work. Attachment isn't the only poison of the mind- there is also aversion. If you deny the existence of beings, and consequently don't cultivate the Brahma-viharas toward living beings, then you won't be able to purify your mind of aversion. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That beings don't exist is a technical matter. All the things that we take as constituting a being do exist independently of our thinking (though not as a self-existent, separate entities, of course). And it is in that sense that a being *does* exist. But there is nothing more to what we call "a being" than those things - nothing extra, and it is in that sense that a being does *not* exist. It is a mere naming to refer to that collection of interrelated phenomena as something that exists as an entity independent of mental imputation. ------------------------------------------------------ Yes, I read your post to DC about metta, and it is complete nonsense. You cannot develop metta toward what you consider to be a "concept". That's like saying, "Let's all develop metta toward the flying, purple elephant. We know they doesn't exist, but let's develop metta toward them anyway." It's ridiculous…and impossible. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: When we feel love for a being, we may or may not be deluded by atta-view. One can feel love, compassion, and so on without thinking that there is anything more to the "loved being" than the underlying psycho-physical phenomena. ------------------------------------------------------ Nina, you really should apologize to Lodewijk for telling him all those times that he doesn't exist- and be thankful that you have him in your life while he does exist. I don't know of many people who would put up with that kind of nonsense. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Inasmuch as Lodewijk finds that Nina talks to him, I'm sure that he is free of doubts about 1) his existence, 2) Nina's sanity, and 3) Nina's meaning something quite specific by the "nonexistence of beings," perhaps something along the lines that I stated above. ---------------------------------------------------- Metta, James ========================= With metta, Howard #76274 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 9:23 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Dear Scott (DC and others), - I am sorry for delaying my reply to today. My earlier discussion with DC helped me prepare for a more challenging discussion! I am listing all your questions below to show why your questioning style is scary! {:>) My disclaimer is that I am neither a Dhamma expert (a super book worm?) nor an ariyan; therefore, the answers have not been verified by the true wisdom. Scott's Questions (#76209) ========================== 1) I don't accept that 'direct knowing begins at Stream Entry' as Tep suggests. This would then serve to eliminate all the early 'stages' of the development (bhaavanaa) of pa~n~naa, since, as I understand (subject to correction), these also involve the direct knowing of dhammas but in ways 'less than' sotaapatti-magga and sotaapatti-magga. (i.e. the difference between naama and ruupa). Pa~n~naa-cakkhu functions to differing degrees depending on level of development and takes paramattha-dhammas as objects from the beginning. 1.1) Tep, you've not clarified this, but why do you say that it must be after sotaapatti-magga and sotaapatti-phala that 'direct knowing' can begin? 1.2) Or do you accept that pa~n~naa can 'know' dhammas in 'lesser ways' prior to the arising of the Path? 3.1) Tep when you note, "the reality that non-ariyans experience is not of the pure Dhamma," to what do you refer? I'd suggest a) that this refers to the perception based on a reliance on conceptually rendered and fabricated constructs involving wholes and persisting states and things, and b) that this is so because pa~n~naa does not begin to arise and develop. 4) I asked, 'in what way would this be real'? I'd say that the world of 'conventional truth' is fabricated and not 'real' in the sense that paramattha-dhammas are 'real'. D.C. says 'it does not arise', which I take to mean is conceptual, therefore free of time, therefore not 'real' in the ultimate sense. If this is what is being said, then I agree. 4.1) Tep, there seems to be an insistence that 'conventional truth' has some sort of 'reality'? 4.2) Why is this so? 4.3) How can this be? 5) Again, I would favour 'it does not arise' over '[a] reality can be experienced the same way by others who have same understanding'. I do so because of what I said above regarding 'conventional truth', that is, it does not have any ultimate reality. 5.1) Tep, what are you referring to when you use the term 'a reality'? .......... Tep's Reply =========== The begining of direct knowledge, the first insight of an ariyan, is when there is Stream entry. Stream-entry marks the complete transformation of worldlings' wisdom after the first three fetters have been cut off. The lesser panna that knows "the difference between naama & ruupa" defines cula-sotapanna (See the Vism, XIX, 27). Below this level is panna of the worldlings that is like a rung of a (very long) ladder that leads up to the ariyan insights. This is similar to saying "pa~n~naa can 'know' dhammas in 'lesser ways' prior to the arising of the Path". The ladder simile does not have the "smell" of the single-moment Abhidhamma interpretation. By "the reality that non-ariyans experience is not of the pure Dhamma" I mean it has the fetter of (wrong) views. Our good friend Swee very well explains the biased (tainted) view of people who cling to 'concepts' and 'reality'. He wrote (#76161): "Because they take only the aggregates to be real (paramattha dhammas) and any other things as unreal (concepts), they take the 'person' to be a concept that doesn't exist, which is why they say there is no person, no devas, no brahmas and no buddhas. However, if they had said that there is no self of a person/deva/brahma/buddha to be found in the aggregates, I would agree with them because that self is an assumption, a fabrication of the mind." [end of quote] The perceiving of a self (a person; an ego identity; a soul) in the khandhas is conditioned by attanuditthi (or sakkayaditthi). Sotapatti eradicates such wrong view about self. Conventional truth is a sacca about the real world that is obviously not the paramattha-dhamma world. As such it is about realities (worldly phenomena) in its own right; it is not a paramattha sacca. How can it be the truth about worldly phenomena? It is obvious. The computer systems work. The cars run. People were born; they grow up, get old, and die finally. You type on your computer keyboard and see the result on the monitor, etc. Some of your questions like 4.3 and 5.1 are like a dog trying to bite a fly on its tail; it just helplessly moves in a circle, over and over. But, overall, you are a good examiner. ........... Scott: This was a so-called 'instance of humour' referring to, 'Now only a few adults are left at the dinner table...'. I just thought of 'survival of the fittest' and, as I said, could not resist the challenge of showing myself (this non-existent concept) to be fit enough to remain at the table to the bitter end. T: Ah, now it is clear! But I am more optimistic 'cause I always aim for a happy ending. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > The questions: > > 1) Why this insistence on Dhamma Eye? > > 2) Does the above mean that dhammas only exist when 'seen by ariyans'? > > 3) Do you posit a separate reality for non-ariyans? > > 4) If so, of what does this consist? > > 5) In what way would this separate reality be 'real'? > > 6) And how might it differ from another reality for ariyans? > #76275 From: "R. K. Wijayaratne" Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:39 pm Subject: The Sage * rwijayaratne Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammâ Sambuddhassa! <....> Taken from AccessToInsight.org1 THE SAGE Sutta Nipâta 1.12 - Muni Sutta2 Danger is born from intimacy,3 society gives birth to dust.4 Free from intimacy, free from society: such is the vision of the sage. Who, destroying what's born wouldn't plant again or nourish what will arise: They call him the wandering, singular sage. He has seen the state of peace. Considering the ground, crushing the seed, he wouldn't nourish the sap5 — truly a sage — seer of the ending of birth, abandoning conjecture, he cannot be classified. Knowing all dwellings,6 not longing for any one anywhere — truly a sage — with no coveting, without greed, he does not build,7 for he has gone beyond. Overcoming all knowing all, wise. With regard to all things: unsmeared. Abandoning all, in the ending of craving, released: The enlightened call him a sage. Strong in discernment (wisdom), virtuous in his practices, centered, delighting in jhana, mindful, freed from attachments, no constraints :: no fermentations:8 The enlightened call him a sage. The wandering solitary sage, uncomplacent, unshaken by praise or blame. Unstartled, like a lion at sounds. Unsnared, like the wind in a net. Unsmeared, like a lotus in water. Leader of others, by others unled: The enlightened call him a sage. Like the pillar at a bathing ford,9 when others speak in extremes. He, without passion, his senses well-centered: The enlightened call him a sage. Truly poised, straight as a shuttle,10 he loathes evil actions. Pondering what is on-pitch and off:11 The enlightened call him a sage. Self-restrained, he does no evil. Young and middle-aged, the sage self-controlled, never angered, he angers none: The enlightened call him a sage. From the best the middling the leftovers he receives alms. Sustaining himself on what others give, neither flattering nor speaking disparagement: The enlightened call him a sage. The wandering sage abstaining from sex, in youth bound by no one, abstaining from intoxication12 complacency totally apart: The enlightened call him a sage. Knowing the world, seeing the highest goal, crossing the ocean,13 the flood,14 — Such — 15 his chains broken, unattached without fermentation: The enlightened call him a sage. These two are different, they dwell far apart: the householder supporting a wife and the unselfish one, of good practices. Slaying other beings, the householder is unrestrained. Constantly the sage protects other beings, is controlled. As the crested, blue-necked peacock, when flying, never matches the wild goose in speed: Even so the householder never keeps up with the monk, the sage secluded, doing jhana in the forest. Notes 1. More suttas from AcessToInsight.org can be found here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sutta.html 2. This sutta can be found in full here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.12.than.html 3. Dangers in intimacy: Craving and views. 4. Dust: Passion, aversion, and delusion. 5. Ground, seed, and sap: The khandhas (body, feelings, perceptions, thought formations, and consciousness), sense spheres, and elements form the ground in which grows the seed of constructive consciousness — the consciousness that develops into states of being and birth. The sap of this seed is craving and views. 6. Dwellings: States of becoming and birth. 7. He does not build: He performs none of the good or bad deeds that give rise to further states of becoming and birth. 8. No fermentations (asava): He has none of the forms of defilement — sensual desire, views, states of becoming, or ignorance — that "flow out" of the mind and give rise to the flood of the cycle of death and rebirth. 9. The pillar at a bathing ford: The Cullavagga (V.l) describes this as an immovable pillar, standing quite tall and buried deep in the ground near a bathing place, against which young villagers and boxers would rub their bodies while bathing so as to toughen them. The "extremes" in which others speak, according to the Commentary, are extremes of praise and criticism: These leave the sage, like the pillar, unmoved. 10. Straight as a shuttle: Having a mind unprejudiced by favoritism, dislike, delusion, or fear. 11. On-pitch and off (sama and visama): Throughout ancient cultures, the terminology of music was used to describe the moral quality of people and acts. Discordant intervals or poorly-tuned musical instruments were metaphors for evil; harmonious intervals and well-tuned instruments were metaphors for good. In Pali, the term sama — "even" — described an instrument tuned on-pitch: There is a famous passage where the Buddha reminds Sona Kolivisa — who had been over-exerting himself in the practice — that a lute sounds appealing only if the strings are neither too taut or too lax, but 'evenly' tuned. This image would have special resonances with the Buddha's teaching on the middle way. It also adds meaning to the term samana — monk or contemplative — which the texts frequently mention as being derived from sama. The word samañña — "evenness," the quality of being in tune — also means the quality of being a contemplative. This concept plays an important role in the Instructions to Rahula, below. The true contemplative is always in tune with what is proper and good. 12. Intoxication: The three intoxications are intoxication with youth, with good health, and with life. 13. Ocean: The way defilement splashes into undesirable destinations (so says the Commentary). 14. Flood: The flow of defilement: sensual desires, views, states of becoming, and ignorance. 15. Such: Unchanging; unaffected by anything. <....> #76276 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge dcwijeratna Dear Andrew, Aubowan, Thank you for your e-m. I'll answer your question after I make some clarifications about my statement. Hi Scott and Ayubowan DC I hope you enjoy DSG. I drift in and out. The below prompted a line of thought: > DC: "We cannot experience the world the way an arahant does. So we > really cannot discuss such things." > > Scott: Well, sure we can. To suggest the above is to limit pretty > well all discussion of Dhamma. It is all open to discussion. The > Buddha decided to teach despite his knowledge that Dhamma is very deep. DC: What I meant there was that we cannot discuss the arahant's experience. Not Dhamma. Dhamma is a word with so many meanings, that if it is taken out of context, no discussion is at all meaningful. My apologies to Scott and anybody else who might have misunderstood me. Andrew: People here have different ideas on whether it is realistic to entertain the possibility of enlightenment in this lifetime. DC's comments suggested to me a great gulf between arahants and ignorant worldlings like me. It is a gulf that I very much feel. Yet, there are many in Buddhism today striving with meditation techniques, checking their "progress" and hoping for enlightenment in this lifetime. DC, do you have any thoughts on this topic that you would like to share? If we are not being rightly humble by discussing the arahant's experience of reality, are we similarly lacking wisdom by expecting to *become* arahants in this very lifetime? Best wishes Andrew DC: First my understanding (this is the normal English sense of the word) of the "possibility of enlightenment in this life time". Short rational, but cryptic answer to that question is: "Certainly yes". The logic is we don't know whether there is another lifetime. That there is a future life is only an assumption or a belief. Teaching of the Buddha is totally free from beliefs. Similarly, we have no idea, whether we existed in the past? In fact to think of such things is "ayonisomanasikara" which means inappropriate thinking. If you can get hold of Majjhima Nikaya, see the "sabbasava sutta". It is the second sutta of the first fifty. As to the practicability, it depends. You may recollect that, Ven. Sariputta became a sotapanna on hearing one stanza. But on the other hand King Ajatasattu, after hearing the whole of the Samannaphala sutta (DN 4) from the Buddha himself, did not become a sotapanna. Angulimala, a former robber became an arahant in less than two months. There is another aspect to it. If one wishes to be an arahant, it is an absolute commitment--24 hours a day; every second of it, you need to practice. So if one can devote time like that then you can. You can get this from Buddha's own words at the End of Satipa.t.thaana Sutta. You get the sutta both in MN and DN. 2. About Meditation techniques and Enlightenment Here is my understanding again: According to the teaching of the Buddha, the one and only path for Enlightenment is the Noble Eightfold Path. If you read the "Dhammaccakkappavattana Sutta" [Discourse on the turning of the dhamma-wheel], you will find that as far as the Fourth Noble Truth is concerned (Noble eightfold-path) one should develop it [bhaavetabba.m] and when it is fully developed [bhaavita.m] one is enlightened. You will note the two pali words, bhaavita.m and bhaavetabba.m; they come from the verb "bhaveti". A noun derived from that is "bhaavanaa" meaning development of cultivation. Now, the Noble Eightfold Path, is also called the threefold training, tisikkhaa, or sila, samaadhi, pa~n~naa. virtue, concentration and wisdom. The techinques for this second part "samaadhi" was called in English meditation. But the start of the path is sila. Unless you perfect sila, you can't get samadhi nor can you get samaadhi. Whole of the Visuddhismagga is written on this simple stanza: siile pati.t.thaaya naro sapa~n~no, citta.m, pa~n~na.m ca bhaavaya.m--Established on sila, mind and wisdom should be cultivated. Naturally, if one follows the path, and practices as above with the total commitment they should see results. Thousands of arahants did that. That is the example for us to follow. That is why we say: Sangha.m sarana.m gacchaami. Now one last word about "expecting to become an arahant in this life time." No, to have such expectations is not proper according to Buddhism, it leads to dukkha. "ya.mpicca.m nalabhati ta.mpi dukkha.m." Not to get what one wants is dukkha. This is part of the definition of dukkha from the Dhammaccakkappavattana sutta. Disciples of the Buddha are happy people and and they search for perfect peace and happiness. [Nibbaanam param.m sukha.m] Nibbana is ultimate happiness and peace. You should just follow the path. In following the path, you will find that it is the truth. Dhammaic truths need to be experienced, You can't get at their truth by hearing, thinnking etc. The start of the path is "Five precepts." If you can even follow one of these precepts without. There is a famous expression about this: "Anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassaavii..." Seeing wrong in the slightest fault...one should take care of the sila. This means you can't even kill a mosquito; you can't even tell a lie for fun and so on. But the Buddha says that if you can achieve this level for the five precepts, you would achieve the highest possible happiness as a puthujjana. And if you cultivate Samaadhi you will become a sotapanna. Remember, Only the Buddha taught that you get ultimate happiness and peace in this world and only in this world. That is up to you--attaahi attano naatho. I hope I have clarified. I have quoted Pali to give you the sutta references and to indicate that they are the words of the Buddha, and translations are just to illustrate the meaning in the context. With mettaa D. G. D. C. Wijeratnaom P. S. Mettaa really means friendliness; it comes from mitta- a friend, I mean it. If there is anything offending in what I have written above, please forgive me. #76277 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - metta. nilovg Dear DC (and Steve J ), Op 11-sep-2007, om 20:54 heeft DC Wijeratna het volgende geschreven: > DC: My understanding of metta is that it is one of the 'appamana > dhammas'. It includes all beings (karaniiyametta sutta). It is > really a mental condition or a state wherein you are friendly to > all without without any distinction (sabba bhuuta hitaanukampaaya > viharati). > Considerations of nama-rupa does not arise. For example, the sutta > describes as (ye keci paana buutattha, tasaavaa thaavaraava...etc.) > Each pair here covers the whole universe. ---------- N: You are referring to the brahmavihaaras as subjects for samatha as described in the Visuddhimagga. In order to be able to develop these it is necessary to know their characteristics as they appear in daily life, when you are dealing with other people. Then we can learn whether such or such dhamma is metta or attachment. There has to be understanding of what is kusala and what is akusala. We are bound to confuse these dhammas. As I understand, only when jhaana has been attained with the brahmavihaaras, they are boundless. Personally I would like to understand more about the development of the brahmavihaaras in daily life. I know that we should not limit them to certain people we like. We have to be very sincere and ask ourselves whether we really have metta without any limitations. ------ > > DC:Further according to our understanding of the suttas, if the one > who radiates mettaa has the feeling 'I radiate'. If one waits for > conditions to be right what would be the meaning of sammaa vaayaam. > Somebody must make an effort. -------- N: When we speak of effort in conventional sense, we understand it as 'I try, I make an effort to do this or that.' The Buddha teaches us that effort is a cetasika arising with many cittas, though not with every citta. It may be akusala or kusala. Right effort of the eightfold Path is a cetasika accompanying the citta that develops right understanding of nama and rupa. I do not speak now of the lokuttara Path. Right effort is a cetasika, and this means that it is a conditioned dhamma. It is conditioned by the citta it accompanies, by pa~n~naa, right understanding of the eightfold Path, and by the other sobhana cetasikas that accompany the citta. among those is for example saddhaa, confidence in kusala. There has to be firm confidence in the Path that leads to the end of defilements. There also has to be alobha, detachment. All sobhana cetasikas condition the moment of citta that develops the Path. We do not have to wait for conditions to arise. There can be a beginning of development of understanding of the nama and rupa that appear in our daily life, at this moment. Is there thinking of dhamma at this moment? That is a type of nama which is conditioned. It is conditioned by former study. Moreover, at the very moment of arising it is conditioned by all the sobhana cetasikas that accompany it. When there is understanding, even though it is still weak, there is kusala citta and this is accompanied by right effort. There is no need to 'do' something special. When we have a feeling of 'I have to do something' there is already clinging and this obstructs the development of the eightfold Path. Nina. #76278 From: "Andrew" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:37 am Subject: [dsg] Re: satipatthana as island of refuge corvus121 Dear DC and Scott Thank you both for your interesting posts. DC, I certainly did not find anything offending in your post. I would like to go away and read again the suttas you have kindly quoted. In the meantime, I will put a few comments below. In accordance with DSG's rules, I will edit out those parts I am not commenting on at the moment. It certainly doesn't mean I am disregarding them! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > DC: What I meant there was that we cannot discuss the arahant's experience. Not Dhamma. Dhamma is a word with so many meanings, that if it is taken out of context, no discussion is at all meaningful. My apologies to Scott and anybody else who might have misunderstood me. A: Yes, I think I see your point now. But, just as we cannot discuss the arahant's experience, is it also true that we cannot discuss Scott's experience? Is the difference between the two something more than one of degree? DC: As to the practicability, it depends. You may recollect that, Ven. Sariputta became a sotapanna on hearing one stanza. But on the other hand King Ajatasattu, after hearing the whole of the Samannaphala sutta (DN 4) from the Buddha himself, did not become a sotapanna. Angulimala, a former robber became an arahant in less than two months. A: I have read that Buddhism tells us that we have had "countless" rebirths, that the fruiting of kamma is not restricted to one lifetime, that the Buddhadhamma becomes extinct, is discovered anew by a sammasambuddha, is taught, flourishes, declines, then disappears completely until another sammasambuddha arrives. Against this background, it is easy to suppose that conditions for enlightenment are not spread out evenly over time i.e. it is a great advantage to be born at the time of a teaching Buddha or at a time and place where his teaching is being accurately taught. In short, when we read about Angulimala becoming an arahant in less than 2 months, we have to consider the full picture of the conditioning of "his" santati, do we not? It is simply not possible for any robber to attain enlightenment in such a short time. I know you weren't saying this, DC. Your point was that it *is* a theoretical possibility and I agree absolutely. DC: There is another aspect to it. If one wishes to be an arahant, it is an absolute commitment--24 hours a day; every second of it, you need to practice. So if one can devote time like that then you can. A: This is somewhat of a controversy on DSG - how to interpret the word "practice" or the Pali "patipatti". I don't fully comprehend so I will leave it aside, apart from saying what I think you will agree with anyway - time will get you nowhere unless there is understanding. Wrong effort is a dead end street. > 2. About Meditation techniques and Enlightenment > > Here is my understanding again: According to the teaching of the Buddha, the one and only path for Enlightenment is the Noble Eightfold Path. If you read the "Dhammaccakkappavattana Sutta" [Discourse on the turning of the dhamma-wheel], you will find that as far as the Fourth Noble Truth is concerned (Noble eightfold-path) one should develop it [bhaavetabba.m] and when it is fully developed [bhaavita.m] one is enlightened. > > You will note the two pali words, bhaavita.m and bhaavetabba.m; they come from the verb "bhaveti". A noun derived from that is "bhaavanaa" meaning development of cultivation. > > Now, the Noble Eightfold Path, is also called the threefold training, tisikkhaa, or sila, samaadhi, pa~n~naa. > virtue, concentration and wisdom. The techinques for this second part "samaadhi" was called in English meditation. But the start of the path is sila. Unless you perfect sila, you can't get samadhi nor can you get samaadhi. > > Whole of the Visuddhismagga is written on this simple stanza: siile pati.t.thaaya naro sapa~n~no, citta.m, pa~n~na.m ca bhaavaya.m-- Established on sila, mind and wisdom should be cultivated. A: Thanks for this good summary. My only question is - do you see it sequentially in the sense that sila must be perfected first, then samadhi, then panna. Most things I have read suggest that the development is interspersed. For example, panna can grow from observing the consequences flowing from a breach of sila, seeing it as akusala. What do you think? DC: Now one last word about "expecting to become an arahant in this life time." No, to have such expectations is not proper according to Buddhism, it leads to dukkha. "ya.mpicca.m nalabhati ta.mpi dukkha.m." Not to get what one wants is dukkha. This is part of the definition of dukkha from the Dhammaccakkappavattana sutta. Disciples of the Buddha are happy people and and they search for perfect peace and happiness. [Nibbaanam param.m sukha.m] Nibbana is ultimate happiness and peace. A: Yes, I see. I think this is sometimes discussed on DSG as desire for results being mostly a form of akusala lobha (but not always). I think that patience plays an important role too. Thanks again for your clarifications. They are very useful and I look forward to reading more of your contributions. I like the way you explain Pali terms, too. Best wishes Andrew #76279 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:28 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 188, 189 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII,188, 189. Intro: In the previous section the Visuddhimagga stated that vi~n~naa.na, consciousness, in this case vipaakacitta, conditions naama and ruupa. Naama stands here for the cetasikas which are three naama-khandhas. In the following sections the Vusuddhimagga gives more details, mentioning how many different kinds of ruupas arise at rebirth in the planes of existence where there are naama and ruupa, thus five khandhas. ------ Text Vis.188: 2. 'By occurrence in becoming, et cetera': excepting one abode of beings, [that is, non-percipient,] mentality occurs in all the kinds of becoming, generation, destiny, and station of consciousness, and in the remaining abodes of beings. Materiality occurs in two kinds of becoming, four kinds of generation, five destinies, the first four stations of consciousness, and the first five abodes of beings. ------------ N: As we have seen ruupa occurs in the sensuous planes and in the ruupa-brahma planes, thus in two kinds of becoming, bhava. As to the kinds of generation, these are, as we have seen, the different births as to the way it is produced, yoni: as egg-born, womb-born, putrescence- (moisture-) born, and of apparitional generation. Ruupa occurs in all these kinds of generation. As to destination (gati): birth is fivefold: in the hell planes, the animal world, the realm of the departed, the human world and the devaplanes. Ruupa occurs in all these destinies. As to the occurring of ruupa in the first four stations of consciousness, ruupa does not occur in the remaining stations of consciousness, namely the fifth, the sixth and the seventh since these are respectively birth in the aruupa-brahma planes as the result of the aruupa jhanas that have as subject: space is infinite, consciousness is infinite and ‘there is nothing’. The results of these stages of aruupa-jhaana is birth without ruupa. As to the abodes of beings (sattaavaasa), these are similar to the stations of consciousness, but as eighth is added: birth as result of the fourth aruupa jhaana: the sphere of neither perception nor non- perception. Only in the first five of them ruupa occurs and the Tiika mentions that ruupa also occurs in the abode of being which is that of the non-percipient beings. In that plane there is only ruupa, not naama. -------- Text Vis.189: Now when this mentality-materiality occurs thus, then in the case of sexless embryos and the egg-born, at the moment of their rebirth-linking there are manifested as materiality two organic continuities, that is, the two decads of physical basis and body, and also the three immaterial aggregates. ------- N: The Tiika mentions that these are the continuities of the groups (kalapas) of ruupa: one decad with the heartbase (physical base) and one decad with bodysense. The other nine ruupas of each decad are: the eight inseparable ruupas of the four great Elements of solidity, cohesion, heat and motion, and in addition colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence, and as ninth life-faculty, jiivitindriya. This ruupa is included only in the groups of ruupa that are produced by kamma. ---------- Text Vis.: So in their case there are in detail these twenty-three states, namely, twenty states as concrete matter and three immaterial aggregates, which should be understood as 'mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition'. ------- N: As we have seen, the three naama-khandhas in this context are the cetasikas accompanying vi~n~naa.na, the vipaakacitta that conditions them. The Tiika adds that phassa, contact, and other cetasikas are included in the khandha of formations (sa”nkhaarakkhandha) and that these are reckoned as one. The Tiika explains as to concrete matter, ruuparuupa, that the vikaara ruupas (of lightness, elasticity and adaptability) which are non-produced ruupa but a ‘change’ ‘ in ruupas, are not present at the moment of rebirth. It states that ruupas as characteristic ( growth, continuity and decay of ruupa) and the ruupa as separation (pariccheda-ruupa, space that separates the groups of ruupa) are present, but since these are in the ultimate sense not produced, he excludes these and speaks of ruupa-ruupa, ruupa as concrete (produced) matter. -------- Text Vis.: But omitting repetitions and so cancelling nine material instances (see Ch. XI,88) from one of the organic continuities, fourteen states remain. ------- N: The Visuddhimagga is enumerating the different kinds of ruupas produced by kamma at the moment of rebirth. In order to avoid counting ruupas more than once it subtracts from one of the two decads just mentioned nine ruupas which are: the eight inseparable ruupas and life faculty. Thus, eleven kinds of ruupas are counted in all and together with the three naama-khandhas there are fourteen dhammas remaining. ---------- Text Vis.: By adding the sex decad for those possessed of sex [before making the above cancellation] there are thirtythree. And omitting repetitions and so cancelling eighteen material instances [, nine each,] from two of the organic continuities, in this case fifteen states remain. -------- N: In this case kamma produces three decads: one with the bodysense, one with the heart-base and one with sex, femininity or masculinity. After substracting ruupas so as not to count them again, fifteen ruupas remain. ---------------------- Conclusion: We learn from these sections that what arises at birth is a citta, cetasikas and rupas. As the Vissuddhimagga (XVIII, 31) states: The mental and material are really here, But here is no human being to be found, For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll- Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks. Birth is dukkha, and so long as there is ignorance there are conditions for kusala kamma, akusala kamma or imperturbable kamma (aruupa-jhaana kusala citta) that produces rebirth. Nobody asked to be reborn, birth is beyond control. ******* Nina. #76280 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) nilovg Dear Han and Tep, following your interesting dialogue. Op 12-sep-2007, om 4:52 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > T: Quite often I do not even have the ordinary sati > & sampaja~n~na, so I need a simpler way first -- like > ladders to climb up to the samma-sati (four > foundations of mindfulness) in every moment. Since > there is nobody practices, I would appreciate it if > you can show me how citta does the mindfulness job by > itself? Forgive me for using the word "itself" to > refer to citta, an ultimate dhamma. Thanks. > > Han: For me, it is Han Tun who is practicing! ------ N: Han, that is very sincere. This shows already some understanding, the fact that you realize this. Tep, I understand very well your question. How to climb the ladders upwards. But to think of samma-sati at every moment, that is too high up. Perhaps we should not think so much of practice, but rather: how can there be more understanding of the dhammas appearing at this moment? If the object is not the dhamma appearing now, we drift off in thinking of abstractions concerning what is past or what has not arisen yet. Understanding is a cetasika arising with kusala citta, which arises and then falls away immediately. Thus, how could this be a person who stays and who is practising? It is already beneficial if we understand this in theory. But so long as the wrong view of self has not been eradicated the idea of self is bound to arise. 