#77600 From: Ken O Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. ashkenn2k Hi Dieter > > D: another question would be :who should be really concerned to > get a COMPLETE picture of the Abhidhamma other than Deva or > Brahma..? > At our level there may be details of interest , for example to see > clearer about states of consciousness by identifying categories of > our experience. K O corresponded to that idea , so why not trying to find points of common understanding for mutual benefit when there are at least some chances ? KO: Abhidhamma is not just taught for the deva, it is also taught for the humans. There are a few instances in the sutta where it is refer to as higher dhamma. there is no need to have a complete understanding of Abhidhamma just like do you need to have the complete understanding of the sutta to learn the sutta :-) Cheers Ken O #77601 From: Ken O Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. ashkenn2k Hi Wijeratna > By learning you can't understand Buddhism. It can be done only by > travelling the path. That is the Fourth Noble Truth. So if you > maintain that we can understand it by learning, then it is not in > accordance with the Dhamma. (The Four Noble Truths). May I add > here: The Buddha was not looking for knowledge. The Buddha was > searching for Ultimate peace and happiness. > > What is the meaning you attach to "ultimate reality"; or even just > reality? I ask this question because, unless we can agree on the meaning of terms we can't communicate. Just to pique you, may I mention that ultimate reality is su~n~na (emptyiness) according to Madhyamika philosophy. If you are interested, come back, I'll give you some more examples. KO: Most people I met when they come to DSG without Abhidhamma knowledge will have a difficult time understanding this. Even for myself, it take me months and months to understand. You are right to say that ultimate reality is sunna as our interpretation is that it is empty of a self, void of the substance of self. This utlimate reality is just like the basic chemistry of formula for water, H2O where water is considered the conventional reality while H2O is the ultimate reality. This H2O without microscope we cannot see it, just like our mind which is not sharp cannnot see the reality. Learning is an important intergral part of Buddism, just like one study the sutta, without learning how do we first set on the path. Learning condition faith in the path. If there is no faith, one will not further pursue the path to reach Nibbana. Learning also condition panna, as it helps to clear obstruction or confusion of what is right and what is wrong. Learning helps to clear the air what is craving, what causing craving and how to end craving, without it, how do we in the first place know about the end to craving. Learning condition thoughts which in turns condition actions. Cheers Kind regards Ken O p.s. give you a sutta quote that I usually used on faith and learning the dhamma MN 70 (Kitagiri Sutta) <> #77602 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:32 am Subject: Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. truth_aerator Hi Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > D: another question would be :who should be really concerned to get a COMPLETE picture of the Abhidhamma other than Deva or Brahma..? > At our level there may be details of interest , for example to see clearer about states of consciousness by identifying categories of our experience. > K O corresponded to that idea , so why not trying to find points of common understanding for mutual benefit when there are at least some chances ? > > with Metta Dieter If a person has any of the hindrances then what he studies may be misinterpreted. If he studies incomplete teaching + hindrances. How useful is that? Furthermore. Is it nessesary to study AP at all? I mean isn't one supposed to get perfect Pa~n~na at the level or Arahatship? Suffering (dukkha), Faith (saddha), Joy (pamojja), Rapture (piti), Tranquility (passaddhi), Happiness (sukha), Concentration (samadhi), Knowledge and vision of things as they are (yathabhutañanadassana), Disenchantment (nibbida), Dispassion (viraga), Emancipation (vimutti), Knowledge of destruction of the cankers (asavakkhaye ñana) 1) Associating with righteous people 2) Listening to true Dhamma 3) Faith 4) Proper attention 5) Mindfulness& clear comprehension 6) Restraint of the senses 7) Good conduct of body, speech & mind 8) 4 foundations of mindfulness 9) 7 factors of awakening 10) Liberation by supreme knowledge AN X.61-62 1) Conscientious, scrupulous, diligent 2) Have Noble friends 3) Become Energetic 4) Become Virtuous 5) Not being a fault finder 6) Gets Undistracted mind 7) Is without mental lassitude 8) Is free from doubt 9) Abandons greed hatred, delusion 10) Freed from birth, suffering, aging & death, AN- X.76 1) Conscience & concern 2) Purity of conduct 3)Restraint of the senses 4) Moderation in eating 5) Wakefulness 6)Mindfulness & alertness 7) Abandoning the hindrances 8) The four jhanas 9) The three knowledges http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html Mentioned in DN# 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 and a number of MN suttas as well. This one is most frequently mentioned roadmap. Lots of Metta, Alex #77603 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:38 am Subject: How quickly arahatship may happen? ! truth_aerator WOW! ------ In the same manner, royal prince, establishing on these five factors, effort is made. What five? Here the bhikkhu takes faith about the enlightnment of the Thus Gone One:That Blessed One is perfect, rightfully enlightened, endowed with knowledge and conduct, well gone, knows of the worlds, is the incomparable tamer of those to be tamed, Teacher of gods and men, enlightened and blessed. He has few ailments and few disorders, promoting a good digestive system, not too cold and not too hot. He is not crafty nor fraudulent, shows his real self to the Teacher or to the wise co-associates in the holy life. Abides with aroused effort, for the dispelling of demerit and the accumulation of merit. Becomes firm not giving up the yoke for things of merit. (* Becomes wise endowed with the noble ones penetration of the rising and falling of the five holding masses, for the rightful destruction of unpleasantness. Royal prince, these are the five factors on which effort is established. Royal prince, a bhikkhu endowed withthese five factors gaining the training from the Thus Gone One, for whatever cause sons of clansmen rightfully go forth homeless that highest end of the holy life, he here and now, knowing, realizing, will attain in seven years. Let alone seven years, six years, five years, four years, three years, two years, one year. ... let alone one year ...Let alone seven months, six months, five months, four months, three months, two months, one month. ...let alone one month, ...in seven nights and days. Let alone seven nights and days, six nights and days, five nights and days, four nights and days, three nights and days, two nights and days, one night and day.A bhikkhu endowed with these five factors gaining the training from the Thus Gone One in the morning, for whatever cause sons of clansmen rightfully go forth homeless that highest end of the holy life, he here and now, knowing, realizing, will attain in the evening, or advised in the evening would realise the next morning. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/085-bodhirajakumara-e1.htm -------- Potential Arahatship can be gained in one day?!! I assume it implies sitting nonstop for 12+ hours where you gain triple knowledge through 4th Jhana. Wow. Lots of Metta, Alex #77604 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Hi Howard, meanwhile back to 'biz as usual' ? ;-) you wrote: Howard: Yes, a mental recapitulation of highlights. Actually a mind-door construction, I think. Most of the material directly observed (independent of conceptualization) flies under the radar of "registering". That is, it is largely subliminally noted, and not "consciously" registering. D: I found it interesting to read that much of the sub-conscious registering can be re-called by hypnosis Howard: (D: The rapid switching back & forth will only be recognised when the mind is calm(er), like the movie projector runs at low speed...agreed? Yes, and even then only if the mind is well trained to observe at that level. D: obviously in perfection able to note the rising and ceasing of phenomena Howard: (D: you mean by one-pointedness cetasika, the mental quality which allows the state?) --------------------------------------- Yes. Conventional concentration is, IMO, the sticking with the same object (or very similar objects) throughout a somewhat extended stream of mind states, whereas the *cetasika* called "concentration" is, I believe, the operation that "inclines the mind" towards such sticking. D: I think this 'operation ' is an act of will (prompted/unprompted ?) towards a special object as all cetasikas of Sankhara Khanda. Howard: I understand mindfulness as the operation which maintains "presence" in the sense of fostering the avoidance of getting lost in thought, excitement, or sloth & torpor. That isn't the same as tending to stick with "the same" object, which is how I understand "concentration". D: yes, Howard, but you imply already the duration of concentration: ' to stick with "the same" object' , whereas at a lower grade concentration is only lasting at the same object for a certain moment . In a general sense attention is paid to , focussing .... , concentration and mindfulness are rather synonym . Consider that the training sequence of meditation (6,7,8) are grouped under samadhi. Whereas samma sati aims to have insight' what is going on ' , samma samadhi aims to look behind by exclusion , but both need the power of concentration . Howard: ( D: agreed not all , but as a factor of the path training it is, isn't it?) ---------------------------------- It's *cultivation* is certainly partly the result of conscious will, and often momentary concentrating is such a conscious activity. D: sometimes prompted someimes unprompted ..? with Metta Dieter #77605 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. buddhistmedi... Hi DC, - You are a kind person -- it shows in the question/reminder you gave me: > DC: > P.S. Tomorrow is poya-day. Are you observing the five precepts? > Yes, DC. I have been observing the five precepts everyday since the year 2001. I truly appreciate your explanation below. I have learned a lot. > Walshe: > Desire and Hatred, fear and folly: > He who breaks the law through these, > Loses all his fair repute > Like the moon at waning-time. > > DC: This is in the Advice to Siglaka (DN 31). Here the desire, I think is the proper word. > > Dear Tep, to me this verse represents the essence of Buddha dhamma for a decision-maker. I was attracted to it so much I had it under the glass on my table. Whenever, I had to take an important decision, I would go through and test my decision again the four criteria mentioned above. Test it out. Then you'll know. In effect this is a shortened form for kaamacchandha. (desire greed, tanhaa etc.) When you see chanda alone, always be careful. It could be either chanda or kaamacchandha. > > Well, let me put it finally in the form I understand. Chanda is will, determination, the desire to accomplish anything. > .......................... Tep ==== #77606 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Hi KenO, Many thanks for a well considered reply. Here is my understanding on few of the matters. You wrote: >KenO: You are right to say that ultimate reality is sunna as our interpretation is that it is empty of a self, void of the substance of self. This utlimate reality is just like the basic chemistry of formula for water, H2O where water is considered the conventional reality while H2O is the ultimate reality. This H2O without microscope we cannot see it, just like our mind which is not sharp cannnot see the reality. DC: This is the most difficult problem. I would not pretend to understand it. So I will just try and give you my side of the story. Pick holes in that. I am sure there are. Of course I can't see that. If I put your statement "This ultimate reality is just like the basic chemistry of formula for water, H2O where water is considered the conventional reality while H2O is the ultimate reality", as follows Water = Conventional reality, what we perceive H2O = Ultimate reality, what we can't perceive with our eyes, but we can with a microscope. I will put two questions [Consider all cases: positive values, negative values, zero inmaths for solution to be true]: 1. Through the microscope, we still see with the normal eye. Conventional seeing; therefore conventional truth 2. It is the same thing two views Now another interpretation. 1. Assuming (1) above, I argue that the problem is with the eye. So it is necessary to develop the eye itself. That is you need to change your mode of seeing. That I think is what is called Abhi~n~naa. A different view: Both above options assume that we see an 'object'. I submit that it is an assumption. I'll give an example: Light from a distant star takes a a few light years to reach us. In between, the star might have even exploded. What we say the "distant star" is in reality only the perception of light. To that perception we give a "name". But this is not to say tha something out there exists. But here I am not saying that there is nothing outside you. According to Buddhist analysis, the six dhaatus are there. Of course, strictly speaking, that is also not true. I'll give some more examples. If we consider other sense organs, the situation is clearer. If something touches you on the back of your head, is there anyway, you can be certain what it is? This is true of all other sense organs. Well, please do look at these things and send me your comments? Now to the Kiitaagiri Sutta (MN 70); Here is the quote: MN 70 (Kitagiri Sutta) <> You are referring to, I think , "Here one who has faith [in a teacher] visits him; ..." We don't translate it that way. The Paali is "saddhaajaato upas"nkamati". Saddhaajaato is 'one in whom saddhaa is born, or arisen'. It is a causal process. See for example, Upaniisa sutta of the SN. dukkhuupanisaa saddhaa. Saddhaa arises because of the Buddha. But there is something more relevant See MN 95-Ca"nki sutta. Saddhaa there is born by actual examination that the teacher is an arahant, by associating him for a long time. This translation of saddha as faith can be traced back to Childers Dictionary. Well that is a long story. Dhamma here refers to the Four Noble Truths. Obviously you have to hear it. Else you will be the dicoverer of the Path. A samma-sambuddha. We are looking at arahants. After they hear the Dhamma they need to accept it. When he 'gains reflective acceptance' --that is he accepts the "Four Noble Truths". Now he strives in order to realise (to get knowledge) them. Now this striving has nothing to do with the Four Noble Truths. It is really samma-vaayaama to sammaasamadhi. The meaning of visits means really he has given up the responsibilities of a householder. I hope this makes some sense to you. I was trying to make my e-m short. Again, please read through the two suttas I mentioned. Thanks again. You have made me think. I have an idea. For one who is genuinely interested in understanding religious conversion in Early Buddhism (Dhamma), it appears that Kaalaama sutta is the first sutta to study. There is another one called Bhaddhaali; both in AN. We will have to sit down and translate them. I don't trust translations. There are few other suttas that need to be read along with that. [icchita.m pattita.m tuyha.m khippameva samijjatu] "May your wish to understand the Dhamma come true quickly-not a good translation; that is my feeling] Kind regards, DC #77607 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Dear Tep, I can dance for joy. I have been doing it continously for about the same length. That was on Poson day 2004. That day I was involved in the inauguration of the new flood-lighting system at Mihintale--Traditionally, the place Ven. Mahinda met the king Devanam Piyatissa, during the time of Emperor Asoka. We in Sri Lanka honour the Elder, Ven. Mahinda as only second to the Buddha. After all He brought us Dhamma. By the way, if you have any kind thoughts about me, that is because of the Buddha. For me every word the Buddha said is the truth. And if you require anything, even books or something like that please let me know, I'll post it to you. May the Triple Gem Bless you, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77608 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Hi Ken O .... Alex, you wrote: ('D: another question would be :who should be really concerned to get a COMPLETE picture of the Abhidhamma other than Deva or Brahma..? At our level there may be details of interest ..snip') Ken O : Abhidhamma is not just taught for the deva, it is also taught for the humans. There are a few instances in the sutta where it is refer to as higher dhamma. there is no need to have a complete understanding of Abhidhamma just like do you need to have the complete understanding of the sutta to learn the sutta :-) D: I think we can interpretate the legend of the Buddha's preaching to the Devas and Brahman in this or that way ..but it was certainly not meant to exclude humans from studying Abhidhamma , therefore I used 'complete' in capital letters. Do you mean by no 'need to have the complete understanding of the sutta to learn the sutta :-) ' memorizing '? Without we would have no Buddha Dhamma and even now-a-day, when we have the printed material available - book or PC - I wonder whether it may not be of advantage to learn key texts by heart. As Abhidhamma is concerned , my impression is that at least part of it can be understood to be a kind of formulary.. with Metta Dieter #77609 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Hi Alex ..and Ken O, you wrote : 'If a person has any of the hindrances then what he studies may be misinterpreted. If he studies incomplete teaching + hindrances. How useful is that?' D: To which hindrances are you refering? the 5 hindrances (Nivarana ) ? The penetration into the Buddha Dhamma is understood to be a gradual one, step by step . Trial and error not excluded. The Abhidhamma does not claim to be a complete teaching but aims to support the 4 Noble Truths , does it? Alex: Furthermore. Is it nessesary to study AP at all? D: that is the question I ask myself .. my assumption so far :it depends on the (type of the) person.. I am not sure whether there are not chances missed when neglecting it at all but certainly one needs to be aware about possible misinterpretations Alex: I mean isn't one supposed to get perfect Pa~n~na at the level or Arahatship? D: yes, perfect panna or abolishment of avijja by full penetration into the 4 Noble Truths.. and Abhidhamma obviously a mean for (advanced ) students ... Alex: Suffering (dukkha), Faith (saddha), Joy (pamojja), Rapture (piti), Tranquility (passaddhi), Happiness snip ... AN- X.76 1) Conscience & concern 2) Purity of conduct 3)Restraint of the senses 4) Moderation in eating 5) Wakefulness 6)Mindfulness & alertness 7) Abandoning the hindrances 8) The four jhanas 9) The three knowledges http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html Mentioned in DN# 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 and a number of MN suttas as well. This one is most frequently mentioned roadmap. D: I think when we see the different issues /approaches in context with the 8fold Noble Path, all aspects may contribute on our way.. with Metta Dieter #77610 From: "colette" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:47 am Subject: Re: fatalism, puppets included, no batteries required ksheri3 Good Morning Connie, As I was saying: THE PUPPET. Why does a puppet have a role: why does the puppet "assume or take up a role? Is the basic initial assumption made by the audience which watches the puppet and therefore places the "puppet" in a position which is no position other than to fulfill the characteristics which the audience preconcieves and places on the puppet for the puppet's existance? I've played the role of puppet many times and am always asstounded by the ways in which the audience is amazed when they are confronted with realities that do not conform to their anticipations, their preconceptions. This amazement generally turns into CHAOS since the audience has already manifested in their minds the world according to ... I love it, in a christian society, when the world turns out to be something they could not nor would not conceive of, it gives me soooooo much to laugh about. Where is the conception of "the command"? Where did it begin and how did the command make it to the external world where it could function with the functioning puppet? As an object, who built the "platform"? Why did they build it where it was found? Watch towers tend to denote possession thus I've gotta ask, what is there to possess and why would a follower of the Buddha want to possess it, whatever it is? Now I get to the ballarina's red shoes and the swingers role of "pulling a train". Ballarina's do not have heels on their slippers, shoes. Maybe if we're watching Dancing With The Stars and not The REd Shoes, we could suggest there are heels. Even the music is open to interpretation and not much of a framework with which to build a story around. Good questions I've gotta get back to i.e. is zen buddhism, et al. Thanks for the thoughts. Fill me in if I know that I've gone round the bend on your reply and wasn't even close? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" wrote: > > Hi Elaine, > > No logical arguments from me! Life seems more enjoyableas an endless dance or play (natta) than ongoing debate. The puppet assumes or takes up (atta) a role or character that is spread over (upatta) it's performance as it plays out the part as commanded (aa.natta) within the confines of the rest of the story on this peculiar worker's platform or watch tower (a.t.ta). Are we taken in by it all? We wear out our little red shoes yet keep on dancing on stumps if we don't guard against it & the story or music is the stronghold (attalaka). > > #77611 From: "vipassana_infonet" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:27 am Subject: dr han tun, sarah and nina vipassana_in... dear dhamma brothers and sisters, i would like to express my heartfelt thanks and metta to respected dr han tun and respected upasikas sarah and nina. they have been very kind to teach me dhamma. nina and sarah wrote long answers to my questions. I am deeply grateful to respected elder dr han tun for teaching the golden dhamma of the bhagava and for so much time and attention. dear dhamma sisters - nina and sarah, dr han tun has answered ALL my questions in deep detail and I am still processing his replies. that may be enough for now. I may get back to you, with just a few questions - if the need arises. many many thanks. with regards to all dsg memebrs, manish agarwala #77612 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:31 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. ... the Five Precepts ... buddhistmedi... Hi DC, - Let me thank you for the kind offer to mail books or other 'things' to me. I cannot think of anything now, my friend, besides your thoughtful reply to the two questions below. 1. Who was the Ven. Mahinda and why, in your view, is he second only to the Buddha -- why not the great Arahant Sariputta? 2. How would you observe the five precepts perfectly with zero fault and zero deviation from abstention? For example, perfect observance of the fourth precept means abstention from false speech, abstention from malicious speech, abstention from harsh speech, and abstention from gossip. Hence, the "zero fault, zerodeviation" from the fourth precept is identical to right speech, samma-vaca (the 3rd magga factor). Tep === #77613 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:29 pm Subject: Re: fatalism, puppets included, no batteries required nichiconn Hey, Colette, The shoes. There's an old tale about a girl who got these ever to die for wonderful shoes & the minute she barely got them on, started to dance, and dance, and dance and ... finally had to take some pretty drastic measures to get them off. Maybe in the story her feet grow back. I don't remember. The way I heard it, it's supposed to be about addictions or any other unhealthy relationships. Ah, love. Or hate. Ah, puppets all tied up, fettered, and strung along; crazy little dancin' fools bound to follow their leads. Reds. They're always that beautiful, enticing, seductive, gotta get close, gotta touch it, gotta do anything to make it mine & gimme just a little more please red in the stories, aren't they. Not a gentle little suggestion to proceed with caution colour, but that brilliant flashy scream out Hazard: these conditions require a full stop - burn, baby, burn visible red. Waltz on in & throw another log on the fire, Sparky. Wouldn't want to get cold feet now, would we? Got us a full house. Listen up. It's the string section. A band of desire pulling us in. See the sights, hear the sounds, oo-oo that smell. Taste this. Touch that. Think of anything. O yeah, player, we're strung out again. Never even knew we were swept off our feet. Maybe next time we'll stand guard. Not get taken in and carried away. Here, meet the puppet from The Path of Purity. Ch.18: Exposition of the Purity of Views. This is a dsg classic re-run so we'll just fast forward & roll thru the credits a bit: <<...in many hundreds of suttantas has name-and-form been set forth, not a being, not a person ...>> <<...the mere words "lute,", "army," "town," "tree," come into use when their respective parts, such as the body of the lute and the strings, elephants and horses, walls and houses and gates, trunk and branches and leaves are arranged in certain positions, and there is no such thing (any of these, e.g.) as a tree in the ultimate sense, on examining each part, so when the five clinging aggregates exist, the mere word "being," "person," comes into use, but on examining each of the states, in the ultimate sense there is no such thing as a being, (it is) the object of a misconception that makes one say "I am" or "I"; in the ultimate sense there is just name-and-form. The discernment of him who sees thus is called the discernment of reality. >> skip over some talk on eternalism and anniihilationism and build up the drum roll, our star is rising and we rush back in from the kitchen just in time to hear the Buddha saying: <<"...And how, monks, do those possessed of the eye see? Here, monks, a monk sees the five aggregates as such. Seeing the five aggregates as such he practises, in order that he may be disgusted with them, have no passion for them, that they may cease. Thus, monks, does one who has the eye see." Therefore, just as a wooden doll, void of soul, without life or force, walks or stops by means of the string attached to wood, and appears to be endowed with force and vitality, so this name-and-form, though without soul, life or force, walks or stops owing to mutual association, and appears to be endowed with force and vitality. Hence said the Ancients: There is here truly name-and-form, Wherein exists no being nor man. 'Tis void and fashioned like a doll, A lump of ill, like grass and sticks. >> I don't know if that answers any of your questions. I was just thinking about Elaine's free-will and anatta comments & messing around with self/atta resembling or related kinds of words, you know. We assume/pick up (atta) 'that', self; play that out; stick (da.n.da) to that... "atta da.n.da" - we carry the big dirty stick of self and do violence against truth guarding me and mine rather than carrying on a bit of sense restraint and thinking about escape... Conditions rule. They will. Too long, connie #77614 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:01 pm Subject: Listening/learning of the dhammas buddhistmedi... Hi DC, Elaine, Han, Scott, Sukin, KenH, and others - The Path of Discrimination, a major discourse of the great Arahant Sariputta, is one of the most difficult books I have ever studied. And I cannot think of any single book that is more important, except the Suttanta-Pitaka. Today I was pondering on the group of total 73 knowledges in the Treatise I (On Knowledge) when a thought came to me that only the first seven knowledges(~naana) were good enough for anyone to become at least Sotapanna. The first seven ~naanas are the following. 1. Suttamaya~naana = knowledge that results from hearing/learning the dhammas first hand. 2. Silamaya~naana = knowledge of sense restraint (siila, virtue) after hearing or learning of the Teachings. 3. Bhavanamaya~naana = knowledge of concentrating after restraining. 4. Dhammathiti~naana = knowledge of the causal relationship of the dhammas. 5. Sammasana~naana = knowledge consisting in comprehension of past, future and present dhammas. 6. Udayabbaya nupassana~naana = knowledge of contemplation of rise- and-fall of presently-arisen dhammas. 7. Vipassana~nana = knowledge of insight from contemplating dissolution, after reflecting on an object by udayabbaya nupassana~naana. [The above wordings are not as smooth as you may have seen somewhere else, so please help me do the polishing.] The Patisambhidamagga states that ~naana is the understanding of the following: "These dhammas are to be directly known. These dhammas are to be abandoned. These dhammas are to be developed. These dhammas are to be realized. These dhammas partake of diminution. These dhammas partake of stagnation. These dhammas partake of distinction. These dhammas partake of penetration. All formations are impermanent. All formations are painful. All ideas are not self. This is the noble truth of dukkha. This is the noble truth of dukkha samudhaya. This is the noble truth of dukkha nirodha. This is the noble truth of the 'way' leading to the end of dukkha." Indeed, even the very first ~naana alone is sufficient to turn any person into a Sotapanna. Do you think this first ~naana is the same as intellectual understanding through listening to or book learning about the dhammas? Tep === #77615 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:01 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. sukinderpal Dear DC (Elaine in PS), ============== DC: Here, I am not commenting at length on the individual issues raised. But on the thrust of the whole argument embodied in your questions. Before I start, I must congratulate you on spelling out the issue so clearly. Sukin: I wouldn't know that, but you are probably comparing with other posts of mine? I think I am an extremely murky thinker; in fact sometimes I get quite irritated with the amount of uddhacca that is part of my personality. Often it takes me quite an effort to read posts here (yes I don't enjoy reading at all), let alone to summarize any one of them. In contrast you seem to be a very clear in your thinking! ;-) ============== DC: I shall reformulate the queries you have raised and clarifications as follows: (These are formulated in ordinary English, which we use to communicate) 1. I have argued against faith 2. I say that knowledge is not possible 3. I say 'one need to travel the path' 4. One need knowledge of the path to travel 5. No. 4 (One need knowledge to travel the path) is not possible in view of No.2 I hope the above is a reasonably clear statement of your position. Sukin: I don't know. But I think it does not matter so much, we could go by this and see what then comes up? =============== DC: My response is based on this understanding. But before we go further we need to agree on a few ground rules. 1. That we are normal human beings. That is puthujjana. Sukin: Yes. =============== DC: 2. We get knowledge only through our five senses. [The sixth sense is really memory has stored our previous experiences. I can think of only something that I that I have experienced previously. Sukin: I am not sure. Do you take into account the difference in the mode of knowing between sanna, citta and panna? And do you also consider the fact that at the mind door, there can be knowing conditioned by Avijja or by Panna and the latter can have as object `ideas' as well as `realities'? =============== DC: 3. The world is only what we get of knowledge through our five senses. Sukin: Yes….. =============== DC: 4. And that is the real world for us. Sukin: I gather that you are referring to the "conventional world" and not the world of nama and rupa. I don't agree with calling this "real". If you mean that taking it as real happens during instances of `wrong view', then I do agree. But as you know this does not happen all the time, even for those who don't agree with the Dhamma. So I'll have to wait and see how you apply this understanding. =============== DC: 5. When we get knowledge (experience), we really have only the experience [This is really a very difficult point to understand. Let me see whether I can explain what I mean. Say you are looking at a photograph of somebody. If it is a good photograph, the impression that it creates is same as that created by the person. That is why you say it is so and so's photograph. As far as the other senses are concerned the situation is clearer. For example, a piece of music you like, I don't like. Why is this so, the physcial experience is the same but not the emotional experience. I hope you get the ides] If not, please comeback. Sukin: No, please try again. =============== DC: 5. Reality is only what we have knowledge of through experience. [That is if we make any statement about thing we didn't experience then it is a belief. It is not knowledge, nor real. For example, the other world is not real or a belief for me.] Sukin: Without hearing about what in fact realities are, we take what is not real for real. When we do hear about realities i.e. from Dhamma, this can result in anything from a resistance due to strong Wrong view and hence "non- belief", belief through unreflective faith, belief through reasoning, belief through some level of intellectual understanding and belief through some level of direct understanding. Note the last position. Even for someone who has experienced satipatthana, the "knowledge" may still be very feeble. It is as one develops through the vipassanannanas and finally reach magga and phala that `belief' is perhaps done away with. Prior to that even at the level of Suttamaya panna and Cintamaya panna, "understanding" is one moment and this is different from the following moments, where belief is then formed. I think that you need to make this distinction and not be coming to a conclusion about belief as you do. This I think applies to the idea about "other world" as well. Belief is belief, but this is informed by different levels of wrong understanding or right understanding. Even before reaching Kammasakata nana, the understanding is there and being developed, after all there must be beginning steps (of panna), isn't it? I don't think it right to put belief all in one basket and dismiss it. Take for example the Hindus belief in Kamma and rebirth (reincarnation) and compare this to a Buddhist who has some understanding about anatta and conditionality. Do you think that their belief in the `other world' is close? Is not the determining factor, View / Understanding? At this point I'd like to refer you to this part of my post to Elaine: <<< Ps: Elsewhere you alluded to the fact that we as putthujanas perceive people and things and that is what we must go by. Whatever we "seem" to perceive, the purpose of our studying the Dhamma is to know what in fact really goes on during those moments. This knowing, intellectual thought it be, becomes part of the process of the development and gradual straightening of "View". And though it be a far cry from direct understanding, is the necessary precursor to it and is in itself very useful. Are you by any chance suggesting that we should not go by this understanding and instead continue reacting in the way we always have, namely as if people and things are real?>>> What is your opinion on this? =============== DC: 6. These have the following implications: That we human beings cannot have absolute knowledge. It is relative. The Buddha called this avijjaa. Sukin: True, say between Nina and I, she has much deeper understanding of Dhamma / dhammas. And neither of us has "absolute knowledge". But why should you see this as being conditioned by Avijja? ================= DC: 7. The world we perceive is subject to anicca, dukkha and anatta. Sukin: The conventional world is subject to anicca, dukkha and anatta in so far as the realities that underlying it are. But if you are saying that `concepts' exhibit the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta, then I can't agree. ================ DC: Now all the above statements are in accordance with what is considered the Buddhavacana or the original teachings of the Buddha. What it is for a matter of historians of religion. Sukin: But we are interested in "understanding Dhamma" so we would rather discuss. In the end of course, we will go away taking our own interpretation as being Buddhavacana. But I think that as long as we realize that our understanding is very little and could very well be wrong, I think we will and continue to learn from discussions. Also though we are constantly faced with the perception of the other being wrong in his / her interpretation, as long as we don't come from the stand point of "being right", there is much room for learning to happen. This is different in the case of scholars. They work only with "concepts" never with "realities". Moreover, their interest is not in development of understanding, which is possible only with regard to the experience of one's own mind. Their interest is in the realm of "worldly knowledge". Do you now see why I don't care about what they think? ================ DC: We need to reach an agreement on the above points, if I am to justify my previous statements. This is my opinion: I feel you have a genuine interest to study what the Buddha taught. Then please think about the carfully and deeply. Sukin: I don't know if I've thought deeply. I do know however that I don't ever give time to carefully consider anything. That's just my accumulations, perhaps due to being constantly distracted. Sorry. ================ DC: If you are convinced then proceed. Sukin: I leave this to you to decide. ================ DC: The argument here is simple. We are human beings. If we want understand the world, the first step is to understand the limits to our knowledge. The messages that go up and down tells me that most people are not aware of that. So that is why we need to make this explicit and reach agreement. Otherwise we shall never gain any knowledge. Sukin: I think this gets too philosophical. Dhamma is deep but not complicated. Most people here, both those who meditate and those who don't, know to limit their study to the objects of the five senses and the mind. They realize that it is only though the understanding of these does wisdom ever gets developed. Perhaps you mean something else, but then again this may be due to the tendency to complicate things…? ================ DC: I shall be most grateful if you would go through each point very carefully again. Sukin: Again I apologize if I've missed your points. Please do understand that I don't think as clearly as you do and also I do lack patience to a good degree. Metta, Sukin PS: I'll be away for the next few days from early tomorrow. So please don't expect any response to your posts anytime soon. Elaine if I have time I will write my response to you later this evening, otherwise it will have to be next week. #77616 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:49 pm Subject: Today is Vap Poya Observance Day! bhikkhu0 Friends: How to be a Real Buddhist through Observance? Vap Poya day is the full-moon of October. This holy day celebrates the end of the Bhikkhu's three months rains retreat and marks the Kathina month of robes, where lay people donate a set of robes to the Sangha. This also celebrates the day that Buddha began to teach the Abhidhamma! On such Full-Moon Uposatha Poya Observance days: Any Lay Buddhist simply joins the Three Refuges and undertakes the Five Precepts like this: Newly bathed, shaved, white-clothed, with clean bare feet, one kneels at a shrine with a Buddha-statue, after bowing first three times, so that feet, hands, elbows, knees & head touch the floor. Then, with joined palms at the heart, one recites these memorized lines in a loud, calm & steady voice: As long as this life lasts: I hereby take refuge in the Buddha. I hereby take refuge in the Dhamma. I hereby take refuge in the Sangha. I hereby seek shelter in the Buddha for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Dhamma for the 2nd time. I hereby seek shelter in the Sangha for the 2nd time. I hereby request protection from the Buddha for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Dhamma for the 3rd time. I hereby request protection from the Sangha for the 3rd time. I will hereby respect these Three Jewels the rest of my life! I accept to respect & undertake these 5 training rules: I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Killing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Stealing. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Sexual Abuse. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Dishonesty. I hereby accept the training rule of avoiding all Alcohol & Drugs. As long as this life lasts, I am thus protected by these 5 precepts... Then, one keeps and protects these sacred vows better than one's own eyes & children!, since they protect you & all other beings much better than any army! They are the highest offer one can give in & to this world! So is the start towards NibbÄ?na: the Deathless Element! This is the Noble Way to Peace, to Freedom, to Ease, to Happiness, initiated by Morality , developed further by Dhamma-Study and fulfilled by training of Meditation ... Today indeed is Pooya or Uposatha or observance day, where any lay Buddhist normally keeps even the Eight Precepts from sunrise until the next dawn... If any wish an official recognition by the Bhikkhu-Sangha, they may simply forward the lines starting with "I hereby ..." signed with name, date, town & country to me or join here . A public list of this new quite rapidly growing global Saddhamma-Sangha is set up here! A True Noble Community of Buddha's Disciples: The Saddhamma Sangha: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Saddhamma_Sangha.htm Which quite advantageously can be Joined Here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/sangha/Sangha_Entry.htm May your journey hereby be light, swift, and sweet. Never give up !! Bhikkhu Samahita: what.buddha.said@... For Details on The Origin of Uposatha Observance Days: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/uposatha.html For the 2007 Calendar of Uposatha Observance Days: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/various/Poya.Uposatha.Observance_days.2007.htm Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net Vap Poya Observance Uposatha Day! #77617 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:06 pm Subject: The doctrine of anatta reverendagga... i saw something posted recently regarding the doctrine of anatta. just where in the Pali Canon does it state that in order for something to be considered "self" it must be both permanent and in control of causality? ANSWER: The Pali Canon state's no such thing because this is not true!Reverend Gotama was discussing what we call ultimate dhamma as opposed to conventional dhamma when discussing anatta. If let's say you have a candle and 2 hour's after you light it you come back and say look!this is the candle i lit 2 hour's ago!in conventional term's you would be correct,but in ultimate term's you would be wrong. The candle has been burning for 2 hour's and is say,half the size. Therefore not the same candle.Therefore like us "impermanent". Self yet no self at one and the same moment. M.N.#22 Alagaddupama Sutta show's us that "i have a self" is just as mutch a "thicket of view's"as "i have no self".and that if one were to subscribe to the view of "no self" one would create in doing so,a sence of self around that view! (Kalaka Sutta A.N.