'We' cannot change that, but pa~n~naa can understand it. That is the right way. That is the beginning of climbing up, step by step. Sometimes you step down and then up again, ups and downs. That is normal life. Nina. #76281 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:55 am Subject: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? sarahprocter... Dear Friends (all the usual suspects!), How do you understand the following reference to 'person'(puggala)? Dhatuuvibha"nga Sutta, MN 140, Nanamoli/Bodhi translation: "Bhikkhu, this person consists of six elements, six bases of contact, and eighteen kinds of mental exploration, and he has four foundations. The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace. One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, should cultivate relinquishment, and should train for peace. This is the summary of the exposition of the six elements." While you're considering, here is the translators' note from the commentary: "MA: Here the Buddha expounds the non-truly existent by way of the truly existent; for the elements are truly existent but the person is not truly existent. This is meant: "That which you perceive as a person consists of six elements. Ultimately there is no person here. 'Person' is a mere concept." " Other notes of interest: "MA: The non-neglecting of wisdom is explained by way of the meditation on the elements. The analysis of the elements here is identical with that of MN 28.6, 11, 16, 21 and MN 62.8-12." "MA: Mental exploration (manopavicaara) is applied thought and sustained thought." [S:This is in reference to visible objects (and objects experienced through the other door-ways) a condition for joy, grief and equanimity.] S: The Pali for "Bhikkhu, this person consists of six elements, six bases of contact, and eighteen kinds of mental exploration, and he has four foundations" is "Chaddhaaturo aya.m bhikkhu, puriso chaphasaayatano a.t.thaara samanopavcaataro caturaadhi.t.thaano" The four foundations in the quote are: Pa~n~naadhi.t.thaana, saccaadhi.t.thaana, caagaadhi.t.thaana, upasamaadhi.t.thaana] Looking forward to any further comments. Metta, Sarah ======= #76282 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:01 am Subject: Greetings from Ven Pannabahulo sarahprocter... All, I'm f/w a message I received from Ven P. today, in response to a note I sent him a few days ago. *********************************************** Dear Sarah, Thank you so much for your very kind e-mail and your invitation to join you. I am just on a very short visit to Yangon city and must leave very soon; I just have time for a short e-mail. Unfortunately the Rains Retreat (Vassa) does not end until 26th October. On the 27th we have the Kathina; and on 28th October I fly back to Chiang Mai. I am really disappointed that I cannot join you for those dates in October. But once I return to Chiang Mai - I will move to a quiet temple on a small mountain nearby to my previous temple - then I am free to attend whatever similar events may take place. My experience here in Burma is extremely worthwhile; and I feel I am gaining something that I really want to share with you all. In fat there is no contradiction to what I am doing here and what Ajan Suchin is teaching. Please give my best wishes and thanks to everyone at DSG. The Vassa did not start until 30 July and so is very late this year. I look forward to seeing you all as soon as possible. With metta and every blessing, Pannabahulo bhikkhu -------------------------------------------------------------------------- sarah abbott wrote:Dear Ven Pannabahulo, I expect Sukin has already written to you to tell you that we have arranged some discussions in Bkk prior to our departure to India, partly with you in mind. You had mentioned that you'd like to visit again for such an occasion, especially if we and others were also there. ....... #76283 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) indriyabala Dear Nina (and Han), - I pondered over the message (#76280), knowing and believing in your sincere intention that I strongly felt. Although the content of this message is very familiar; i.e. it is nothing different from what you have kindly and sincerely advised everyone over the years, yet I found myself giving it greater attention this time. Well, I just sincerely want to make sure I do not behave like the rooster in the Aesop Fables (who saw a gem, but was unable to do anything with it). Nina: Tep, I understand very well your question. How to climb the ladders upwards. But to think of samma-sati at every moment, that is too high up. Perhaps we should not think so much of practice, but rather: how can there be more understanding of the dhammas appearing at this moment? Tep: The awareness on "understanding of the dhamma appearing at this moment" is sati on the panna cetasika; therefore, it is a dhammanupassana satipatthana. But that is still too high up, isn't it? N: If the object is not the dhamma appearing now, we drift off in thinking of abstractions concerning what is past or what has not arisen yet. T: Yes, I understand that "drifting off" is the mind wandering and fabricating thoughts, not being able to establish on one of the four foundations. N: Understanding is a cetasika arising with kusala citta, which arises and then falls away immediately. T: I think I see a valuable key idea here : kusala dhammas are the nutriment for satipatthana. So, I think, maybe a solution to my lacking of sati is to practice the right effort for the arising of kusala dhamma that has not yet arisen, while making sure that any arisen kusala dhamma continues to grow to the fullest possible extent. .............. N: Thus, how could this be a person who stays and who is practising? It is already beneficial if we understand this in theory. But so long as the wrong view of self has not been eradicated the idea of self is bound to arise.'We' cannot change that, but pa~n~naa can understand it. That is the right way. That is the beginning of climbing up, step by step. Sometimes you step down and then up again, ups and downs. That is normal life. T: The problem I have is not having a strong enough pa~n~naa right now to push the wrong view of self away long enough for sati to support a stronger pa~n~naa to rise to the next "rung" of the ladder. But you're right, that is a normal life. [I should not be greedy trying to get to the rung too fast too soon.] Thank you very much for the food for thought and actions. I will make the best use of your advice. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Han and Tep, > following your interesting dialogue. > Op 12-sep-2007, om 4:52 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > > > T: Quite often I do not even have the ordinary sati > > & sampaja~n~na, so I need a simpler way first -- like > > ladders to climb up to the samma-sati (four > > foundations of mindfulness) in every moment. Since > > there is nobody practices, I would appreciate it if > > you can show me how citta does the mindfulness job by > > itself? Forgive me for using the word "itself" to > > refer to citta, an ultimate dhamma. Thanks. > > > > Han: For me, it is Han Tun who is practicing! > ------ #76284 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections corner, extra. sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Lodewijk, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Op 11-sep-2007, om 9:56 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > > > 'The Fijian warrior' > > returns tomorrow. Meanwhile, I've been wandering around like the 'lost > > deer', the 'teasurer of beings' in the great quote Scott gave > > (#76030). > ------- > N: I am so glad. Lodewijk and I just talked about it that we were > worried that you may not eat well enough when alone. > Like a lost dear, where is he? Treasurer of beings. .... S: The 'dear one' is returned to the 'Treasurer of beings' and a lost deer no more!! Never fear, this lost deer is well able to look after herself:-) ... > I appreciate this: or at the 'mess' of akusala that arises instead. > To do so (to mind, to fret about it) would just mean more clinging to > self, to my personality!> > > What a mess of akusala arises all the time, it is so daily! .... S: Yes, a true mess all the time:-) The aim of the Buddha's teachings isn't to change one's personality, but to develop more understanding of whatever is conditioned now! For those who missed Scott's good quote about 'lost deer' and 'the treasurer of beings' the first time round, here it is again: >Sammohavinodanii (The Dispeller of Delusion, pp. 350-351): >1379. (3) Avoiding persons who treasure beings and formations': (a) a 'treasurer of beings' is a name for a person who is possessively fond, as a householder, of his own sons, daughters, etc., or as on gone forth, of his own pupils, equals, preceptor, etc.. With his own hands he does their hair-cutting, sewing, washing and dyeing of robes, bowl-baking, etc.; and if they are out of his sight for a while, he looks here and there like a lost deer, [asking] 'Where is the novice so and so, where is the young bhikkhu so and so?' And if another asks [him]: 'Send so and so for a while for hair-cutting, etc., he will not allow it, [saying:] 'We do not even make him do his own work, if you take him you will tire him.' But (b) a 'treasurer of formations' is a name for one who is possessively fond of robes, bowls, vessels, sticks, staffs, and so on. He will not allow another's hand to touch them. If asked for the temporary loan of them, he says: 'We are fond of this and do not use it, how can we give it to you?' But he who is central, neutral towards these two bases is called 'one who maintains the middle state towards beings and formations.' This equanimity enlightenment factor [arises] in one who thus avoids from afar such persons who treasure beings and formations.< Metta, Sarah ======== #76285 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) hantun1 Dear Nina (Tep, Sarah, Connie), I know that there is contradiction within me. I told Sarah that I have no difficulty with SN 5.10 Vajiraa sutta, and that I even recite the Pali text from the sutta from time to time. And yet, when someone says no person, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha, I cannot accept. That’s why I told Sarah to consider me as a BLR (Beyond Local Repair, or beyond redemption) fit to be written-off. I have also written to you, taking the passages from Anattalakkhana sutta, that I can accept anatta if it means “no control” over the five aggregates, or if it means one cannot prevent anicca and dukkha, or anatta as “not atta” if atta means those mentioned in the twenty views of Sakkaaya ditthi: (1) Form is atta. (2) Atta has form, like a tree has shade. (3) Form is in the atta, like smell is in the flower. (4) Atta is in the form, like a ruby in a box. But when someone says no person, no deva, no brahma, no Buddha, I cannot accept it. To Sarah: When I wrote, “my understanding of atta and anattaa are very confusing” you said any concern about one's confusion, any wishing it were another way, merely hinders such development of understanding.” I am not concerned about my confusion; I am not wishing it were another way. When I wrote “it is confusing,” it is just a factual statement. But I am not worried about this confusion. I can leave this confusion aside and go on my own way. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han and Tep, > following your interesting dialogue. #76286 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:24 am Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply, T: "The begining of direct knowledge, the first insight of an ariyan, is when there is Stream entry. Stream-entry marks the complete transformation of worldlings' wisdom after the first three fetters have been cut off. The lesser panna that knows 'the difference between naama & ruupa' defines cula-sotapanna (See the Vism, XIX, 27)." Scott: I appreciate the chance to examine the texts here. Vism. XIX seems to refer to 'paccaya-pariggaha-~naa.na', which is 'discerning the conditions for naama and ruupa'. This is said to be the second, not the first, stage of vipassanaa ~naa.na. If the cula-sotapanna is defined by this level of vipassanaa ~naa.na, as is stated, then clearly the first stage of vipassanaa, ~naa.na, 'naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na', is for worldlings. Perhaps you can re-clarify here, Tep (since the order was somewhat mixed up and the correction might require a revision of the point made). T: "Below this level is panna of the worldlings that is like a rung of a (very long) ladder that leads up to the ariyan insights. This is similar to saying "pa~n~naa can 'know' dhammas in 'lesser ways' prior to the arising of the Path". The ladder simile does not have the "smell" of the single-moment Abhidhamma interpretation." Scott: Pa~n~naa is pa~n~naa, whether well-developed or tender. The ladder simile is an excellent one, Tep. You must be questioned again here, I'm afraid. 1)When you refer to 'pa~n~naa, to what do you refer? 2)Do you refer to the cetasika? 3)Do you refer to 'wisdom' in the sense of something that someone has, such as 'a person learning more and more'? 4)What is it that the ladder stands for in the simile of the ladder? 5)Do you think there is convention pa~n~naa and paramattha pa~n~naa? (Bow wow, man). T: "Our good friend Swee very well explains the biased (tainted) view of people who cling to 'concepts' and 'reality'...The perceiving of a self (a person; an ego identity; a soul) in the khandhas is conditioned by attanuditthi (or sakkayaditthi). Sotapatti eradicates such wrong view about self. Conventional truth is a sacca about the real world that is obviously not the paramattha-dhamma world. As such it is about realities (worldly phenomena) in its own right; it is not a paramattha sacca. How can it be the truth about worldly phenomena? It is obvious. The computer systems work. The cars run. People were born; they grow up, get old, and die finally. You type on your computer keyboard and see the result on the monitor, etc." Scott: I'd advise you to forget about computers and cars. Conventional truth is truth by convention - worldly convention. It is great that cars run and computers work but Dhamma is not about these things. In quoting Visuddhimagga above I'll assume you hold it to be a credible source. In Chapter XVIII, that actually dealing with naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na, it is stated (pp.612-613): "After defining materiality-mentality thus according to its true nature, then in order to abandon this worldly designation of 'a being' and 'a person' more thoroughly, to surmount confusion about beings and to establish in his mind on the plane of non-confusion, he makes sure that the meaning defined, namely, 'This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, nor person' is confirmed by a number of suttas. For this has been said: 'As with the assembly of parts The word 'chariot' is countenanced, So, when the aggregates are present, "A being" is said in common usage' (S.i,135) "Again, this has been said: 'Just as when a space is enclosed with timber and creepers and grass and clay, there comes to be the term "house", so too, when a space is enclosed with bones and sinews and flesh and skin, there comes to be the term "material form" (ruupa) (M.i,190). "And again this has been said: 'It is ill alone that arises, Ill that remains, ill that departs, Nothing arises else than ill, And nothing ceases else than ill' (S.i,135). "So in many hundred suttas it is only materiality-mentality that is illustrated, not a being, not a person. Therefore, just as when the component parts such as axles, wheels, frame poles, etc., are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage 'chariot' yet in the ultimate sense when each part is examined there is no chariot...so too when there are the five aggregates [as objects] of clinging, there comes to be the mere term of common usage 'a being', 'a person', yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is no being as a basis for the assumption 'I am' or 'I'; in the ultimate sense there is only mentality-materiality. The vision of one who sees in this way is called correct vision." Sincerely, Scott. #76287 From: "nidive" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:49 am Subject: Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? nidive Hi Sarah, Firstly, I would like to question something about Nanamoli/Bodhi's translation. > "Bhikkhu, this person consists of six elements, six bases of > contact, and eighteen kinds of mental exploration, and he has four > foundations. Nanamoli/Bodhi says that the person "CONSISTS OF ...", and then later changes to 'he "HAS" four foundations'. Why can't it be translated as "Bhikkhu, this person consists of six elements, six bases of contact, eighteen kinds of mental exploration and four foundations."? Does this express a difference of opinion between Nanamoli & Bodhi? If we look at Thanissaro's translation, he is very consistent by using "HAS" all the way. ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html The Blessed One said: "A person has six properties, six media of sensory contact, eighteen considerations, & four determinations. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I find this a curious point in Nanamoli/Bodhi's translation. Could it be possible that their translation is tainted by ideas found in the commentaries, which is why they use "consists of" at the beginning, but for some unknown reason, they decided to change to "he has four foundations" at the end of the sentence? Secondly, I would like to say that it is not because of not construing there to be a person that one is called a sage at peace. It is because of not construing there to be a self of a person that one is called a sage at peace. ------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html "'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace. ------------------------------------------------------------------- No where did the Buddha say that "a person" is a construing. A person, made up of the five aggregates, is real & existing, with past ignorance & craving as its cause. Having arisen with such a cause, the person at the end of its life span, its life-sustaining kamma exhausted, at death, with the breakup of the five aggregates, also ceases to be. Swee Boon #76288 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:52 am Subject: Asoka, Ch 5, no 1. Purity of Sila. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 5 Purity of Síla The Påli term síla can mean: nature, character, habit or behaviour. Síla can be kusala or akusala. In the scriptures síla which is kusala, virtue or morality, has been classified in different ways. Síla is expressed by deeds through body and speech. We may like to listen to the Dhamma and develop satipatthåna, but our behaviour through body and speech is not always in conformity with the Dhamma. Therefore, it is important to learn more about the different aspects of síla. During our journey Khun Sujin stressed that for the understanding of the different subjects of the Dhamma we should always return to the paramattha dhammas which arise in our life: citta, cetasika and rúpa. In reference to síla we should consider whether it is nåma or rúpa. Síla is nåma, it is citta and cetasika. Síla is not only abstention from evil, it is also the performance of wholesomeness through body and speech, such as helping others or paying respect to those who deserve respect. Also those who do not know the Dhamma can abstain from evil and perform wholesome deeds, they can have kusala síla. However, if one has never heard the Dhamma one does not know in detail what akusala and what kusala is. The Buddha taught in detail about the citta which motivates speech and deeds, about the development of kusala and the way to eradicate even the most subtle kinds of akusala. If one does not develop satipatthåna there is still an idea of self who observes síla, and then síla cannot become purified. In understanding the Dhamma we can come to know the different cittas which arise and which can motivate deeds through body and speech, and we can learn to develop the way leading to the eradication of the clinging to the self and all defilements. We read in the “Path of Discrimination” (Treatise on Knowledge, Ch II, Virtue, 44, 45) : What is virtue? There is virtue as volition (cetanå), virtue as cetasika, virtue as restraint, virtue as non-transgression. How many kinds of virtue are there? There are three kinds of virtue (habit), profitable (kusala) síla, unprofitable (akusala) síla, indeterminate síla (avyåkata, neither kusala nor akusala). From what does virtue originate? Kusala síla originates from kusala citta, akusala síla originates from akusala citta, indeterminate síla originates from indeterminate citta. With how many dhammas does síla combine? Síla combines with restraint, síla combines with non-transgression, síla combines with the volition arising with restraint or non- transgression. In the case of killing living beings... of taking what is not given... of sexual misconduct... of false speech... of malicious speech... of harsh speech... of gossip... of covetousness... of ill willl... in the case of wrong view, virtue is in the sense of restraint, virtue is in the sense of its non-transgression.... ******** Nina. #76289 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:51 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 14, no 1. jhaana-condition. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 14 Jhåna-Condition (Jhåna-Paccaya) In the case of jhåna-condition, jhåna-paccaya, the cetasikas which are jhåna-factors are the conditioning dhammas which cause the citta and accompaying cetasikas, the conditioned dhammas, to fix themselves firmly on the object which is experienced. In the “Visuddhimagga”, in the section on the development of samatha, tranquil meditation (Ch 4), five jhåna-factors are summed up, sobhana cetasikas which should be developed in order to reach jhåna, absorption. These factors assist the citta to be absorbed in the meditation subject. When jhånacitta arises there are no longer sense impressions and there is temporary freedom from defilements. Jhånacitta is of a higher level of citta than kåmåvara citta, citta of the sense sphere. The word jhåna has been explained as being derived from “jhåyati”, to contemplate, or to think closely of an object. Or else “jhåyati” can mean to burn (Vis. IV, 119) [1], since the jhåna-factors which are developed burn the “hindrances” (akusala cetasikas) away. The jhåna-factors which are developed in samatha are sobhana cetasikas, they have to be developed together with paññå which knows the way to develop calm, so that absorption can be attained. However, jhåna-factors can also be taken in a wider sense, they can even be akusala. That is why the “Dhammasangaùi” mentions in the “Summary” jhåna-factors arising not only with the mahå-kusala cittas which are accompanied by paññå, but also with those which are unaccompanied by paññå, ñåna-vippayutta, as well as with each of the akusala cittas [2]. Not only kusala citta but also akusala citta needs jhåna-factors which assist the citta to be firmly fixed on an object. Even when someone performs evil deeds he needs jhåna-factors which accompany the akusala citta, so that he is concentrated on the object of aksusala; these jhåna-factors condition the akusala citta by way of jhåna-condition. We read in the “Patthåna” (Faultless Triplet, VII, Investigation Chapter, § 431) that akusala jhåna-factors are related to their associated aggregates ( the other nåma-kkhandhas [3]) by jhåna-condition. Without the assistance of the jhåna-factors good or evil deeds cannot be performed. ----------- 1. Jhåyati in the sense of burning is derived from another root. 2. See § 147 a and § 397 a. 3. The citta and cetasikas arising together with them. ******* Nina. #76290 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re Q: Some Questions Arising Out of Abhidhamma Study moellerdieter Dear Sarah, you wrote: ' Keep up the questioning - they are all good points for discussion! ' I considered to reply to the points you made and certainly there is stuff for discussion. However at this state I suspect that both of us will keep busy to argue who is confusing what. Instead of that I am pondering whether to write about my general impression of the study up to now..hopefully back with some pre- conclusions.. with Metta Dieter #76291 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ¡person¢" - metta. dcwijeratna Dear Nina, Many thanks for the detailed explanation. However, I still have some points that conflict with certain things I have learnt. Dear DC (and Steve J ), >N: You are referring to the brahmavihaaras as subjects for samatha as described in the Visuddhimagga. DC: Actually my refeence was to DN. In a number of suttas there. The firs precept is described thus: "Putting away the killing of living things, Gotama the recluse holds aloof from destruction of life. He has laid the cudgel and the sword aside, ashamed of roughness, and full of mercy, he dwells compassionate and kind to all creatures that have life." The Paali "pa.naatipaata.m pahaaya ....lajji dayaapanno sabbabhuuhitaanukampii viharati." The translation is that Rhys Davids. As you can see, this statement is regarding the cuula-siila or minor virtues. And has nothing to do with samaadhi or meditation--either samatha or vipassanaa. >N: In order to be able to develop these it is necessary to know their characteristics as they appear in daily life, when you are dealing with other people. Then we can learn whether such or such dhamma is metta or attachment. >N: What is in bold letters is not very clear to me. If I am the doer then I know what is my motive. Whether it is tinged with lobha or not. Of course when the doer is another person, we can't know what is his motive; unless he has got crto-pariyaaya~naana. >N: There has to be understanding of what is kusala and what is akusala. DC: Certainly, that is the criterion of a disciple. It is sammaa ditthi. (Sammaadi.t.thi sutts MN) But the mundane variety. Not lokuttara. >N; As I understand, only when jhaana has been attained with the brahmavihaaras, they are boundless. DC: My view is slihtly different. It can and should happen in ordinary life. Actually Mettaa is really at the level of action--sila. So if your motive for doing whatever you are doing is purely friendliness then there is metta. Cultivation of mettaa as a subject of meditation is different. In samatha, the idea is to concentrate on just one single thought. And that thought is "May all beings be happy or well or free of disease or something. But remember it is good, but once you are out of jhaana you are back to your normal self-with and without metta. >N: Personally I would like to understand more about the development of the brahmavihaaras in daily life. I know that we should not limit them to certain people we like. We have to be very sincere and ask ourselves whether we really have metta without any limitations. DC: No we don't that is only for the arahant. But if one becomes an anagamin one is almost there. Because, kaamacchanda and vyaapaada have been destroyed. I concept is still there. But as a puthujjana we can achieve a very high level of metta. Just don't act with hatred, jealousy and such negarive emotion. Of course that will arise in your mind. But you don't allow such emotions take control of yourself. The best sutta in this regard is Sabbasava sutta of the MN. (Sutta 4 or 6). ------ N: "When we speak of effort in conventional sense, ... When we have a feeling of 'I have to do something' there is already clinging and this obstructs the development of the eightfold Path." DC: Nina, this paragraph is little beyond me. I don't know very much about Abhidhamma. Actually I don't know what it means or how to relate it to the teaching of the Buddha. But I have a question regarding the last statement of yours--really a little clarification. Now there are many places in the sutta pi.taka, where the Buddha says: "ta.m s.naatha, saadhuka.m manasikarotha, bhaasissaanii'ti." (listen well, put it in our mind and think about it, I shall speak.) This is similar to the situation that you mentioned. How would you reconcile that with 'there is already clinging'. With mettaa D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P.S. I am planning to read Abhidhammattha Sangaha. Then I would be able to make a better contribution #76292 From: "Dieter Moeller" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) moellerdieter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > > T: I wonder .... Dear Han, just to say : a lovely message .. ;-) with Metta Dieter #76293 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? nilovg Dear Swee Boon, I looked at the Pali: ChaddhÄ?turo ayaṃ bhikkhu, puriso chaphassÄ?yatano aá¹¹?rasamanopavicÄ?ro caturÄ?dhiá¹¹?no, yattha á¹¹ƒ maññussavÄ? nappavattanti, maññussave kho pana nappavattamÄ?ne muni santoti vuccati. Paññaṃ nappamajjeyya. Saccamanurakkheyya. CÄ?gamanubrÅ«heyya. Santimeva so sikkheyyÄ?'ti. Ayamuddeso chadhÄ?tu vibhaá¹…gassa. 'ChaddhÄ?turo ayaṃ bhikkhu, puriso'ti iti kho panetaṃ vuttaṃ. ----- N: I just translate now the last part:'ChaddhÄ?turo ayaṃ bhikkhu, puriso'ti six elements/ / monk/ this man It seems that the six elements are this man. Ypou could also ask: what is this man? Six elements. That is the answer. Nina. Op 12-sep-2007, om 16:49 heeft nidive het volgende geschreven: > "Bhikkhu, this person consists of six elements, six bases of > > contact, and eighteen kinds of mental exploration, and he has four > > foundations. > > Nanamoli/Bodhi says that the person "CONSISTS OF ...", and then later > changes to 'he "HAS" four foundations'. > > Why can't it be translated as "Bhikkhu, this person consists of six > elements, six bases of contact, eighteen kinds of mental exploration > and four foundations."? #76294 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? nilovg Dear Sarah, Dear Sarah, Thank you for the texts. I only select one part. Op 12-sep-2007, om 12:55 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > The four foundations in the quote are: > Pa~n~naadhi.t.thaana, saccaadhi.t.thaana, caagaadhi.t.thaana, > upasamaadhi.t.thaana] -------- N: In the beginning of the sutta these are emphasized : he should not be slothful in wisdom, guard the truth, cultivate relinquishmentnadn train himself for peace itself. I quote from the Perfections, Ch 8, about these four adi.t.thaana dhammas, or foundation dhammas: < We read in the Commentary to the “Basket of Conduct” about four dhammas which are firm foundations, adi.t.thaana dhammas, dhammas that are basic to all the perfections. These are: truthfulness, sacca, relinquishment, cåga, calm or peace, upasama, and paññå. The foundation dhamma of truthfulness, sacca, is steadfastness in truthfulness. We can verify for ourselves to what extent we are stable in truthfulness and sincerity. One may realize that one is not steadfast in truthfulness. We should have a refined knowledge of ourselves and see the disadvantage of action and speech that is not truthful.... The second foundation dhamma is steadfastness in relinquishment, cåga, the relinquishment of defilements. Relinquishment is not only the giving away of material things for the benefit and happiness of others, such as acts of generosity, dåna. But it is also relinquishment of defilements, and this is to the benefit of oneself.... If we want to relinquish defilements, if we have steadfastness in relinquishment (cågådi.t.thaana) with regard to síla, our conduct in action and speech, we have to guard the faculties of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind-door in daily life. When akusala citta arises, the faculties of the senses and the mind-door are unguarded, whereas when kusala citta arises, they are well guarded.... If we give things away for the benefit and happiness of someone else but we are forgetful of our defilements, the determination to eradicate them is not yet firm enough. Without the four foundation dhammas, adi.t.thaana dhammas, of truthfulness, relinquishment, calm, and paññå, we cannot reach the further shore. If a person sees the benefit of steadfastness in relinquishment, cågadi.t.thaana, the elimination of defilements, he also has steadfastness in calm, upasamadi.t.thaana; calm is freedom of defilements. We are absorbed in and disturbed by visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object. True calm is freedom from infatuation with the sense objects. We also need to develop the perfection of renunciation, nekkhamma påramí, in order to reach this freedom. Even someone who is a layfollower may gradually abandon clinging to the sense objects and to the married state. He may be a layfollower who is not married because he sees the disadvantage of the strong bond of family life which is a burden. Thus, seeing the benefit of renunciation conditions steadfastness in calm. When someone is firmly established in the foundation dhamma of calm, it is conditioned by the foundation dhamma of paññå. Paññådi.t.thaana is the fourth foundation dhamma. Paññå can be accumulated by listening to the Dhamma, by considering it and testing its meaning by asking questions. In this way we can verify what is kusala, what is akusala, what is wrong, what is right, and we can understand what kamma is and what its result. When we listen to the Dhamma we can investigate the true nature of realities that are cause and that are result. We should use every opportunity to listen to the Dhamma during this lifespan. Someone may be negligent in listening to the Dhamma, and he may think that by listening once or only a few times, he can be freed from the cycle of birth and death. Then his determination is not yet firm enough. He should further develop the foundation dhamma of paññå, and in this way the perfection of determination will become accomplished. The perfection of determination is an essential condition for the perfection of paññå that leads to reaching the further shore, that is, the realization of nibbåna.