#4.24).Thus the relationship of the 3 charicteristic's of "no self",impermance,and suffering taught by the Reverend Gotama.i would recomend reading "the not self strategy"by Thanissaro Bhikkhu available at the Accesstoinsight.org web sight. May the Buddha's, Deva, and Angel's bless all of you! bhikkhu aggacitto #77618 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:53 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 9 13. Viisatinipaato 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa txt: 336. "Baaraa.nasito nikkhamma, tava santikamaagataa; saavikaa te mahaaviira, paade vandati sundarii. 337. "Tuva.m buddho tuva.m satthaa, tuyha.m dhiitaamhi braahma.na; orasaa mukhato jaataa, katakiccaa anaasavaa. 338. "Tassaa te svaagata.m bhadde, tato te aduraagata.m; eva~nhi dantaa aayanti, satthu paadaani vandikaa; viitaraagaa visa.myuttaa, katakiccaa anaasavaa"ti.- Imaa gaathaa paccudaahaasi. Pruitt: [Sundarii to the Buddha:] 335. Gone out from Baaraa.nasii and come into your presence, your disciple Sundarii pays homage to your feet, Great Hero. 336. You are the Buddha. You are the Teacher. I am your daughter. Brahman, your true child, born from your mouth, [with] my task done, without taints. [The Buddha:] 337. Then welcome to you, good lady. Then you are not unwelcome. For in this way the tamed come, paying homage to the Teacher's feet, rid of desire, unfettered, their task done, without taints. RD: Lo! from Benares I am come to thee - I, Sundarii, thy pupil, at thy feet, O mighty Hero, see me worship here. (335) Thou art Buddha! thou art Master! and thine, Thy daughter am I, issue of thy mouth, Thou Very Brahmin! *375 even of thy word. Accomplished now is my appointed task, And all that drugged my heart is purged away. (336) 'Welcome to thee, thou gracious maiden! thence For thee 'twas but a little way to come. *376 For so they come who, victors over self, Are fain to worship at the Master's feet, Who also have themselves from passion freed, Unyoked from bondage, loosened from the world, Who have accomplished their appointed task, And all that drugged their hearts have purged away.' (337) *375 Brahmana! Cf. Dhammapada, ch. xxvi; Dialogues of the Buddha, i, 138-140; Neumann, op. cit. 347, n 2. *376 She had travelled approximately rather under 300 miles for this pilgrimage. But she was near the end of her infinitely long life. ===to be continued, connie #77619 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:01 am Subject: Re: The doctrine of anatta buddhistmedi... Hello Bhikkhu Aggacitto, - I am delighted by your comment on attaa and anattaa the same way when I see a famous but very old oil painting getting a new touch-up by an artist. >Aggacitto: >.. where in the Pali Canon does it state that in order for something to be considered "self" it must be both permanent and in control of causality? ANSWER: The Pali Canon state's no such thing because this is not true! > If let's say you have a candle and 2 hour's after you light it you come back and say look! this is the candle i lit 2 hour's ago! in conventional term's you would be correct, but in ultimate term's you would be wrong. Thanks ! Tep ==== BTW what does 'aggacitto' mean? #77620 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 10/24/2007 7:24:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, meanwhile back to 'biz as usual' ? ;-) you wrote: Howard: Yes, a mental recapitulation of highlights. Actually a mind-door construction, I think. Most of the material directly observed (independent of conceptualization) flies under the radar of "registering". That is, it is largely subliminally noted, and not "consciously" registering. D: I found it interesting to read that much of the sub-conscious registering can be re-called by hypnosis ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, it is interesting. There is much that rises and falls on the "mind stage" that does not consciously register at the time but is fodder for subsequent memory under appropriate conditions. I've also noted that there seems to be an ongoing "subterranean" stream of thoughts and mental images normally not consciously noted but observable at times during meditation. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: (D: The rapid switching back & forth will only be recognised when the mind is calm(er), like the movie projector runs at low speed...agreed? Yes, and even then only if the mind is well trained to observe at that level. D: obviously in perfection able to note the rising and ceasing of phenomena Howard: (D: you mean by one-pointedness cetasika, the mental quality which allows the state?) --------------------------------------- Yes. Conventional concentration is, IMO, the sticking with the same object (or very similar objects) throughout a somewhat extended stream of mind states, whereas the *cetasika* called "concentration" is, I believe, the operation that "inclines the mind" towards such sticking. D: I think this 'operation ' is an act of will (prompted/unprompted ?) towards a special object as all cetasikas of Sankhara Khanda. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, as I see it also, the operation is indeed cetana-like, and it certainly falls under sankhakkhandha. As for prompted versus unprompted, I'm not very clear about that notion. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I understand mindfulness as the operation which maintains "presence" in the sense of fostering the avoidance of getting lost in thought, excitement, or sloth & torpor. That isn't the same as tending to stick with "the same" object, which is how I understand "concentration". D: yes, Howard, but you imply already the duration of concentration: ' to stick with "the same" object' , whereas at a lower grade concentration is only lasting at the same object for a certain moment . In a general sense attention is paid to , focussing .... , concentration and mindfulness are rather synonym . Consider that the training sequence of meditation (6,7,8) are grouped under samadhi. Whereas samma sati aims to have insight' what is going on ' , samma samadhi aims to look behind by exclusion , but both need the power of concentration . --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I really do not think they are synonyms. I see mindfulness as a monitoring operation. It is a sort of "keeping in mind" to be clearly aware of *whatever* is going on at the moment - not to stick with a particular object or objects of a particular sort, but to not "lose sight" of what is actually going on at the moment. When mindfulness is not present or is present but weak, clarity diminishes. Certainly mindfulness and concentration are related, but they are not the same, IMO. Mindfulness is very closely related to understanding, it seems to me - fostering wisdom. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: ( D: agreed not all , but as a factor of the path training it is, isn't it?) ---------------------------------- It's *cultivation* is certainly partly the result of conscious will, and often momentary concentrating is such a conscious activity. D: sometimes prompted sometimes unprompted ..? -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Could you or somebody else please remind me of the nature of the "prompted" characteristic? ------------------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter =========================== With metta, Howard #77621 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Bhante) - >Aggacitto: >.. where in the Pali Canon does it state that in order for something to be considered "self" it must be both permanent and in control of causality? ANSWER: The Pali Canon state's no such thing because this is not true! =========== In the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, there is the following: "Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir." This is repeated for the other four khandhas. It seems to me that this says that nothing that is dukkha and anicca can be considered as (personal) self. In the same sutta, the Buddha says the following: Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' This is repeated for the other four khandhas. It seems to me that this says that whatever is not subject to "our" control also is not to be considered as (personal) self. So, it seems to me that the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta is a place in the Pali canon where, as Ven Aggacitto puts it, it is stated that in order for something to be considered (personal) "self" it must be both permanent and in control of causality (or, I would substitute, controllable). With metta, Howard #77622 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. moellerdieter Hi Howard, you worte: ('D: I think this 'operation ' is an act of will (prompted/unprompted ?) towards a special object as all cetasikas of Sankhara Khanda.) ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, as I see it also, the operation is indeed cetana-like, and it certainly falls under sankhakkhandha. As for prompted versus unprompted, I'm not very clear about that notion. Could you or somebody else please remind me of the nature of the "prompted" characteristic?' D: same doubt with me ..' prompted' acc. to my dictionary : be the reason causing (sb to do sth) not sure as well , wether the term applies to the 12 unwholesome conscious states connected to tanha ( Akusala Cittani ) only , i.e. not to the field of cetasikas. I think our A.specialists should know.. Howard: I really do not think they are synonyms. I see mindfulness as a monitoring operation. It is a sort of "keeping in mind" to be clearly aware of *whatever* is going on at the moment - not to stick with a particular object or objects of a particular sort, but to not "lose sight" of what is actually going on at the moment. When mindfulness is not present or is present but weak, clarity diminishes. )' D: isn't that a lack of concentration ? Howard: Certainly mindfulness and concentration are related, but they are not the same, IMO. Mindfulness is very closely related to understanding, it seems to me - fostering wisdom. D: whereas we agree on 'mindfulness' , we obviously understand the term concentration differently..you seem to limit its meaning to 'sticking to one object only' . I see it more general as a synonym for meditation, in the sense of the samadhi sequence of the Path training , which includes mindfulness/sati . One may consider that mindfulness is one kind of concentration ,watching about the wholesome content of the mind as well as sticking to one object only another. Would you suggest another translation for samadhi than concentration? Otherwise there is a contradiction with the text specifying the Path training details of sila , samadhi , panna (3,4,5, 6,7,8, 1,2) with Metta Dieter #77623 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta moellerdieter Hi Tep (Ven. Agacitto), unlike me, you seem to have immdiate understood the example , the Venerable used in reference to anatta: ' If let's say you have a candle and 2 hour's after you light it you come back and say look! this is the candle i lit 2 hour's ago! in conventional term's you would be correct, but in ultimate term's you would be wrong.' After 2 hours neither I nor the candle are the same , but what does it tell you in relation to anatta and significance to distinguish conventional and ultimate meaning? Please explain.. with Metta Dieter #77624 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:11 am Subject: An Important Observation upasaka_howard Hi, all - The following from Beliefnet is important, I think: Desires achieved increase thirst like salt water. -Milarepa, "Drinking the Mountain Stream" Copyright Wisdom Publications 2001. Reprinted from "Daily Wisdom: 365 Buddhist Inspirations," edited by Josh Bartok, with permission of Wisdom Publications, 199 Elm St., Somerville MA 02144 U.S.A, www.wisdompubs.org. The ordinary, commonsense view is that attaining what is desired provides satisfaction. But, in fact, with the exception of attaining (desired) elimination of defilements, all that attainment of desires does, as I see it, is give a very brief and delusive respite from the pain of craving. With metta, Howard #77625 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta dcwijeratna Dear Tep, I saw in some discussion you have been talking about the concept of atta. I thought I'll give my two cents worth. 'Attaa' is a mere concept. The two assumed characteristics of this concept is that it is permanent (nicca) and non-suffering (sukha). In the First Noble Truth, the Buddha shows that whole existence is dukkha because it is changing (anicca). "Birth,...collectively, the five aggregates or grasping (pancuppaadaanakkhandha) is dukkha" The phrase yadanicaa.m ta.m dukkha.m. Your personal verification of this by direct experience comes in two stages. First when you become a stream-enterer (sotapanna) you give up sakkaaya-di.tthi (view that this as what we call a 'human being' is atta. But the self-view atta-di.t.thi or attavaada remains. Atta could be outside the body (tat tvam asi.) Then you continue to strive--through sakadaagamii--until all the five lower fetters are gone. Then when you become the arhant you you give up the self-view totally, The argument in the Anattalakkhana again you verify by direct experience. No way you can verify by just hearing. See virtually all the suttas in DN I. There is nothing called atta. It is in one's imgination; a mere cocept. What the Buddha does it you can't find anything called atta in a being or the world that the Buddha can experience through 'abhi~n~naa'. This is a very difficult subject, you really understand the thing only when you become an arahant. But it is not very difficult for us to see its reasonableness. We who have been brought up to think that there is nothing permanent associated with ourselves. You know how fast the mind changes, Even though the body does not change so fast, it changes from one fertilized cell to grown up humn being. You can thinking mathematically imagine continuous change. So the argument about that whatever within your experience is impermanent and that you can't find anything permanent holds water. Don't go into that ultimate argument. Really, it is an assertion. Think of it carefully. Mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77626 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Listening/learning of the dhammas shennieca Hi tep, all, Thanks for starting this interesting topic. :-)) ---------------- Tep: Indeed, even the very first ~naana alone is sufficient to turn any person into a Sotapanna. Do you think this first ~naana is the same as intellectual understanding through listening to or book learning about the dhammas? 1. Suttamaya~naana = knowledge that results from hearing/learning the dhammas first hand. ------------------ E: Ven. Sâriputta, who had good accumulations and quick intuition became a sotâpanna immediately after hearing the first 2 lines of a stanza spoken by Ven. Assaji. Ven. Sariputta became enlightened by hearing/learning the Sutta. But I’m not sure if this ability still exists among the people at this age and time because the Sasana is in decline. Maybe there are still people like that, who knows? Personally, I think I will understand better through direct-experience. I love to hear and learn the sutta, but after hearing the sutta, I’d want to verify it for myself. Furthermore, the Buddha had always told his monks to go do “jhana” (which meant meditation). For e.g. “anicca”, when we hear about anicca, it is a just an ordinary knowledge that everything is impermanent. When poeple actually “know and see” anicca for themselves, it becomes a totally different thing. I have no idea what anicca really is, I can quote gross example like a burning candle or a person growing old. I think, a person who really knows what anicca is, is an ariya-puggala. Buddha said, “everything is non-self because it is impermanent/inconstant” - if a person knows the nature of impermanence, then s/he will understand the nature of non-self. This type of knowing is supra-normal knowledge, i.e. gotrabuu~naana, udayabbaya~naana and vipassana~naana. The question that I’ve always ask, “Is impermanence equaled to uncontrollability?”. Even if it is, I don’t want to believe it with blind-faith. I don’t want to believe it from someone who has read a lot of dhamma books because the Kalama sutta says, do not believe because….etc. etc…Even if, impermanence is uncontrollability, merely accepting it with belief, will not make me a better person with less greed, hatred or delusion. So I hope to know what gotrabuu~naana, udayabbaya~naana and vipassana~naana really is, and this kind of knowledge, I think, cannot be obtained by hearing/learning the dhamma. ((oh, but I wish it could be obtained from hearing/learning the dhamma, I want to be a professional dhamma learner, it is much easier than meditation, meditation is hard work, arg)). #77627 From: "shennieca" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Listening/learning of the dhammas shennieca Hi Tep, Opps, I put a small t instead of a capital T in your name. Sorry!! I didn't proof-read it before sending, sorry. :-)) Mettaa, Elaine #77628 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta upasaka_howard Hi, DC (and Tep) - In a message dated 10/25/2007 12:55:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, dcwijeratna@... writes: 'Attaa' is a mere concept. The two assumed characteristics of this concept is that it is permanent (nicca) and non-suffering (sukha). ================================= But there must be more to the concept of "self" than this. Nibbana is not impermanent, and it is the ultimate happiness, entirely without dukkha. Yet nibbana is not-self. It seems to me that the notion of self also centrally includes "identity", and the notion of "personal self" also includes the idea of a being or person. Nibbana, of course, is entirely impersonal and is beyond identity, being beyond all conditions. In fact, nibbana can't properly even be thought of as "a thing". So, in addition to 1) permanence and 2) ease/sukha, the concept of self also includes at least 3) being (or thingness"), 4) identity, and, in the case of "personal self", 5) personality. With metta, Howard #77629 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. shennieca Hi Sukin and DC, all, Sorry for intruding into your discussion. I'd like to give my opinions, please correct me if I am wrong. DC: 5. When we get knowledge (experience) , we really have only the experience [This is really a very difficult point to understand. Let me see whether I can explain what I mean. Say you are looking at a photograph of somebody. If it is a good photograph, the impression that it creates is same as that created by the person. That is why you say it is so and so's photograph. As far as the other senses are concerned the situation is clearer. For example, a piece of music you like, I don't like. Why is this so, the physical experience is the same but not the emotional experience. I hope you get the ides] If not, please comeback. Sukin: No, please try again. --------------- E: What I understand from the paragraph that DC wrote is that, the perception and experience that each of us have towards the same object, is different. When two people look at the same picture, they will have different feelings/opinions towards it, one person might like it and the other might not. So, this is not the real ultimate/absolute knowledge. When “real knowledge” is attained, e.g. Nibbana, it would be the “same experience” for everyone because it is the ultimate/absolute reality. I don’t think there will be 2 arahants who will disagree with each other about their experience of Nibbana. Is that right? I know I’m being a busybody here, please forgive me. heheh. ---------------------- Sukin: True, say between Nina and I, she has much deeper understanding of Dhamma / dhammas. And neither of us has "absolute knowledge". But why should you see this as being conditioned by Avijja? E: Why is it being conditioned by Avijja? Because from the Dependent-origination, it says, the first condition is Avijja. Avijja-paccaya sankhara (With Ignorance as a condition, there are Volitional Impulses). Sankhara-paccaya viññanam (With Volitional Impulses as a condition, Consciousness). Viññana-paccaya namarupam (With Consciousness as a condition, Body and Mind). Etc, etc and ending with: Evametassa kevalassa dukkhakkhandhassa samudayo hoti Thus is the arising of this whole mass of suffering. There is suffering inherent within all sankhara (sankhara dukkhata.), all things that arise from the determinants, the 5 khandhas are suffering. These 5 aggregates are: materiality (ruupa), sensation (vedanaa), conception (sa~n~naa), volition (sankhara) and consciousness (vi~nana) and these are suffering because they show the characteristic of impermanence. Sukin, in your opinion, what is the condition for suffering? ----------------------- Sukin: The conventional world is subject to anicca, dukkha and anatta in so far as the realities that underlying it are. But if you are saying that `concepts' exhibit the characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta, then I can't agree. E: Why can’t you agree that a “concept” exhibit the 3 characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta? You mean a “concept” does “not” exhibit characteristic of anicca, dukkha and anatta? why? what is different or special about “concept”? only “realities” can exhibit anicca, dukkha and anatta? what is the definition of “realities”? I think Nibbana is the only exception from anicca, dukkha and anatta. Imho, “concept” is in that group of anicca, dukkha and anatta. My definition of “concept” is: idea, thought, perception, impression, theory, notion, and these have the 3 characteristics. Sukin, what is your understanding of “concept”? P/S: Please take your time to reply to my posts. Thank you. #77630 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:41 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep kenhowardau Hi Elaine, Apologies for the delay in replying. I decided to take a back seat for a while and see how your conversation with Sukin turned out. (But now he has had to leave us for a week.) --------------- <. . .