> (end quote) Nina. #76295 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? indriyabala Hi Nina, Sarah, Swee, (Han, and others), - Since Nyanatiloka Dictionary is available on-line and has been used quite often by DSG members (notably, by Sarah), I consulted it first for an English translation of 'puggala'. I was surprised by Ven Nyanaliloka's opinionated description as follows: Nyanatiloka: "Puggala: 'individual', 'person', as well as the synonyms: personality, individuality, being (satta), self (attaa), etc., in short all terms designating a personal entity, hence also: I, you, he, man, god, etc., all these, according to Buddhism, are mere names for certain combinations of material and mental processes, and apart from them they have no real existence. They are to be considered as mere 'conventional modes of expression' (vohaara-vacana), and on that level they may be used, and are so used in the Sutta texts, if taken "without misapprehending them" (s. quote from D. 9 under paramattha). With such tacit reservations, the term puggala occurs quite frequently in the Suttas." Tep: We should be aware that Ven. Nyanatiloka apparently gave his concept-biased opinion instead of giving a supposed-to-be general, formal, and impersonal meaning of 'puggala'. Fortunately, when we look further in the same dictionary to 'ariya-puggala', then the true meaning of 'puggala' as (real) person emerges : Nyanatiloka: "Ariya-puggala: or simply ariya: 'Noble Ones', 'noble persons'. (A) The 8 ,a. are those who have realized one of the 8 stages of holiness, i.e. the 4 supermundane Paths (magga) and the 4 supermundane Fruitions (phala) of these paths. There are 4 pairs: 1. The one realizing the path of Stream-winning (Sotaapattimagga). ... ... 8. The one realizing the fruition of Holiness (Arahatta-phala). Summed up, there are 4 noble individuals (ariya-puggala): the Stream- Winner (Sotaapanna), the Once-Returner (Sakadaagaami), the Non- Returner (Anaagaami), the Holy One (Arahat)." .................................. T: We all know that the 8 kinds of 'ariya puggala' are real persons who represent the 8 stages of holiness; they are the noble disciples of the Buddha, and they constitute one of the Triple Gem. As such, the interpretation of 'puggala' as "mere names for certain combinations of material and mental processes, and apart from them they have no real existence" by Nyanatiloka is clearly wrong. I suggest that scholars exercise their wise judgement whenever they consult the Nyanatiloka Dictionary from now. The following recollection of the real 'ariya puggala' is taken from SN 11.3. Sanghaanussati would make no sense if the ariya puggala "have no real existence" ! Also, please carefully note that they practice (patipatti) in accordance with the Dhamma. "If you cannot recollect the Dhamma, then you should recollect the Sangha thus: 'The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well, practiced straightforwardly, practiced methodically, practiced masterfully, i. e., the four pairs, the eight-types [of Noble Ones]: that is the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples — worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, the unexcelled field of merit for the world.' For when you recollect the Sangha, monks, any fear, terror, or horripilation you may have will be abandoned. [SN 11.3 : Dhajagga Sutta] Supatipanno bhagavato savaka-sangho, Ujupatipanno bhagavato savaka-sangho, Naya-patipanno bhagavato savaka-sangho, Samicipatipanno bhagavato savaka-sangho, Yadidam cattari purisa-yugani attha purisa-puggala: Esa bhagavato savaka-sangho Ahuneyyo pahuneyyo dakkhineyyo anjali-karaniyo, Anuttaram punnakkhettam lokassati. .................. Tep === #76296 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? hantun1 Dear Tep (Nina, Sarah, Swee, and others), Thank you very much for quoting [SN 11.3: Dhajagga Sutta] and I agree completely with you that it would make no sense if the ariya puggala "have no real existence" and also, your comment that they practice (patipatti) in accordance with the Dhamma. Respectfully, Han (one of the usual suspects) --- Tep Sastri wrote: > Hi Nina, Sarah, Swee, (Han, and others), - > > Since Nyanatiloka Dictionary is available on-line > and has been used > quite often by DSG members (notably, by Sarah), I > consulted it first for > an English translation of 'puggala'. I was > surprised by Ven > Nyanaliloka's opinionated description as follows: > #76297 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 1:32 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > .... > > Well, I don't know exactly how Lodewijk sees it or what he is > concerned about, but I do know that he must have an ocean of patience > to put up with you. Nina, if I was married to you and you kept > insisting that I don't exist, I would leave you in a heartbeat! You > shouldn't tell people that they don't exist- it is rude, > inconsiderate, unfeeling, and, most importantly, not true! Hi James, I have been thinking about this post you wrote to Nina - and a previous, similar one to Sarah and Scott. It occurs to me that I would prefer people to think of me as just nama and rupa. I certainly like to think of myself that way. When, for example, I have behaved badly I like to think, "That wasn't me, that was just dosa and a lot of other akusala dhammas. They arose by conditions and immediately fell away. At another time there will be adosa and alobha etc. Ultimately, there are always just these conditioned dhammas - never any Ken H." Can you see how I would find that reassuring and agreeable? When you can see that you will also see how it can be perfectly acceptable to think of other people that way. When you accuse Nina of being rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling and untruthful I feel sure she forgives you immediately - in a heartbeat. :-) And why is Nina (like Sarah and Scott) able to do that when most people would find it impossible? It is because she doesn't think, "James is a rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling individual." Instead, she knows that there are only conditioned dhammas - no individuals of any kind in the ultimate sense. Ken H #76298 From: "colette" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:27 am Subject: Re: Some Findings About Self and Self Views ksheri3 Not much of a paradox: going into your self to find no-self, and what's this stuff concerning telepathy fitting well with no-self doctrine? Seems odd to go and categorize it is this way while I'd categorize it with the Tathagataba (Miss Spelling hard at work, for a change) or Buddha-Nature although the thought of this outlandish "Universal MInd" is far beyond my hallucinations. I'll go with the seed (bija) being Universal yet the individual fruition is simply that, INDIVIDUAL. Telepathy works with the electro-magnetic fileds and properties, no? How do you place it in context with EMPATHY or EMPATHIC? "...conditioned polarity" WOW, ZOIKS, this thought sends me into orbit since you've just posed an actual potential that I haven't meditated on nor have I even thought about, yet I figure when I get going on this thought I'll find it's equivelence to past meditations. I'm dealing with a lot of new and different concepts through Dzogchen and a site from a scholar on dzogchen. BEcause of my lack of education I'm forced to take my time reading, thinking about the subject matter, formating the crap, then going back to meditate on the clearer view I have, it's just a time consuming "process". Luckily I read Willaim James's Stream Of Consciousness a few years ago and can deal with the concepts put through this Dzogchen website, it's still tough though. I'll get back to ya. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Elder wrote: > > Ultimate answers to ultimate questions often come in > the form of paradox whether in religion or science. > Subatomic particles have both a particle and a wave > aspect; this shows that there is both form and > formless aspects to material phenomena. All boundaries > are fuzzy with no absolute boundary, just a gradation > of change in a conditioned polarity. It is interesting > that the Western Mystics who favored the eternal > individual soul view before modern relativity and > quantum physics pointed to the supposedly indivisible > atom as proof of an eternal "divine monad" of > individuality. It seems a contradiction to logic when > Buddha taught the no-self doctrine yet talked of > rebirth through myriads of lifetimes, but in truth > this is the deepest paradox. The deepest nature of > that which is Timeless and Boundless is beyond logic, > is paradoxical. <....> #76299 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 9/12/2007 4:34:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > .... > > Well, I don't know exactly how Lodewijk sees it or what he is > concerned about, but I do know that he must have an ocean of patience > to put up with you. Nina, if I was married to you and you kept > insisting that I don't exist, I would leave you in a heartbeat! You > shouldn't tell people that they don't exist- it is rude, > inconsiderate, unfeeling, and, most importantly, not true! Hi James, I have been thinking about this post you wrote to Nina - and a previous, similar one to Sarah and Scott. It occurs to me that I would prefer people to think of me as just nama and rupa. I certainly like to think of myself that way. When, for example, I have behaved badly I like to think, "That wasn't me, that was just dosa and a lot of other akusala dhammas. They arose by conditions and immediately fell away. At another time there will be adosa and alobha etc. Ultimately, there are always just these conditioned dhammas - never any Ken H." Can you see how I would find that reassuring and agreeable? When you can see that you will also see how it can be perfectly acceptable to think of other people that way. When you accuse Nina of being rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling and untruthful I feel sure she forgives you immediately - in a heartbeat. :-) And why is Nina (like Sarah and Scott) able to do that when most people would find it impossible? It is because she doesn't think, "James is a rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling individual." Instead, she knows that there are only conditioned dhammas - no individuals of any kind in the ultimate sense. Ken H ================================= Such an approach would get a monster like Hitler off the hook, Ken. We shouldn't use the Dhamma as a basis for excusing akusala kamma. Remorse is often appropriate. Note: I am NOT referring to James or you or anyone else here! With metta, Howard #76300 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? indriyabala Dear Han, - Thank you for your comment. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep (Nina, Sarah, Swee, and others), > > Thank you very much for quoting [SN 11.3: Dhajagga > Sutta] and I agree completely with you that it would > make no sense if the ariya puggala "have no real > existence" and also, your comment that they practice > (patipatti) in accordance with the Dhamma. > > Respectfully, > Han (one of the usual suspects) > T: In the ultimate sense there are no individuals, no person, no Nina, no Sangha who practice the Dhamma, and even no Buddha can be found. It is similar to saying that in the molecular world nothing can be found except molecules. But in the real world of other truths and all kinds of existence (including the Triple Gem, airplanes, atomic bombs, DSG, and Khun Sujin), good Buddhists practice according to the Buddha's Teachings. Tep ==== #76301 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 3:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e... indriyabala Hi Howard, - You might be looking for blood in a crab. >Howard: We shouldn't use the Dhamma as a basis for excusing akusala kamma. Remorse is often appropriate. T: Since no James can be found anywhere, how can you expect to see remorse in James? Tep ==== #76302 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 9/12/2007 6:13:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hi Howard, - You might be looking for blood in a crab. >Howard: We shouldn't use the Dhamma as a basis for excusing akusala kamma. Remorse is often appropriate. T: Since no James can be found anywhere, how can you expect to see remorse in James? Tep =============================== Two points, Tep: 1) I don't say there is no James. There is, but we need to be precise in what sense there is. I spelled out my position on that in the post before last I wrote on this thread (written to James, Nina, and "Lodewijk-Who-Doesn't-Exist." 2) I am not looking for remorse in James. Did you not notice that the last sentence in my post was "I am NOT referring to James or you or anyone else here!"? With metta, Howard #76303 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:28 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) nichiconn Dear Friends, 13. Viisatinipaato XIII. The Section of the Groups of Twenty [Verses] 1. Ambapaaliitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa part 6 verse: 252. "Kaa.lakaa bhamarava.n.nasaadisaa, vellitaggaa mama muddhajaa ahu.m; te jaraaya saa.navaakasaadisaa, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 252. My hair was black, like the colour of bees, with curly ends. Because of old age, it is like bark fibres of hemp. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. txt: Tattha kaa.lakaati kaa.lakava.n.naa. Bhamarava.n.nasaadisaati kaa.lakaa hontaapi bhamarasadisava.n.naa, siniddhaniilaati attho. Vellitaggaati ku~ncitaggaa, muulato pa.t.thaaya yaava aggaa ku~ncitaa vellitaati attho. Muddhajaati kesaa. Jaraayaati jaraahetu jaraaya upahatasobhaa. Pruitt: 252. There, black (kaa.lakaa) means: coloured black (kaa.laka-va.n.na). Like the colour of bees (bhamara-va.n.naa) means: being black, the colour of bees (bhamara-sadisa-va.n.naa). The meaning is: shining blue-black (siniddha-niilaa). With curly ends (vellit'-aggaa) means: wavy from the roots to the ends (ku~ncit'-aggaa muulato pa.t.thaaya); curly (vellitaa), wavy, up to the ends (aggaa). That is the meaning. Hair (muddha-jaa) means: hair (kesaa). Because of old age (jaraaya) means: its beauty is destroyed on account of old age (jaraa-hetu), because of old age. Saa.navaakasaadisaati saa.nasadisaa vaakasadisaa ca, saa.navaakasadisaa ceva makacivaakasadisaa caatipi attho. Saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaati saccavaadino avitathavaadino sammaasambuddhassa "sabba.m ruupa.m anicca.m jaraabhibhuutan"ti-aadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa yathaabhuutameva, na tattha vitatha.m atthiiti. Like bark fibres of hemp (saa.na-vaaka-saadisaa); and also like bark fibres of hemp. "And like bark fibres (makaci-vaaka-sadisaa)," is also a [possible] meaning. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth (sacca-vaadi-vacana.m) is not false means: the utterance (vacana.m) of the Speaker of Truth (sacca-vaadino), of the speaker of what is not untrue (avitatha-vaadino), of the Fully and Perfectly Awakened One. "All material forms are impermanent, overcome by old age, etc." - [that utterance] is not false; it is as it really is. There is no untruth there.* *See also additional remarks with the commentary on v.270 below. verse: 253. "Vaasitova surabhii kara.n.dako, pupphapuura mama uttama"ngajo; ta.m jaraayatha salomagandhika.m, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 253. Covered with flowers, my hair was fragrant like a perfumed box. Now, because of old age, it smells like a dog's fur. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. txt: Vaasitova surabhii kara.n.dakoti pupphagandhavaasacu.n.naadiihi vaasito vaasa.m gaahaapito pasaadhanasamuggo viya sugandhi. Pupphapuura mama uttama"ngajoti campakasumanamallikaadiihi pupphehi puurito pubbe mama kesakalaapo nimmaloti attho. Tanti uttama"ngaja.m. Atha pacchaa etarahi salomagandhika.m paakatikalomagandhameva jaata.m. Atha vaa salomagandhikanti me.n.dakalomehi samaanagandha.m. "E.lakalomagandhan"tipi vadanti. 253. Fragrant like a perfumed box means: fragrant with the [smell of] powders, perfumes, scents, flowers, etc, that are taken up; sweet smelling like a box of ornaments. Covered with flowers (puppha-puura), my hair means: in the past, the bundle of my hair was full (puurito) of flowers (pupphehi) of campaka, great-flowered jasmin, and Arabian jasmine, etc. It was spotless, that is the meaning. It means: my hair. Now, afterwards, at this time, it smells like dog's fur (sa-loma-gandhika.m), it has become the odour of ordinary body hair (paakatika-loma-gandha.m)*. Or, now, it smells like dog's fur means: it has the same smell as ram's fur. They also say, smelling like sheep's wool. *The meaning "ordinary" for paakatika is found in Child, s.v. ===tbc, connie #76304 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:26 pm Subject: Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) nichiconn Dear Han, H: I should have said this earlier! Your presentations on Theriigaathaa are excellent. C: Thank you. And much appreciation here for Mrs RD and Mr Pruitt's efforts that made the series possible. H: By reading Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66), I am reminded of two things. (1) First, the dangerous consequences of kamma-vipaaka. Because Ambapaali, in her previous life, had said of an Arahant Therii, "What prostitute dropped this lump of phlegm in this place?" she became a prostitute in her last life. Even the Buddha, after becoming Buddha, had to suffer kamma-vipaaka for 12 times. (2) Second, the reminder of the aging process. C: Yes, we keep running down the dead end dark alleys only to meet up with the crushing mountains; no matter how "good" we think we might be, still the kamma accumulates while we tell ourselves stories based on our own understanding of just this present lifetime to make sense of it all... what I'm doing, why, how this came about, etc. Then we might also think a prostiture or anyone else is "bad" (Angulimala, etc) but who is able to tell, really, what happens in their minds? peace, connie #76305 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? hantun1 Dear Tep and others, Medicine in appropriate dose is medicinal, but given in large doses can be fatal. Water is very essential for life. And yet, in Bangkok, quite recently, a new army cadet was forced to drink large volumes of water by the senior cadets for a minor negligence, and the new cadet died of oedema of lungs and other vital organs. The “no-person” teaching, as depicted in Vajiraa sutta, is very useful and beneficial, but given in large doses, harping on it all the time, can be (at least for me) counter-productive. It will only harden my resolve to defend my “yes-Han” idea. Respectfully, Han #76306 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:38 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e... rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > >> When you accuse Nina of being rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling and > untruthful I feel sure she forgives you immediately - in a > heartbeat. :-) And why is Nina (like Sarah and Scott) able to do that > when most people would find it impossible? It is because she > doesn't think, "James is a rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling > individual." Instead, she knows that there are only conditioned > dhammas - no individuals of any kind in the ultimate sense. > > Ken H > > ================================= > Such an approach would get a monster like Hitler off the hook, Ken. We > shouldn't use the Dhamma as a basis for excusing akusala kamma. Remorse is > often appropriate. > _________ Dear Howard in the Maharahulavada sutta commentary it says that the Buddha had the same metta towards Devadatta , who tried to kill him, as to Rahula who was his own son. This is because full insight into anatta allows such metta to arise. It is like when we hear about a serial child killer; for the Dhamma student they have little or no illwill because in reality there are only elements arising and ceasing, and who can be angry with an fleeting element. This doesn't mean that nothing can be said. If we think the other person has done wrong, and believe that our words can help them to change, then we may say something to help them understand. Robert #76307 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. buddhatrue Hi Howard, Ken H., and all the other non-existent members, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > Inasmuch as Lodewijk finds that Nina talks to him, I'm sure that he is > free of doubts about 1) his existence, 2) Nina's sanity, and 3) Nina's meaning > something quite specific by the "nonexistence of beings," perhaps something > along the lines that I stated above. This is the second time in which you have clarified the KS position as being much more moderate than I have interpreted it. One of us is mistaken. I haven't seen this moderate position put forth from those I have addressed in this thread- if I had I wouldn't write the posts I have written. What I have seen is the position that beings are concepts; the only things that are real are namas and rupas. I have read several posts where Nina described Lodewijk rejecting the position of "There is no Nina and no Lodewijk" and how Nina tries to explain to him that anatta is difficult to accept! LOL! Could you imagine someone trying to convince you that you don't exist? I would think that person is nuts! And Howard, they are quite adamant that people don't exist- period. They don't stipulate a transient existence; they state that there is no existence of beings (period, the end)! The KS interpretation of the Abhidhamma has really warped their brains. Yes, I do think that they are nuts and have lost grip on reality (See the recent post of Ken H. where he explains that he likes to pretend he doesn't exist as to avoid unpleasant feelings….like I said, NUTS! ;-)). Metta, James #76308 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" I haven't seen this moderate position put forth from those > I have addressed in this thread- if I had I wouldn't write the posts I > have written. What I have seen is the position that beings are > concepts; the only things that are real are namas and rupas. > And Howard, they are quite adamant that > people don't exist- period. They don't stipulate a transient > existence; they state that there is no existence of beings (period, > the end)! The KS interpretation of the Abhidhamma has really warped > their brains. Yes, I do think that they are nuts and have lost grip > on reality _________ Dear James Is the teaching of no beings something invented by Nina and Khun Sujin or is it part of Theravada.. QUOTE "There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena alone flow on, no other view than this right." Visuddhimagga XIX19 QUOTE "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" XVIII24 QUOTE "The mental and material (nama rupa) are really here But here is no human being to be found, for it is void and merely fashioned like a doll" XVII31 Robert #76309 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 7:24 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? indriyabala Dear Han, - I am sad and sympathize with the family of the young (and innocent) cadet who was commanded to take an "over dose" of water without his consent, and died. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep and others, > > Medicine in appropriate dose is medicinal, but given > in large doses can be fatal. > > Water is very essential for life. And yet, in Bangkok, > quite recently, a new army cadet was forced to drink > large volumes of water by the senior cadets for a > minor negligence, and the new cadet died of oedema of > lungs and other vital organs. > > The "no-person" teaching, as depicted in Vajiraa > sutta, is very useful and beneficial, but given in > large doses, harping on it all the time, can be (at > least for me) counter-productive. It will only harden > my resolve to defend my "yes-Han" idea. > T: You were right about the danger of anything that is extreme, e.g. extreme views, extreme ignorance. Being extremely intelligent might be an exception, don't you think? I sympathize with you for being "overdosed" with the "no-person" extreme idea. Now could you tell me more about the yes-Han defense ? Tep === #76310 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:03 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. indriyabala Hi RobK, - In message # 76158 you asked me the same thing you you asking James now (see below). You have not replied to the answer I gave you yet. Why? I am just curious. Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > _________ > Dear James > Is the teaching of no beings something invented by Nina and Khun > Sujin or is it part of Theravada.. > QUOTE > "There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena > alone flow on, no other view than this right." > Visuddhimagga XIX19 > > > QUOTE > "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" > XVIII24 > > > QUOTE > "The mental and material (nama rupa) are really here > But here is no human being to be found, for it is void and merely > fashioned like a doll" > XVII31 > Robert ........................................ Tep ==== #76311 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? hantun1 Dear Tep, > Tep: Now could you tell me more about the yes-Han defense? That is exactly what I do not want to do – to defend. In the process of defending, which is unwanted, I might say something which I should not say! Respectfully, Han --- Tep Sastri wrote: > > Dear Han, - > > I am sad and sympathize with the family of the young > (and innocent) > cadet who was commanded to take an "over dose" of > water without his > consent, and died. #76312 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:27 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? indriyabala > > Tep: Now could you tell me more about the yes-Han > defense? > > That is exactly what I do not want to do – to defend. > In the process of defending, which is unwanted, > I might say something which I should not say! > T: Can you still communicate without defending a view -- by simply informing someone about a fact or clarifying a misunderstood issue? I know it is not always easy to do. Thanks. Tep ==== #76313 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ... upasaka_howard Hi, Robert - In a message dated 9/12/2007 8:38:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > >> When you accuse Nina of being rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling and > untruthful I feel sure she forgives you immediately - in a > heartbeat. :-) And why is Nina (like Sarah and Scott) able to do that > when most people would find it impossible? It is because she > doesn't think, "James is a rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling > individual." Instead, she knows that there are only conditioned > dhammas - no individuals of any kind in the ultimate sense. > > Ken H > > ================================= > Such an approach would get a monster like Hitler off the hook, Ken. We > shouldn't use the Dhamma as a basis for excusing akusala kamma. Remorse is > often appropriate. > _________ Dear Howard in the Maharahulavada sutta commentary it says that the Buddha had the same metta towards Devadatta , who tried to kill him, as to Rahula who was his own son. This is because full insight into anatta allows such metta to arise. It is like when we hear about a serial child killer; for the Dhamma student they have little or no illwill because in reality there are only elements arising and ceasing, and who can be angry with an fleeting element. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not advocating not having metta. Perfect metta is unconditional and universal, and it is wonderful. One who has that can also at the very same time know what is what about people, knowing whether they largely exhibit goodness or its opposite. The Buddha was never reluctant, for example, to call a fool a fool. He also had love for fools. I, literally, cannot remember ever hating anyone. But that doesn't make me stupid. ------------------------------------------------ This doesn't mean that nothing can be said. If we think the other person has done wrong, and believe that our words can help them to change, then we may say something to help them understand. ------------------------------------------------ Howard Yes, we agree on that. --------------------------------------------- Robert =============================== With metta, Howard #76314 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? dcwijeratna Dear Tep, I read through the above e-m of yours. Something came to my mind. I think if this discussion is to go forward, it is necessary to as a first step what is meant by real. Because different people seem to give different meanings to the concept of real. What is your opinion? With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #76315 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ... upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 9/12/2007 8:40:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, Ken H., and all the other non-existent members, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > Inasmuch as Lodewijk finds that Nina talks to him, I'm sure that he is > free of doubts about 1) his existence, 2) Nina's sanity, and 3) Nina's meaning > something quite specific by the "nonexistence of beings," perhaps something > along the lines that I stated above. This is the second time in which you have clarified the KS position as being much more moderate than I have interpreted it. One of us is mistaken. I haven't seen this moderate position put forth from those I have addressed in this thread- if I had I wouldn't write the posts I have written. What I have seen is the position that beings are concepts; the only things that are real are namas and rupas. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Is what I said really all that different? I think it is much the same, though more precise. -------------------------------------------------- I have read several posts where Nina described Lodewijk rejecting the position of "There is no Nina and no Lodewijk" and how Nina tries to explain to him that anatta is difficult to accept! LOL! Could you imagine someone trying to convince you that you don't exist? I would think that person is nuts! And Howard, they are quite adamant that people don't exist- period. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think this is more a language-usage matter than anything else. The word 'exist' has many senses. But there is more: I do think that such terminology with no further explanation can be harmful. Bold, cryptic statements serve their purpose when made by genuine masters - see for example some of the almost nihilistic language of some Zen masters, but when such language is used by knowledgeable but unawakened teachers, it can be misleading and even dangerous. It takes a genuine master to know what is useful for a person to hear and when. For unawakened Dhamma teachers, I think it is very important to spell things out very precisely and from a broad and multifaceted perspective in giving explanations. The "whole story" needs to be given, and not just a slogan. -------------------------------------------------- They don't stipulate a transient existence; they state that there is no existence of beings (period, the end)! The KS interpretation of the Abhidhamma has really warped their brains. Yes, I do think that they are nuts and have lost grip on reality (See the recent post of Ken H. where he explains that he likes to pretend he doesn't exist as to avoid unpleasant feelings….like I said, NUTS! ;-)). ----------------------------------------------- Howard (There is a problem, though, even with a "transient being" if that is misconceived. Beyond the material and mental phenomena that constitute a person as conceived by us when we are unconfused, what more is there is there to the person? I say there is nothing more. It is the view that there is "something more," some je ne sait qua that is "the being", that is a personalist error, as I see it.) ------------------------------------------- Metta, James ============================= With metta, Howard #76316 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:53 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ... indriyabala Hi Howard, - Sorry to have made you felt defensive -- but I was only joking. >Howard: Two points, Tep: >1) I don't say there is no James. There is, but we need to be precise in what sense there is. I spelled out my position on that in the post before last I wrote on this thread (written to James, Nina, and "Lodewijk-Who-Doesn't-Exist." [ Howard #76273: That beings don't exist is a technical matter. All the things that we take as constituting a being do exist independently of our thinking (though not as a self-existent, separate entities, of course). And it is in that sense that a being *does* exist. But there is nothing more to what we call "a being" than those things - nothing extra, and it is in that sense that a being does *not* exist. It is a mere naming to refer to that collection of interrelated phenomena as something that exists as an entity independent of mental imputation. ] T: Oh, you said before that you agreed with Sarah's 'no person, no Buddha' view ! Unlike the above argument, her view is precise and not "technical" at all. >2) I am not looking for remorse in James. Did you not notice that the last sentence in my post was "I am NOT referring to James or you or anyone else here!"? T: Okay, I accept that. Thank you for the clarification, Howard. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Tep - > > In a message dated 9/12/2007 6:13:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > indriyabala@... writes: > > Hi Howard, - > > You might be looking for blood in a crab. > #76317 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ââ‚... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 9/12/2007 11:53:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hi Howard, - Sorry to have made you felt defensive -- but I was only joking. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I thought you had misunderstood me. Thanks for writing back. :-) Actually, I wasn't being defensive, but only wanted to set the record straight - to clarify and also to avoid causing James to see criticism by me when there was none. ---------------------------------------------------- >Howard: Two points, Tep: >1) I don't say there is no James. There is, but we need to be precise in what sense there is. I spelled out my position on that in the post before last I wrote on this thread (written to James, Nina, and "Lodewijk-Who-Doesn't-Exist." [ Howard #76273: That beings don't exist is a technical matter. All the things that we take as constituting a being do exist independently of our thinking (though not as a self-existent, separate entities, of course). And it is in that sense that a being *does* exist. But there is nothing more to what we call "a being" than those things - nothing extra, and it is in that sense that a being does *not* exist. It is a mere naming to refer to that collection of interrelated phenomena as something that exists as an entity independent of mental imputation. ] T: Oh, you said before that you agreed with Sarah's 'no person, no Buddha' view ! Unlike the above argument, her view is precise and not "technical" at all. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Her view was expressed briefly and without embellishment. I would suspect, though, that spelled out in full it is much the same as what I expressed in #76273, but, of course, I could be wrong in that. I wouldn't mind hearing what Sarah, Jon, Nina, RobK and others think about what I wrote there. ------------------------------------------------- >2) I am not looking for remorse in James. Did you not notice that the last sentence in my post was "I am NOT referring to James or you or anyone else here!"? T: Okay, I accept that. Thank you for the clarification, Howard. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: :-) Thank *you*, Tep. ========================= With metta, Howard #76318 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? indriyabala Dear DC, - It is good to have a conversation with you. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > I read through the above e-m of yours. > > Something came to my mind. > I think if this discussion is to go forward, it is necessary to as a first step what is meant by real. Because different people seem to give different meanings to the concept of real. > > What is your opinion? > T: I have discussed the same issue, what "real" means, with the nit- picking Scott in a few recent messages here. The shortest answer I can give you now is : Real is opposite to imaginary. Imaginary things cannot be independently verified as true by other observers or experimenters. Tep ==== #76319 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? hantun1 No, Tep, I better not do it. I am sorry. Han --- Tep Sastri wrote: > T: Can you still communicate without defending a > view -- by simply > informing someone about a fact or clarifying a > misunderstood issue? I > know it is not always easy to do. > Thanks. > Tep > ==== #76320 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 9:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. buddhatrue > _________ > Dear James > Is the teaching of no beings something invented by Nina and Khun > Sujin or is it part of Theravada.. > QUOTE > "There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena > alone flow on, no other view than this right." > Visuddhimagga XIX19 > > > QUOTE > "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" > XVIII24 > > > QUOTE > "The mental and material (nama rupa) are really here > But here is no human being to be found, for it is void and merely > fashioned like a doll" > XVII31 > Robert I will check out the Vism. when I get home and get back to you on this. The one thing I know about the Vism. is that you cannot quote just very small passages to get the meaning, you must quote much larger sections. Otherwise, you run the danger of taking things out of context. Metta, James #76321 From: han tun Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:12 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (14) hantun1 Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 10: The Perfection of Equanimity, taken from the book “The Perfections leading to Enlightenment” by Sujin Boriharnwanaket and translated by Nina van Gorkom. Questions, comments, or different opinions are welcome. ------------------------------ We read further on in the Commentary to the “Basket of Conduct” about síla and about renunciation: “Virtue, síla, is opposed to greed, hatred, and delusion, since it removes crookedness and corruption in bodily conduct, etc. Renunciation, nekkhamma, is opposed to these three corruptions since it avoids indulgence in sense pleasures, the affliction of others and selfmortification.” If we do not cling to sense pleasures it is natural that there will also be less aversion. If someone has a great deal of attachment to visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object, but does not obtain these objects, he will be displeased. ------------------------------ To be continued. Metta, Han #76322 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘person?Eis ended" nilovg Hi Ken H and James, I discussed this post with Lodewijk and he will answer later on, he is disinclined to write and takes his time. Not the dsg tempo! He said: James is saying this half jokingly. What I think: good old James is not so bad. It is his style. I also appreciate James, his intelligence, the way he is able to formulate carefully his thoughts. No problem between James and me. Nina. Op 12-sep-2007, om 22:32 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > When you accuse Nina of being rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling and > untruthful I feel sure she forgives you immediately - in a > heartbeat. :-) #76323 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ââ‚... sarahprocter... Hi Howard (Tep & all), A few comments below: --- upasaka@... wrote: > T: Oh, you said before that you agreed with Sarah's 'no person, no > Buddha' view ! Unlike the above argument, her view is precise and > not "technical" at all. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Her view was expressed briefly and without embellishment. I would > suspect, though, that spelled out in full it is much the same as what > I expressed > in #76273, but, of course, I could be wrong in that. <....> .... S: I thought #75710 was excellent and very clear (see below). #76273 is fine, but possibly has more room for misunderstanding. This was a particularly good summary/response also, in #76191: "Item 2 says "there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known conventionally as a person or living being." There are the phenomena comprising the 5 aggregates, interrelated in manifold complex ways. There also is the sum of these, but only in a sense. Where is that sum? My answer: In "the mind of the beholder," and nowhere else. The "summing" is done by thought. All there is to be found independent of thought are the interrelated dhammas - the namas and rupas. There is no person, per se, independent of conceptualization." .... A good one to circulate from time-to-time, as with the earlier ones from #75710 which I'll requote from here: >Howard: Tep, one can think of unicorns without there being unicorns. As for people being real, this depends on what one means by 'real' and on what one means by 'people'. If by a "person" one only refers to a multitude of dhammas that are intricately and coherently interrelated via conditionality, most especially by kamma, there is no problem unless the convention that speaks of these dhammas as forming a unity is taken as more than mere convention. The person is "real" only in the sense that the underlying dhammas actually occur and are interrelated in a nontrivial way. The element of error enters in as soon as one takes seriously the speaking of the aggregate of dhammas involved as being or having an independent existence or self.< .... >> T: By saying there is no person in reality, you essentially contradict > yourself. The only way you can avoid the contradiction is to accept that > the conventional world of beings is also real -- not only the paramattha > dhammas are real. > > Am I fair to have said all that? Of course, you will deny. ------------------------------------------- >Howard: "I deny it as well. I see no contradiction unless one misattributes absolute truth to sentences that are merely conventionally true. Interpreting conventional truths as ultimate truths leads to such errors as saying persons are literal realities. Interpreting ultimate truths as conventional truths leads to such errors as saying in the conventional sense that nobody engages in practice. Conventional speech is figurative and abbreviational, whereas ultimate speech is literal.< .... Btw, Howard, I've loved some of your recent humourous posts too - especially #76192 with the poor little waif outside the Abhidhammika window and then the recent one ,#76249 to Jon in which you're sitting on the bench, going for the fast food because of the urgency of the Dhamma practice:-)). (Of course, better to eat the slower healthy diet which is nourishing, Howard!!). Also, the one before where you were put in so many different camps!!! Better not to think of camps at all..... From Nina's 'Asoka series',#76215 >We may think of ourselves as being of such nationality, of having such status in society, of having had such education, with craving, conceit or wrong view: “I am such”. As we just read in the Commentary, even when we do not compare ourselves with someone else, but only think, “I am such, I am of this kind”, we may still have conceit, because we cling to the importance of our personality. We may cling to ourselves as belonging to a special group, a group of Dhamma students: “I am such”.< ... And a final old Howard quip I recall which was very funny - a suggestion for a new film: "How paramatha are My Dhammas" (to replace the old "How Green is My Valley":-))) As Ken H once said (in effect), (paramattha) dhammas cannot be seen as too anatta. Hope that's enough of a response from me to your recent posts! Metta, Sarah ======= #76324 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is Concentration? sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- upasaka@... wrote: > S: Let's take the sense-door process. As you say, there are usually 17 > cittas experiencing the sense object. We read about the various complex > conditions which determine this order and sequence, but nowhwere is > concentration (ekaggata cetasika) given as one of the determining > causes (or one of the causes of an object not running for 17 cittas), >as far as I know. It's function is to focus on the object being >experienced regardless of what that object is at any moment. This >refers also to unwholesome cittas, of course, even when attention is distracted. > ============================== >H: :-) You understood me. I'd like to hear more. .... S: Please let me know which aspects you'd like to hear more about. First of all, for clarification, here is more detail on ekaggataa cetasika (concentration), taken from 'Cetasikas' by Nina, which I posted before: "Ekaggataa is the cetasika which has as function to focus on that one object. Seeing-consciousness, for example, can only know visible object, it cannot know any other object and ekaggataa focuses on visible object. Hearing-consciousness can only know sound, it cannot know visible object or any other object and ekaggataa focuses on sound." .... "Ekaggataa accompanies every citta, although its quality is different as it arises with different cittas. Even when we are, as we call it in common language, ‘distracted’, there is ekaggataa arising with the akusala citta since it arises with every citta. It focuses on the object which is cognized at that moment. For example, when there is moha-múla-citta (citta rooted in ignorance) accompanied by uddhacca (restlessness), there is also ekaggataa cetasika accompanying that citta. There is ekaggataa arising with all types of akusala citta. When we enjoy a beautiful sight or pleasant music there is ekaggataa cetasika with the lobha-mula-citta. At that moment we are absorbed in the pleasant object and enslaved to it. There is concentration when one performs ill deeds." S: Of course, when ekaggataa cetasika (Concentration) arises with jhana cittas, it is very different from the usual sense-sphere ekaggataa. Similarly, in the development of vipassanaa and at moments of enlightenment, it is very different again. However, it is still a momentary mental factor which arises with every citta and focuses on one object at a time. It doesn't have the function of making a rupa run for 17 cittas, say. Looking forward to hearing how this sounds to you. .... Metta, Sarah p.s Last month we had meant to wish you and Rita a very Happy Anniversary. I know it was a special one! Belated best wishes for many more. ======= #76325 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:27 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (14) scottduncan2 Dear Han, This portion is interesting: "Renunciation, nekkhamma, is opposed to these three corruptions since it avoids indulgence in sense pleasures, the affliction of others and self-mortification." Scott: To me this suggests that 'remorse' might not be kusala. Sincerely, Scott. #76326 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e... scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Just checking on this, since it is an interesting point: H: "...Remorse is often appropriate...." Scott: There is kukkucca, which is, in one sense, "remorse, scruple, worry," (PTS PED). The entry goes on with "[i]n this sense often with vippa.tisaara; and in [connection with] uddhacca it is the fourth of the five niivara.nas." The niivara.nas are "an obstacle, hindrance." Vippa.tisaara is "bad conscience, remorse, regret, repentance." Related to vippa.tisaara is anutaapa, which is "anguish, remorse, conscience". Uddhacca is "over-balancing, agitation, excitement, distraction, flurry ...Together with kukkucca "flurry or worry." Scott: So far, nothing about appropriateness (being niivara.na). In what sense do you mean 'remorse'? Sincerely, Scott. #76327 From: han tun Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (14) hantun1 Dear Scott, Thank you very much for your kind interest. “Remorse” to me means “kukkucca”, an akusala cetasika. Respectfully, Han --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Han, > This portion is interesting: < > > Scott: To me this suggests that 'remorse' might not > be kusala. > Sincerely, > Scott. #76328 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:15 am Subject: Re: "there is no �person�Equot; - "The controversy on �person�Eis ended" scottduncan2 Dear Ken, I was thinking about: "...And why is Nina (like Sarah and Scott) able to do that when most people would find it impossible? It is because she doesn't think, "James is a rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling individual." Instead, she knows that there are only conditioned dhammas - no individuals of any kind in the ultimate sense." Scott: I don't know about Nina and Sarah. Me, I read James and still go, 'What the hell?' right at the beginning (so no angel, eh) and am like, 'Man, the guy is at it again' and then I go, 'So what? I'm not important. I'm not so fancy. So what if I like Pali and James doesn't. Big deal. He doesn't have to. I happen to be into it. What's so great about Pali anyway and what's so great about me?' And then its sort of like James is right to burst the bubble which bugs me for a minute and then its like another sort of subsidence and there is no need to cling to the Pali-guy puppet or the Have-to-be-right puppet or whatever but I still like to learn about Pali after all is said and done and then just keep on as usual. So its more like somewhere underneath the thoughts there is this flurry of stuff which subsides and as a result, I guess, is condition for no response. Dig it? Sincerely, Scott. #76329 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (14) scottduncan2 Dear Han (and Howard), Thanks for the clarification: H: 'Remorse' to me means 'kukkucca', an akusala cetasika." Scott: Yes, I've posted to Howard on this and maybe he can come over into this corner with a response if he wishes. Sincerely, Scott. #76330 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂÂÂ?Equot; - "The contro... upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah et alia - In a message dated 9/13/2007 4:10:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (Tep & all), A few comments below: --- upasaka@... wrote: > T: Oh, you said before that you agreed with Sarah's 'no person, no > Buddha' view ! Unlike the above argument, her view is precise and > not "technical" at all. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Her view was expressed briefly and without embellishment. I would > suspect, though, that spelled out in full it is much the same as what > I expressed > in #76273, but, of course, I could be wrong in that. <....> .... S: I thought #75710 was excellent and very clear (see below). #76273 is fine, but possibly has more room for misunderstanding. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, you are right. Let me be clear: All the phenomena that underlie what we conventionally call "a being" do occur, not merely being imputed by thought. It is *only* in that sense that a being is "real". There is nothing beside those phenomena to be found - no separate, thought-independent "being". When we conceive of a being as a thing-in-itself, when we speak of "a being" as something more than convention, we are conceiving an ultimate reality when there is none - we are reifying. Going a step further, which I think is important to do: When we conceive of a paramattha dhamma as an entity, as a thing-in-itself, as something other than a temporary condition arising amongst the play of conditions constituting the ebb & flow of this world of appearance, and utterly dependent on the confluence of other conditions - we are yet again reifying. -------------------------------------------------------- This was a particularly good summary/response also, in #76191: "Item 2 says "there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known conventionally as a person or living being." There are the phenomena comprising the 5 aggregates, interrelated in manifold complex ways. There also is the sum of these, but only in a sense. Where is that sum? My answer: In "the mind of the beholder," and nowhere else. The "summing" is done by thought. All there is to be found independent of thought are the interrelated dhammas - the namas and rupas. There is no person, per se, independent of conceptualization." .... A good one to circulate from time-to-time, as with the earlier ones from #75710 which I'll requote from here: >Howard: Tep, one can think of unicorns without there being unicorns. As for people being real, this depends on what one means by 'real' and on what one means by 'people'. If by a "person" one only refers to a multitude of dhammas that are intricately and coherently interrelated via conditionality, most especially by kamma, there is no problem unless the convention that speaks of these dhammas as forming a unity is taken as more than mere convention. The person is "real" only in the sense that the underlying dhammas actually occur and are interrelated in a nontrivial way. The element of error enters in as soon as one takes seriously the speaking of the aggregate of dhammas involved as being or having an independent existence or self.< .... >> T: By saying there is no person in reality, you essentially contradict > yourself. The only way you can avoid the contradiction is to accept that > the conventional world of beings is also real -- not only the paramattha > dhammas are real. > > Am I fair to have said all that? Of course, you will deny. ------------------------------------------- >Howard: "I deny it as well. I see no contradiction unless one misattributes absolute truth to sentences that are merely conventionally true. Interpreting conventional truths as ultimate truths leads to such errors as saying persons are literal realities. Interpreting ultimate truths as conventional truths leads to such errors as saying in the conventional sense that nobody engages in practice. Conventional speech is figurative and abbreviational, whereas ultimate speech is literal.< .... Btw, Howard, I've loved some of your recent humourous posts too - especially #76192 with the poor little waif outside the Abhidhammika window and then the recent one ,#76249 to Jon in which you're sitting on the bench, going for the fast food because of the urgency of the Dhamma practice:-)). (Of course, better to eat the slower healthy diet which is nourishing, Howard!!). Also, the one before where you were put in so many different camps!!! Better not to think of camps at all..... From Nina's 'Asoka series',#76215 >We may think of ourselves as being of such nationality, of having such status in society, of having had such education, with craving, conceit or wrong view: “I am suchâ€?. As we just read in the Commentary, even when we do not compare ourselves with someone else, but only think, “I am such, I am of this kindâ€?, we may still have conceit, because we cling to the importance of our personality. We may cling to ourselves as belonging to a special group, a group of Dhamma students: “I am suchâ€?.< ... And a final old Howard quip I recall which was very funny - a suggestion for a new film: "How paramatha are My Dhammas" (to replace the old "How Green is My Valley":-))) As Ken H once said (in effect), (paramattha) dhammas cannot be seen as too anatta. Hope that's enough of a response from me to your recent posts! --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks very much, Sarah! :-) ------------------------------------------------------ Metta, Sarah ========================== With metta, Howard #76331 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is Concentration? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - I insert only a comment or two in the following. In a message dated 9/13/2007 4:29:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, --- upasaka@... wrote: > S: Let's take the sense-door process. As you say, there are usually 17 > cittas experiencing the sense object. We read about the various complex > conditions which determine this order and sequence, but nowhwere is > concentration (ekaggata cetasika) given as one of the determining > causes (or one of the causes of an object not running for 17 cittas), >as far as I know. It's function is to focus on the object being >experienced regardless of what that object is at any moment. This >refers also to unwholesome cittas, of course, even when attention is distracted. > ============================== >H: :-) You understood me. I'd like to hear more. .... S: Please let me know which aspects you'd like to hear more about. First of all, for clarification, here is more detail on ekaggataa cetasika (concentration), taken from 'Cetasikas' by Nina, which I posted before: "Ekaggataa is the cetasika which has as function to focus on that one object. Seeing-consciousness, for example, can only know visible object, it cannot know any other object and ekaggataa focuses on visible object. Hearing-consciousness can only know sound, it cannot know visible object or any other object and ekaggataa focuses on sound." .... "Ekaggataa accompanies every citta, although its quality is different as it arises with different cittas. Even when we are, as we call it in common language, ‘distracted’, there is ekaggataa arising with the akusala citta since it arises with every citta. It focuses on the object which is cognized at that moment. For example, when there is moha-múla-citta (citta rooted in ignorance) accompanied by uddhacca (restlessness), there is also ekaggataa cetasika accompanying that citta. There is ekaggataa arising with all types of akusala citta. When we enjoy a beautiful sight or pleasant music there is ekaggataa cetasika with the lobha-mula-citta. At that moment we are absorbed in the pleasant object and enslaved to it. There is concentration when one performs ill deeds." S: Of course, when ekaggataa cetasika (Concentration) arises with jhana cittas, it is very different from the usual sense-sphere ekaggataa. Similarly, in the development of vipassanaa and at moments of enlightenment, it is very different again. However, it is still a momentary mental factor which arises with every citta and focuses on one object at a time. It doesn't have the function of making a rupa run for 17 cittas, say. Looking forward to hearing how this sounds to you. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Let me explain my "problem": It is the nature of cognition that there is but one object of consciousness at a time. I do not see what it can possibly mean, then, for concentration to be the operation of focusing on that one object. What exactly does that "focusing" amount to? One object is one object! If there is nothing more to the Abhidhammic view of the cetasika of concentration than a term associated with the fact that there is but one object of consciousness at any moment, then I find that view quite unsatisfactory! There are, after all, DEGREES of concentration! That has to be clarified and accounted for. Any notion of concentration that does not account for degrees of concentration is grossly inadequate. ---------------------------------------------------------- .... Metta, Sarah p.s Last month we had meant to wish you and Rita a very Happy Anniversary. I know it was a special one! Belated best wishes for many more. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks a lot, Sarah! :-) ============================ With metta, Howard #76332 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 1:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ... upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 9/13/2007 7:51:37 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Just checking on this, since it is an interesting point: H: "...Remorse is often appropriate...." Scott: There is kukkucca, which is, in one sense, "remorse, scruple, worry," (PTS PED). The entry goes on with "[i]n this sense often with vippa.tisaara; and in [connection with] uddhacca it is the fourth of the five niivara.nas." The niivara.nas are "an obstacle, hindrance." Vippa.tisaara is "bad conscience, remorse, regret, repentance." Related to vippa.tisaara is anutaapa, which is "anguish, remorse, conscience". Uddhacca is "over-balancing, agitation, excitement, distraction, flurry ...Together with kukkucca "flurry or worry." Scott: So far, nothing about appropriateness (being niivara.na). In what sense do you mean 'remorse'? Sincerely, Scott. ================================== I refer to wholesome conscience, to regret at wrongdoing. With metta, Howard #76333 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:55 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 14, no 2 nilovg Dear friends, When jhåna is taken in its widest sense, the following cetasikas are jhåna-factors: applied thinking (vitakka) sustained thinking (vicåra) rapture or interest (píti) pleasant feeling (sukha) unpleasant feeling (domanassa) indifferent feeling (upekkhå) concentration (samådhi) Vitakka, applied thinking, “touches” the object which is experienced, it leads citta to the object (Vis. IV, 88). When vitakka is akusala it is wrong thinking. As to vicåra, sustained thinking, this has the characteristic of “continued pressure” on the object, it keeps citta “anchored” on it (Vis. IV, 88). Vitakka and vicåra accompany all cittas of the sense sphere, except the sense-cognitions (dvi- pañcaviññånas, seeing, hearing, etc.) and they condition citta by way of jhåna-condition, so that it is firmly fixed on the object it experiences. Píti, rapture, interest or enthousiasm, takes an interest in the object, it “refreshes” citta and cetasikas (Vis. IV, 94). In the case of cittas of the sense sphere, kåmåvacara cittas, it arises with all cittas which are accompanied by pleasant feeling. When it is akusala it accompanies lobha-múla-citta. As to sukha, in this context it is the same as somanassa, pleasant feeling. Domanassa, unpleasant feeling, can only accompany dosa-múla-citta, citta rooted in aversion, thus, it is a jhåna-factor which is always akusala; it asists the akusala citta to be fixed on the object in an unwholesome way. Upekkhå, indifferent feeling, can be kusala, akusala, or indeterminate (avyåkata); when it is indeterminate it can be vipåka or kiriya[1]. Samådhi, concentration, is the cetasika which is one-pointedness (ekaggatå). It has the function of focussing on one object and it accompanies every citta; it can be kusala, akusala, vipåka or kiriya. It causes the citta to be concentrated on the object it experiences. Apart from domanassa which arises only with dosa-múla-citta, the other jhåna-factors can arise with cittas which are kusala, akusala or indeterminate (avyåkata). They each assist citta in their own way so that citta can be firmly fixed on an object. The jhåna-factors condition the associated dhammas and the mind produced rúpa by way of jhåna-condition and also at the moment of rebirth they condition the associated dhammas and kamma produced rúpa by way of jhåna-condition (Patthåna, Faultless Triplet, VII, Investigation Chapter, § 431, VII a, b). ---------- 1. As explained in my Introduction, all dhammas can be classified in the Tripartite division of kusala dhammas, akusala dhammas and indeterminate dhammas (avyåkata, neither kusala nor akusala). Indeterminate dhammas include: citta and cetasika which are vipåka or kiriya, rúpa and nibbåna. ******** Nina. #76334 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:17 am Subject: Asoka, Ch 5, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, [in the last quote from the 'Path of Discrimination' siila was translated as virtue, but since also akusala siila is included, I preferred to leave it untranslated: How many kinds of síla are there? There are three kinds of síla (habit), profitable (kusala) síla, unprofitable (akusala) síla, indeterminate síla (avyåkata, neither kusala nor akusala).] ------------ Abstention from akusala kamma is síla. The term kamma is generally used for good deeds or bad deeds, but kamma is actually cetanå cetasika, volition or intention, which arises with each citta. Akusala cetanå and kusala cetanå can motivate deeds which are capable to produce their appropriate results in the form of rebirth- consciousness or vipåkacittas which experience pleasant or unpleasant objects through the senses. During our discussions someone was wondering whether each akusala cetanå accompanying akusala citta produces result. When we like delicious food or enjoy ourselves watching a play there is lobha-múla-citta, citta rooted in attachment. He was wondering whether the akusala cetanå accompaying the akusala citta could bring a result in the form of experiencing unpleasant sense objects. Khun Sujin explained that there are different degrees of akusala. Akusala cetanå can produce result when it has the intensity of a completed course of action, akusala kamma patha. If every akusala cetanå would be akusala kamma patha, then a baby lying on its back would already commit bad deeds which produce unpleasant results. Why would the Buddha teach about akusala kamma patha if there were no difference of intensity between akusala citta and akusala kamma? When we merely enjoy ourselves and do not harm someone else there is lobha-múla-citta but not akusala kamma which can produce a result. However, the lobha-múla-citta is accumulated and conditions the arising of lobha again, later on. After seeing or hearing lobha-múla-citta arises very often, all day long, but we may not notice this. When we have no intention to harm someone else it is not akusala kamma patha. As we read in the quotation above from the “Path of Discrimination”, abstaining from the ten akusala kamma patha such as killing and the other akusala kamma patha, is síla. For each kind of akusala kamma specific constituent factors make it into a completed course of action, kamma patha. For example, in the case of killing there has to be a living being, one has to be conscious of the fact that it is a living being, there must be the akusala citta which intends to kill, the act of killing and the death which follows [1]. A completed course of action can produce result by way of an unhappy rebirth or the experience of unpleasant objects through the senses. --------- 1. See the commentary to the “Discourse on Right Understanding” (Middle Length Sayings, no 9) the “Papañcasúdaní”. ******* Nina. #76335 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ... scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks for the clarification: H: "I refer to wholesome conscience, to regret at wrongdoing." Scott: What is 'wholesome conscience' - kusala? And what is 'regret at wrongdoing', please, from a Dhamma point of view? Any sutta or textual reference I might pursue? Sincerely, Scott. #76336 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is Concentration? nilovg Hi Howard, First a general function of concentration or ekaggataa cetasika has been given in the definitions. It assists the citta in cognizing an object. Just as all other accompanying cetasikas assist the citta each in their own way. Then differentiations of concentration are given which imply also degrees and intensities. And also the nature of the object on which there is concentration has to be taken into account. There are many varieties of this cetasika and many factors have to be taken into account. Nina. Op 13-sep-2007, om 14:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Let me explain my "problem": It is the nature of cognition that > there is > but one object of consciousness at a time. I do not see what it can > possibly > mean, then, for concentration to be the operation of focusing on > that one > object. What exactly does that "focusing" amount to? One object is > one object! > If there is nothing more to the Abhidhammic view of the cetasika of > concentration than a term associated with the fact that there is > but one object of > consciousness at any moment, then I find that view quite > unsatisfactory! There > are, after all, DEGREES of concentration! That has to be clarified and > accounted for. Any notion of concentration that does not account > for degrees of > concentration is grossly inadequate. #76337 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? dcwijeratna Dear Tep, Thank you for responding. I agree with you one hundred percent. But there two strands of thought we need to follow. One is what is the relation between truth and knowledge. The generally accepted theory is due to Plato--the JTB theory or "Justified True Belief". Here justification is what you mean by verification and the word true is in the definition itself. Is that right? The other strand is what are the limits to (human) verification. Looking forward to your thoughts, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #76338 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:36 am Subject: There is no person, to DC. nilovg Dear DC, I will select some points from your post and snip parts to make it shorter. --------- N: You are referring to the brahmavihaaras as subjects for samatha as described in the Visuddhimagga. DC: Actually my refeence was to DN. In a number of suttas there. The firs precept is described thus: "Putting away the killing of living things, Gotama the recluse holds aloof from destruction of life. He has laid the cudgel and the sword aside, ashamed of roughness, and full of mercy, he dwells compassionate and kind to all creatures that have life." As you can see, this statement is regarding the cuula-siila or minor virtues. And has nothing to do with samaadhi or meditation-- either samatha or vipassanaa. ------ N: To me this is true calm, and someone who follows this is truly calm, away from defilements. Through vipassana we, putthujanas, learn what is kusala and what is akusala and it is through vipassana that the sense-doors are guarded. The pa~n~naa developed in vipassana greatly supports siila. When one thinks less of my siila, there are condiitons for all kinds of siila, siila as varita and siila as carita, such as helping, paying respect. ------- >N; As I understand, only when jhaana has been attained with the brahmavihaaras, they are boundless. DC: My view is slihtly different. It can and should happen in ordinary life. Actually Mettaa is really at the level of action-- sila. So if your motive for doing whatever you are