> E: > anatta does not mean "no control and no freewill". --------------- If that is what you want to believe, is it my business to argue with you? I don't know. You have spent enough time at DSG to have heard the opposite (no control) point of view. If you want to go on believing in a conventional Middle Way, you are perfectly entitled to do so. ---------------------------- E: > I think it is some other religion that says that we cannot change ourdestiny because of no control and no freewill. One of my Hindu friends says that when their time is "up" they will go to Nirvana automatically (I have no idea how that time-frame is decided but they believe that they will get to Nirvana ~ someday) but my Hindu friend could be wrong. ----------------------------- What if there was no person (no self) whose time was up (or not up)? What would your Hindu friend say to that? What would *you* say to that? ------------------------------------------ E: > I think Buddha said we have the ability to attain Nibbana "here and now" if we follow the Noble 8-fold path. We have to put in right effort in following the path (I know, it is easier said than done). And I'm taking a guess that you'll say- "right effort arises by itself" – that, I don't know how to verify whether it is true or not. My thinking is - if we wait around for our "right conditions" to arise before we can put in "Right Effort", then I don't know how long we have to wait, till the time is right for Nibbana to come to us (?) unless, if that is what you believe, then I have nothing to say. -------------------------------------------- You may have noticed other people at DSG making this point. No matter how many times we (on the no-control side) say it is not like that, people always accuse us of "waiting around" and "doing nothing." The opposite of "doing nothing" may well be "doing something" but, believe it or not, there is a middle way. -------------------- E: > I think we have to create good conditions for ourselves; we have to keep on doing good deeds and accumulate good kamma, so that when our bad conditions decide to arise, it will get diluted a bit and we'd suffer less. -------------------- Fair enough, but is this the 'profound truth' that 'only a Buddha' could teach? -------------------------- E: > As for anatta, from what I understand, anatta means that the "I" is not made up of one solid glob of self or "soul", a human being is made up of separate entities of mentality and materiality. If we can observe these two separate entities through wisdom (panna), then our sense of selfishness and self-centeredness will be reduced - automatically; understanding anatta also means letting go of our egoistic-ness. That's how I understand anatta, but I could be totally wrong. I cannot believe that the Buddha taught "no freewill". ---------------------------- Ven Thanissaro goes one step further than you, and says that the Buddha did not teach no-self at all. He says anatta is just a strategy that meditators can take in order to calm their minds. As I was saying, Ven. T goes one step further than you do. (Or so it seems to me.) But is his position (that there really is a self) so far away from yours? If, as you say, there has to be free will then doesn't there also have to be a self that has free will? What would be the use of free will without someone who possessed it? How would that be any different from fatalism? Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sobhana wrote: > > Hi KenH, > > KenH: But don't you get that impression quite often when you're studying Dhamma? Aside from any mere opinions I may have written, doesn't the teaching of anatta and conditionality sound like fatalism? > > E: Does the teaching of anatta sound like fatalism? No, not really... I've never equated anatta with fatalism, anatta does not mean "no control and no freewill". I think it is some other religion that says that we cannot change our destiny because of no control and no freewill. > #77631 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 4:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to Tep shennieca Hi KenH, Thank you for your reply. ---------------- KenH: What if there was no person (no self) whose time was up (or not up)? What would your Hindu friend say to that? What would *you* say to that? E: I do not understand no person (no self) the way you do. “What if there was no person (no self) whose time was up (or not up)?” When your question is phrased this way, it sounds like nihilism, that there is absolutely no self, nothing at all. Are you saying no-self means we do not exist, that our khandhas do not exist? ----------------- KenH: You may have noticed other people at DSG making this point. No matter how many times we (on the no-control side) say it is not like that, people always accuse us of "waiting around" and "doing nothing." The opposite of "doing nothing" may well be "doing something" but, believe it or not, there is a middle way. E: Yes, I believe that there is a middle way. There is nothing such as “doing nothing”, even if we “do nothing”, our mind is thinking. Have your mind ever been quiet? mine haven’t. "Conventionally" speaking, we should try our best to be mindful at all times. I know mindfulness will run away on its own accord, but we have to be mindful whenever we remember it. ------------------ E: I think we have to create good conditions for ourselves; we have to keep on doing good deeds and accumulate good kamma, so that when our bad conditions decide to arise, it will get diluted a bit and we'd suffer less. KenH: Fair enough, but is this the 'profound truth' that 'only a Buddha' could teach? E: I don’t understand what you are asking. You mean can any other person teach this? I think all Religions teach us to do good deeds, except maybe that m.usli.m religion, but actually that religion has been misinterpreted by a few wicked people, and they are using it for their own benefit by using God’s name. (sorry, off-topic). The Buddha taught us the profound truth about the 3 characteristics and if we hear this truth from the Buddha, or the Buddha’s disciples, or read from the dhamma book, I think we can understand it superficially (if I can understand it at a deeper level, it would be much better). ------------------------ KenH: Ven Thanissaro goes one step further than you, and says that the Buddha did not teach no-self at all. He says anatta is just a strategy that meditators can take in order to calm their minds. E: I have read Ven. Thanissaro’s articles in accesstoinsight and he did not say that the "Buddha did not teach no-self at all”. If you think that he did say that, then we are reading the same article but we have perceived it differently. I cannot say whether who is right or wrong and we cannot continue this discussion because your perception and mine is different. ----------------- KenH: But is his position (that there really is a self) so far away from yours? If, as you say, there has to be free will then doesn't there also have to be a self that has free will? What would be the use of free will without someone who possessed it? How would that be any different from fatalism? E: I don’t believe in “absolute freewill”, if we have absolute freewill, we would be God-like. But I also don’t believe in absolute no freewill either. Right now, I don't want to continue with the discussion of freewill or no freewill because it is the wrong-type of question to ask. There will never be an answer because the "mould" that we are using for asking questions, is wrong. I respect Bhikkhu Thanissaro, and I love his article called the “Question of Skill”. Asking the wrong type of question will not bring us any closer to Nibbana, in fact, it sways us away from attaining Nibbana. #77634 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Listening/learning of the dhammas shennieca Hi all, Now I know why my reply e-mail isn't in my Inbox, it went to Bulk (spam box) instead!! Even yahoo thinks that I am writing nonsense, hahah. :D Please check the Bulk folder for my reply. Thank you. :-)) With mettaa, Elaine #77635 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] An Important Observation shennieca Hi Howard, H: Desires achieved increase thirst like salt water. The ordinary, commonsense view is that attaining what is desired provides satisfaction. But, in fact, with the exception of attaining (desired) elimination of defilements, all that attainment of desires does, as I see it, is give a very brief and delusive respite from the pain of craving. ---------- Thank you for this reminder (((Hugs))). Sadhu! With mettaa, Elaine #77636 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:17 pm Subject: Re: The doctrine of anatta buddhistmedi... Hi Howard (Bhikkhu Aggacitto and Dieter), - Thank you very much for the discussion; I appreciate your thought. >Howard: >In the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, there is the following: "Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, venerable Sir." "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" " "Painful, venerable Sir." "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? "No, venerable sir." >This is repeated for the other four khandhas. It seems to me that this says that nothing that is dukkha and anicca can be considered as (personal)self. T: It seems to me that the sutta says : Since each of the five khandhas is dukkha and anicca, it is 'anattaa'. .............. Howard: >In the same sutta, the Buddha says the following: Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis- ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' >This is repeated for the other four khandhas. It seems to me that this says that whatever is not subject to "our" control also is not to be considered as (personal) self. T: It seems to me that since any khandha is anattaa, we should not expect it to behave according to what we wish. This is because 'anattaa dhamma' may turn out to be opposite to our wishing. I do not see the word 'control' per se. .............. Howard: >So, it seems to me that the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta is a place in the Pali canon where, as Ven Aggacitto puts it, it is stated that in order for something to be considered (personal) "self" it must be both permanent and in control of causality (or, I would substitute, controllable). T: I think he says there is no sutta in the Pali Canon that defines attaa (self) as an entity that is "both permanent and in control of causality". It seems to me that the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta does not define attaa that way; the sutta only describe the characteristics (lakkhana) of anattaa. So the Bhikkhu is right. Tep === #77637 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta buddhistmedi... Hi Dieter (Bhikkhu Aggacitto, Howard), - I like to be given an opportunity to explain (and, if necessary, to correct) myself. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Hi Tep (Ven. Agacitto), > > unlike me, you seem to have immdiate understood the example , the Venerable used in reference to anatta: > > ' If let's say you have a candle and 2 hour's after you light it you come back and say look! this is the candle i lit 2 hour's ago! in conventional term's you would be correct, but in ultimate term's you would be wrong.' > > After 2 hours neither I nor the candle are the same , but what does it tell you in relation to anatta and significance to distinguish conventional and ultimate meaning? > > Please explain.. > > with Metta Dieter > T: I cannot guess what Bhikkhu Aggacitto's answer might be, but I can give you my one-Japanese-yen worth of thought as follows. This 'candle simile' tells me that because of continuity (santati, santaana) a worldling thinks a candle, a khandha or formations, is the same one it was a moment ago. But ariyans know the 'anicca' truth of the ultimate realities that a candle, a khandha, or any formations (sankhara) is continuously changing. Therefore, the (ignorant) view of a worldling who sees a 'solid entity' in a khandha is wrong in the ultimate sense. Tep === #77638 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 10/25/2007 8:17:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi Howard (Bhikkhu Aggacitto and Dieter), - Thank you very much for the discussion; I appreciate your thought. >Howard: >In the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, there is the following: "Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" "Impermanent, venerable Sir." "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" " "Painful, venerable Sir." "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? "No, venerable sir." >This is repeated for the other four khandhas. It seems to me that this says that nothing that is dukkha and anicca can be considered as (personal)self. T: It seems to me that the sutta says : Since each of the five khandhas is dukkha and anicca, it is 'anattaa'. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The sentences 'Nothing that is dukkha and anicca is atta' and 'Everything that is dukkha and anicca is anatta' are logical paraphrases. ---------------------------------------------------- .............. Howard: >In the same sutta, the Buddha says the following: Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis- ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' >This is repeated for the other four khandhas. It seems to me that this says that whatever is not subject to "our" control also is not to be considered as (personal) self. T: It seems to me that since any khandha is anattaa, we should not expect it to behave according to what we wish. This is because 'anattaa dhamma' may turn out to be opposite to our wishing. I do not see the word 'control' per se. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: The word isn't there, but the meaning sure is! "Let his form be this" and "Let this form be that" express attempts at control. ----------------------------------------------------- .............. Howard: >So, it seems to me that the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta is a place in the Pali canon where, as Ven Aggacitto puts it, it is stated that in order for something to be considered (personal) "self" it must be both permanent and in control of causality (or, I would substitute, controllable). T: I think he says there is no sutta in the Pali Canon that defines attaa (self) as an entity that is "both permanent and in control of causality". It seems to me that the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta does not define attaa that way; the sutta only describe the characteristics (lakkhana) of anattaa. So the Bhikkhu is right. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I respectfully disagree. :-) ------------------------------------------------------ Tep ========================= With metta, Howard #77639 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta buddhistmedi... Hi DC, - I appreciate your comment and suggestion about 'attaa'. >DC: There is nothing called atta. It is in one's imgination; a mere cocept. What the Buddha does it you can't find anything called atta in a being or the world that the Buddha can experience through 'abhi~n~naa'. >DC: This is a very difficult subject, you really understand the thing only when you become an arahant. >DC: Don't go into that ultimate argument. Really, it is an assertion. Think of it carefully. .............. T: What is your thought about the following excerpt from one of Ven. Nanamoli's articles? Nanamoli: The Buddha explains how he uses the word attaa (self) in the second sense, namely, the "person" or "individual" noted above: "There are these three kinds of acquisition of self (atta- patilaabha): gross, constituted of mind, and immaterial... The first has materiality and consists of the four great entities (elements of earth, water, fire, and air), and consumes physical food; the second is constituted by mind with all the limbs and lacking no faculty; the third consists of perception... I teach the Doctrine (dhamma) for the abandoning of acquisitions of self in order that in you, who put the teaching into practice, defiling ideas may be abandoned and cleansing ideas increase, and that you, by realization yourselves here and now with direct knowledge, enter upon and abide in the fullness of understanding's perfection... If it is thought that to do that is an unpleasant abiding, that is not so: on the contrary, by doing that there is gladness, happiness, tranquillity, mindfulness, full awareness and a pleasant (blissful) abiding... These are worldly usages, worldly language, worldly terms of communication, worldly descriptions by which a Tathaagata communicates without misapprehending them." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html#thera vada Thanks. Tep === #77640 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:24 pm Subject: Re: Listening/learning of the dhammas buddhistmedi... Hi Elaine (and all), - I can tell from reading several of your posts so far that your pa~n~naa is far above an average Buddhist's. I think there is a good chance that you may experience the direct knowledge of anicca in this life. >Elaine: Ven. Sariputta became enlightened by hearing/learning the Sutta. But I'm not sure if this ability still exists among the people at this age and time because the Sasana is in decline. >E: I have no idea what anicca really is, I can quote gross example like a burning candle or a person growing old. I think, a person who really knows what anicca is, is an ariya-puggala. >E: Buddha said, "everything is non-self because it is impermanent/inconstant" - if a person knows the nature of impermanence, then s/he will understand the nature of non-self. This type of knowing is supra- normal knowledge, i.e. gotrabuu~naana, udayabbaya~naana and vipassana~naana. >E: I hope to know what gotrabuu~naana, udayabbaya~naana and vipassana~naana really is, and this kind of knowledge, I think, cannot be obtained by hearing/learning the dhamma. I concur with you. Tep === #77641 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Listening/learning of the dhammas buddhistmedi... Hi Elaine, - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "shennieca" wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > Opps, I put a small t instead of a capital T in your name. Sorry!! I > didn't proof-read it before sending, sorry. :-)) > > Mettaa, > Elaine > It is allright. Beginning a sentence with a lower-case letter is adopted by fast-typing emailers. They even use lower cases everywhere. You know, it takes an extra effort to capitalize words appropriately. Even though I think I have the habit to stop and check every sentence I have written, quite often there are a few typos that manage to escape the attention. Tep === #77642 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta buddhistmedi... Hi Howard, - I agree with you that the concept of attaa needs to be carefully studied. >Howard: > But there must be more to the concept of "self" than this. Nibbana is not impermanent, and it is the ultimate happiness, entirely without dukkha. Yet nibbana is not-self. > It seems to me that the notion of self also centrally includes > "identity", and the notion of "personal self" also includes the idea of a being or person. Nibbana, of course, is entirely impersonal and is beyond identity, being beyond all conditions. In fact, nibbana can't properly even be thought of as "a thing". So, in addition to 1) permanence and 2) ease/sukha, the concept of self also includes at least 3) being (or thingness"), 4) identity, and, in the case of "personal self", 5) personality. > Thanks. Tep === #77643 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta buddhistmedi... Hi Howard, - It is very nice of you to continue the discussion. > T: It seems to me that the sutta says : Since each of the five > khandhas is dukkha and anicca, it is 'anattaa'. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The sentences 'Nothing that is dukkha and anicca is atta' and > 'Everything that is dukkha and anicca is anatta' are logical paraphrases. > ---------------------------------------------------- Tep: But the logical paraphrases do not cover other cases of attaa. There are other meanings of attaa that can be found in the Tipitaka and Commentary as follows. 1 As "one-self" in the more or less colloquial sense: e.g., attaa hi atatno naatho (Dh. XII, 4/v. 160). 2. As "one's own person" (including the physical and mental body): attapa.tilabha (DN 9/vol. i, 195), attabhaava (AN III, 125/vol. i, 279; DN 33/vol. iii, 231; Dhs. 597). 3. Self as a "subtle metaphysical entity" : atthi me attaa (MN 2/vol. i, 8), ruupa"m attato samanupassati (MN 44/vol. i, 300), attaanudi.t.thi (DN 15/vol. ii, 22), attavaadupaadaana (MN 11/vol. i, 66), su~n~nam idam attena vaa attaniyena vaa (MN 106/ vol. ii, 263), rupam bhikkhave anattaa (SN XXII,59/vol. iii, 66), etc. More detail is given in Bhikkhu Nanamoli's "Anattaa According to the Theravaada". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html#thera vada > .............. > > T: It seems to me that since any khandha is anattaa, we should not > expect it to behave according to what we wish. This is > because 'anattaa dhamma' may turn out to be opposite to our wishing. I do not see the word 'control' per se. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The word isn't there, but the meaning sure is! "Let his form be this" and "Let this form be that" express attempts at control. > ----------------------------------------------------- Tep: It seems that "Let his form be this" and "Let this form be that" express one's wishing, that may or may not involve controlling. > .............. > > Howard: > >So, it seems to me that the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta is a place in the Pali canon where, as Ven Aggacitto puts it, it is stated that in > order for something to be considered (personal) "self" it must be > both permanent and in control of causality (or, I would substitute, controllable). > > T: I think he says there is no sutta in the Pali Canon that defines attaa (self) as an entity that is "both permanent and in control of causality". It seems to me that the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta does not define attaa that way; the sutta only describe the characteristics (lakkhana) of anattaa. So the Bhikkhu is right. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I respectfully disagree. :-) > ------------------------------------------------------ > Tep: So let's leave the issue at that, ;>) Thanks. Tep === #77644 From: "colette" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:00 pm Subject: Re: fatalism, puppets included, no batteries required ksheri3 Hello Connie, GREAT USE OF DIALOGUE! Have you written scripts for the media, before? lol. I truely enjoy how you brought me in, brought me into your thoughts, conceptions, and thoroughly enjoyed the EXPERIENCE of what you conveyed! Later, tomorrow, I'll try to read it objectively, right now I read it to experience it and enter the stream of consciousness you were/are conveying. I'm reading several pieces now, one is THE GOAL OF SLEFLESSNESS IN BUDDHIST PHILOSOPHY which compares anata in Theravada, Mahayana and Abhidharma. but I'm also reading a piece concerning the inherent evil within consciousness as a part of the Dharmakaya. These are cool works. But we can't forget that I'm working on the WILD AWAKENING, so I've gotta lot on my plate. Thanks for the clear imagery. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" wrote: > > Hey, Colette, > > The shoes. There's an old tale about a girl who got these #77645 From: Sobhana Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Listening/learning of the dhammas shennieca Hi Tep, Tep: I can tell from reading several of your posts so far that your pa~n~naa is far above an average Buddhist's. I think there is a good chance that you may experience the direct knowledge of anicca in this life. E: ((blush)) I can feel my ego expanding!! ((eeewww)) it's terrible, lol. You're saying it with good intentions, I know. ;-)) This direct experience thingy is a very, very lofty aim, I don't know if I'd ever get it in this lifetime, but if we don't give it a try, we won't know, right? May everyone in DSG experience the direct knowledge of anicca soon, it's going to need lots of hard work and lots of good kamma. If we don't get it in this lifetime, we're accumulating good paramis, I hope. :-)) I am spending too much time in front of this PC, it's terrible.... it's greed and cravings arising (rolleyes). :-(( May we be well and happy! With mettaa, Elaine #77646 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:16 pm Subject: No Agent is Inside! bhikkhu0 Friends: Impersonal Processes: Action without an Actor: - Neither Agent nor Actor exists, only egoless Acting Processes Unfolds! - Ask Not 'Who' but 'What'! Who feels ? - Nobody feels ! What feels ? - Feeling itself feels ! What does feeling feel ? Feeling feels pain, pleasure & neutral indifference... Who perceives ? - Nobody perceives ! What perceives ? - Perception itself perceives ! What does perception perceive ? Perception perceives forms, colours, sounds, smells, tastes, touches and ideas, thoughts & mental states... Who (re)cognizes ? - Nobody cognizes ! What cognizes ? - Consciousness itself cognizes ! What does consciousness recognize ? Consciousness cognizes feelings, perceived experiences and all the other various mental states as joy, anger etc... These imprints arise & cease incessantly. Observable is this! No lasting same 'self' can ever 'reside' or 'remain' within this! In this passing flux of discrete mental states - exactly like when the single still pictures of a rolling film, momentarily passes in between the lens & lamp, causing a blinking projection to appear as ‘real’ or ‘here’ neither a 'feeler' nor a 'experiencer' as an 'Observing Agent' can be found, assumed, constructed, concluded or deposited... No-one is ‘in’ or ‘behind’ neither the film nor the mental projection… Just this blinking projection itself - IS – for a short moment! Feeling itself does not per se imply any 'feeler', as often assumed! Perception does not itself imply any 'experiencer', as often assumed! Just like we cannot conclude from the 2 facts: 1: That there is a cinema. 2: There is a film projected inside this cinema. That there actually are anybody 'inside' that cinema !!! As the external cinema very well may be all empty of any ‘audience’, then this 'internal cinema' of mere experience, is also empty of any 'Self', empty of any 'Person', empty of any 'Soul', empty of any 'Entity' apart from the projected passing experience itself... !!! ________________________________________________________ Where – actually – is or resides this adored yet imaginary Ego? Is the self identical with the body ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the body ? - No ! Is the self outside or apart from the body ? - No ! Does the self own & posses a body ? - No ! Does the body own & posses a self ? - No ! There is just this frame of a body, but no self as controller... Is the self identical with the feeling ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the feeling ? - No ! Is the self outside apart from the feeling ? - No ! Does the self own & posses a feeling ? - No ! Does the feeling own & posses a self ? - No ! There is just this sensation of feeling, but no self as feeler... Is the self identical with the experience ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the experience ? - No ! Is the self outside & apart from experience ? - No ! Does the self own & posses an experience ? - No ! Does the experience own & posses a self ? - No ! There is just this moment of a experience, but no self as experiencer... Is the self identical with the mental construction ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the mental construction ? - No ! Is the self outside apart from mental construction ? - No ! Does the self own & posses a mental construction ? - No ! Does the mental construction own & posses a self ? - No ! There is just this activity of mental construction, but no self as constructor... Is the self identical with the consciousness ? - No ! Is the self hidden inside the consciousness ? - No ! Is the self outside apart from consciousness ? - No ! Does the self own & posses a consciousness ? - No ! Does the consciousness own & posses a self ? - No ! There is just this aware consciousness, but no self ‘being’ conscious... Why not ? Because all these phenomena arise, change & cease...!!! If the proposition of a self is taken as affirmed, then the: 'The Identical, Same & Unchanging Self' should arise, change and cease in every moment... Which is absurd, contradictory, and inconsistent with any concept, which we identify with as 'my self'...!!! How can a so-called ‘same’ self arise as new and cease in each moment?!? If the self is not ‘same’, is it then changed into ‘another’… ??? Any 'self' who is 'another' is clearly absurd... !!! Is the self then a collective conglomerate of body, feeling, experience & consciousness ? - No ! Why not ? If self is not found within any of the parts, it cannot either ever be found within any collection of the very same parts! In Conclusion: All 'Egoism' is based on an assumed & long cherished & reinforced idea of an 'agent inside' labelled as a self, which does not exist except as a mental construction which we fall in love with and violently defend... This ‘auto-romance’ has taken place in all the prior rebirths also when animal! This falsehood is more than fatal! Why so? Because it drags beings back into rebirth and thus also repeated death… The assumed 'self', 'agent', 'identity', 'soul' or 'personality' does not exist as an unchanging entity… Or reality… Freed of such self-Obsession, one is freed of the first hindrance blocking all ways to Nibbana: Personality-belief! Buddha once said: Blissful is solitude for one who is content, learned & who see the True Dhamma. Blissful is harmlessness towards all beings without exception. Blissful is freedom from any sensual urge whatsoever. Yet, the supreme bliss, is the elimination of the abysmal conceit “I amâ€?!’ Udana – Inspiration: II – 1 This -the Buddha's doctrine of No-Self- is called Anatta. May all come to see & be calmed thereby. Subtle & complex, yet true & freeing. ... Ownerlessness is a universal characteristic of being! Impersonal are all states & phenomena! #77647 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:24 pm Subject: Re: The doctrine of anatta jonoabb Dear Ven Aggacitto Welcome to the list from me. We are very pleased to have another member of the bhikkhu sangha as a member here. I would be interested to know, as I'm sure others would too, where you are living, and how long you have been ordained as a bhikkhu. I am writing this from Bodh Gaya, where Sarah and I are coming to the end of a 2-week visit to the holy places. Today our group offers a meal and robes to 60 bhikkhus at the Maha-Bodhi Society premises in Bodh Gaya. Looking forward to seeing your contributions to the discussion here. With respect Jon #77649 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:29 pm Subject: Re: dr han tun, sarah and nina jonoabb Hi Manish (and Han) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "vipassana_infonet" wrote: > > dear dhamma brothers and sisters, > > > dear dhamma sisters - nina and sarah, dr han tun has answered ALL my > questions in deep detail and I am still processing his replies. that > may be enough for now. I may get back to you, with just a few > questions - if the need arises. many many thanks. I may have missed something here. Are you sayihg that you have had replies from Han Tun off-list? If so, we would all like to see them. Perhaps you or Han Tun could post them to the list (one at a time, preferably). Hoping you will stay with us a litte longer to discuss your questions further. Jon #77650 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:34 pm Subject: Re: The doctrine of anatta reverendagga... A new touch up? what i am discussing here is this; understanding ultimate dhamma and conventional dhamma to be two side's of the same coin,there would be no reason to refute permance or causality in any way because both are actually true!Rev.Gotama was discussing self in a conventional sence and no self in an ultimate sence. We are permanent as ongoing phenomenal experiance,arising,existing, ceasing to exist,again and again lifetime after lifetime in samsara,nibbana being a release from samsara not celestial suicide! Nibbana being the eternally restful state of the totality of reality as opposed to a small facet of reality as appearance.After all, how could we experience nibbana if one (SELF)were no longer around to experience it?We are the controler of our causalty as the creator's of our own kamma and kammic fruit.Therefore to ask for these condition's to deny the quality of selfness would only be valid in a conventional way.Let us not get the two confused. blessing's to all of you! Thank's for your time! bhikkhu aggacitto #77651 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:44 pm Subject: Re: The doctrine of anatta reverendagga... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Dear Ven Aggacitto > > Welcome to the list from me. We are very pleased to have another > member of the bhikkhu sangha as a member here. > > I would be interested to know, as I'm sure others would too, where > you are living, and how long you have been ordained as a bhikkhu. > > i have been ordained for 5 year's and am now in Thailand observing vassa. Thank You! #77652 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:29 am Subject: Re: The doctrine of anatta reverendagga... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hello Bhikkhu Aggacitto, - > > I am delighted by your comment on attaa and anattaa the same way > when I see a famous but very old oil painting getting a new touch-up by > an artist. > > What i was discussing was the fact that the term's: permanance and controler of causalty would only apply to refute the definition of "self"when speaking of "self" in a conventional way.In an ultimate dhammic sence,which is how "no self" is discussed there is permanence and a controler of causality.Permanence as "self" as an on going phenomenal experience of arising ,existing, ceasing to exist, life time after lifetime in samsara, nibbana being a release from samsara not celestial suicide!Nibana being the eternally restful state of the totality of reality vs.a facet of reality as the appearance of such,after all how could we experience "The higest happiness" if one (self)were not around to experience it?We are the controler of our causality by way of our creation of our kamma and kammic fruit that is also called cause and effect. Blessing's to you all! bhikkhu aggacitto #77653 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta reverendagga... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Dieter (Bhikkhu Aggacitto, Howard), - > > I like to be given an opportunity to explain (and, if necessary, to > correct) myself. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller > wrote: > > > > Hi Tep (Ven. Agacitto), > > > > unlike me, you seem to have immdiate understood the example , the > Venerable used in reference to anatta: > > > > ' If let's say you have a candle and 2 hour's after you light it > you come back and say look! this is the candle i lit 2 hour's ago! in > conventional term's you would be correct, but in ultimate term's you > would be wrong.' > > > > After 2 hours neither I nor the candle are the same , but what > does it tell you in relation to anatta and significance to > distinguish conventional and ultimate meaning? > > > > Please explain.. > > > > with Metta Dieter > > > > T: I cannot guess what Bhikkhu Aggacitto's answer might be, but I can > give you my one-Japanese-yen worth of thought as follows. > > This 'candle simile' tells me that because of continuity (santati, > santaana) a worldling thinks a candle, a khandha or formations, is > the same one it was a moment ago. But ariyans know the 'anicca' truth > of the ultimate realities that a candle, a khandha, or any formations > (sankhara) is continuously changing. Therefore, the (ignorant) view > of a worldling who sees a 'solid entity' in a khandha is wrong in the > ultimate sense. > > Tep > === >Thank you Tep for your insight! #77654 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta dcwijeratna Dear Tep, I wish to draw your attention to Rev. Aggacitto's [Octber 26, 12: 59: 18] following statement: "after all how could we experience "The higest happiness" if one (self)were not around to experience it?" Well, how do you understand it? With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77655 From: Ken O Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. ashkenn2k Hi Dieter each of us have different inclinations, if one will develop better by memorizing the text for their development so go ahead. Some prefer meditation. No matter what method we used, we must start with right understanding, anicca, dukkha and anatta. Abhidhamma is a text where learners embark on a path to understand the different aspects of dhamma, its relations, its conditions, its main purpose is to help us understand about anicca, dukkha and anatta. Not everyone likes it because it could be a very dry subject. It is a great help in my personal opinion in the understanding of the sutta. I am faith in Abhidhamma and after learning it, I have very little confusion over the sutta meanings Cheers Ken O #77656 From: Ken O Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. ashkenn2k Hi DC > I'll > give some more examples. If we consider other sense organs, the > situation is clearer. If something touches you on the back of your > head, is there anyway, you can be certain what it is? This is true > of all other sense organs. Well, please do look at these things and > send me your comments? KO: The head is conventional reality. Hardness of the head, heat from the head, visibility of the head (not in terms of head as a whole) is ultimate reality, touch sense consciouness is also an ultimate reality. KO: Forget to mention that ultimate reality is an object that we could cognize or directly felt, difficult to describe in words or explain as it may raise more arguements. Give you an eg, a person who lives in a remote tribal group may not know what is computer, nonetheless he would understand what is pleasant feeling, what is unpleasant. Only through contact with outside word, then he would know. Computer is just a conventional reality, an imagination or a construct while feeling is ultimate reality. Ultimate reality is something, if we confined to conditional dhamams are the aggregates which are universal to all humans. It take time to understand and it important to understand it as one who wish to understand the Buddha dhamma. > > You are referring to, I think , "Here one who has faith [in a > teacher] visits him; ..." > We don't translate it that way. The Paali is "saddhaajaato > upas"nkamati". Saddhaajaato is 'one in whom saddhaa is born, or > arisen'. It is a causal process. See for example, Upaniisa sutta of > the SN. dukkhuupanisaa saddhaa. Saddhaa arises because of the > Buddha. But there is something more relevant See MN 95-Ca"nki > sutta. Saddhaa there is born by actual examination that the teacher > is an arahant, by associating him for a long time. This translation > of saddha as faith can be traced back to Childers Dictionary. Well > that is a long story. > Dhamma here refers to the Four Noble Truths. Obviously you have to > hear it. Else you will be the dicoverer of the Path. A > samma-sambuddha. We are looking at arahants. After they hear the > Dhamma they need to accept it. When he 'gains reflective > acceptance' --that is he accepts the "Four Noble Truths". Now he > strives in order to realise (to get knowledge) them. Now this > striving has nothing to do with the Four Noble Truths. It is really > samma-vaayaama to sammaasamadhi. The meaning of visits means really > he has given up the responsibilities of a householder. I hope this > makes some sense to you. I was trying to make my e-m short. Again, > please read through the two suttas I mentioned. > KO: If you think faith is not appropriate at that context, maybe word like confidence, or a believe this teaching is of benefit to oneself. Saddha can be born in many ways, some by just looking at a Buddha, some by the hearing mere two stanzas of the dhamma, some by looking at the text, some by examining the Arahants and many others. All conditional dhamma are a casuality process, there is no dhamma could arise on its own, so is Saddha :-). One cannot accept dhamma without saddah because he would not believe that it is for his own welfare. KO: Please allow me to explain further. Whatever we strive in Buddha context is the result of the understanding of the danger of samsara, the endless suffering. Thus there is no way we would want to strive if we do not perceive the danger in craving, we cannot say one strive is not for the 4NT. Because 4NT is the path leading out of suffering. Understanding the danger is a biggest motivator why we learn the dhamma. > Thanks again. You have made me think. I have an idea. For one who > is genuinely interested in understanding religious conversion in > Early Buddhism (Dhamma), it appears that Kaalaama sutta is the > first sutta to study. There is another one called Bhaddhaali; both > in AN. We will have to sit down and translate them. I don't trust > translations. There are few other suttas that need to be read along > with that. KO: I am not good in history. In DSG, we always welcome people to translate suttas or bring translated text to discuss (hope Sarah does not mind, anywhere she is away in India so she cannot say much :-P ). We are opened to ideas but could be found very persistence in our views :-). I hope you do not mind as I am a human with my own mindset. We do gurantee you a wonderful time here. Cheers Kind regards Ken O #77657 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:07 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn dear friends, Part 10 13. Viisatinipaato 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa On verse: 313. "petaani bhoti puttaani, khaadamaanaa tuva.m pure; tuva.m divaa ca ratto ca, atiiva paritappasi. 312. Lady, formerly [when] you caused your sons who had passed away to be eaten, you mourned excessively day and night.} txt: Tattha petaaniiti mataani. Bhotiiti ta.m aalapati. Puttaaniiti li"ngavipallaasena vutta.m, pete putteti attho. Eko eva ca tassaa putto mato, braahma.no pana "cirakaala.m aya.m sokena a.t.taa hutvaa vicari, bahuu ma~n~ne imissaa puttaa mataa"ti eva.msa~n~nii hutvaa bahuvacanenaaha. Tathaa ca "saajja sabbaani khaaditvaa sataputtaanii"ti. Khaadamaanaati lokavohaaravasena khu.msanavacanameta.m. Loke hi yassaa itthiyaa jaatajaataa puttaa maranti, ta.m garahantaa "puttakhaadinii"ti-aadi.m vadanti. Atiivaati ativiya bhusa.m. Paritappasiiti santappasi, pureti yojanaa. Aya~nhettha sa"nkhepattho- bhoti vaase.t.thi, pubbe tva.m mataputtaa hutvaa socantii paridevantii ativiya sokaaya samappitaa gaamanigamaraajadhaaniyo aahi.n.dasi. Pruitt: 312. There, who had passed away (petaani) means: who are dead. He addresses her with the word lady. The word sons (puttaani) is said through a substition of gender. Dead sons (pete putte), that is the meaning. And only one son of hers was dead. But the brahman, thinking she had wandered for a long time afflicted by her grief, had the impression many of her sons were dead, [so] he speaks in the plural. And so today, when you have caused seven children in all to be eaten is said [in the next verse].* Caused to be eaten (khaadamaanaa) means: this is a term of abuse that is used in popular usage. For in popular [speech], whatever woman's sons die when they are born, when finding fault with her, they say "child eater," etc (putta-khaadinii). Excessively (atiiva) means: exceedingly (ativiya), greatly. You mourned means: formerly you grieved. That is the connection. Here in this context the meaning is condensed; [the full meaning is]: Lady Vaase.t.thi, previously your children died, then grieving and lamenting exceedingly, afflicted with grief, you wander through villages, towns and royal capitals. *This is to explain why seven sons are mentioned here but only one son in vv.312-17. On verse: 314. "Saajja sabbaani khaaditvaa, sataputtaani braahma.nii; vaase.t.thi kena va.n.nena, na baa.lha.m paritappasi. 313. Today, when you have caused seven children in all to be eaten, brahman lady Vaase.t.thii, why do you not mourn greatly? txt: Saajjaati saa ajja, saa tva.m etarahiiti attho. "Sajjaa"ti vaa paa.tho. Kena va.n.nenaati kena kaara.nena. 313. Today, [when] you (saajja) means: today, [when] that same your (saa ajja); now, that you (saa tva.m etarahi). That is the meaning. Or there is the reading sajja (= sa + ajja, "today, [when] you). Why (kena va.n.nena) means: for what reason (kena kaara.nena). ==to be continued, connie #77658 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:08 am Subject: Perfections Corner (30) nichiconn Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 7: The Perfection of Truthfulness, 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 "Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning"] "When he said the word bhagavaa, the Blessed One, he demonstrated the excellence of the teacher, who was not an ordinary person. 'Bhagavaa', the Arahatta Sammaasambuddha, was the person who taught the Dhamma. With the words, 'at Saavatthii, in the Jeta Grove, at Anaathapi.n.dika's Park', the venerable Elder demonstrated the support of the layfollowers of the Buddha in mentioning Saavatthii, and he demonstrated the support of the monks in mentioning the Jeta Grove." We read in the "Paramatthadiipanii", the Commentary to the "Itivuttaka", "As it was said", Khuddaka Nikaaya, the Commentary to The Ones, Ch 1, §1, Lobha Sutta, an elaboration of the words "arahat" and "bhagavaa". We read about four adi.t.thaana dhammas, dhammas which are firm foundations of all the perfections. We read that the adi.t.thaana dhammas are: truthfulness, sacca, relinquishment, caaga, calm or peace, upasama, and pa~n~naa {*}. {*} We read in the Commentary to the "Basket of Conduct" that these are dhammas which are firm foundations. Adi.t.thaana is also translated as resolve. We read in the "Dialogues of the Buddha", no. 33, The Recital, IV, XXVII: "Four Resolves, to wit, to gain insight, to win truth, to surrender (all evil), to master self (calm)." The Commentary, the Suma'ngala Vilaasinii, states that the resolve of pa~n~naa, pa~n~naadi.t.thaana, begins as vipassanaa pa~n~naa (which realizes the ownership of kamma by insight) and has as its supreme fruit the fruition of the arahat. Truthfulness, beginning with truthfulness in speech, ends with the ultimate truth of nibbaana. As to surrendering or giving up, this begins with detachment from sense objects and ends with the eradication of all defilements by the highest Path. As to calm, this begins with the subduing of defilements in (jhaana) attainment and ends with the cessation of all defilements by the highest Path. Sacca is truthfulness with regard to the development of pa~n~naa with the aim to realize the four noble Truths. We read in the Commentary to the Lobha Sutta: "The word araha.m means that there should be truthfulness, sacca, with regard to the development of kusala ... The word bhagavaa refers to the fulfilment of the adi.t.thaana dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and caaga, relinquisment." Thus, if truthfulness and relinquishment are not firmly established, the four noble Truths cannot be realized. We read: "The word bhagavaa refers to the fulfilment of the adi.t.thaana dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and caaga, relinquishment, by explaining the Blessed One's truthfulness of his vow, pa.ti~n~naa, his truthfulness of speech and the truthfulness of his pa~n~naa; and by explaining the relinquishment of sense objects which are considered important in the world, such as gain, honour and praise, and the complete relinquishment of the 'kamma formations' (abhisa'nkhaaras {*}), which means that there are no more defilements remaining." {*} Kamma formations are a link in the Dependent origination. Abhisa'nkhaara includes kusala (meritorious) kamma, akusala (demeritorious) kamma and imperturbable kamma (immaterial jhaana). So long as kamma is committed there will be result, vipaaka, and the cycle of birth and death will continue. The arahat has eradicated all defilements and for him there are no more kamma-formations. Relinquishment, caaga, does not only refer to the giving up of possessions, but it also means the giving up of clinging to sense objects, such as visible object and tangible object. Apart from this it also pertains to the giving up of what is considered important in the world: gain, honour and praise. Moreover, it refers to the relinquishment of all defilements. True relinquishment is the relinquishment of everything, even of all defilements. From the beginning one needs also sacca, truthfulness, as a firm foundation, so that defilements can be eradicated. We listen to the Dhamma, we understand it and we know that we still have a great deal of defilements. Therefore, we need further to develop and accumulate all the perfections in order to realize the noble Truths and to attain true relinquishment. We read further on: "The word arahattaa refers to the fulfilment of the adi.t.thaana dhammas (dhammas that are firm foundations) of upasama (calm or peace) and pa~n~naa, by showing the attainment of the calming of all sa'nkhaara dhammas (conditioned realities) and by showing the attainment of the awakening wisdom." We read about the importance of truthfulness as follows: "Therefore, the adi.t.thaana dhamma of sacca is the perfection developed by the Buddha when he was still a Bodhisatta and made the aspiration (abhinihaara) for the fulfilment of the highest good which is supramundane." An aspiration, abhinihaara, is a weighty cause of receiving a weighty result, and this is the attainment of Buddhahood. We read: "For this reason he accumulated each perfection in accordance with his vow and this was inspired by his great compassion. He fulfilled the adi.t.thaana dhamma of relinquishment as a perfection because he relinquished what was an enemy {*}." {*} Defilements are like enemies. He has relinquished all defilements. ===tbc, cbp #77659 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 10/25/2007 10:02:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi Howard, - It is very nice of you to continue the discussion. > T: It seems to me that the sutta says : Since each of the five > khandhas is dukkha and anicca, it is 'anattaa'. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The sentences 'Nothing that is dukkha and anicca is atta' and > 'Everything that is dukkha and anicca is anatta' are logical paraphrases. > ---------------------------------------------------- Tep: But the logical paraphrases do not cover other cases of attaa. There are other meanings of attaa that can be found in the Tipitaka and Commentary as follows. 1 As "one-self" in the more or less colloquial sense: e.g., attaa hi atatno naatho (Dh. XII, 4/v. 160). 2. As "one's own person" (including the physical and mental body): attapa.tilabha (DN 9/vol. i, 195), attabhaava (AN III, 125/vol. i, 279; DN 33/vol. iii, 231; Dhs. 597). 3. Self as a "subtle metaphysical entity" : atthi me attaa (MN 2/vol. i, 8), ruupa"m attato samanupassati (MN 44/vol. i, 300), attaanudi.t.thi (DN 15/vol. ii, 22), attavaadupaadaana (MN 11/vol. i, 66), su~n~nam idam attena vaa attaniyena vaa (MN 106/ vol. ii, 263), rupam bhikkhave anattaa (SN XXII,59/vol. iii, 66), etc. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, there are several usages, not all of which are problematical, and not all of which are objected to. The usages in 1 and 2 above are verbal distinguishings among different namarupic streams. Such distinguishing is appropriate. For example, one is heir to one's own kamma, not that of another. But self as subtle metaphysical entity is denied. Self as core identity is denied as well, for what core of identity can there be in what changes (all compounded "entities") and in what ceases (all conditioned paramattha dhammas)? And what core of identity can there be in what has no independent existence (all conditioned dhammas)? And what core of identity can there be in what is entirely beyond conditions (nibbana)? -------------------------------------------------------------- More detail is given in Bhikkhu Nanamoli's "Anattaa According to the Theravaada". http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html#thera vada > .............. > > T: It seems to me that since any khandha is anattaa, we should not > expect it to behave according to what we wish. This is > because 'anattaa dhamma' may turn out to be opposite to our wishing. I do not see the word 'control' per se. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The word isn't there, but the meaning sure is! "Let his form be this" and "Let this form be that" express attempts at control. > ----------------------------------------------------- Tep: It seems that "Let his form be this" and "Let this form be that" express one's wishing, that may or may not involve controlling. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The terminology suggests the attempt to control by mere desire or command. ("Let there be light!" ;-) A momentary willing, along with other conditions, can, of course, have consequences. I am tapping keys at the moment. This complex series of actions is a consequence of a far greater complex of conditions, with desire and willing important factors among them. Informally, there is "control" involved. But the willing --> result process occurs in very tiny steps, at a "microscopic level". One cannot successfully directly will "Let this pile of metal, rubber, leather, and plastic coalesce into an automobile!" But cars *can* be built, and willing is involved in that happening. On the other hand, "Let this sound become a flavor" is an attempt to engage in impossible magic. One quality doesn't become another. That is the sort of thing that the Buddha refers to when he makes light of such a command as "Let this form be this." One quality may cease and another appear, but that is a different matter. And even "willed" cessation and creation, bodily motion, for example, is an amalgam of a multitude of willed phenomena that occur directly only at a "microscopic level" and in concert with a multitude of other conditions. The intricate, multi-step, sankharic activities that result in bodily motion operate at levels usually invisible to our direct conscious observation, with what we end up observing being a mental construct understood as "our wanting to move and doing so". The fundamental point is that what comes to be does so according to "natural law" - according to objective causes and conditions that we do not command, though our desires and our willing and intentional actions are included among these objective, (quite impersonal) causes and conditions. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > .............. > > Howard: > >So, it seems to me that the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta is a place in the Pali canon where, as Ven Aggacitto puts it, it is stated that in > order for something to be considered (personal) "self" it must be > both permanent and in control of causality (or, I would substitute, controllable). > > T: I think he says there is no sutta in the Pali Canon that defines attaa (self) as an entity that is "both permanent and in control of causality". It seems to me that the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta does not define attaa that way; the sutta only describe the characteristics (lakkhana) of anattaa. So the Bhikkhu is right. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I respectfully disagree. :-) > ------------------------------------------------------ > Tep: So let's leave the issue at that, ;>) ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You've got a deal! ;-) ----------------------------------------------------- Thanks. Tep ============================ With metta, Howard #77660 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Agent is Inside! upasaka_howard Dear Bhikkhu Samahita - In a message dated 10/26/2007 1:39:13 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, bhikkhu0@... writes: Friends: Impersonal Processes: Action without an Actor: - Neither Agent nor Actor exists, only egoless Acting Processes Unfolds! - ===================================== Bhante, I was extremely happy in reading this fine, detailed work of yours. It is a wonderful contribution, I think. It fits in particularly well with the ongoing DSG thread "The doctrine of anatta." Thank you for this, Sir! :-) With metta, Howard #77661 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:18 am Subject: Nina & Lodewijk? upasaka_howard Hi, all - As some of you may know, we've been away on a trip since the 18th. It just occurred to me that during this time I've seen no posting from Nina. Are she and Lodewijk on vacation? Are they both well? With metta, Howard #77662 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:39 am Subject: more discussion on anatta reverendagga... Hi everyone! What i was discussing was the fact that in order for concept's like permanence or controler of causes to apply to a denial of something as "selfness" you must be discussing the concept in a convential way. "no self" is discussed much of the time in an ultimate dharmic way, so to understand "self" in a better light as well let us look at the ultimate dhammic view of "self".In this way we find that we are indeed permanent as an ongoing phenomenal experience in a state of constant flux ever evolving and adapting to kammic circumstance, lifetime, after lifetime,reborn again and again in samsara,nibbana being a release from samsara, not celestial suicide! After all if one (self)was not around how could one(self) experience The" higest happiness" of nibbana?Nibbana being the eternally restful state of reality vs.a facet of reality as the appearance of total reality. We are ultimately controler's of our own causalty by way of our own kamma and kammic fruit, also known as cause and effect. In other word's do not plant the lemon seed and expect to grow an orange tree! Blessing's to you all! bhikkhu aggacitto #77663 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:19 am Subject: Anatta of "Self" and the World truth_aerator Hello all. I was thinking about the issue of anatta, and dhamma-anatta. Not- self and "the world". It is interesting that it is only in later literature where it says that Buddha taught the selflessness of self only. In fact if one studies certain sutta's one will see that even the world is not self. Further, it is even incorrect to say "the world" since it objectifies what shouldn't be objectified. Only where there is self there can be what belongs to the Self. If some misguided person objectifies something than that consiously or subconsiously creates something to be grabbed and clung to or atleas that category is in opposition to "the self". A noble disciple must guard against tendency to reify ANY phenomenon including Nibbana (mn#1). The delusion of Self needs a stable ground which can be stood on. When someone truly believes in "objects" (as opposed to mere dependently arisen phenomenom) then there is space for self to posses it. As I was looking here are some interesting facts which you probably know already. When talking about the world, the Buddha has called dependent origination to be origination of the world. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html Also the Buddha described the world by 5 aggregates: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.082.than.html Thus we see that: World = 5 aggregates = dependent origination. 5 Aggregates fit VERY nicely into DO. Thus there is no need to split selflessness of self and selflessness of phenomenon. After all, if 5 aggregates are not self - then what can be possessed by this "disease called a self" - sn . ? The Lokayatika Sutta is very helpful: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html Here the Buddha dismissess such philosophical positions as: "Manyness, oneness, everything exists, everyhting doesn't exist". "The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html Notice here the Buddha is again telling that 5 aggregates are "All" . ""I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.045.than.html This fits nicely with the fact that Buddha has refused to answer the questions regarding the world (it is eternal or not? Finite or infinite?) from the list of 10 indeterminate questions. Thus we need to keep in mind that we should not think of the concept "World" outside of Dependent Origination. One must not think of (delusion of) Self outside of Dependent origionation either. IF ONE OBJECTIFIES ANYTHING (doesn't matter how small or short lived) than by definition one has wrong view and self concept lurking inside him or her which would prevent even stream-entry not to mention any higher attainments. Lots of Metta, Alex :) #77664 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:41 am Subject: e-card from Bodh Gaya sarahprocter... Dear Friends, A mnemorable afternoon and evening just spent at the temple and Bo tree in Bodh Gaya.... Jon and I took a bicycle rickshaw to the cente of Bodh Gaya and found our group sitting on the grass overlooking the the temple and Bo tree, surrounded by candles, as they discussed Dhamma (in Thai). Later, as it turned dark, the area was lit up by the full moon and the candles and the soft temple lighting. We circled or 'wien tien' (as they say in Thai)around the temple carrying out lanterns with candles. As we did this, the bhikkhus who had been given the sangha dana earlier, chanted and later chanted the Dhammacakkappavatanna Sutta. Jon and I had the Pali text (and translation) with us and were able to follow. We offered our lanterns to the bhikkhus and they led another wien tien, taking us to a special place for candles, away from the tree area, with a tank (lake) in the background. It was a very special end to the trip, but of course, even at such times, there are kusala and akusala cittas following the seeing and hearing and other sense door moments of consiousness as usual! Other Buddhist groups and many, many monks were also paying their respect. While we sat listening to the sutta being chanted, sitting around the Bo tree, other groups would weave their way around, prostating, chanting and showing their respect in their own ways too. A wonderful atmosphere. In the morning we had taken a lovely trip through the paddy fields, across the Neranjala river (where the Bodhisatta was offered his last meal by Sujata before becoming enlightened), and up into the nearby hills. Here we climbed up to the caves where the Bodhisatta had lived before his enlightenment, pursuing the ascetic practices. So much in the area is just as it would have been in the Buddha's time, especially much of the village life. The washing is still done and laid out by the sides of the river. There are still lotus ponds, rice paddies, mango groves, ladies carrying pots on their heads, cow dung used for cooking, clay ovens, hand-bellows, ploughs pulled by oxen, just using a piece of wood and rope, bamboo clumps, squatting in fields (which we're all experts at now;-/), wild pigs and so on.... The caves overlooking the river and Bodh Gaya in the distance were very well-formed and it was the first time we'd visited them. I helped Nina with the climb - not easy as we were surrounded by beggars and it was easy to slip. Yesterday was also a wonderful occasion. We spent the day in Rajghir, (about 2 hrs or so from here). We climbed up Vulture's Peak in the morning, paid our respect at the caves where the Great Disciples lived, and at the places where Ananda and the Buddha had kutis (dwelling places) at the top. We've had lovely weather for the trip - no rain and not too hot. We sat overlooking the hills of Rajghir, where the First council was held. In the afternoon, we had a very long and leisurely English discussion at a Thai temple. The Chief monk (who also presides at the Thai temple in Sarnath), joined us and showed a lot of interest. Some of his questions and comments about practice, meditation and the Satipatthana Sutta were raised. He likes to go to the top of Vulture's Peak in the early evening when it's quiet, to meditate without being disturbed. Is this calm or attachment? A quick pack now, the trip and the visit to the Holy Places is just a dream now, all gone. An early start tomorrow and lots of hanging around at the tiny airport of Bodh Gaya guaranteed! Lots of tummy bugs at this stage, but nothing serious and a very happy group. metta, Sarah Howard, Nina has 2 or 3 nts in Delhi before she returns home....She's fine and along with the other elderly members of the group (quite a few), has all our admiration for all the long days of travel, very early starts and putting up with all the difficulties along the way. Ken O, be as bold and inviting as you like (whether we're in India or Hong Kong!!). Will write after settling back in Hong Kong in a a couple of days... A welcome to all new members... and thanks to all of you for the smooth-running of the list. ================================ #77665 From: "Egbert" Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:02 am Subject: A bit of a logical argument egberdina Buddhism is attractive to many. This is because Buddhism appears to be very profound in it's insights. Yet on closer inspection, the assessment of Buddhism as being insightful, which follows from confusing a paradox with a contradiction, is in fact ignorance. The apparent profundity of Buddhism relies not on any sharpness of insight, but rather a certain dullness or ignorance. This is apparent from the fact that the defining doctrine of Buddhism, which is anatta, is utterly irreconcilable with the doctrine of kamma. The doctrine of anatta asserts the absence of any being, yet the doctrine of kamma insists that there are both an author and recipient of action. If you would like to argue that both ideas are logically consistent with each other, go right ahead. I have a personal requirement to not bullshit too much. If you have a need to hear only things that are pleasing to your ear, please don't reply to me. #77666 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] more discussion on anatta upasaka_howard Dear Bhante - With respect, I'm either not understanding you or I am, but disagreeing with you. I will add a few comments in context below. In a message dated 10/26/2007 10:49:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, reverendaggacitto@... writes: Hi everyone! What i was discussing was the fact that in order for concept's like permanence or controler of causes to apply to a denial of something as "selfness" you must be discussing the concept in a convential way. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I miss your point here,Sir, unless it is that the concept of "self" is a conventional one. ------------------------------------------------- "no self" is discussed much of the time in an ultimate dharmic way, so to understand "self" in a better light as well let us look at the ultimate dhammic view of "self".In this way we find that we are indeed permanent as an ongoing phenomenal experience in a state of constant flux ever evolving and adapting to kammic circumstance, lifetime, after lifetime,reborn again and again in samsara,nibbana being a release from samsara, not celestial suicide! --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I really don't follow what you mean by discussing "no self" in "an ultimate dharmic way." In ultimate Dhammic terms, there just is no such thing as self, and certainly the perception of "us" as permanent is a matter of avijja rather than ultimate Dhammic view, is it not? Our samsaric state of ignorance, instead of consisting of a seeing of things as they are, namely as an interconnected, interdependent flux of empty, conditioned, impermanent, and unsatisfying mental and physical phenomena, consists of imagining a "me" that is an unchanging something-or-other that is both observer, actor, and agent looking upon a separate world of distinct, independently existing entities. A philosophy that is based on this state of ignorance but offset by some insight into, or belief in, rebirth conceives of an alleged "permanent me" reincarnating from life to life in various worlds - a "soul" moving from body to body, and, when sufficiently purified [How an unchanging essence becomes purified being a mystery!], achieving some ultimate state of perfection. That is not the Dhammic perspective as I understand it, but an atta-view. ------------------------------------------------------- After all if one (self)was not around how could one(self) experience The" highest happiness" of nibbana? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sir, experiencing is an impersonal mental operation. It does not require an agent. There is experiencing but no experiencer. There is no self right now! There is only the illusion of self. --------------------------------------------------- Nibbana being the eternally restful state of reality vs.a facet of reality as the appearance of total reality. We are ultimately controler's of our own causalty by way of our own kamma and kammic fruit, also known as cause and effect. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Kamma indeed is the central determiner of "our" fate. But to speak of "we" who are "controllers" is at best a mere manner of speaking, and, IMO, a usage fraught with danger and with respect to which great care must be exercised. ------------------------------------------------------ In other word's do not plant the lemon seed and expect to grow an orange tree! Blessing's to you all! bhikkhu aggacitto ============================== With metta and respect, Howard #77667 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Bodh Gaya upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 10/26/2007 11:42:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Howard, Nina has 2 or 3 nts in Delhi before she returns home....She's fine and along with the other elderly members of the group (quite a few), has all our admiration for all the long days of travel, very early starts and putting up with all the difficulties along the way. =============================== Ahh, thank you! I'm very pleased. :-) Also very happy to read what a great time you are having. My best to all! With metta, Howard #77668 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - As you might expect, I totally differ with you on this. However, I'm really happy to hear from you, my friend! :-) How is everything with you? With metta, Howard #77669 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Agent is Inside! moellerdieter Hi Howard , Bhikkhu Samahita and others , I hope you do not mind a question between: you wrote: Friends: Impersonal Processes: Action without an Actor: - Neither Agent nor Actor exists, only egoless Acting Processes Unfolds! - ===================================== Bhante, I was extremely happy in reading this fine, detailed work of yours. It is a wonderful contribution, I think. It fits in particularly well with the ongoing DSG thread "The doctrine of anatta." Thank you for this, Sir! :-) D: We are the heirs of our actions(kamma) , each of us individually . What else is the actor than that what has been conditioned in the past, and is functioning now as 'habitual tendendies (sankhara khanda) . When we call this individuality character, person ,self , ego , I ...does not the statement ' Neither Agent nor Actor exists, only egoless Acting Processes Unfolds! - refer only to those , where the cessation of kamma / suffering has taken place, i.e. to the Arahants , who - due to anatta - do not create any further future kamma? The Arahant is our highest perspective but what exists, though by delusion , is still this identification/attachment of self, ego..isn't it? with Metta Dieter . #77670 From: Sobhana Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta shennieca Hi Howard, all, Howard: The fundamental point is that what comes to be does so according to "natural law" - according to objective causes and conditions that we do not command, though our desires and our willing and intentional actions are included among these objective, (quite impersonal) causes and conditions. E: My question is, how does this “natural law” decide the causes and conditions for each of us? How come this “natural law” is so unfair and makes certain people have long life or short life; rich or poor; become a deva or a peta; continue roaming in samsara or attain Nibbana? Why are the causes and conditions so cruel to the people in Darfur, where there is ethnic cleansing going on right now? Does this “natural law” behave like the theory of evolution, that a being must start as an amoeba and then progress to being a deva and then reach Nibbana in a linear progression? Or is this “natural law” a random happening? A being is sometimes reborn as a deva, sometimes a human, sometimes an animal, etc, etc, how and why? Maybe there are no answers to the questions that I ask. But if our entire Life in samsara is decided by “natural law”, then our future is very bleak, we do not know, and we cannot control what lies ahead for us. To some people, this may sound “liberating”, but to me it sound so helpless. And if this “natural law” decides our life for us, then I think Nothing deserves to be in Nibbana, why is there a need for this perpetual bliss? There is no-self to begin with, right? So why does this no-self need Nibbana? My understanding is that, eventhough there is no “self” in the microscopic view - there is this combination of 5 khankha that feels, that knows happiness from sadness, maybe at microscopic view, happiness and sadness is the same feeling? That I don’t know, it is only a conjecture. So maybe someone will say, there is no difference whether we are happy or sad, feelings are just feelings, maybe it is true? In my opinion, there are differences in every human being because of - Kamma. The Buddha said, “We reap what we sow”. If the sowing is decided by the cause and conditions which we do not command, then we are not Buddhists. We are no different from the Christians or M.us.lims who thinks that God (or natural law) makes them what they are, and God (natural law) gives them all these trials and test them, and in the end decide using a scale, whether they go to heaven or to woeful realm. If you say “natural law” is the “cause and conditions that decides our life for us”, then this “natural law” becomes our substitute for God. If this natural law is the ultimate decider, then how do I “bribe” this natural law so that it gives me the good conditions? I can’t, so what do we do, or not do? I think some people will say we have to read the dhamma books everyday, and indoctrinate our minds, so that it will condition the mind to right view and to Nibbana. Maybe it is true. Learning the dhamma is a condition, of course. Sorry if this has been a rambling post. But even though there is no self, there is suffering and suffering is painful, for e.g. people dying from cancer. Pain is real, or is pain, unreal? But maybe this suffering is unreal at the microscopic level? Arahants don’t feel pain because they can see the microscopic level things, is that right? So, as Buddhists we are striving to see the microscopic view and then sufferings become not painful, eh? Hoping to learn more about Buddhism from DSG members. Thank you. With mettaa, Elaine #77671 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Agent is Inside! upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter (and Bhante) - In a message dated 10/26/2007 12:16:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard , Bhikkhu Samahita and others , I hope you do not mind a question between: you wrote: Friends: Impersonal Processes: Action without an Actor: - Neither Agent nor Actor exists, only egoless Acting Processes Unfolds! - ===================================== Bhante, I was extremely happy in reading this fine, detailed work of yours. It is a wonderful contribution, I think. It fits in particularly well with the ongoing DSG thread "The doctrine of anatta." Thank you for this, Sir! :-) D: We are the heirs of our actions(kamma) , each of us individually . What else is the actor than that what has been conditioned in the past, and is functioning now as 'habitual tendendies (sankhara khanda) . When we call this individuality character, person ,self , ego , I ...does not the statement ' Neither Agent nor Actor exists, only egoless Acting Processes Unfolds! - refer only to those , where the cessation of kamma / suffering has taken place, i.e. to the Arahants , who - due to anatta - do not create any further future kamma? The Arahant is our highest perspective but what exists, though by delusion , is still this identification/attachment of self, ego..isn't it? with Metta Dieter ================================ Dieter, could you please say a bit more? I'm not sure I'm following the drift of what you write here. With metta, Howard #77672 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Bodh Gaya moellerdieter Hi Sarah and Jon, I enjoyed reading about your trip ..thanks a lot for sharing ! with Metta Dieter P.S. : "when it's quiet, to meditate without being disturbed. Is this calm or attachment?" I guess it is that kind of attachment which cares to overcome the 5 hindrances for the benefit of insight.. ;-) #77673 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Agent is Inside! moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: 'Dieter, could you please say a bit more? I'm not sure I'm following the drift of what you write here.' D: what I tried to express is that 'only egoless Acting Processes Unfolds! ' in the Arahant- it is that without creating new kamma .Until then the delusion (avijja) of acting/actor, kamma forces , sankhara , will is working . Confusion comes when the non-existence of (self) delusion is claimed. Anatta is our perspective , which needs to penetrated by insight not by theory/reason alone. Maybe I misunderstood when I read the topic to what your message refered to...? No doubt the anatta doctrine has been a lively issue of discussion since ancient times and will be so in future ...;-) with Metta Dieter #77674 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Elaine - In a message dated 10/26/2007 12:32:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, shennieca@... writes: Hi Howard, all, Howard: The fundamental point is that what comes to be does so according to "natural law" - according to objective causes and conditions that we do not command, though our desires and our willing and intentional actions are included among these objective, (quite impersonal) causes and conditions. E: My question is, how does this “natural lawâ€? decide the causes and conditions for each of us? How come this “natural lawâ€? is so unfair and makes certain people have long life or short life; rich or poor; become a deva or a peta; continue roaming in samsara or attain Nibbana? Why are the causes and conditions so cruel to the people in Darfur, where there is ethnic cleansing going on right now? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: With regard to this and other questions, whatever I say is just my understanding/opinion-of-the-moment and definitely not claimed as "Dhamma". As I see it, we each have a close-to-inexhaustible "store" of kamma that bears fruit when conditions are right. Much of that is favorable and much unfavorable. We have experienced ill in the past as well as pleasant circumstances, and that will continue into the future. I view kamma as the primary determiner of "our" fate. But I do not view it as the sole determiner, for we live together with others, and their actions affect us as well. ------------------------------------------------------ Does this “natural lawâ€? behave like the theory of evolution, that a being must start as an amoeba and then progress to being a deva and then reach Nibbana in a linear progression? Or is this “natural lawâ€? a random happening? A being is sometimes reborn as a deva, sometimes a human, sometimes an animal, etc, etc, how and why? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not random, nor in dependent of our will, nor necessarily unidirectional (as in ever-positive evolution), but largely the result of our volitional actions. Realm and conditions of birth, as I understand it, are due to fruition of kamma. But kamma is incredibly complex - too complex for us to unravel it. ----------------------------------------------------- Maybe there are no answers to the questions that I ask. But if our entire Life in samsara is decided by “natural lawâ€?, then our future is very bleak, we do not know, and we cannot control what lies ahead for us. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: How we think, feel, and act is critical to our "fate", and the effect of these is an integral part of natural law. The Buddha didn't teach his Dhamma merely as an interesting theory but as a way out of suffering. We should hea r, and we should do. And as we hear and do, we will come to understand. --------------------------------------------------------- To some people, this may sound “liberatingâ€?, but to me it sound so helpless. And if this “natural lawâ€? decides our life for us, then I think Nothing deserves to be in Nibbana, why is there a need for this perpetual bliss? There is no-self to begin with, right? So why does this no-self need Nibbana? --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no self, and thus no self to get rid of. But there IS ignorance, craving, aversion, and attachment to get rid of, and with there removal, the ending of dukkha. -------------------------------------------------------- My understanding is that, eventhough there is no “selfâ€? in the microscopic view - there is this combination of 5 khankha that feels, that knows happiness from sadness, maybe at microscopic view, happiness and sadness is the same feeling? That I don’t know, it is only a conjecture. So maybe someone will say, there is no difference whether we are happy or sad, feelings are just feelings, maybe it is true? ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Distress isn't the same as peace. There is a means to remove distress forever, but specific actions are required in that regard. It is not a matter of luck. --------------------------------------------------------- In my opinion, there are differences in every human being because of - Kamma. The Buddha said, “We reap what we sowâ€?. If the sowing is decided by the cause and conditions which we do not command, then we are not Buddhists. We are no different from the Christians or M.us.lims who thinks that God (or natural law) makes them what they are, and God (natural law) gives them all these trials and test them, and in the end decide using a scale, whether they go to heaven or to woeful realm. If you say “natural lawâ€? is the “cause and conditions that decides our life for usâ€?, then this “natural lawâ€? becomes our substitute for God. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Natural law is the basis for liberation as well as enslavement. Were things random, we would truly be lost, relying on dumb luck. But specific conditions lead to specific consequences. We can DEPEND on that! :-) ----------------------------------------------------------- If this natural law is the ultimate decider, then how do I “bribeâ€? this natural law so that it gives me the good conditions? I can’t, so what do we do, or not do? I think some people will say we have to read the dhamma books everyday, and indoctrinate our minds, so that it will condition the mind to right view and to Nibbana. Maybe it is true. Learning the dhamma is a condition, of course. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Learning the Dhamma is an essential component. The Buddha laid out a path of practice. There is much to it, and it cannot be summarized adequately in a post or two. A brief slogan describing it is "Do no harm, do good, and purify the mind." The Dhamnma needs to be studied to see how to go about this. ----------------------------------------------------------- Sorry if this has been a rambling post. But even though there is no self, there is suffering and suffering is painful, for e.g. people dying from cancer. Pain is real, or is pain, unreal? ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is as real as anything when it occurs, but it is not necessary. ----------------------------------------------------------- But maybe this suffering is unreal at the microscopic level? Arahants don’t feel pain because they can see the microscopic level things, is that right? So, as Buddhists we are striving to see the microscopic view and then sufferings become not painful, eh? Hoping to learn more about Buddhism from DSG members. Thank you. With mettaa, Elaine ================================== With metta, Howard #77675 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Agent is Inside! upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 10/26/2007 1:11:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, you wrote: 'Dieter, could you please say a bit more? I'm not sure I'm following the drift of what you write here.' D: what I tried to express is that 'only egoless Acting Processes Unfolds! ' in the Arahant- it is that without creating new kamma .Until then the delusion (avijja) of acting/actor, kamma forces , sankhara , will is working . ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. -------------------------------------------------- Confusion comes when the non-existence of (self) delusion is claimed. Anatta is our perspective , which needs to penetrated by insight not by theory/reason alone. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Our perspective in terms of what we SENSE is more one of atta that anatta. But, as Buddhists, our BELIEF is in anatta. I agree that it needs to become more than belief, but direct knowing. ----------------------------------------------------- Maybe I misunderstood when I read the topic to what your message refered to...? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: What did you think was my point? I will try to clarify as possible. ------------------------------------------------------- No doubt the anatta doctrine has been a lively issue of discussion since ancient times and will be so in future ...;-) ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Indeed! ;-) ---------------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ========================== With metta, Howard #77676 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:33 am Subject: Re: A bit of a logical argument truth_aerator Hi Egbert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egbert" wrote: > > Buddhism is attractive to many. > > This is because Buddhism appears to be very profound in it's insights.> Yet on closer inspection, the assessment of Buddhism as being insightful, which follows from confusing a paradox with a > contradiction, is in fact ignorance. >>> Can you please provided SPECIFIC questions? >>>>>>> The apparent profundity of Buddhism relies not on any sharpness of insight, but rather a certain dullness or ignorance. >>>>>>>>>> Without further qualification the same can be said to what you've said. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is apparent from the fact that the defining doctrine of Buddhism, which is anatta, is utterly irreconcilable with the doctrine of kamma. >>>>>> Precisely because of Anatta, Kamma and kammic effects makes sense. If there were unchangeble noumenon than Kammic effects on it would not work, that would be a contradiction. But since what we call "a self" is everchanging dependently arisen process - kamma (as in volition) and kammic effects makes sense. 