doing is purely friendliness then there is metta. Cultivation of mettaa as a subject of meditation is different. In samatha, the idea is to concentrate on just one single thought. And that thought is "May all beings be happy or well or free of disease or something. But remember it is good, but once you are out of jhaana you are back to your normal self-with and without metta. ------ N: I do not know much about jhaana, except what I read in the suttas and the Visuddhimagga. I understand that it is not so much a matter of reciting but understanding when the citta is kusala and when akusala, and then knowing the conditions for eliminating the hindrances by being absorbed in the meditation subject. ------- N: "When we speak of effort in conventional sense, ... When we have a feeling of 'I have to do something' there is already clinging and this obstructs the development of the eightfold Path." ----------- DC: Nina, this paragraph is little beyond me. I don't know very much about Abhidhamma. Actually I don't know what it means or how to relate it to the teaching of the Buddha. But I have a question regarding the last statement of yours--really a little clarification. Now there are many places in the sutta pi.taka, where the Buddha says: "ta.m su.naatha, saadhuka.m manasikarotha, bhaasissaanii'ti." (listen well, put it in our mind and think about it, I shall speak.) This is similar to the situation that you mentioned. How would you reconcile that with 'there is already clinging'. -------- N: The Buddha's words are an exhortation, a reminder to listen well and apply his teachings. They can condition kusala citta with right effort. What I mean is, that pa~n~naa should know when there is an idea of self who tries so hard to do specific things. We have accumulated so much clinging and it is good to know this. Otherwise we go the wrong way. ------- N: Allow me to react to a point you mentioned in another post: DC: N: I did not understand whether past lives and future lives are a problem for you? Of course there are many things in the teachings that are beyond us. As you know, the Buddha taught that kamma of a past life can produce result in this life, and kamma committed in this life can produce result in the future. This implies past lives and future lives. He also taught the Dependent Origination, the conditions for being in the cycle of birth and death, and he taught the way to liberation from the cycle. Up to a certain point we can find all this reasonable and we can have confidence in these points that we cannot yet fully grasp. But perhaps you were just thinking of the question whether one can become an arahat in this life or not? According to the commentaries there are at this time, in this world no more arahats. My apologies if I misunderstood you, Nina. #76339 From: "nidive" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:58 am Subject: Re: "there is no ‘person�Equot; - "The contro... nidive Hi Howard, > Howard: Yes, you are right. Let me be clear: All the phenomena > that underlie what we conventionally call "a being" do occur, not > merely being imputed by thought. It is *only* in that sense that a > being is "real". There is nothing beside those phenomena to be > found - no separate, thought-independent "being". When we conceive > of a being as a thing-in-itself, when we speak of "a being" as > something more than convention, we are conceiving an ultimate > reality when there is none - we are reifying. Going a step > further, which I think is important to do: When we conceive of a > paramattha dhamma as an entity, as a thing-in-itself, as something > other than a temporary condition arising amongst the play of > conditions constituting the ebb & flow of this world of > appearance, and utterly dependent on the confluence of other > conditions - we are yet again reifying. Can all of what you said about your theory of reification be summarized by this passage in MN 140? -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html "'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace. "Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' -------------------------------------------------------------------- If not, does your theory of reification go further than what is taught in this sutta? Swee Boon #76340 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) nilovg Dear Tep, thank you for writing back. Op 12-sep-2007, om 13:22 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > Tep: The awareness on "understanding of the dhamma appearing at this > moment" is sati on the panna cetasika; therefore, it is a > dhammanupassana satipatthana. But that is still too high up, isn't > it? ------- N: dhamma appearing at this moment, is any reality, we do not need to think of the fourth application of mindfulness. Hardness appearing while typing, seeing, thinking. We do not know when there will be right awareness of these, but we can learn more about them in considering them when they appear. And that also depends on conditions. You ask whether it is too high up. Well, for me it is difficult, but if we say it is too high it seems that it is hardly possible. A beginning can be made. -------- > > N: If the object is not the dhamma appearing now, we drift off in > thinking of abstractions concerning what is past or what has not > arisen yet. > > T: Yes, I understand that "drifting off" is the mind wandering and > fabricating thoughts, not being able to establish on one of the four > foundations. ------- N: If there is drifting off also that is a reality worthy to be considered and if conditions allow, to be object of mindfulness. ------- > > N: Understanding is a cetasika arising with kusala citta, which arises > and then falls away immediately. > > T: I think I see a valuable key idea here : kusala dhammas are the > nutriment for satipatthana. So, I think, maybe a solution to my > lacking of sati is to practice the right effort for the arising of > kusala dhamma that has not yet arisen, while making sure that any > arisen kusala dhamma continues to grow to the fullest possible extent. > .............. > N: I see as the main factor is pa~n~naa, understanding. It is > understanding that sees the benefit of kusala, including the > perfections. But understanding also sees that kusala cannot arise > on command, that it is entirely dependent on conditions, such as > past kusala, even in past lives, listening, studying. --------- > T: The problem I have is not having a strong enough pa~n~naa right > now to push the wrong view of self away long enough for sati to > support a stronger pa~n~naa to rise to the next "rung" of the ladder. > But you're right, that is a normal life. [I should not be greedy > trying to get to the rung too fast too soon.] ------ N: That is true, not being greedy for result. Only the pa~n~naa of the person who is about to become a sotapanna can eradicate wrong view. But it makes no sense to think of it how far we are away from that. We know that pa~n~naa is weak in the beginning, but it can grow and become stronger. This is ciira kala bhaavana, a development that takes along time. It is good to know this, otherwise we become impatient and are going to wonder: how strong is pa~n ~naa now? Behaving as if we can own pa~n~naa. Nina. #76341 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ââ‚... upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 9/13/2007 9:23:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Thanks for the clarification: H: "I refer to wholesome conscience, to regret at wrongdoing." Scott: What is 'wholesome conscience' - kusala? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: If you understand Pali better than English, then yes, "kusala". An unwholesome conscience would be a perverted one that is a form of self-hate. Conscience has a before-the-fact aspect and an after-the-fact aspect. A wholesome regret, as I see it, would spur one to make amends as possible and to act better in the future. ------------------------------------------------- And what is 'regret at wrongdoing', please, from a Dhamma point of view? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: What are you looking for, a word in Pali? There are such, but I forget. I'm more at home in english. ------------------------------------------------ Any sutta or textual reference I might pursue? ---------------------------------------------- Howard: None that I can suggest. What is it that you find so esoteric about this? --------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ====================== With metta, Howard #76342 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no â€... upasaka_howard Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 9/13/2007 12:00:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@... writes: Hi Howard, > Howard: Yes, you are right. Let me be clear: All the phenomena > that underlie what we conventionally call "a being" do occur, not > merely being imputed by thought. It is *only* in that sense that a > being is "real". There is nothing beside those phenomena to be > found - no separate, thought-independent "being". When we conceive > of a being as a thing-in-itself, when we speak of "a being" as > something more than convention, we are conceiving an ultimate > reality when there is none - we are reifying. Going a step > further, which I think is important to do: When we conceive of a > paramattha dhamma as an entity, as a thing-in-itself, as something > other than a temporary condition arising amongst the play of > conditions constituting the ebb & flow of this world of > appearance, and utterly dependent on the confluence of other > conditions - we are yet again reifying. Can all of what you said about your theory of reification be summarized by this passage in MN 140? -------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html "'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' Thus was it said. With reference to what was it said? 'I am' is a construing. 'I am this' is a construing. 'I shall be' is a construing. 'I shall not be'... 'I shall be possessed of form'... 'I shall not be possessed of form'... 'I shall be percipient'... 'I shall not be percipient'... 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' is a construing. Construing is a disease, construing is a cancer, construing is an arrow. By going beyond all construing, he is said to be a sage at peace. "Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.' -------------------------------------------------------------------- If not, does your theory of reification go further than what is taught in this sutta? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I see this sutta as pertaining to reification of the person. Reification of paramattha dhammas is not dealt with here, though it is in such teachings as The Snake sutta of the Sutta Nipata. ------------------------------------------------------ Swee Boon ========================== With metta, Howard #76343 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no â€... upasaka_howard Hi again, Swee Boon - I had written the following to you with regard to MN 140: "I see this sutta as pertaining to reification of the person. Reification of paramattha dhammas is not dealt with here, though it is in such teachings as The Snake sutta of the Sutta Nipata." What is stated there displays the perspective that is one of non-reification of dhammas. Another sutta, an even better example, I think, of portraying the "unreality" or insubstantiality of dhammas is the Phena Sutta, where the Buddha taught the following. _____________________ Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately. ----------------------------------- Reifying anything is attributing real, separate self-existence to it. It is "thing making." The dhammas of the Uraga Sutta and the Phena Sutta, dhammas as known by the Buddha and, as I see it, as dhammas actually *are*, are unsuitable for reification, for their very existence is a borrowed existence. With metta, Howard #76344 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘person’" - "The controversy on ‘person’ is ended" nilovg Dear Tep and all, I wrote this a while ago and kept it in my files. After all I post it, although there are too many posts on this subject. Op 4-sep-2007, om 9:01 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > You are right : I can see why further elaborations and comments on > the original words of the Teachings can end up in that conclusion > of "no Buddha!!". ------- N: Lodewijk discussed this with Kh Sujin and she answered: who is the Buddha. Actually, we think of his qualities of wisdom, purity and compassion. We also read in a Co that Buddha is not a name given by his parents, it denotes his qualities, his Buddhahood. I was reflecting on the two kinds of worlds: the world in the ariyan sense and the conventional world. I thought of your remark and my reaction: and N: I can elaborate more on this. Two worlds coexisting sounds abstract to me. I am also careful with existing, existance. Howard would say that is substantialism and he is right. I like to consider: what object does the present citta experience at this or that moment. I listened to a Thai session and slowly things become a little clearer. I myself find this subject very difficult and I feel an inner resistance when hearing: no person. I cling too much to persons. I heard: We see another person crying, but this could not be an object of thought if there were no seeing and visible object. If there were no citta we would not know. Kh Sujin often says: if there were no paramattha dhammas the conventional world of concepts could not appear. Without citta there could be no thought about the feeling of someone else, but we remember what was seen, keep on remembering a story of a lasting person. That is atta-sa~n~naa. This can decrease when we begin to be aware of the characteristics of realities that apper one at a time. I found Jon's remark helpful as a reaction to a remark that a person is derived from the khandhas: Here are only a few thoughts on account of the discussions on no person. Nina. #76345 From: "colette" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:50 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ... ksheri3 GOOD MORNING SCOTT, Touche! I love waking up in the morning and begining my day on another person's lighter side. It makes the day sooooo much more enjoyable to find that there are other's in this world, existance, that enjoy a good game of charades now & then. Thank you for asking Howard to be a little more specific about his terminology and not soooooooo ambiguous while leaving himself such enormous amounts of room to negotiate on his own. Definately, see ya later today, I hope. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Howard, > > Thanks for the clarification: > > H: "I refer to wholesome conscience, to regret at wrongdoing." > > Scott: What is 'wholesome conscience' - kusala? And what is 'regret > at wrongdoing', please, from a Dhamma point of view? Any sutta or > textual reference I might pursue? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > #76346 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:03 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. buddhatrue Hi Robert, Thanks for your quotes from the Vism. I will look at each of them in turn and then provide my own quote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > > > _________ > > Dear James > > Is the teaching of no beings something invented by Nina and Khun > > Sujin or is it part of Theravada.. > > QUOTE > > "There is no doer of a deed, or one who reaps the result. Phenomena > > alone flow on, no other view than this right." > > Visuddhimagga XIX19 James: This comes from a section titled "There is No Doer Apart From Kamma and Its Result", which is clearly defining 'a being' as the result of kamma. I have no argument there. Robert, what you have quoted is the beginning of a long poem which is very deep in meaning. This poem is clearly defining 'a being' as simply mentality-materiality and nothing more; which I have no disagreement with. There is also a stanza further in the poem which more clearly explains: They assume a being, see it as Eternal or annihilated. Adopt the sixty-two wrong views, Each contradicting one another. I do not assume a being which is either eternal or annihilated, I assume a 'transient being', a being with is nothing more than mentality-materiality held together by clinging. But, that being does exist- it isn't just a concept (I will get to that 'concept' issue last). > > > > > > QUOTE > > "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" > > XVIII24 James: This is a complete misquote! This section doesn't say anything about "there is no being, no person". I will quote the entire section: THERE IS NO BEING APART FROM MERE MENTALITY-MATERIALITY He defines the four immaterial aggregates that have thus become evident through contact, etc., as 'mentality'. And he defines their objects, namely the four primaries and the materiality derived from the four primaries, as 'materiality'. So, as one who opens a box with a knife, as one who splits a twin palmyra bulb in two, he defines all states of the three planes, the eighteen elements, twelve bases, five aggregates, in the double way as 'mentality-materiality', and he concludes that over and above mere mentality-materiality there is nothing else that is a being or a person or a deity or a Brahma. So, a being, a person, etc. is merely mentality-materiality, nothing else. There is no special "soul" or "spirit" which is everlasting; and a being isn't simply a "meat machine" which is annihilated upon death. Robert, this is a far cry from stating that no beings or no people exist. > > > > > > QUOTE > > "The mental and material (nama rupa) are really here > > But here is no human being to be found, for it is void and merely > > fashioned like a doll" > > XVII31 > > Robert James: This is actually from XVIII31, and the longer quotes need to be viewed: Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too, this mentality-materiality is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness. This is how it should be regarded. Hence the Ancients said: The mental and material are really here, But here there is no human being to be found, For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll- Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks. So, in this quote, the term "human being" is being used the same way as "soul". But, and this is really important, it states "The mental and material are really here"...they really exist! And earlier, I quoted from the Vism. that 'a being' is merely mentality and materiality, so beings really do exist! They just don't have souls (which has always been agreed upon, I guess). The problem with the KS position, as I see it, is that they state "only nama and rupa exist" but they really mean 'only disembodied nama and rupa exist". > > I will check out the Vism. when I get home and get back to you on > this. The one thing I know about the Vism. is that you cannot quote > just very small passages to get the meaning, you must quote much > larger sections. Otherwise, you run the danger of taking things out > of context. James: Well, I was going to quote from the Vism. about "beings as concepts" but I have run out of time and I have to get ready for school. I have a busy day and no time to post today, so I will get to it this weekend or on Monday. Metta, James #76347 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:29 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) nichiconn Dear Friends, More beautiful reminders: 13. Viisatinipaato XIII. The Section of the Groups of Twenty [Verses] 1. Ambapaaliitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa part 7 verse: 254. "Kaanana.mva sahita.m suropita.m, kocchasuucivicitaggasobhita.m; ta.m jaraaya virala.m tahi.m tahi.m, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 254. Thick as a well-planted grove, made beautiful, having the ends parted by comb and pin, because of old age, it is thin here and there. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. txt: Kaanana.mva sahita.m suropitanti su.t.thu ropita.m sahita.m ghanasannivesa.m uddhameva u.t.thita.m ujukadiighasaakha.m upavana.m viya. Kocchasuucivicitaggasobhitanti pubbe kocchena suva.n.nasuuciyaa ca kesaja.taavija.tanena vicitagga.m hutvaa sobhita.m, ghanabhaavena vaa kocchasadisa.m hutvaa pa.nadantasuuciihi vicitaggataaya sobhita.m. Tanti uttama"ngaja.m. Virala.m tahi.m tahinti tattha tattha virala.m viluunakesa.m. Pruitt: 254. Thick as a well-planted (suropita.m) grove means: it is well planted su.t.thu ropita.m), thick, densely established, grown erect like a park [of trees] with long, straight branches. Made beautiful, having the ends parted by comb and pin (koccha-suuci-vicit'-agga-sobhita.m) means: before, it was beautiful (sobhita.m), having the ends parted (vicit'agga.m) by a comb (kocchena) and golden pin (suva.n.na-suuciyaa), with the tangles in the hair untangled. Or: it is beautiful (sobhita.m), because it is thick, being like a brush (koccha-sadisa.m), having the ends parted (vicit'-aggataaya) by hair pins and the teeth of a comb (pa.na-danta-suuciihi). It means: my hair. It is thin here and there (tahi.m tahi.m) means: it is thin, the hair has fallen out here and there (tattha tattha). verse: 255. "Ka.nhakhandhakasuva.n.nama.n.dita.m, sobhate suve.niihila"nkata.m; ta.m jaraaya khalita.m sira.m kata.m, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 255. A mass of black [hair] decorated with gold, adorned with plaits, it looked beautiful. Because of old age, that head has been made bald. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. txt: Ka.nhakhandhakasuva.n.nama.n.ditanti suva.n.navajiraadiihi vibhuusita.m ka.nhakesapu~njaka.m. Ye pana "sa.nhaka.n.dakasuva.n.nama.n.ditan"ti pa.thanti, tesa.m sa.nhaahi suva.n.nasuuciihi ja.taavija.tanena ma.n.ditanti attho. Sobhate suve.niihila"nkatanti sundarehi raajarukkhamaalaa sadisehi kesave.niihi ala"nkata.m hutvaa pubbe viraajate. Ta.m jaraaya khalita.m sira.m katanti ta.m tathaa sobhita.m sira.m idaani jaraaya khalita.m kha.n.ditaakha.n.dita.m viluunakesa.m kata.m. 255. A mass of black [hair] decorated with gold (ka.nha-khandhaka-suva.n.na-ma.n.dita.m) means: the mass of my black hair (ka.nha-kesa-pu~njaka.m) was adorned with gold and diamonds, etc. (suva.n.na-vaji-raadiihi). But some read "possessing fine pins, decorated with gold" (sa.nha-ka.n.daka-suva.n.na-ma.n.dita.m), which means: decorated with fine gold pins in my untangled braids. Adorned with plaits, it looked beautiful means: before, it shone, being adorned with beautiful plaits of hair like many rows of royal trees. Because of old age, that head has been made bald means: now, that head that shone like that has been made bald because of old age; the hair has fallen out, all broken [off]. verse: 256. "Cittakaarasukataava lekhikaa, sobhare su bhamukaa pure mama; taa jaraaya valibhippalambitaa, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 256. Formerly my eyebrows looked beautiful, like cresents well-painted by artists. Because of old age, they droop down with wrinkles. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. txt: Cittakaarasukataava lekhikaati cittakaarena sippinaa niilaaya va.n.nadhaatuyaa su.t.thu kataa lekhaa viya sobhate. Su bhamukaa pure mamaati sundaraa bhamukaa pubbe mama sobhana.m gataa. Valibhippalambitaati nalaa.tante uppannaahi valiihi palambantaa .thitaa. 256. Like cresents (lekhikaa) well-painted by artists (citta-kaara-sukataa) means: they look beautiful, like lines (lekhaa) well-made (su.t.thu kataa) of a base of blue-black colour by a painter (citta-kaarena), an artist. Formerly my eyebrows (su-bhamukaa) means: before, my beautiful (sundaraa) eyebrows (bhamukaa) arrived at a state of beauty. They droop down (ppalambitaa) with wrinkles (valibhi) means: they remain there hanging down (palambantaa) with wrinkles (valiihi) that start at my forehead. ===to be continued, connie #76348 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:21 pm Subject: Re: "there is no �person�Equot; - "The controversy on �person�Eis ended" kenhowardau Hi Scott, If I remember correctly, the last chat you and I had was on the subject of how like-minded Dhammas students could discuss the Dhamma. When discussing formal practice (to take the obvious example) I thought it was easier for the 'formal-practitioners' and the 'no- controllers' to discuss with members of their opposing factions (if I may call them that) than for them to discuss with each other. That way there was no need to preface every sentence with "I know you already know this, but . ." or "I am not disagreeing with you, I just want to make the point that . ." and so on. I won't name names (for fear of misquoting) but the best solution anyone has come up with so far has been to just discuss the Dhamma. That unnamed person said he/she didn't try too hard to see any particular position that someone else might be trying to express. So that's what I am going to do here. In this case I am sure I know the position you have expressed, and I agree with it, but I am just going to ride roughshod over it and say things my way. Feel free to do the same - I am sure we agree anyway. :-) ------------ KH: > > And why is Nina (like Sarah and Scott) able to do that when most people would find it impossible? It is because she doesn't think, "James is a rude, inconsiderate, unfeeling individual." Instead, she knows that there are only conditioned dhammas - no individuals of any kind in the ultimate sense. > > Scott: > I don't know about Nina and Sarah. Me, I read James and still go, 'What the hell?' right at the beginning (so no angel, eh) ----------- No, none of us is an angel. But kusala cittas are little momentary angels, aren't they? Taking the concept of a person they can bestow (for example) the gift forgiveness upon it. And then they are gone - never to be seen again (although they have created conditions for more little angels to appear in the future.) ------------------------------ S: > and am like, 'Man, the guy is at it again' and then I go, 'So what? I'm not important. I'm not so fancy. So what if I like Pali and James doesn't. Big deal. He doesn't have to. I happen to be into it. What's so great about Pali anyway and what's so great about me?' ------------------------------- Wise, unselfish thoughts have no inherent characteristics (of wisdom or unselfishness). They are no more real than the sentient beings that are said to possess them. But the dhammas that create thoughts are real. Who can tell which particular dhammas were present when those thoughts of yours were formulated? All we can say is what we have learnt from our studies (of the Paccaya, etc). And the Paccaya doesn't mention Scott, James, Ken H or DSG; it only mentions dhammas and conditionality. ----------------------- S: > And then its sort of like James is right to burst the bubble which bugs me for a minute and then its like another sort of subsidence and there is no need to cling to the Pali-guy puppet or the Have-to-be-right puppet or whatever but I still like to learn about Pali after all is said and done and then just keep on as usual. ----------------------- Yes, I can see what you mean. Actually, of course, it's just fleeting, conditioned dhammas going about their fleeting, conditioned business. Panna (the knowledge that there are only dhammas) is the best of all conditions for forgiveness and modesty (adosa and alobha) to arise. ----------------------------------- S: > So its more like somewhere underneath the thoughts there is this flurry of stuff which subsides and as a result, I guess, is condition for no response. Dig it? ----------------------------------- :- ) Yes, I am sure I do. Following the example of that unnamed person, however, I have just gone ahead and expressed my understanding of the Dhamma in the way it occurred to me at the time. Ken H #76349 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 5:34 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > >> > > "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" > > > XVIII24 > > James: This is a complete misquote! This section doesn't say anything > about "there is no being, no person". I will quote the entire section: > Dear James I no longer have a copy of the Visuddhimagga so as no one has said anything I guess I must have made this quote up. Can't remember doing it or why I would slander Buddhaghosa but sincerely apologize. I see according to your analysis of other quotes that Buddhagosa apparently thought beings have a real existence after all. I am surprised to hear that as it goes against so much Dhamma in many sections of the Tipitaka. Robert #76350 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ââ‚... scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks for the further clarification: Howard: "...An unwholesome conscience would be a perverted one that is a form of self-hate. Conscience has a before-the-fact aspect and an after-the-fact aspect. A wholesome regret, as I see it, would spur one to make amends as possible and to act better in the future..." Scott: I was searching U.P. to learn more of this and found an archived discussion of a couple of years back in which you were a participant. I should have looked first. Thanks again. Sincerely, Scott. #76351 From: "m. nease" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 7:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂÂ?Eis e. m_nease Hi Rob, I have a rather threadbare copy of the VSM here that I hardly ever look at--if you'll send me your mailing address I'll be glad to post it off to you as soon as possible. It'll do far more good in your hands than it's ever done in mine. Cheers, mike #76352 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 8:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ... scottduncan2 Good Morning colette, Glad to see you. I hope all is well. Regarding: c: "Touche! I love waking up in the morning and begining my day on another person's lighter side. It makes the day sooooo much more enjoyable to find that there are other's in this world, existance, that enjoy a good game of charades now & then." Scott: Well, I sort of got into a wee bit of trouble there, colette. I thought it was a good question but then I saw that Howard had aleady discussed this like two years ago and his position was already clear; should I have looked first. c: "Thank you for asking Howard to be a little more specific about his terminology and not soooooooo ambiguous while leaving himself such enormous amounts of room to negotiate on his own." Scott: Howard, in my view, thinks quite carefully about pretty well everything he presents. I may not often agree with him (and I don't on this, as it turns out) but I do respect his persistence, his concern for clarity, and his overall love of the Dhamma. c: "Definately, see ya later today, I hope." Scott: Yeah, lets talk more about this topic. What do you think about this whole remorse thing? Hope to catch you later. Sincerely, Scott. #76353 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ââ‚... upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Colette) - In a message dated 9/13/2007 11:39:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, you wrote to Colette: Scott: Howard, in my view, thinks quite carefully about pretty well everything he presents. I may not often agree with him (and I don't on this, as it turns out) but I do respect his persistence, his concern for clarity, and his overall love of the Dhamma. =============================== Scott, thank you very much for this! I find it very kind of you. :-) With metta, Howard #76354 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:14 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ââ‚... indriyabala Hi Sarah and Howard (Swee, Han, Nina) - I think Howard's No-person Hypothesis, although it looks impressive because of his sophisticated wordings, is not sound. My reason is given below. First, the background : >Swee: Therefore, there are 3 ideas to be reviewed: (1) there are the five individual aggregates, (2) there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known conventionally as a person or living being, and (3) there is the assuming of a self as present within the 'sum' known conventionally as a person or living being. >Swee: For the Abhidhammikas, I think there is a confusion about point (2). Because they take only the aggregates to be real (paramattha dhammas) and any other things as unreal (concepts), they take the 'person' to be a concept that doesn't exist, which is why they say there is no person, no devas, no brahmas and no buddhas. >Swee: However, if they had said that there is no self of a person/deva/brahma/buddha to be found in the aggregates, I would agree with them because that self is an assumption, a fabrication of the mind. >Howard (#76191): Item 2 says "there is the sum of the five individual aggregates known conventionally as a person or living being." There are the phenomena comprising the 5 aggregates, interrelated in manifold complex ways. There also is the sum of these, but only in a sense. Where is that sum? My answer: In "the mind of the beholder," and nowhere else. The "summing" is done by thought. All there is to be found independent of thought are the interrelated dhammas - the namas and rupas. There is no person, per se, independent of conceptualization. .............. T: Sarah, you said you liked Howard's #76191. But you seemed to have jumped to the conclusion too soon. Just read the following dialogue that continued after # 76191. ............. >Tep (to Howard in #76198): Swee found the three right components; he performed the synthesis to make a valid statement about no-self, i.e. "self is an assumption, a fabrication of the mind" (i.e. the acquisition of self in the Category 3). And so I agree with you about the summing that concocts a person is in "the mind of the beholder" and nowhere else. That's how the person is conceived by the self view (attanuditthi) and that's why it is not real. Are we in agreement up to this point? I think we are. >Howard: All there is to be found independent of thought are the interrelated dhammas - the namas and rupas. There is no person, per se, independent of conceptualization. >T (continuing): Now I am not sure anymore. Are you saying that besides the conceptualized/conceived person in the mind of the beholder, there is "no person" to be found anywhere outside the beholder's mind as well? If the answer is yes, then your view about "no person, no Buddha" is not different from Sarah's view. But if you say that there is a real person outside in a given moment (that is real only in that moment) and it of the Case 2.1 (gross acquisition of a self, feeding on food), then I agree with you. >Howard's reply (#76200): Sorry to disappoint, Tep. I agree with Sarah. There are the following: 1) Paramattha dhammas, interrelated in manifold complex ways, and 2) the thinking which mentally combines (the ideas of) these dhammas into a projected being/entity that is mere concept, but which is typically thought of as a reality independent of thought, whereas only the dhammas upon which "a being" is imputed are independent of thought. (And usually even those dhammas are misconstrued by atta- bound reification.) >T: (#76206): No doubt why you have received permanent membership of the gang. I am relieved and happy as a consequence of this clarification of your position. I would like to make a final note in the passing that there is no atta-bound reification in the Buddha's three attapa.tilabha in DN 9. Each type is a real existence of its own. The dialogue between the Buddha and Citta (the elephant trainer) should be read again. [end of dialogue between Howard & Tep] ................. T: Although I was happy with his clarification, I did not agree with him. You see, Howard ignored the real atta Case 2.1 (gross acquisition of a self, feeding on food) that the Buddha, our Greatest Teacher, had acknowledged its existence. [DN 9] DN 9: "...Thus asked, lord, I would answer: 'Whatever my past acquisition of a self: on that occasion, that alone was my true acquisition of a self, while future & present ones were null & void. Whatever my future acquisition of a self: on that occasion, that alone will be my true acquisition of a self, while the past & present ones will be null & void. Whatever my present acquisition of a self: on that occasion, that alone is my true acquisition of a self, while the past & future ones are null & void. "In the same way, Citta, when there is a gross acquisition of a self... it's classified just as a gross acquisition of a self. When there is a mind-made acquisition of a self... When there is a formless acquisition of a self, it's not classified either as a gross acquisition of a self or as a mind-made acquisition of a self. It's classified just as a formless acquisition of a self. .............. T: Howard's "projected being/entity that is mere concept, but which is typically thought of as a reality independent of thought" is actually the acquisition of self in the Category 3, a perception that is influenced by 'attanuditthi'. Howard's failure to differentiate Case 2.1 (in the attapa.tilabha Category 2, see below) from the Category 3 has resulted in his unsound assertion in #76191 and # 76200. The Four Self Categories (message #76141, Part III of "Some Findings ..." ) ------------------------ 1. As "one-self" (colloquial sense) 2. As "one's own person" , or individual (attapa.tilabha). There are three sub-categories: 2.1 Gross acquisition of a self (possessed of form, feeding on food) 2.2 Mind-made acquisition of a self (possessed of form, made from citta and cetasika) 2.3 Formless acquisition of a self (a percept of perception) 3 Unidentifiable entity that is conceived by self-views and clinging to the khandhas (attanuditthi, attavadupadana) 4. Ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance .............. The "controversy" in the mind of a beholder with the no-person view has not yet ended! Tep === #76355 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 9:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Person in the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta, MN 140 - a mere concept? indriyabala Dear DC, - It has been my pleasure to read you thoughtful discussion. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Thank you for responding. > > I agree with you one hundred percent. But there two strands of thought we need to follow. One is what is the relation between truth and knowledge. The generally accepted theory is due to Plato--the JTB theory or "Justified True Belief". > Here justification is what you mean by verification and the word true is in the definition itself. Is that right? The other strand is what are the limits to (human) verification. > > Looking forward to your thoughts, > T: Thank you for agreeing 100%; that kind of agreement is not easily seen at DSG. [:>) To justify is to show to be right or reasonable. To verify is to prove to be true. So, you are right that I meant verification, not justification. What do you think about the limits to human ability to verify a truth? Tep === Truth -- sacca. Knowledge -- ~naana. Verify -- pajjattaṃ parivattita #76356 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) indriyabala Dear Nina, - I am now learning to adopt the slow-but-not-greedy approach like you have suggested. >Nina: dhamma appearing at this moment, is any reality, we do not need to think of the fourth application of mindfulness. Hardness appearing while typing, seeing, thinking. We do not know when there will be right awareness of these, but we can learn more about them in considering them when they appear. And that also depends on conditions. You ask whether it is too high up. Well, for me it is difficult, but if we say it is too high it seems that it is hardly possible. A beginning can be made. T: The learning more and more about dhamma at this moment is a great idea. Now, let me move one step further to the practice. In the suttas on the four foundations of mindfulness we learn to "dispel covetousness and displeasure in the world" by dwelling with atapi, sampajanna, and sati in the kaya, vedana, citta, and dhammas. I follow that with no difficulty. But I am afraid I do not see how considering "hardness appearing while typing, seeing, thinking", might be useful for abandoning 'loke abhijjhaadomanassa.m.' >Nina: Only the pa~n~naa of the person who is about to become a sotapanna can eradicate wrong view. But it makes no sense to think of it how far we are away from that. We know that pa~n~naa is weak in the beginning, but it can grow and become stronger. This is ciira kala bhaavana, a development that takes along time. It is good to know this, otherwise we become impatient and are going to wonder: how strong is pa~n ~naa now? Behaving as if we can own pa~n~naa. T: I have no disagreement, Nina. Yet I am curious about that 'ciira kala bhaavana', since I have not heard of it before. Could you kindly elaborate on it with an example? Thank you very much. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Tep, > thank you for writing back. > > Op 12-sep-2007, om 13:22 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > > > Tep: The awareness on "understanding of the dhamma appearing at this > > moment" is sati on the panna cetasika; therefore, it is a > > dhammanupassana satipatthana. But that is still too high up, isn't > > it? > ------- #76357 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. sarahprocter... Hi James & Robert K, --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > QUOTE > > > "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" > > > XVIII24 > > James: This is a complete misquote! This section doesn't say anything > about "there is no being, no person". I will quote the entire section: > > THERE IS NO BEING APART FROM MERE MENTALITY-MATERIALITY > He defines the four immaterial aggregates that have thus become > evident through contact, etc., as 'mentality'. And he defines their > objects, namely the four primaries and the materiality derived from > the four primaries, as 'materiality'. So, as one who opens a box with > a knife, as one who splits a twin palmyra bulb in two, he defines all > states of the three planes, the eighteen elements, twelve bases, five > aggregates, in the double way as 'mentality-materiality', athere is > nothing else that is a being or a person or a deity or a Brahmand he > concludes that over and above mere mentality-materiality . quote> ..... S: The topic headings (in caps within square brackets) seem to have been added either by the translator or the editor as I don't see them in the Pali. Perhaps they vary a little according to editions. Rob quoted: "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" James quoted: THERE IS NO BEING APART FROM MERE MENTALITY-MATERIALITY The Vism in front of me, (reprinted 1999), BPS has: [NO BEING APART FROM MENTALITY-MATERIALITY] I remember we sent Rob some texts we had replaced, I forget if these included an old copy of Vism. If so, it would have been an early 70s copy and there may have been some minor editorial changes since then. In any case, it is the text itself that is important: >...and there is > nothing else that is a being or a person or a deity or a Brahma nd he > concludes that over and above mere mentality-materiality Ah, another small change in our copy: "..and he concludes that over and above mere mentality-materiality there is nothing else that is a being or a person or a deity or a Brahmaa." The Pali for this is: "naamaruupamattato udda.m a~n~no satto vaa puggalo vaa devo vaa Brahmaa vaa n'atthii ti ni.t.tha.m gacchati." Metta, Sarah ========== #76358 From: "colette" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ... ksheri3 Hi Scott, This is perplexing: > Scott: Well, I sort of got into a wee bit of trouble there, colette: I know that monks do not like my characteristic of "shooting from the hip", going off on first impressions, living in the moment, type of stuff, this behavior isn't necessarily living according to the 8 Fold Path however that characteristic is mine; it is me, I could never have developed my esoteric ability if I held back. In this way I've developed quite the trust and "faith" if you will, in this thing I term as being "magik" (the mispelling is deliberate applying the Aleister Crowley technique as a means of differentiating my skills from those of the charlattan, the carney side-show barker, etc. Think for a second: what are retail stores for? They sell product, therefore their entire existance is based on "SALES" or a "SALE". That's what they do every day. Why is it that advertising speaks of sales that are for a limited time only? How can they say such a thing and not be in predicting their own personal demise? Is that the effects of Karma? How can they have any use for karma when they've already limited themselves in a suicidal manner as if, from one of Sam Webster's papers, they were monks in Vietnam sitting down in the middle of the street, pouring gasoline over their entire bodies, and igniting the material with a fire. These are both, the monks and the retail establishments that limit their existence "for a limited time only", the same illusions: acts which are manifested completely for the personal destruction. Hind sight is always 20/20, no? I used to have a saying by Goethe that said something to the effect that there is magik in actions, don't waste a second, try. I recieved this saying while I was heavily into applying kabbalistic theories in Chicago. During the entire 90s I did that and got good results however it became stagnant since I had no other persons with which to relate in the esoteric context. chicago has a very big Jewish community and I had no idea how seriously the Jewish community takes Kabballah, yet I would read books out in the open everywhere. While my efforts may have be the causation of isolating myself through the gossip of more knowledgable Jews concerning my activities, I developed a very strong personal relationship with this "other consciousness" "other world" whatever. I fail to even begin to see any danger in being open with Howard. there are far more better ways to relate to Howard as a colleague in the Buddhist study than to suggest that your simple mistake was or would be a CAUSATION of trouble. We are all trying to get rid of our ignorance. It shows in all of us. Believe me, I take my lumps quite often with my candid and oof the cuff statements which I hide behind the EXCUSE (a dodge for responsibility for my own actions) of having extremely limited time on the computer, massive amounts of reading material, some of which is written on a very high level of scholarship yet I still have a few friends in the Sanghas that understand partially my ways of educating myself by ways of illiminating my ignorance and sometimes those people even give me the cold shoulder. If they are serious about this study then I'm sure they'll get over it, my character flaws, which a lot of them do regularly. Sometimes they reach a point where they're just sick of my ranting. They will survive and I will survive. Eventually we will meet again with many discussions to relate to eachother I think your characterization of the situation you had with Howard did YOU more harm than good. It introduced "Un-Certainty", "DOUBT", "HESITATION", etc. into your "conditioning" THEREFORE there is no reason to allow you to simply make that statement, plant those negative seeds within yourself, and expect that others will allow you to enjoy the negative fruits of a negative thing, action, you needlessly performed. But, enough of my ranting on this single topic. -------------------------------------------- > I thought it was a good question but then I saw that Howard had aleady > discussed this like two years ago and his position was already clear; > should I have looked first. > colette: I thought they were good questions which I told you of. You went back because I guess you do this regularly, through the files sect. and checked up on the subject which shows Howard here for two yrs. and he's still discussing the same things? Lets look at "Psychic Heat" (Tumo, I believe) heat is a form of "Combustion". Spontaniety is in the moment. It can even be a flutter of the heart, a blink of an eye, there were times when I was learning to practice Pranayama back in the mid-80s that I would just start shaking and sweating profusely or even, sometimes, I'd just fall out, pass out, anywhere anytime. I had no control over it. I was, at that time, changing my body, I was taking control of my body through my mind. I do not advise any practioner to do this un- supervised because of the hazards involved, which, like kabbalah, I had no clue of because I'm alone. Spontaniety and Combustion can go together scientifically: Spontaneous Combustion. While I agree that there's a scientific reasoning for this occurance, in most cases, I have faith that from what little I've heard of monks melting ice on their naked bodies in the high mountains of the Himilayas during winter months, that this is an occurance of accepting the responsibility of taking control of their bodies. this is done through meditation or meditative practices, or maybe through tantra, but IT IS POSSIBLE! Your spontaniety gave rise to a spark somewhere. For instance it sparked you to check your routine of the files sect. It sparked me to express my appreciation for your candor. Who knows what other sparks throughout this world that you managed to ignite BECAUSE OF your spontaniety. Go with it man, accept it, enjoy it, revel in it. Stop being the sacrificial lamb. ------------------------------- > Scott: Howard, in my view, thinks quite carefully about pretty well > everything he presents. I may not often agree with him (and I don't > on this, as it turns out) but I do respect his persistence, his > concern for clarity, and his overall love of the Dhamma. > colette: again, my ignorance shows through. I don't understand why this attitude isn't universally accepted and felt throughout this forum. I may not and don't agree with a lot of stuff people say, but they have a lot more years invested in studying this stuff than I do, and it's more than likely that my disagreement is nothing more than word usage which creates this obstacle, OBSCURATION, that stops us from connecting. That doesn't mean that every thought or every word is automatically disagreed with. Connie and I were talking about her perception that I didn't like Nina at all when I told her that we simply disagreed on a single topic but Nina was the person to come out and actually say that she and I have no reason to communicate which I understood as meaning that she's creating a Berlin Wall or a Great Wall of China or something so that she can enclose, imprison, herself in. So I leave her alone but that doesn't mean that I don't read her posts or that I don't agree with her, ever. I learn a lot from everybody here whether or not you care to believe it. I don't learn on every single word or every single concept. Sometimes I reinforce my thoughts or concepts but once in a while the CLEAR LIGHT pops out and I'm used to it's appearance so it doesn't startle me. I know I cognize it when it pops out, immediately. ----------------------------------------- > Scott: Yeah, lets talk more about this topic. What do you think about > this whole remorse thing? Hope to catch you later. colette: so lets look into remorse. Remorse for what? You cannot lose something that you never had, keep that in mind. You can hallucinate that you have something and when you lose it then feel remorse but that is false since it was nothing more than an illusion that it was yours in the first place Can you elaborate on you thoughts for "remorse"? toodles, colette #76359 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Sep 13, 2007 10:14 pm Subject: The Stick ... bhikkhu0@... Friends: Drifting in Samsara is like Russian Roulette! The Blessed Buddha once said this: Bhikkhus & friends, even exactly as a stick thrown up into the air always falls down sometimes hitting with one end, sometimes with the other end sometimes falling flat with on middle, so too do beings roam & wander on, blinded by ignorance and obsessed by craving, sometimes in this world, sometimes in another world. Why is it so? Because they have not seen, understood known the Four Noble Truths. <...> Comments on this Simile of the Stick: Reappearing in this or that lower world is like when the stick hits with one of the ends! Reappearing at the same level of being is like when the stick falls flat on the middle. Reappearing at a higher level is like when the stick hits and keep standing on one end! For the 31 levels or planes of Existence see: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sagga/loka.html Source (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. [V:439-40] section 56: Saccasamyutta. Thread 33: The Stick ... <...> Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * <...> #76360 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. sarahprocter... Hi James & Rob K, --- sarah abbott wrote: > > > > QUOTE > > > > "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" > > > > XVIII24 ... S: Ah yes, as soon as I posted, I saw Vism XV111 25 (often quoted) which includes: " 'This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person'" Pali: "naamaruupamattam ev'ida.m, na satto, na puggalo atthi tii..." This is exactly as Rob quoted above. ..... Also, in XV111, 28: "So in many hundred suttas it is only mentality-materiality that is illustrated, not a being, not a person." Pali: "Eva.m anekasatehi suttantehi naamaruupa.m eva diipita.m, na satto, na puggalo." Metta, Sarah ======== #76361 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) nilovg Dear Tep, Op 14-sep-2007, om 7:18 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > I am now learning to adopt the slow-but-not-greedy approach like you > have suggested. > > > T: The learning more and more about dhamma at this moment is a great > idea. Now, let me move one step further to the practice. In the > suttas on the four foundations of mindfulness we learn to "dispel > covetousness and displeasure in the world" by dwelling with atapi, > sampajanna, and sati in the kaya, vedana, citta, and dhammas. I > follow that with no difficulty. > > But I am afraid I do not see how considering "hardness appearing > while typing, seeing, thinking", might be useful for abandoning 'loke > abhijjhaadomanassa.m.' -------- N: Loka, world, refers to the five khandhas, all namas and ruupas that appear. We cling to hardness, to the idea of hardness of 'my body', or when hardness is too hard we have unpleasant feeling on account of the pain. This happens when we are not well. When there is seeing of visible object there are the nama which sees and the ruupa that is visible object, but only one reality at a time can be the object of awareness. There is bound to be doubt whether there is right awareness or not, and what the object at that moment is: nama or rupa. When there is seeing there is also visible object and it seems that they are experienced together by citta. We have an idea of: I see what is visible. We mix nama and rupa, there seems to be no end to the confusion. There is not only seeing, but also thinking on account of what is seen. Sa~n~naa remembers this or that thing, this or that person. We think of many stories in a day and dwell on them for a long time. When we realize that we have accumulated such an ampount of ignorance and clinging we can come to realize that these cannot be eradicated within a short time. --------- > > >Nina:...We know that pa~n~naa is weak in the > beginning, but it can grow and become stronger. This is ciira kala > bhaavana, a development that takes along time.... > > T: I have no disagreement, Nina. Yet I am curious about that 'ciira > kala bhaavana', since I have not heard of it before. Could you kindly > elaborate on it with an example? Thank you very much. -------- N: This expression is from the Commentary. When Dipankara Buddha delared the Bodhisatta Sumedha to be a future Buddha, people who were present rejoiced. They thought: if we do not attain enlightenment in this Buddha era, we have a possibility to this in the future, when Sumedha will have become a Buddha. This would take aeons and aeons, but they were not impatient, they rejoiced. The fact that we are interested in the Dhamma today stems from the past, from listening in past lives. We do not know how many aeons it took to bring us to this moment today, to our discussing satipatthana now. I have to hear many times: if there is not yet sufficient understanding it shows that we did not listen enough. Just listening a few times is not enough. Each person can verify for himself whether he understands a little more than before, and he can notice how slowly this whole process of developing understanding is. I can refer to four kinds of persons (taken from Rob's study forum): From Ledi sayadaw http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/individu.htm QUOTE (1) A Ugghatita~n~nu : an individual who encounters a Buddha in person, and who is capable of attaining the Holy Paths and the Holy Fruits through the mere hearing of a short concise discourse. (2) A Vipancitta~n~nu: an individual who encounters a Buddha in person, but who is capable of attaining the Paths and the Fruits only when the short discourse is expounded to him at some length. At the present day, only the following Neyya and Padaparama classes of individuals remain. (3) A Neyya : an individual who needs to study the sermon and the exposition, and then to practise the provisions contained therein for 7 days to 60 years, to attain the Paths and the Fruits during this lifetime if he tries hard with guidance from the right teacher. (4) A Padaparama : is an individual who cannot attain the Paths and the Fruits within this lifetime can attain release from worldly ills in his next existence if he dies while practising samatha or vipassana and attains rebirth either as a human being or a deva within the present Buddha Sasana. ------- This shows that today enlightenment cannot be attained quickly. We are either 'those who have to be guided' or those who understand the words of the teachings but cannot attain enlightenment in this life. Who could hasten this process that depends entirely on the right conditions? Nina. > #76362 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:54 am Subject: Purification of View hantun1 Dear Tep, After off-line discussion with you, I checked with Visuddhimagga and found the Contents as follows. (1) Purification of Virtue Chapters I, II (2) Purification of Consciousness Chapters III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII (3) Purification of View Chapter XVIII (4) Purification by Overcoming Doubt Chapter XIX (5) Purification by Knowledge and Vision of What Is and What Is Not the Path Chapter XX (6) Purification by Knowledge and Vision of the Way Chapter XXI (7) Purification by Knowledge and Vision Chapters XXII, XXIII ------------------------------ The “no-person” teaching is referred to XVIII, 24, 25, 28 under the Third Stage of Purification, namely, Purification of View. Under the same chapter XVIII, 1, and 2, it is stated that: XVIII, 1: Now it was said earlier (Ch. XIV, 32) that he ‘should first fortify his knowledge by learning and questioning about those things that are the “soil” after he has perfected the two purifications – purification of virtue and purification of consciousness – that are the “roots”’. ---------- XVIII, 2: But it was said above (Ch. XIV, 32) that ‘The five purifications, purification of view, purification by overcoming doubt, purification by knowledge and vision of what is the path and what is not the path, purification by knowledge and vision of the way, and purification by knowledge and vision, are the “trunk”’.---------- ----------------------------- Therefore, Tep, I want to ask for your opinion, whether one can have the “trunk” without the “roots”, or in other words, can one have purification of view without first “perfecting” the two roots of purification of virtue and purification of consciousness? Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #76363 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. indriyabala Hi Sarah, - I know I am not in this forum. So I am going to butt in, then butt out very quickly ! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James & Rob K, > > --- sarah abbott wrote: > QUOTE "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" XVIII24 > ... > S: Ah yes, as soon as I posted, I saw Vism XV111 25 (often quoted) which includes: > > " 'This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person'" > > Pali: "naamaruupamattam ev'ida.m, na satto, na puggalo atthi tii..." > > This is exactly as Rob quoted above. > ..... > Also, in XV111, 28: > > "So in many hundred suttas it is only mentality-materiality that is > illustrated, not a being, not a person." > > Pali: > > "Eva.m anekasatehi suttantehi naamaruupa.m eva diipita.m, na satto, na puggalo." > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > T: I have a good reason to believe that when the dhamma (mentality- materiality) in the ultimate sense is the main concern, "not a being, not a person" is the right perspective of the ariyans who do not identify with mentality-materiality, since they do not have attanuditthi or attavaadupaadaana. Similarly, in the ultimate sense no being or no person can be found in the dhamma. This is analogous to seeing only molecules and atoms that make up the body of a being/person. It is the matter of perspective/view. I have a quote from the Vism for you all to consider. "Individual self-hood" (atta-bhaava) is what the physical body is called; or it is simply the pentad of categories, since it is actually only a descriptive device derived (upaada-pa~n~natti) upon the pentad of categories (Vis. Ch. IX/p. 310). "Here when the categories are not fully known, there is naming (abhidhaana) of them and of the consciousness as 'self,' that is, the physical body or alternatively the five categories... (it is) presence (sabbhaava) as a mere description in the case of what is called a 'being' (bhaata), though in the ultimate sense the 'being' is non-existent (avijjamaana)" (VisA. 298). .................. Of course, when the "categories" are "fully known" to someone, s/he then becomes an ariya whose perspective changes to the ultimate realities because attanuditthi has been terminated. In the ultimate dhamma world 'the being' is non-existent -- but it is just the consequence of a completely new perspective. Buddhas and Arahants always exist and there will always be good Buddhists who practice according to the Dhamma. Thanks. Tep === #76364 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:19 am Subject: Re: Purification of View indriyabala Dear Han, - It is nice to hear a good question. But it is nicer when we know a good answer too. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > After off-line discussion with you, I checked with > Visuddhimagga and found the Contents as follows. > > (1) Purification of Virtue > Chapters I, II > > (2) Purification of Consciousness > Chapters III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, > XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII > > (3) Purification of View > Chapter XVIII > > (4) Purification by Overcoming Doubt > Chapter XIX > > (5) Purification by Knowledge and Vision of What Is > and What Is Not the Path > Chapter XX > > (6) Purification by Knowledge and Vision of the Way > Chapter XXI > > (7) Purification by Knowledge and Vision > Chapters XXII, XXIII > > ------------------------------ > > The "no-person" teaching is referred to XVIII, 24, 25, > 28 under the Third Stage of Purification, namely, > Purification of View. Under the same chapter XVIII, 1, > and 2, it is stated that: > > XVIII, 1: Now it was said earlier (Ch. XIV, 32) that > he `should first fortify his knowledge by learning and > questioning about those things that are the "soil" > after he has perfected the two purifications – > purification of virtue and purification of > consciousness – that are the "roots"'. ---------- > > XVIII, 2: But it was said above (Ch. XIV, 32) that > `The five purifications, purification of view, > purification by overcoming doubt, purification by > knowledge and vision of what is the path and what is > not the path, purification by knowledge and vision of > the way, and purification by knowledge and vision, are > the "trunk"'.---------- > > ----------------------------- > > Therefore, Tep, I want to ask for your opinion, > whether one can have the "trunk" without the "roots", > or in other words, can one have purification of view > without first "perfecting" the two roots of > purification of virtue and purification of > consciousness? > > T: My affirmative answer is : No way ! But the 'gang' members, although they've been quoting the Vism a lot, will definitely disagree (again. Tep === #76365 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:34 am Subject: Re: "there is no �person�Equot; - "The controversy on �person�Eis ended" scottduncan2 Dear Ken, Sorry for the delay and thanks for the reply: K: "No, none of us is an angel. But kusala cittas are little momentary angels, aren't they? Taking the concept of a person they can bestow (for example) the gift forgiveness upon it. And then they are gone - never to be seen again (although they have created conditions for more little angels to appear in the future.)" Scott: Yeah, true about kusala citta. Conditions, as you point out, can be such that the whole moment is good which can then be condition for thoughts, words and deeds which are wholesome. K: "Wise, unselfish thoughts have no inherent characteristics (of wisdom or unselfishness). They are no more real than the sentient beings that are said to possess them. But the dhammas that create thoughts are real." Scott: Thoughts versus thinking; hard to grasp the distinction. We say that thinking is 'real' but thoughts are not. The experience of having thoughts as object is taken as proof that there is a being that thinks. The difficulty seems to be in the appearance of wholeness and intactness of the concepts and in the way this then gives rise to more thoughts about an experiencer - all 'on the surface'. What are your thoughts on the idea that there can be thoughts which are wholesome, and thought which are not; thoughts which express right view and thoughts which do not? How do these come about? Maybe the root of citta is influential. What is the manner in which thoughts are produced, do you think? K: "Who can tell which particular dhammas were present when those thoughts of yours were formulated? All we can say is what we have learnt from our studies (of the Paccaya, etc). And the Paccaya doesn't mention Scott, James, Ken H or DSG; it only mentions dhammas and conditionality." Scott: Only dhammas and conditionality. I'm sorry but I'm going to have to agree with you here. K: "Yes, I can see what you mean. Actually, of course, it's just fleeting, conditioned dhammas going about their fleeting, conditioned business. Panna (the knowledge that there are only dhammas) is the best of all conditions for forgiveness and modesty (adosa and alobha) to arise." Scott: Right view. Indispensable. Knowing the characteristics of dhammas and how dhammas are part of cause and result. Kind of cuts through all the rest. Sincerely, Scott. #76366 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:14 am Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ... scottduncan2 Dear colette, Good Morning to you. Thanks for your full reply: c: "This is perplexing: Me: Well, I sort of got into a wee bit of trouble there, colette: "...Hind sight is always 20/20, no?..." Scott: Well, no, if we are dealing with 'remorse' - which is all about hindsight... c: "...I fail to even begin to see any danger in being open with Howard. there are far more better ways to relate to Howard as a colleague in the Buddhist study than to suggest that your simple mistake was or would be a CAUSATION of trouble. We are all trying to get rid of our ignorance. It shows in all of us...I think your characterization of the situation you had with Howard did YOU more harm than good. It introduced "Un-Certainty", "DOUBT", "HESITATION", etc. into your "conditioning" THEREFORE there is no reason to allow you to simply make that statement, plant those negative seeds within yourself, and expect that others will allow you to enjoy the negative fruits of a negative thing, action, you needlessly performed." Scott: Thanks for considering me in this way, you are very kind. I pulled out of the discussion with Howard but this wasn't because I changed the way I saw things. I just don't care to bug people if I can help it. This is why the below was mentioned: Me: "I thought it was a good question but then I saw that Howard had already discussed this like two years ago and his position was already clear; should I have looked first. colette: "I thought they were good questions which I told you of. You went back because I guess you do this regularly, through the files sect. and checked up on the subject which shows Howard here for two yrs. and he's still discussing the same things?" Scott: Yes, that's why I pulled out. c: "Your spontaniety gave rise to a spark somewhere. For instance it sparked you to check your routine of the files sect. It sparked me to express my appreciation for your candor. Who knows what other sparks throughout this world that you managed to ignite BECAUSE OF your spontaniety. Go with it man, accept it, enjoy it, revel in it. Stop being the sacrificial lamb." Scott: Candour is fine. Having my own opinions is fine. But what about this - and I'm not saying that this was totally or even actually the case but for heuristic purposes - seeing that the words from Howard after my initial statement reflected a certain emotional tone indicating an annoyance with me and maybe dismay and sadness, the desire for a discussion about remorse gave way to a desire to be kind to Howard. In this case I decided to STAND DOWN. I didn't want to open the way for vexation to arise in me. This also was 'spontaneous'. I spontaneously stepped out of the conversation. Why? Thoughts about a being. I'm not in charge of the realities known as Howard flowing 'over there' but with me there was this whole chain of events which ended the conversation. colette: "again, my ignorance shows through. I don't understand why this attitude isn't universally accepted and felt throughout this forum. I may not and don't agree with a lot of stuff people say, but they have a lot more years invested in studying this stuff than I do, and it's more than likely that my disagreement is nothing more than word usage which creates this obstacle, OBSCURATION, that stops us from connecting. That doesn't mean that every thought or every word is automatically disagreed with...I learn a lot from everybody here whether or not you care to believe it. I don't learn on every single word or every single concept. Sometimes I reinforce my thoughts or concepts but once in a while the CLEAR LIGHT pops out and I'm used to it's appearance so it doesn't startle me. I know I cognize it when it pops out, immediately." Scott: True, lots of agreement and disagreement. I learn a lot too, and I learn a lot from disagreeing for sure but somehow the tone of the forum is important. Sometimes the forum feels like a calm place whereas at other times it feels fraught. The roots of the various cittas at the bottom of all the thoughts might be accountable... colette: "so lets look into remorse. Remorse for what? You cannot lose something that you never had, keep that in mind. You can hallucinate that you have something and when you lose it then feel remorse but that is false since it was nothing more than an illusion that it was yours in the first place Can you elaborate on your thoughts for 'remorse'?" Scott: Once something is gone, its gone. Quite right. What is this remorse then, but clinging and anger directed at the concept 'myself'. Remorse and repentance: these are taught from a million pulpits in the west and this is where the idea that this kind of remorse is of any use comes from - the judeo-christian ethic. Clinging to it does no good. Knowing the moment now can show what is what. Mindfulness arising can know kusala from akusala. Many things can condition the non-arising of akusala in the future. Self-recrimination and dosa will not. What do you think? Thanks, as always, colette, for your thought-provoking posts. Hopefully I address at least some of the levels of what you write. I hope you are well until we meet again. Sincerely, Scott. #76367 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ... upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and James & Rob) - In a message dated 9/14/2007 3:30:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi James & Rob K, --- sarah abbott wrote: > > > > QUOTE > > > > "This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person" > > > > XVIII24 ... S: Ah yes, as soon as I posted, I saw Vism XV111 25 (often quoted) which includes: " 'This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, no person'" Pali: "naamaruupamattam ev'ida.m, na satto, na puggalo atthi tii..." This is exactly as Rob quoted above. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: If this is the Pali, and I have no doubt that it is, from the very tiny bit I know of a few Pali words and from what I know of several Indo-European languages, 'na satto, na puggalo' should translate as "no being, no person," or, more likely, as "neither being nor person", but in any case is certainly an anti-puggalavadin position. Now, James, the section you quoted was XVIII 24, but what Sarah has quoted was XVIII 25, and maybe there is a comparing of apples and oranges going on. In any case, James, when you agree that there is nothing more to the person than mental and physical conditions, how are we differing on this issue except in terminology. If there is nothing other than the mentality and the physicality, why is it not simply a convention to think and speak of the aggregate of all these interrelated namic & rupic occurrences as a being or person? It seems to me that to say that there is nothing more to the person than these and to say that that there is neither being nor person (as an ontological reality) are two ways of saying the same thing. It is no different from "the chariot," it seems to me. When the "elements" are in a certain relation, it is convention to speak of a chariot. Likewise, for "the person". It is the relational coherence that enables the convention of "a person", but when "the person" is looked for, none per se is found but only a complex of fleeting, interrelated namas and rupas. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ..... Also, in XV111, 28: "So in many hundred suttas it is only mentality-materiality that is illustrated, not a being, not a person." Pali: "Eva.m anekasatehi suttantehi naamaruupa.m eva diipita.m, na satto, na puggalo." Metta, Sarah =================================== With metta, Howard #76368 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View nilovg Dear Han and Tep, I am glad that you continue here on dsg the conversation you had offline, so that we all can share. I suspect that you have many interesting conversations together off line. Do share them. Op 14-sep-2007, om 13:19 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > Therefore, Tep, I want to ask for your opinion, > > whether one can have the "trunk" without the "roots", > > or in other words, can one have purification of view > > without first "perfecting" the two roots of > > purification of virtue and purification of > > consciousness? ---------- N: once Howard wrote a post with a simile of a spiral. One cannot say: this first, than that, but all three siila, concentration and wisdom (view) develop together and condition one another. The movement upwards is like a spiral. I think of the impressive beginning and ending of the Visuddhimagga: So it starts with: when a wise man... This is very meaningful. There are many degrees of siila, samaadhi and pa~n~naa and they condition one another. They grow together, going upwards together higher and higher like a spiral. Nina. #76369 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:38 am Subject: Conditions, Ch 14, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, The subcommentary to the “Khandha-Vibhanga” (Book of Analysis I) explains the role of the jhåna-factors in relation to mind produced rúpa [1]. This subcommentary calls the jhåna-factors “strength- givers” (bala-dåyaka), they are intensifying factors which assist the citta and accompanying cetasikas to be fixed on an object. The jhåna- factors vitakka and vicåra play a specific role when citta produces speech. Do we know whether there is kusala vitakka or akusala vitakka while speech sound is being produced? When our objective is not dåna (generosity), síla (morality) or bhåvanå (mental development), we speak with akusala citta and this happens time and again. When citta produces a facial expression of gladness, or when we smile, the jhåna- factor sukha plays its specific role, the jhåna-factor píti (rapture) “refreshes” citta, in fact, all the accompanying jhåna-factors condition citta, the associated cetasikas and the rúpa produced by citta by way of jhåna-condition. When someone commits an unwholesome deed, such as killing, nåma and rúpa which arise because of conditions perform their functions. The dosa-múla-citta is accompanied by vitakka which is in this case thought of violence, by vicåra which is occupied with the object, by unpleasant feeling and by concentration which causes the citta to be firmly fixed on the object. The akusala citta and the accompanying cetasikas and also the mind-produced rúpa are conditioned by akusala jhåna-factors,“strength- givers” or intensifying factors, by way of jhåna-condition. When we perform a generous deed, the kusala citta and accompanying cetasikas and also the mind produced rúpa are conditioned by sobhana jhåna- factors by way of jhåna-condition. These dhammas are also conditioned by root-condition, by faculty-condition and by several other conditions. Thus, as we have seen, jhåna-factors are not only operating while one cultivates jhåna, they are conditions which function time and again in daily life, no matter whether we perform wholesome or unwholesome deeds. The “Visuddhimagga” (Ch IV) mentions five of the seven jhåna-factors, in that case sobhana cetasikas, which have to be developed in samatha with the purpose of attaining jhåna. However, there must be paññå which knows the characteristics of those particular jhåna-factors and which knows the way to develop calm with a suitable meditation subject. One will not attain true calm merely by sitting and trying to concentrate on one object. There are forty meditation subjects of samatha and it depends on the individual which subject is suitable as a means to develop calm (Vis. Ch IV-Ch X). For the development of samatha it is essential that there is paññå which knows exactly when there is akusala citta and when there is kusala citta with calm. ------------- 1. See “Abhidhamma Studies”, IV, Mental Constituents, 3, Factors of Absorption, by Ven. Nyanaponika. ******** Nina. #76370 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:38 am Subject: Asoka, Ch 5, no 3 nilovg Dear friends, Síla is abstention from evil as well as observing of what is wholesome. With regard to abstention from evil, three cetasikas, which are called virati cetasikas, perform the function of abstention: abstinence from wrong speech (vaci-duccarita virati), abstinence from wrong action (kåya-duccarita virati) and abstinence from wrong livelihood (åjíva-duccarita virati). Wrong livelihood is wrong speech or wrong action pertaining to our livelihood. It is impossible to abstain from akusala when virati cetasika does not arise. The three factors of the eightfold Path which are the síla of the eightfold Path are these three virati cetasikas, which are the right speech, right action and right livelihood of the eightfold Path. They arise one at a time, because when there is opportunity for abstinence from wrong speech there is not at the same time abstinence from wrong action. When enlightenment is attained all three abstinences accompany the lokuttara cittas which experience nibbåna. They fulfill their functions as path-factors in cutting off the base of misconduct, according to the stage of enlightenment which is attained [1]. The classification about the origination of síla reminds us that the citta is the source of restraint from evil and of the performing of what is wholesome. There is no self who observes síla. As to indeterminate (avyåkata) síla, this is the síla of the arahat, who has, instead of kusala citta, kiriyacitta (inoperative citta). He does not perform kamma which can produce rebirth, because he has reached the end of the cycle of birth and death. The “Visuddhimagga” has classified wholesome síla, virtue or moral conduct, in many ways. There is síla for bhikkhus, for bhikkhunís (nuns), for novices and for laypeople. Laypeople can observe five precepts: they can train themselves to abstain from killing, stealing, lying, sexual misconduct and the taking of intoxicants. Only those who have attained the first stage of enlightenment, the stage of the sotåpanna (streamwinner) have no conditions to transgress these precepts. Laypeople can also observe eight precepts. In addition to the five precepts there are three more including abstaining from eating after midday, from using high and soft beds, from using perfumes or adornments. Novices have to observe ten precepts. ---------- 1. Defilements are eradicated subsequently at the four stages of enlightenment. They are eradicated by the path-consciousness, maggacitta. The three virati cetasikas accompany the magga-citta and also the result of the magga-citta, the fruition-consciousness, phala- citta, which immediately succeeds the magga-citta. See for the abstinences which are lokuttara, Atthasåliní II, Part VIII, Ch 1, 219, 220. --------- Nina. #76371 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Purification of View indriyabala Dear Nina (and Han), - The sequential development of the path, or patipada, is clearly supported by the Vism as well many suttas. We discussed this topic many times before. Take the Sekha Patipada Sutta and Dantabhumi Sutta as examples. Show me that these two suttas support Howard's spiral model. I am going to give you a reward, if you can show me so ! >H: > Therefore, Tep, I want to ask for your opinion, > > whether one can have the "trunk" without the "roots", N: once Howard wrote a post with a simile of a spiral. One cannot say: this first, than that, but all three siila, concentration and wisdom (view) develop together and condition one another. ... ... There are many degrees of siila, samaadhi and pa~n~naa and they condition one another. They grow together, going upwards together higher and higher like a spiral. T: I think Han's question is about whether the last 5 purifications require support of the first two, namely, purification of virtues and purification of consciousness. The Howard's spiral model of growth makes sense for the first two purifications along with low-level vipassana-panna development. But I do not see how 'purification by knowledge and vision of the way' can be developed together with the other four at the time virtues and concentration are not purified to the Stream entry at least. Beyond the worldlings' opion and speculation, do you know of a real case in which 'purification by knowledge and vision of the way' can be developed together at the time virtues and concentration are not purified to the Steam entry level or higher? The Vism itself states clearly the requisite conditions for high-level panna developments. Do you know of any person who develops arahattamagga together with the other three stages of the holiness in the spiral fashion? Doesn't it start at the Sotapatti-magga and go all the way sequentially up to the Arahattamagga ? The Vism explains such a process, I believe. Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Han and Tep, > I am glad that you continue here on dsg the conversation you had > offline, so that we all can share. I suspect that you have many #76372 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View hantun1 Dear Nina (and Tep), What I wrote was not my original idea. As you got the impressive beginning and ending from the Visuddhimagga, I also got the step by step approach from Visuddhimagga, XVIII, 1 and 2 where it was mentioned that the “trunk” is to be achieved after the perfection of the “roots.” Do you really want to know what we discussed? It won’t be pretty! I expressed my concern regarding what a person who has not yet perfected the purification of virtue and purification of consciousness might do. The following is the scenario that I am afraid of. A man (who has not yet perfected the purification of siila and purification of citta) lives in a house with his wife, his sister, and his sister-in-law. Then one day, he considers that there is no wife, no sister, no sister-in-law, and there are only naamas and ruupas in the house. One can imagine what may happen in that house. I sincerely hope that my fear is absolutely unfounded! Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Dear Han and Tep, > I am glad that you continue here on dsg the > conversation you had > offline, so that we all can share. I suspect that > you have many > interesting conversations together off line. Do > share them. #76373 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Nina, Han, and Jon) - In a message dated 9/14/2007 11:14:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Dear Nina (and Han), - The sequential development of the path, or patipada, is clearly supported by the Vism as well many suttas. We discussed this topic many times before. Take the Sekha Patipada Sutta and Dantabhumi Sutta as examples. Show me that these two suttas support Howard's spiral model. I am going to give you a reward, if you can show me so ! >H: > Therefore, Tep, I want to ask for your opinion, > > whether one can have the "trunk" without the "roots", N: once Howard wrote a post with a simile of a spiral. One cannot say: this first, than that, but all three siila, concentration and wisdom (view) develop together and condition one another. ... ... There are many degrees of siila, samaadhi and pa~n~naa and they condition one another. They grow together, going upwards together higher and higher like a spiral. T: I think Han's question is about whether the last 5 purifications require support of the first two, namely, purification of virtues and purification of consciousness. The Howard's spiral model of growth makes sense for the first two purifications along with low-level vipassana-panna development. But I do not see how 'purification by knowledge and vision of the way' can be developed together with the other four at the time virtues and concentration are not purified to the Stream entry at least. Beyond the worldlings' opion and speculation, do you know of a real case in which 'purification by knowledge and vision of the way' can be developed together at the time virtues and concentration are not purified to the Steam entry level or higher? The Vism itself states clearly the requisite conditions for high-level panna developments. Do you know of any person who develops arahattamagga together with the other three stages of the holiness in the spiral fashion? Doesn't it start at the Sotapatti-magga and go all the way sequentially up to the Arahattamagga ? The Vism explains such a process, I believe. Tep =================================== It was not MY spiral path, but the Buddha's! On July 16, 2002 I wrote the following post to Jon: Hi again, Jon - I just read the first two suttas from the book of tens in the A. Nikaya, and they are quite relevant to what we were discussing (growing out of VI, 50). In the first of these, the Buddha puts forth the following chain of conditionality: Virtuous ways of conduct -> Non-remorse -> Gladness -> Joy -> Serenity -> Happiness -> Concentration of the mind -> Knowledge and vision of things as they really are -> Revulsion and dispassion -> Knowledge and vision of liberation. This, of course, is quite similar to the content of VI, 50. What is interesting to me is the material of the very next sutta, the second sutta of the book of tens. It puts forward the very same chain of conditionality as above, but, at the end *circling back* to virtuous ways of conduct once again. And then the sutta closes with the following: "Thus, monks, the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection, for going from the near shore to the far shore." This is exactly the spiral conditionality that I was suggesting, and is, of course, in harmony with both of our understandings that all the factors affect each other. With metta, Howard #76374 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:00 am Subject: Spiral Path Revisited (Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View) upasaka_howard Hi again, Tep (and all) - The full cycle in the 2nd sutta of AN 10 is as follows: Virtuous ways of conduct -> Non-remorse -> Gladness -> Joy -> Serenity -> Happiness -> Concentration of the mind -> Knowledge and vision of things as they really are -> Revulsion and dispassion -> Knowledge and vision of liberation -> Virtuous ways of conduct -> Non-remorse -> ... And the Buddha does conclude by then saying the following: "Thus, monks, the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection, for going from the near shore to the far shore." If this does not indicate a spiral path of practice, I don't know what does. ;-) With metta, Howard P.S. I obtained this from NUMERICAL DISCOURSES OF THE BUDDHA, by Nyanaponika Thera & Bhikkhu Bodhi (ISBN 0-7425-0405-0), the paperback. #76375 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:02 am Subject: Spiral Path Revisited (Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View) indriyabala Hi Howard & Nina ( Han, and others), - I appreciate your clarifying information oabout the "spiral model" of dhamma development. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Tep (and all) - > > The full cycle in the 2nd sutta of AN 10 is as follows: > > Virtuous ways of conduct > -> > Non-remorse > -> > Gladness > -> > Joy > -> > Serenity > -> > Happiness > -> > Concentration of the mind > -> > Knowledge and vision of things as they really are > -> > Revulsion and dispassion > -> > Knowledge and vision of liberation > -> > Virtuous ways of conduct > -> > Non-remorse > -> > ... > > And the Buddha does conclude by then saying the following: "Thus, monks, > the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding > qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection, for going from the near > shore to the far shore." If this does not indicate a spiral path of > practice, I don't know what does. ;-) > Tep: No harm was intended to belittle your spiral idea, Howard. You see, the argument started because of Nina's insistence on "no precedence, no sequential practice -- no this step then that step". But her idea of the simultaneously coming together of all the dhammas does not make sense to me. Now let's examine the segment of the "spiral" mental development model, starting from 'virtuous ways of conduct' to non-remorse' to 'gladness'. Everyone CAN see that it is a sequential procedure that consists of three steps. Without virtuous conducts, there is no way non- remorse can happen; and without non-remorse, there is no way gladness may arise. The same logic can be applied to explain the following sequenctial steps from gladness all the way to knowledge and vision of liberation. After the ending of this linear segment, the procedure of dhamma development restarts again; it is a renewal SEQUENTIAL purification procedure of sila-samadhi-panna development -- over and over, and over again. There is no looping back, because the second linear segment starts at a higher-up, more purified 'virtuous ways of conduct' until arahantship. The term spiral is a misnomer. It is in fact a renewal linear (or sequential) procedure that results in sequential improvement in sila, samadhi, and panna. So, this is a solid proof that Nina has been wrong for a long time. Thank you very much for providing the important sutta background, Howard. Tep ==== #76376 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:32 am Subject: Re: Spiral Path Revisited (Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View) upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Nina, Han, and all) - In a message dated 9/14/2007 2:03:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Hi Howard & Nina ( Han, and others), - I appreciate your clarifying information oabout the "spiral model" of dhamma development. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi again, Tep (and all) - > > The full cycle in the 2nd sutta of AN 10 is as follows: > > Virtuous ways of conduct > -> > Non-remorse > -> > Gladness > -> > Joy > -> > Serenity > -> > Happiness > -> > Concentration of the mind > -> > Knowledge and vision of things as they really are > -> > Revulsion and dispassion > -> > Knowledge and vision of liberation > -> > Virtuous ways of conduct > -> > Non-remorse > -> > ... > > And the Buddha does conclude by then saying the following: "Thus, monks, > the preceding qualities flow into the succeeding qualities; the succeeding > qualities bring the preceding qualities to perfection, for going from the near > shore to the far shore." If this does not indicate a spiral path of > practice, I don't know what does. ;-) > Tep: No harm was intended to belittle your spiral idea, Howard. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Again, Tep, the idea is not mine but the Buddha's. ------------------------------------------------- You see, the argument started because of Nina's insistence on "no precedence, no sequential practice -- no this step then that step". But her idea of the simultaneously coming together of all the dhammas does not make sense to me. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, some conditions do, of course, co-occur, but I infer asynchronous conditioning from these suttas, not simultaneous. -------------------------------------------------------- Now let's examine the segment of the "spiral" mental development model, starting from 'virtuous ways of conduct' to non-remorse' to 'gladness'. Everyone CAN see that it is a sequential procedure that consists of three steps. Without virtuous conducts, there is no way non- remorse can happen; and without non-remorse, there is no way gladness may arise. The same logic can be applied to explain the following sequenctial steps from gladness all the way to knowledge and vision of liberation. After the ending of this linear segment, the procedure of dhamma development restarts again; it is a renewal SEQUENTIAL purification procedure of sila-samadhi-panna development -- over and over, and over again. There is no looping back, because the second linear segment starts at a higher-up, more purified 'virtuous ways of conduct' until arahantship. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: That is correct. That is why I wrote of *spiral* development rather than cyclic development. ---------------------------------------------------------- The term spiral is a misnomer. It is in fact a renewal linear (or sequential) procedure that results in sequential improvement in sila, samadhi, and panna. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I think that the term spiral is fitting. Picture a spiral: There is no repetition, but a spiraling outwards towards higher and higher states. Think of the analogy of someone learning the piano: A novice does exercises. So does a master pianist, and the exercises are of the same sort, but they not of the same quality or intensity of performance nor of the the same level of difficulty. --------------------------------------------------------- So, this is a solid proof that Nina has been wrong for a long time. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: If you are speaking of simultaneity, I do think these suttas suggest that such is not the case. ------------------------------------------------------ Thank you very much for providing the important sutta background, Howard. Tep ============================== With metta, Howard #76377 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View nilovg Dear Han, Tep, Howard, Howard, thank you for providing again the suttas. Tep, I do not deny sequence in the vipassana ~naa.nas and the three pari~n~nas, alhtough the former ones are not discarded when the last one is being developed. As to the three of siila, samaadhi and pa`n`naa, well, we had many discussions before and disagreed. I think this tripartite division in the Visudddhimagga is for teaching purpose, you do not, O.K. with me. We discussed many suttas with this subject. I just wonder: can one be steadfast in siila without understanding of one's cittas and the condiitons for them? Can one develop samatha without paa~n~naa which knows precisely when the citta is kusala and when akusala? One may follow a teacher, but one has to find out for onself. In general I would say that when a particular point is stressed in a sutta and the listener has right understanding he will get the point. When one point is stressed it does not mean that other factors are excluded. So it is with the tripartite division. ------- Op 14-sep-2007, om 17:26 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > > I expressed my concern regarding what a person who has > not yet perfected the purification of virtue and > purification of consciousness might do. The following > is the scenario that I am afraid of. > > A man (who has not yet perfected the purification of > siila and purification of citta) lives in a house with > his wife, his sister, and his sister-in-law. Then one > day, he considers that there is no wife, no sister, no > sister-in-law, and there are only naamas and ruupas in > the house. One can imagine what may happen in that > house. > I sincerely hope that my fear is absolutely unfounded! ------- N: Absolutely unfounded, one is safe with the development of satipatthana. Again, it depends on his right understanding. If one develops understanding of nama and rupa it does not mean that one ignores one's family, we all know that. But right understanding of nama and rupa will result in what is beneficial and wholesome. It supports sila, one's conduct, enhances one's social life. It can be known when there is akusala citta that motivates wrong speech and conduct, and this conditions abstaining from such ways. I heard from a tape: Thus, understanding of nama and rupa leads to detachment and that is always good and beneficial. *We* do not abstain from akusala, it is sati that is non-forgetful of kusala. When there is no sati nobody in the world can make one abstain. To return to your first words: . How could he perfect this without pa~n~na developed through satipatthana? Nina. #76378 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 12:23 pm Subject: Spiral Path Revisited (Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View) indriyabala Hi, Howard (and Nina), - Thank you again for another valuable thought sharing. Coming to think about it, I think I agree with you about a number of things, although I have not make that perfectly clear. -- In addition to 'when this occurs, then that will happen', co-occurence of certain paccaya (conditions) is also well known in both the sutta and abhidhamma lierature. But it is too much to assume simultaneous occurrence.of the dhammas in a single moment as I have often heard at DSG forums. -- Spiraling upward implied a helical path of flow/motion from a low level to a higher one. The renewal sequential procedure (AN 10.2) is rather like connecting several identical ladders, one on top of another to reach a level that is too much higher than one ladder can. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep (and Nina, Han, and all) - > > In a message dated 9/14/2007 2:03:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > indriyabala@... writes: > > Hi Howard & Nina ( Han, and others), - > > I appreciate your clarifying information about the "spiral model" of > dhamma development. > #76379 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:54 am Subject: Re: Spiral Path Revisited (Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View) upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 9/14/2007 3:25:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, indriyabala@... writes: Spiraling upward implied a helical path of flow/motion from a low level to a higher one. The renewal sequential procedure (AN 10.2) is rather like connecting several identical ladders, one on top of another to reach a level that is too much higher than one ladder can. =========================== Exactly! One round builds upon the previous. :-) With metta, Howard #76380 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View hantun1 Dear Nina (Tep, Howard), Thank you very much for letting me know that my fear is absolutely unfounded. I was also hoping that my fear is unfounded. As you have given very good reasons why my fear is unfounded, I have nothing more to add. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Op 14-sep-2007, om 17:26 heeft han tun het volgende > geschreven: << >> > N: Absolutely unfounded, #76381 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:42 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (66) nichiconn Dear Friends Growing Older as we Speak, 13. Viisatinipaato XIII. The Section of the Groups of Twenty [Verses] 1. Ambapaaliitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa part 8 verse: 257. "Bhassaraa suruciraa yathaa ma.nii, nettahesumabhiniilamaayataa; te jaraayabhihataa na sobhare, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 257. My eyes were shining, very brilliant like jewels, very black and long. Overwhelmed by old age, they do not look beautiful. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. txt: Bhassaraati bhaasuraa. Suruciraati su.t.thu ruciraa. Yathaa ma.niiti ma.nimuddikaa viya. Nettahesunti sunettaa ahesu.m. Abhiniilamaayataati abhiniilaa hutvaa aayataa. Teti nettaa. Jaraayabhihataati jaraaya abhihataa. Pruitt: 257. Shining (bhassaraa) means: bright (bhaasura). Very brilliant (su-ruciraa) means: very brilliant (su.t.thu ruciraa). Like jewels (ma.nii) means: like jewelled signet rings (ma.ni-muddikaa). My eyes (nett') were means: my beautiful eyes (sunettaa) were. Very black and long (abhiniila-aayataa) means: being black (abhiniila hutvaa), they were long. They means: my eyes. Overwhelmed by old age (jaraay' abhihataa) means: overwhelmed by old age (jaraaya abhihataa). verse: 258. "Sa.nhatu"ngasadisii ca naasikaa, sobhate su abhiyobbana.m pati; saa jaraaya upakuulitaa viya, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 258. In the bloom of my youth, my nose looked beautiful like a delicate peak. Because of old age, it is like something that is shrivelled up. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. txt: Sa.nhatu"ngasadisii caati sa.nhaa tu"ngaa sesamukhaavayavaana.m anuruupaa ca. Sobhateti va.t.tetvaa .thapitaharitaalava.t.ti viya mama naasikaa sobhate. Su abhiyobbana.m patiiti sundare abhinavayobbanakaale saa naasikaa idaani jaraaya nivaaritasobhataaya pariseditaa viya varattaa viya ca jaataa. 258. Like a delicate peak (sa.nha-tu"nga-sadisii) means: like a delicate (sa.nhaa) peak (tu"ngaa) matching the other parts of my face. Looked beautiful (sobhate) means: my nose looked beautiful, turning like a strip of yellow orpiment placed there. In the bloom of my youth (su-abhiyobbana.m pati) means: at the beautiful (sundare) time of the bloom of youth (abhinava-yobbana-kaale). Now, that nose, with its beauty suppressed because of old age, has become like a moistened leather strap. verse: 259. "Ka"nka.na.mva sukata.m suni.t.thita.m, sobhare su mama ka.n.napaa.liyo; taa jaraaya valibhippalambitaa, saccavaadivacana.m ana~n~nathaa. 259. My earlobes looked beautiful, like well-fashioned and well-finished bracelets. Because of old age, they droop down with wrinkles. The utterance of the Speaker of Truth is not false. txt: Ka"nka.na.mva sukata.m suni.t.thitanti suparikammakata.m suva.n.naka"nka.na.m viya va.t.tulabhaava.m sandhaaya vadati. Sobhareti sobhante. "Sobhante"ti vaa paa.tho. Suiti nipaatamatta.m. Ka.n.napaa.liyoti ka.n.nagandhaa. Valibhippalambitaati tahi.m tahi.m uppannavaliihi valitaa hutvaa va.t.taniyaa pa.naamitavatthakhandhaa viya bhassantaa olambanti. Pattaliimakulava.n.nasaadisaati kadalimakulasadisava.n.nasa.n.thaanaa. 259. Like well-fashioned (sukata.m) and well-finished (suni.t.thita.m) bracelets (ka"nka.na.m) means: like a golden bracelet (suva.n.na-ka"nka.na.m) beautifully made (suparikamma-kata.m). She says this with reference to their roundness. They look beautiful (sobhate su) means: they look beautiful (sobhante). Or there is the reading sobhante. Su [untranslated] is only a particle. Earlobes (ka.n.na-paa.liyo) means: earlobes (ka.n.na-pattaa). They droop down with wrinkles (valibhi ppalambitaa) means: here and there they are wrinkled with the wrinkles that have appeared (uppanna-valiihi). They fall down, they hang down (olambanti) like bundles of clothes bent through a ring. ===and more to come, connie #76382 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:50 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,190 Vism.XVII,191 Vism.XVII,192 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 190. At the moment of rebirth-linking of those of Brahmaa's Retinue, among apparitionally born beings, four organic continuities are manifested as materiality, that is, the decads of eye, ear, and physical basis, and the ennead of the life faculty, and three immaterial aggregates. So in their case in detail these forth-two states, namely, thirty nine states as concrete materiality and three immaterial aggregates, should be understood as 'mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition'. But omitting repetitions and so cancelling twenty-seven instances of materiality [nine each] from three of the organic continuities, fifteen states remain. 191. In the sense-sphere becoming, seven organic continuities are manifested as materiality, and also three immaterial aggregates at the moment of rebirth-linking of the remaining kinds of apparitionally born or of the moisture-born possessing sex and matured sense bases. So in their case in detail these seventy-three states, namely, seventy instances of concrete materiality and three immaterial aggregates, should be understood as 'mentality-materiality with formations as condition'. But omitting repetitions and so cancelling fifty-four material instances [nine each] from six of the organic continuities, nineteen states remain. This is the maximum. But at minimum the computation of 'mentality-materiality with consciousness as condition' in the rebirth-linking of those who lack such and such organic continuity can be understood in brief and detail by reducing it appropriately. [The blind, for instance, lack the eye decad.] 192. For mentality-materiality immaterial beings have only the three [mental] aggregates; while non-percipient beings have only the life-faculty ennead, and that represents materiality. ********************** 190. yasmaa ca opapaatikasattesu brahmakaayikaadiina.m pa.tisandhikkha.ne cakkhusotavatthudasakaana.m, jiivitindriyanavakassa ca vasena ruupato cattaari santatisiisaani, tayo ca aruupino khandhaa paatubhavanti, tasmaa tesa.m vitthaarena ruuparuupato ekuunacattaaliisa dhammaa, tayo ca aruupino khandhaati ete baacattaaliisa dhammaa vi~n~naa.napaccayaa naamaruupanti veditabbaa. aggahitaggaha.nena pana santatisiisattayato sattaviisati dhamme apanetvaa pa.n.narasa. 191. kaamabhave pana yasmaa sesa opapaatikaana.m, sa.msedajaana.m vaa sabhaavakaparipu.n.naayatanaana.m pa.tisandhikkha.ne ruupato satta santatisiisaani, tayo ca aruupino khandhaa paatubhavanti, tasmaa tesa.m vitthaarena ruuparuupato sattati dhammaa, tayo ca aruupino khandhaati ete tesattati dhammaa vi~n~naa.napaccayaa naamaruupanti veditabbaa. aggahitaggaha.nena pana ruupasantatisiisachakkato catupa~n~naasa dhamme apanetvaa ekuunaviisati. esa ukka.mso. avaka.msena pana ta.mta.mruupasantatisiisavikalaana.m tassa tassa vasena haapetvaa haapetvaa sa"nkhepato vitthaarato ca pa.tisandhiya.m vi~n~naa.napaccayaa naamaruupasa"nkhaa veditabbaa. 192. aruupiina.m pana tayova aruupino khandhaa. asa~n~niina.m ruupato jiivitindriyanavakamevaati. esa taava pa.tisandhiya.m nayo. #76383 From: "Andrew" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 3:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Purification of View corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > The sequential development of the path, or patipada, is clearly > supported by the Vism as well many suttas. We discussed this topic > many times before. Take the Sekha Patipada Sutta and Dantabhumi > Sutta as examples. Show me that these two suttas support Howard's > spiral model. I am going to give you a reward, if you can show me so ! Hi Tep I don't feel that I have perfected sila. I am therefore interested in the practical consequences of your reading of the sequential development of the path. As I am at the sila stage in the sequence, I should not have any regard to those parts of the Tipitika that relate to the subsequent stages. After all, they are currently irrelevant to me, are they not? I cannot have any hope of "tackling them" while I remain with unperfected sila. There can be no development of wisdom by , for example, examining the dukkha involved in breaches of sila etc. etc. The sequence must be followed and I control the following of the sequence. When I say "I", I mean of course that thing called "Andrew" that exists over and above the mentality-materiality that the Buddha called "the all". Have I got this right? Best wishes Andrew #76384 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:17 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Sorry to bother you, I've not yet seen a reply to Message #76286. Have I missed it? Do I await your answering post in vain? Sincerely, Scott. #76385 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:37 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Dear Scott, - I apologize for the delay. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Sorry to bother you, I've not yet seen a reply to Message #76286. > Have I missed it? Do I await your answering post in vain? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > No more waiting, Scott. I am going to reply to your challenging questions tonight. Tep === #76386 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:41 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thank you, Tep. I'm looking forward to continuing the discussion. Sorry if I was not patient enough. T: "No more waiting, Scott. I am going to reply to your challenging questions tonight." Sincerely, Scott. #76387 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View hantun1 Dear Nina, Tep, Howard and others, In Milindapa~nha, translated by Mendis, Part IV, No. 26, King Milinda said: “Revered Naagasena, you say: “there are two bourns, not another, for a householder who has attained arahantship: either, that very day, he goes forth into homelessness or he attains final Nibbaana.” Later in the text, Revered Naagasena explained why it is so. “Unequal, sire, are the attributes of a householder. The attributes being unequal, it is owing to the weakness of his attributes that a householder who has attained arahantship either goes forth or attains final Nibbaana on that very day. This is not a defect in arahantship, sire, this is a defect in the householder’s attributes, namely, the weakness of the attributes.” So also, the “no-person” teaching is very good, and if I cannot accept the “no-person” teaching, it is not a defect in the teaching, but it is the weakness of my attributes. Another thing is that to me, “too much” and “too soon” of everything, however good it may be, I cannot assimilate it. I will give a true account as an example. In Bangkok, quite recently, a new army cadet was forced to drink large volume of water in a very short time, by the senior cadets, for a minor negligence. The new cadet died a few hours later due to oedema of lungs and other vital organs. Now, water is very essential for life, but given too much and too soon it kills a man. So also, the “no-person” teaching is very good, but if given to me too much and too soon I cannot assimilate it. I will accept it when I am ready. But not now! Respectfully, Han #76388 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: >. Buddhas and Arahants > always exist ++++++++++ Dear Tep Buddha's and arahants do not always exist. Now there is no Buddha only his Dhamma is left. Robert #76389 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:25 pm Subject: Re: Vism.XVII,190 Vism.XVII,191 Vism.XVII,192 nichiconn Path of Purification, pp.670-71 And because, at the moment of conception of the Brahmaas among apparitional beings, four heads of continuity from matter and three non-material aggregates are manifested by way of the decads of the eyes' and ears' physical basis and the ennead of life-controlling faculty, therefore in detail forty-two states should be understood as "name and form conditioned by consciousness," namely, thirty-nine states from matter and three immaterial aggregates. Taking into account what has not been mentioned, fifteen states are obtained by leaving out twenty-seven states from three heads of continuity. In the world of sense, however, because at the moment of conception of the remaining beings, the apparitional and the moisture-born who have sense-organs with complete intrinsic nature, seven heads of continuity from matter and three immaterial aggregates are manifested, therefore in detail these seventy-three states should be understood as "name and form conditioned by consciousness," namely, seventy states from matter and three immaterial aggregates. Taking into account what has not been mentioned, nineteen states are obtained by leaving out fifty-four from the sextet {read *siisachakkato} of heads of the continuity of matter: this at the most; but at the least the reckoning of name and form in brief and in detail, as conditioned by consciousness at conception, is to be understood by subtracting from those heads of the continuity of matter in which they are deficient. But of formless beings the three non-material aggregates, and of perceptionless beings the ennead of life-controlling faculty from form [are to be reckoned as name and form]. Such in the first place is the way in rebirth. #76390 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:43 pm Subject: Re: satipatthana as island of refuge indriyabala Dear Scott, - Your message #76286 so far has been the most difficult one to reply. I am going to do the best I can ! And I have no doubt that you will let me know (loudly and clearly) if you can find even a tiny error. [:>) Scott: I appreciate the chance to examine the texts here. Vism. XIX seems to refer to 'paccaya-pariggaha-~naa.na', which is 'discerning the conditions for naama and ruupa'. This is said to be the second, not the first, stage of vipassanaa ~naa.na. If the cula-sotapanna is defined by this level of vipassanaa ~naa.na, as is stated, then clearly the first stage of vipassanaa, ~naa.na, 'naama-ruupa-pariccheda-~naa.na', is for worldlings. Perhaps you can re-clarify here, Tep (since the order was somewhat mixed up and the correction might require a revision of the point made). Tep : Only a super bookworm with the brain of an elephant can remember all the details in the Vism, Scott. I think it is just a personal preference to say "The begining of direct knowledge, the first insight of an ariyan, is when there is Stream entry. Stream- entry marks the complete transformation of worldlings' wisdom after the first three fetters have been cut off". It is the same problem of shifting the origin on the XY-plane; the shifting does not change the equation. FYI I do not consider cula-sotapatti as the "complete transformation" yet, since s/he has not entered the Stream. ......... Scott: The ladder simile is an excellent one, Tep. You must be questioned again here, I'm afraid. 1)When you refer to 'pa~n~naa, to what do you refer? 2)Do you refer to the cetasika? 3)Do you refer to 'wisdom' in the sense of something that someone has, such as 'a person learning more and more'? 4)What is it that the ladder stands for in the simile of the ladder? 5)Do you think there is convention pa~n~naa and paramattha pa~n~naa? (Bow wow, man). T: It sounds like a punishment! Is this "the revenge of the Bat Man" ? Or, is it another Abhidhamma qualifying exam given by a junior- ranking member of the 'gang'? 1) - 3) To me 'pa~n~naa' means understanding. Yes, it is a cetasika (I am taking a risk that makes me smell like an Abhidhammika). When we first learn an unfamiliar subject, we do not yet understand it. Once we understand it thoroughly, we begin to develop knowledge. With more learning through experiencing, full understanding(parinna) then follows. 4) & 5) The ladder stands for 'patipadaa'. I do not want to complicate everything by the 'convention' magnifying glass that you have -- i.e. exaggerating things unnecessarily. Is there a benefit from labelling it as "convention pa~n~naa" or "paramattha pa~n~naa" ? .......... Scott: I'd advise you to forget about computers and cars. Conventional truth is truth by convention - worldly convention. It is great that cars run and computers work but Dhamma is not about these things. In quoting Visuddhimagga above I'll assume you hold it to be a credible source. T: Yes sir, Professor Scott! Please rest assured that I hold it as a credible source -- it is because I believe Ven. Buddhaghosa was an ariyan, judging from reading his Vism from the first to the last page, a few times already. ........... Scott (quoting Vism, XVIII): "After defining materiality-mentality thus according to its true nature, then in order to abandon this worldly designation of 'a being' and 'a person' more thoroughly, to surmount confusion about beings and to establish in his mind on the plane of non-confusion, he makes sure that the meaning defined, namely, 'This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, nor person' is confirmed by a number of suttas." T: Did you read the above passage very carefully yourself ? I did. The important message is: indeed, there is this real world of beings, and there is the mentality-materiality-clinging that causes confusion -- i.e. a wrong view in the mind of the beholder. By re- conditioning one's perception with the right view, 'This is mere mentality-materiality, there is no being, nor person', he is free from such clinging. And he is freed from wrong self views, I tell you ! The question 'Is there a self' or 'Is there no self' are extreme views (attanuditthi) that are conditioned by upadana in the khandhas. ............. 'Just as when a space is enclosed with timber and creepers and grass and clay, there comes to be the term "house", so too, when a space is enclosed with bones and sinews and flesh and skin, there comes to be the term "material form" (ruupa) (M.i,190). T: Did you carefully read the above passage ? I did ! Yes, of course there are houses seen in this world (Have you not?). Yes, of course there are "bones and sinews and flesh and skin" in a human body -- the 'atta-patilaabha'[DN 9] that has materiality and consists of the four great entities and consumes physical food. But a wise man, one who is a disciple of the noble ones, who has the right view of the ariyans, is intent upon seeing/contemplating the component parts (bones and sinews and flesh and skin) in order to abandon the basis for the assumption 'this is what I am'. This right view is free from the upadanakkhandha. Some worldlings, however, are confused and they have jumped to the conclusion that there is no person outside the mind that has conceived "beings". ............ " ... yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is no being as a basis for the assumption 'I am' or 'I'; in the ultimate sense there is only mentality-materiality. The vision of one who sees in this way is called correct vision." T: Yes, definitely: in "the ultimate sense" there is only mentality- materiality. Yes, the vision of one who sees it this way is called correct vision (yathabhuta-dassana) -- it is a cula sotapanna's vision. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Thanks for the reply, > > T: "The begining of direct knowledge, the first insight of an ariyan, > is when there is Stream entry. Stream-entry marks the complete > transformation of worldlings' wisdom after the first three fetters > have been cut off. The lesser panna that knows 'the difference > between naama & ruupa' defines cula-sotapanna (See the Vism, XIX, 27)." > #76391 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. indriyabala Dear RobertK, - Today I must be lucky to receive an email from you! [It has been a rare event.] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > >. Buddhas and Arahants > > always exist > ++++++++++ > Dear Tep > Buddha's and arahants do not always exist. Now there is no Buddha only his Dhamma is left. > Robert > T: I am happy that you do not have the wrong view, 'There is no person, no Buddha!!' Maybe my message is too short to sound technically correct. I mean the world is not empty of Buddhas and Arahants, and that is what I have read (not what I assume). I appreciate the technical correction nevertheless. I know you must be one of the toughest book reviewers ! But be careful; you will receive the same kamma-vipaka. Tep === #76392 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Purification of View indriyabala Dear Han, - Thanks for telling us that the 'no person' teaching is very good, but it is not for you. "Unequal, sire, are the attributes of a > householder. The attributes being unequal, it is owing > to the weakness of his attributes that a householder > who has attained arahantship either goes forth or > attains final Nibbaana on that very day. This is not a > defect in arahantship, sire, this is a defect in the > householder's attributes, namely, the weakness of the > attributes." > T: So that means no householder can remain as "a living Arahant" longer than one day. What kind of "defect" is it, do you know? > H: So also, the "no-person" teaching is very good, and if > I cannot accept the "no-person" teaching, it is not a > defect in the teaching, but it is the weakness of my > attributes. > T: Why do you keep on saying that the "no-person" teaching is very good? I think it is very wrong, unless one already has the ariyan's ultimate view -- somewhat like seeing only molecules in a piece of a conductor, although the conductor is right there. > Another thing is that to me, "too much" and "too soon" > of everything, however good it may be, I cannot > assimilate it. I will give a true account as an > example. In Bangkok, quite recently, a new army cadet > was forced to drink large volume of water in a very > short time, by the senior cadets, for a minor > negligence. The new cadet died a few hours later due > to oedema of lungs and other vital organs. Now, water > is very essential for life, but given too much and too > soon it kills a man. > > So also, the "no-person" teaching is very good, but if > given to me too much and too soon I cannot assimilate > it. I will accept it when I am ready. > But not now! > T: Okay, let me save your poor life -- I'll stop talking with you about "no person, no Buddha" from now. Tep === #76393 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:42 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (15) hantun1 Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 10: The Perfection of Equanimity, taken from the book “The Perfections leading to Enlightenment” by Sujin Boriharnwanaket and translated by Nina van Gorkom. Questions, comments, or different opinions are welcome. ------------------------------ We read in the Commentary about paññå : “Wisdom opposes them in so far as greed, etc., create blindness, while knowledge restores sight.” Wisdom is opposed to akusala as it dispels the darkness of attachment and restores sight. As soon as we have seen something, attachment is bound to arise. When paññå is lacking, there is no opposition to lobha which is very skilful in clinging to all the sense objects. However, when paññå arises, attachment cannot arise at the same time; paññå is opposed to attachment. Only paññå can dispel the darkness of attachment. When paññå arises, it is able to understand the true nature of the reality that appears. Paññå understands kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. As paññå develops, it will know the characteristics of realities as they are, so that the darkness of ignorance can be overcome. We read about energy and patience: “Energy opposes lobha by arousing the true way free from both listlessness and restlessness. Patience opposes lobha by accepting the desirable, the undesirable, and emptiness.” Each of the perfections is of great benefit provided we duly reflect on them and gradually accumulate them. If, in circumstances which are a test to our endurance, we reflect on patience, we can accumulate it. There can be patience with regard to disagreeable objects and to desirable objects of which we can realize the emptiness. ---------------------------- To be continued. Metta, Han #76394 From: han tun Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View hantun1 Dear Tep, > T: So that means no householder can remain as "a living Arahant" longer than one day. What kind of "defect" is it, do you know? Han: Revered Naagasena gave the following reasons. It is like food that guards the life-span and protects the life of all beings, yet carries away the life of him whose stomach is out of order because the food is not properly digested. This is not a defect in the food, this is a defect in the stomach. Or, sire, as a man who is feeble and weak, of lowly birth and of little merit, comes to naught and to ruin the moment he has acquired a great and mighty kingdom, falters and is unable to sustain authority, even so, sire, the householder who has attained arahantship is unable to sustain arahantship because of that attribute of weakness, and for that reason he either goes forth or attains final Nibbaana on that very day. ------------------------------ > T: Why do you keep on saying that the "no-person" teaching is very good? I think it is very wrong, unless one already has the ariyan's ultimate view -- somewhat like seeing only molecules in a piece of a conductor, although the conductor is right there. Han: You said “unless one already has the ariyan’s ultimate view”. That is exactly what I mean by the “no-person” teaching is very good – that is, if one has already the ariyan’s ultimate view. Because I have no such ultimate view it is not for me. ---------------------------- > T: Okay, let me save your poor life -- I'll stop talking with you about "no person, no Buddha" from now. Han: Thank you very much. You are very considerate. I think I will also not read or write any message on “no-person” from now:>) Respectfully, Han #76395 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View nilovg Dear Han, There is just one point. If you say: there are only namas and rupas 'in the house', paramattha dhammas and conventional truth are mixed in a way that is confusing. Howard warned against that. He said, it could even be dangerous. One has to be careful in formulating matters. Nina. Op 15-sep-2007, om 0:21 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > As you have given very good reasons why my fear is > unfounded, I have nothing more to add. #76396 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:24 pm Subject: Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. buddhatrue Hi Robert K. (Sarah and Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear James > I no longer have a copy of the Visuddhimagga so as no one has said > anything I guess I must have made this quote up. Can't remember > doing it or why I would slander Buddhaghosa but sincerely apologize. James: That's okay; I'm sure it wasn't intentional. > > I see according to your analysis of other quotes that Buddhagosa > apparently thought beings have a real existence after all. I am > surprised to hear that as it goes against so much Dhamma in many > sections of the Tipitaka. James: Well, I am actually surprised that you agree with me! I think that this is the first time an Abhidhammakian has agreed with me about anything!! I'm speechless! ;-)) However, now that you have agreed with me, I want to change gears and argue a bit the other side: Buddhaghosa didn't believe that beings have a "real existence". LOL! Yes, if you weren't confused before, you definitely are going to be confused now! ;-)) In Vism. IX, where Buddhaghosa is describing the practice of loving-kindness (metta) he writes: "Herein, all signifies inclusion without exception. Beings (satta): they are held (satta), gripped (visatta) by desire and greed for the aggregates beginning with materiality, thus they are beings (satta)." IX, 53. Buddhaghosa then goes on to explain that Buddhas and arahants, even though they no longer have clinging to the aggregates, are still referred to as "beings" because they have the physical appearance of beings (but they are not really beings). Buddhaghosa then further explains the line from the Metta Sutta "May all who have a personality in the eastern direction....be free from enmity, affliction and anxiety, and live happily." "Personality (attabhava) is what the physical body is called; or it is just the pentad of aggregates, since it is actually only a concept derived from that pentad of aggregates7. Footnote 7: 'Here when the aggregates are not fully understood, there is naming (abhidana) of them and of the consciousness of them as self (atta), that is to say, the physical body or alternatively the five aggregates. "Derived from"; apprehending, gripping, making a support. "Since it is actually a mere concept": because of presence (sabbhavato) as a mere concept in what is called a being, though in the highest sense the "being" is non-existent'(Pm. 298) So, Robert, Buddhaghosa accepted the theory of two realities: conventional reality and absolute reality. In conventional reality, beings do exist: they are born having physical bodies, grow old, and die. They exist. However, in the "highest sense" beings are non-existent. It is VERY IMPORTANT to make this distinction and to see it. What I argue in this group is when the members deny conventional reality and state that beings, or people, don't exist at any level. When they say supposedly deep things like "There is no Nina, no Lodewijk, no James". Those are the names given to conventional beings so it is ridiculous to say that we don't exist. I was born, will grow old, and will die. But, in the "highest sense" there is no "ME", and I hope to realize that one day and be released from suffering. However, pretending that the physical and mental manifestation referred to as "James" doesn't exist isn't going to get me there. The change comes from the inside out, not from the outside in (if you catch my drift ;-)). Metta, James #76397 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "there is no ‘personÂ?Equot; - "The controversy on ‘personÂ?Eis e. nilovg Dear James (and Robert), Thanks for your good post I appreciate. I thought actually that Robert was ironical. This conditioned an excellent answer from you. That is what Lodewijk also finds: --------- N: So, there is a mixture in the formulation of conventional and absolute truth in one sentence, which, as Howard said, can be dangerous. Lodewijk says that the way it is formulated makes no sense, it puts him off . But he accepts the teaching of anatta. He will rejoice in your post. What is also true is that those who understand anatta rightly will not mind much the way of formulating. There is no misunderstanding when one knows: my important person, Nina, are five khandhas, nama and rupa that arise and then fall away immediately, never to come back. Like the body from head to toe I cling to. Each rupa arises and then falls away, completely gone. All rupas of the body are completely gone all the time. Where is my important body? So long as there are conditions, old rupas are replaced my new ones and because of wrong remembrance I think of 'my body'. Now, it is another matter when we try to epxlain anatta in this forum. Then we have to be very careful in formulating as you suggest. Nina. Op 15-sep-2007, om 8:24 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > In Vism. IX, where Buddhaghosa is describing the practice of > loving-kindness (metta) he writes: > > ..... > Buddhaghosa then further explains the line from the Metta Sutta "May > all who have a personality in the eastern direction....be free from > enmity, affliction and anxiety, and live happily." > "Personality (attabhava) is what the physical body is called; or it is > just the pentad of aggregates, since it is actually only a concept > derived from that pentad of aggregates7. > > Footnote 7: 'Here when the aggregates are not fully understood, there > is naming (abhidana) of them and of the consciousness of them as self > (atta), that is to say, the physical body or alternatively the five > aggregates. "Derived from"; apprehending, gripping, making a support. > "Since it is actually a mere concept": because of presence > (sabbhavato) as a mere concept in what is called a being, though in > the highest sense the "being" is non-existent'(Pm. 298) > > So, Robert, Buddhaghosa accepted the theory of two realities: > conventional reality and absolute reality. In conventional reality, > beings do exist: they are born having physical bodies, grow old, and > die. They exist. However, in the "highest sense" beings are > non-existent. It is VERY IMPORTANT to make this distinction and to > see it. > > What I argue in this group is when the members deny conventional > reality and state that beings, or people, don't exist at any level. > When they say supposedly deep things like "There is no Nina, no > Lodewijk, no James". Those are the names given to conventional beings > so it is ridiculous to say that we don't exist. I was born, will grow > old, and will die. But, in the "highest sense" there is no "ME", and > I hope to realize that one day and be released from suffering. > However, pretending that the physical and mental manifestation > referred to as "James" doesn't exist isn't going to get me there. The > change comes from the inside out, not from the outside in (if you > catch my drift ;-)). > #76398 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 15, 2007 1:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (15) nilovg Dear Han (and Tep), This quote clarifies that there cannot be firm siila without pa~n~naa. We can, as children, just follow what a teacher says: do not commit evil deeds. But, firm conviction of the benefit of kusala has to come from within, in other words, from understanding kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. I think of Andrew's question: his sila is not well established. Should he wait with the development of understanding of the different cittas? Then he can wait for aeons. Nina. Op 15-sep-2007, om 5:42 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > As soon as > we have seen something, attachment is bound to arise. > When paññå is lacking, there is no opposition to lobha > which is very skilful in clinging to all the sense > objects. However, when paññå arises, attachment cannot > arise at the same time; paññå is > opposed to attachment. Only paññå can dispel the > darkness of attachment. > > When paññå arises, it is able to understand the true > nature of the reality that appears. Paññå understands > kusala as kusala and akusala as akusala. As paññå > develops, it will know the characteristics of > realities as they are, so that the darkness of > ignorance can be overcome. #76399 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 15, 2007 2:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Purification of View, to Han. nilovg Dear Han, Op 15-sep-2007, om 2:43 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > In Milindapa~nha, translated by Mendis, Part IV, No. > 26, King Milinda said: “Revered Naagasena, you say: > “there are two bourns, not another, for a householder > who has attained arahantship: either, that very day, > he goes forth into homelessness or he attains final > Nibbaana.” > > Later in the text, Revered Naagasena explained why it > is so. “Unequal, sire, are the attributes of a > householder. The attributes being unequal, it is owing > to the weakness of his attributes that a householder > who has attained arahantship either goes forth or > attains final Nibbaana on that very day. This is not a > defect in arahantship, sire, this is a defect in the > householder’s attributes, namely, the weakness of the > attributes.” --------- N: I understand what you mean. But the simile wants to tell us that the household life is too coarse for the arahat. A householder has to get food, buy it and ask for things he needs. The arahat has eradicated all attachment, he does not get things for himself nor asks for things. As a layperson he could not live anymore, no requisites. The monk's life style is that of an arahat. He receives requisites but does not have to make a living or get things. That is why he would have to go forth or die. --------- > > H: So also, the “no-person” teaching is very good, and if > I cannot accept the “no-person” teaching, it is not a > defect in the teaching, but it is the weakness of my > attributes. -------- N: see James post and my reaction. No wonder you are put off by: there is no Han. And it does not help you to tell yourself all the time: there is no Han. -------- > > H: Another thing is that to me, “too much” and “too soon” > of everything, however good it may be, I cannot > assimilate it. ... > So also, the “no-person” teaching is very good, but if > given to me too much and too soon I cannot assimilate > it. I will accept it when I am ready. > But not now! --------- N: What about a beginning of understanding? Little by little? Tep speaks about the ariyan view, and true, then there is no doubt. But also before that, when insight stages are reached, doubt will be less. And before these stages are reached, there can be a beginning of understanding citta, cetasika and rupa. That is always of great benefit. Let us talk about seeing and hearing which occur all the time in daily life. It seems that we can see and hear at the same time, But seeing is dependent on the eyesense and it experiences colour. Hearing is dependent on the earsense and it experiences sound. We can consider more this fact: only one object can be experienced at a time. When hearing arises, seeing has fallen away, completely gone, never to come back. Also at that moment there is no thinking, only hearing. In this way it will be clearer that there is not a whole of impressions, but only one citta at a time which is very insignificant and ephemeral. Like a lump of foam. At a later stage of insight it can be directly experienced that nama and rupa fall away completely. Then it will be clearer that what is impermanent cannot be self. For now there is still an idea of I see, I hear, and how could we expect otherwise? We have this idea because we think of a whole of impressions that belong to us. But a beginning understanding is beneficial, it is a solid foundation. Anger may arise. We can consider this reality. It has already arisen and can we then control it? We can understand that there are conditions for whatever reality arises and that we cannot be master of realities. They have already arisen before we realize it! Some time ago we were studying with Larry Visuddhimagga Ch XIV about the khandhas, all the details about cetasikas, such as sobhana cetasikas. I was impressed that so many of them have to assist the kusala citta, just for one moment of kusala, like a flash of lightning. There is a concurrence of conditions for the arising of one moment of kusala citta. The more we see it the less will we be inclined to think that we possess citta and cetasika. This is an example that all such moments of study and considering help us to understand the deep teaching of anatta. Not in one day! ******* Nina. >