5 year old, 25 year old, 55 year old and 99 year old John. Are they the same? Not exactly. Are they totally different? Not really. To me, anatta makes more sense than Atta! Ultimately true Buddhism is about direct EXPERIENCE and to personal liberation from all suffering. And this is what trully matters. And since experience is beyond everything else, it becomes extremely tough to put it into words - thus all apparent contradictions. >>>>> > The doctrine of anatta asserts the absence of any being, yet the > doctrine of kamma insists that there are both an author and recipient of action. >>>>>> These questions were answered about 2000 year ago in such works as Questions of King Milinda. >>>>>>>>> > If you would like to argue that both ideas are logically consistent > with each other, go right ahead. >>>>>>>>>>>> Ultimately, arguments are not ultimate ways towards the truth (also initially they may help). The pragmatic and practical approach is. "Again, Sandaka, a certain teacher goes by logic, arguing logically brings out a teaching by himself beaten out. In the teaching of a logical teacher, some arguments may be true and others may not be true. Sandaka, a wise man should reflect. This teacher goes by logic. He preaches what he has beaten out by logical conclusion. His arguments may be authentic or not, I should know and turn away from that holy life as unsatisfactory. Sandaka, this is the third holy life, the Blessed One who knows and sees, is perfect and rightfully enlightened has declared as unsatisfactory and should not be lived. The wise man if possible does not live and even if he lives is not convinced, that it is merit.. " http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/076-sandaka-e1.htm Lots of metta, Alex #77677 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] No Agent is Inside! moellerdieter Hi Howard, ('Maybe I misunderstood when I read the topic to what your message refered to...?) Howard:What did you think was my point? I will try to clarify as possible clarified, Howard.. ;-) with Metta Dieter #77678 From: Sobhana Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta shennieca Hi Howard, Thank you for your reply. ------------------------------- Howard: Not random, nor in dependent of our will, nor necessarily unidirectional (as in ever-positive evolution), but largely the result of our volitional actions. Realm and conditions of birth, as I understand it, are due to fruition of kamma. But kamma is incredibly complex - too complex for us to unravel it. E: Yes, kamma is too complex to unravel. You wrote - “the result of our volitional actions” - this volition that you cannot control, produces some results, and you have to bear with that result. Why, why must you bear the result of something that you were not responsible for? Why must we reap what we didn’t actually sow (it wasn’t really us who decide to sow this or that, it was due to non-controllable conditions). It seems like, if everything is uncontrollable then life would make no sense and Nibbana would make no sense either. Maybe life is senseless and meaningless? Then, would it matter if someone becomes a bum or becomes a smart scientist? Would it matter whether someone is able to live in comfort or live in a slum? Because after all, feelings are just feelings, pain is just pain, happiness is just happiness. Is that what life is? Non-Buddhists think that Buddhism is pessimistic and the no-control view is the most pessimistic view I have ever come across. Whew, did I actually say that? (I’m sorry, this is my perspective of no-control at this moment, maybe my conditions is not right to understand no-control yet). ------------------------- Howard: Natural law is the basis for liberation as well as enslavement. Were things random, we would truly be lost, relying on dumb luck. But specific conditions lead to specific consequences. We can DEPEND on that! :-) E: How can you depend on something that you cannot control? If you cannot control the steering wheel of your car, can you get to your destination? Now, I'm getting confused, I don’t understand Buddhism. --------------------------- Howard: Learning the Dhamma is an essential component. The Buddha laid out a path of practice. There is much to it, and it cannot be summarized adequately in a post or two. A brief slogan describing it is "Do no harm, do good, and purify the mind." The Dhamnma needs to be studied to see how to go about this. E: I agree with do no harm, do good and purify the mind. But when there is no-control, then heaven knows how this do no harm, do good and purify will go about doing their own thing. ---------------------------- E: Sorry if this has been a rambling post. But even though there is no self, there is suffering and suffering is painful, for e.g. people dying from cancer. Pain is real, or is pain, unreal? Howard: It is as real as anything when it occurs, but it is not necessary. E: Not necessary? What do you mean? How do you deal with pain (physical and emotional pain)? ------------------------------ With mettaa (and slightly bamboozled), Elaine #77680 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument dcwijeratna Dear Howard, This is a part of a post of yours. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hi, Herman - In a message dated 10/26/2007 11:42:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@ gmail.com writes: "I have a personal requirement to not bullshit too much. If you have a need to hear only things that are pleasing to your ear, please don't reply to me." ============ ========= ========= == As you might expect, I totally differ with you on this. However, I'm really happy to hear from you, my friend! :-) How is everything with you? With metta, Howard --------------------------------------------------------------------------------\ ---------- I can't understand this sentence because the language is unfamiliar to me: "I have a personal requirement to not bullshit too much." What is the meaning of "bullshit"? He seems to "bullshit"; his personl requirement is "not to bullshit too much." In anycase, what his requirement bull shit? I would be most grateful, if you would kindly explain it (bullshit). I am asking you because you seem to have understood it as you have replied. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77681 From: Sobhana Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Bodh Gaya shennieca Hi Sarah, You are very fortunate to go for a pilgrimage to Buddhist holy places. Thanks for sharing, it brought joy to my heart, reading about Bodhgaya and Vulture peak from your e-mail. :-)) -------------------------- Sarah: The Chief monk (who also presides at the Thai temple in Sarnath), joined us and showed a lot of interest. Some of his questions and comments about practice, meditation and the Satipatthana Sutta were raised. He likes to go to the top of Vulture's Peak in the early evening when it's quiet, to meditate without being disturbed. Is this calm or attachment? E: Do you know whether the chief monk is practicing Samatha or Vipassana meditation at the Vulture’s Peak? You said some Satipatthana Sutta questions were raised, so I presume that he is practicing Vipassana. A person needs some calmness, in order to observe the body, feelings, mind and mental qualities during Vipassana meditation. If the chief monk is practicing Vipassana correctly - when calmness arises, he knows it as calmness; when attachment arises, he knows that it as attachment. So, when you ask, “is this calm or attachment”, it will depend on whether he is meditating the correct way or not. If he sees calmness as calmness and attachment as attachment, then the effort that he puts in to meditate is not called “attachment”, it is right effort, according to the N8FP. “Conventionally” speaking, he is walking the right path and hopefully he will get to the fruition. When we study the dhamma, is it attachment? I think we all have some degree of attachment to our body, to our views, to everything, only an Arahant does not have attachment to anything. Talking about calmness - I have heard of people who practise Samatha meditation getting attached to calmness, or getting attached to the "Nimittas" that they see during their meditation. It is a real grave danger in getting attached to calmness because the meditation progress would get stunted. I don’t know what is the solution to this type of attachment, but that person has to find a good meditation teacher for guidance in this case. I think the important point that I want to make is, when we see a person meditating, it is difficult to make a judgement whether he is attached to calmness, or he is on his way to Nibbana. So, if you ask "is this calm or attachment", is a not very well put question, I think... With metta, Elaine #77682 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Elaine - In a message dated 10/26/2007 2:29:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, shennieca@... writes: Hi Howard, Thank you for your reply. ------------------------------- Howard: Not random, nor in dependent of our will, nor necessarily unidirectional (as in ever-positive evolution), but largely the result of our volitional actions. Realm and conditions of birth, as I understand it, are due to fruition of kamma. But kamma is incredibly complex - too complex for us to unravel it. E: Yes, kamma is too complex to unravel. You wrote - “the result of our volitional actionsâ€? - this volition that you cannot control, produces some results, and you have to bear with that result. Why, why must you bear the result of something that you were not responsible for? Why must we reap what we didn’ t actually sow (it wasn’t really us who decide to sow this or that, it was due to non-controllable conditions). ----------------------------------------------------- Howard What we CALL "us sowing future results" is just what it is, impersonal conditions of various sorts. The bottom line is that wholesome actions lead to happy results, and unwholesome actions to unhappy results. Our knowledge of this fact and our desire for good results and absence of bad results serve as conditions for "our doing the right thing," and that in turn has happy consequences. What could be more fair? Results are neither random nor forced upon us entirely independent of our will. As for our volition being conditioned, what value would one find in randomly arising volition? What we will is largely what we desire. Would it be preferable that our willing have nothing to do with our wishes and be entirely arbitrary? Free will in the sense of *random* willing is literally nonsense, for willing, as all phenomena, is conditioned. But primary among the conditions for volition is *desire*. So, we do act largely based on what we want. That's all there is to "free" will. A "random" willing does not exist and wouldn't be desirable if it did. ------------------------------------------------------ It seems like, if everything is uncontrollable then life would make no sense and Nibbana would make no sense either. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Wishes and volition have consequences. What other "control" would one hope for? ------------------------------------------------------ Maybe life is senseless and meaningless? Then, would it matter if someone becomes a bum or becomes a smart scientist? Would it matter whether someone is able to live in comfort or live in a slum? Because after all, feelings are just feelings, pain is just pain, happiness is just happiness. Is that what life is? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Reality is just the opposite of senseless and meaningless. A careful and extended study of the Dhamma augmented by consistent Dhamma practice, does, in my experience, show that to be so and also lead to genuine understanding, confidence, and peace. Be sure not to skip the practice! ---------------------------------------------------- Non-Buddhists think that Buddhism is pessimistic and the no-control view is the most pessimistic view I have ever come across. Whew, did I actually say that? (I’m sorry, this is my perspective of no-control at this moment, maybe my conditions is not right to understand no-control yet). ------------------------- Howard: Natural law is the basis for liberation as well as enslavement. Were things random, we would truly be lost, relying on dumb luck. But specific conditions lead to specific consequences. We can DEPEND on that! :-) E: How can you depend on something that you cannot control? If you cannot control the steering wheel of your car, can you get to your destination? Now, I'm getting confused, I don’t understand Buddhism. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: What do you mean by "control"? Do our actions not have consequences? If we touch a hot stove do we not get burned? If we help people in need, does that not benefit both them and us? Our actions have consequences. That is indisputable. If that is what "control" is, then there is control. ------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------- Howard: Learning the Dhamma is an essential component. The Buddha laid out a path of practice. There is much to it, and it cannot be summarized adequately in a post or two. A brief slogan describing it is "Do no harm, do good, and purify the mind." The Dhamnma needs to be studied to see how to go about this. E: I agree with do no harm, do good and purify the mind. But when there is no-control, then heaven knows how this do no harm, do good and purify will go about doing their own thing. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Again, I think the notion of control needs to be examined carefully. There is no "one" who is a controller, but there is volitional action, and it does have consequences. I think that what you think you want is random willing, a willing based on nothing. That does not exist. More than that, I think it is a mistake to think it would be good if it did. --------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- E: Sorry if this has been a rambling post. But even though there is no self, there is suffering and suffering is painful, for e.g. people dying from cancer. Pain is real, or is pain, unreal? Howard: It is as real as anything when it occurs, but it is not necessary. E: Not necessary? What do you mean? How do you deal with pain (physical and emotional pain)? --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mental pain (or suffering) is what is not necessary. The Buddha refers to it as a "second dart". The idea is that a dart sticking in the body is painful. react with dislike and distress. That is the "second dart" the Buddha says is unnecessary. It is that dukkha that Dhamma practice can eventually put an end to. ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------ With mettaa (and slightly bamboozled), ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Dhamma is deep and not easy to fathom. But a combination of studying, discussing, contemplating, and *practicing* will slowly but surely remove any bamboozlement it seems to me. As I wrote above, don't skip the practicing! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------- Elaine ============================ With metta, Howard #77683 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument upasaka_howard Hi, DC - What Herman said could be paraphrased as follows: "I have a personal requirement to not speak in terms that mislead or that do not properly reflect what I truly think." To "not bullshit" is to speak directly, frankly, and truthfully, with an intent to be honest and clear. The single-word term 'bullshit' is very informal English slang to indicate worthless speech of some sort, usually nonsensical or misleading speech. The term has become quite distanced in meaning from it's origin in the expression 'bull shit', which is, of course, a not-so-polite name for bull excrement. With metta, Howard #77684 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Listening/learning of the dhammas buddhistmedi... Hi Elaine, - Thank you very much for your funny-but-thoughtful post. > E: ((blush)) I can feel my ego expanding!! ((eeewww)) it's terrible, lol. You're saying it with good intentions, I know. ;-)) This direct experience thingy is a very, very lofty aim, I don't know if I'd ever get it in this lifetime, but if we don't give it a try, we won't know, right? May everyone in DSG experience the direct knowledge of anicca soon, it's going to need lots of hard work and lots of good kamma. If we don't get it in this lifetime, we're accumulating good paramis, I hope. :-)) > T: The concept of direct knowing is pretty much summarized by the following two questions and answers that I posted at http://groups.google.com/group/DirectKnowledge . 1. What is direct knowledge? ---------------------------- "The Buddhist practice is to abide in a pure mindfulness in which there is what we call insight knowing, or direct knowledge. It is a knowledge that isn't based on perception, an idea, a position, or a doctrine: and this knowledge can only be possible through mindfulness. What we mean by mindfulness is the ability to not attach to any object, either in the material realm or mental realm. When there is no attachment, then the mind is in its pure state of awareness, intelligence, and clarity. That is mindfulness. The mind is pure and receptive, sensitive to the existing conditions. It is no longer a conditioned mind that just reacts to pleasure and pain, praise and blame, happiness and suffering." [Is Buddhism a Religion? Ajahn Sumedho] http://www.purifymind.com/BuddhismReligion.htm "It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former times. He would follow it. Following it, he would see an ancient city, an ancient capital inhabited by people of former times, complete with parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful. He would go to address the king or the king's minister, saying, 'Sire, you should know that while traveling along a wilderness track I saw an ancient path... I followed it... I saw an ancient city, an ancient capital... complete with parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful. Sire, rebuild that city!' The king or king's minister would rebuild the city, so that at a later date the city would become powerful, rich, & well-populated, fully grown & prosperous. "In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self- awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path. "Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings." [SN 12.65: Nagara Sutta, The City] 2. What is the duty of direct knowledge? ---------------------------------------- MN 149: Mahasalayatanika Sutta "He comprehends through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be comprehended through direct knowledge, abandons through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be abandoned through direct knowledge, develops through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be developed through direct knowledge, and realizes through direct knowledge whatever qualities are to be realized through direct knowledge. "And what qualities are to be comprehended through direct knowledge? 'The five clinging-aggregates,' should be the reply. Which five? Form as a clinging-aggregate... feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness as a clinging-aggregate. These are the qualities that are to be comprehended through direct knowledge. "And what qualities are to be abandoned through direct knowledge? Ignorance & craving for becoming: these are the qualities that are to be abandoned through direct knowledge. "And what qualities are to be developed through direct knowledge? Tranquillity & insight: these are the qualities that are to be developed through direct knowledge. "And what qualities are to be realized through direct knowledge? Clear knowing & release: these are the qualities that are to be realized through direct knowledge." .................... Best wishes, Tep === #77685 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:58 pm Subject: Re: The doctrine of anatta buddhistmedi... Hi Bhikkhu Aggacitto (and others), - People always have some kinds of 'communication problem' with one another, even for those who live in the same family. But a Dhamma discussion is even more difficult than the ordinary communications! So I hope you'll bear with me whenever I confuse you, or seem to be confused. Aggacitto : 1)... Rev.Gotama was discussing self in a conventional sence and no self in an ultimate sence. We are permanent as ongoing phenomenal experiance, arising, existing, ceasing to exist, again and again lifetime after lifetime in samsara. 2)... After all, how could we experience nibbana if one (SELF)were no longer around to experience it? 3)... We are the controler of our causalty as the creator's of our own kamma and kammic fruit. Therefore to ask for these condition's to deny the quality of selfness would only be valid in a conventional way. Let us not get the two confused. Tep: I think I understand the first passage. But the second and third are both interesting and puzzling. 1) I also understand that our Greatest Teacher defined/explained attaa in several ways as seen in the Suttanta-pitaka. He also taught that the five khandhas were anattaa as expounded in the Anattaa- lakkhana Sutta (see Howard's message). But what do you mean by "no self in the ultimate sense" ? I think the arising-and-passing-away phenomenon is "permanent" in the sense that it is a timeless truth for all conditioned dhammas (sankhara), but the beings who experience such a truth are not permanent. What is you thought? 2) I assume that you mean it does not make sense to think that there are 'no persons' ('no Tep', 'no Bhikkhu Aggacitto) or no self'; since if there is 'no self', then there is nothing to experience Nibbana. In other words you seem to say that there is a person, a self, in the real world to experience Nibbana. 3) Do you mean to say the following (or something like that)? Given that we agree on existence of a person whose kammas are the result of his/her actions, then it follows that "the quality of selfnes" cannot be denied (in the conventional sense). However, when the ultimate-reality perspective is applied, there is nothing except for the paramattha dhammas. Thanks. Tep === #77686 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta buddhistmedi... Hi DC, - You asked: > Dear Tep, > > I wish to draw your attention to Rev. Aggacitto's [Octber 26, 12: 59: 18] following statement: > > "after all how could we experience "The higest happiness" if one (self)were not around to > experience it?" > > Well, how do you understand it? > T: Please read my message # 77685. I could not understand everything he had said, therefore, I simply asked him to tell me. Tep === #77687 From: Sobhana Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta shennieca Hi Howard, Thank you for your reply. ---------- Howard: As for our volition being conditioned, what value would one find in randomly arising volition? What we will is largely what we desire. Would it be preferable that our willing have nothing to do with our wishes and be entirely arbitrary? Free will in the sense of *random* willing is literally nonsense, for willing, as all phenomena, is conditioned. E: It is not possible for me to understand “volition” the way it has been described above. It is not because your explanation is insufficient; the problem is with me. You have tried your best in explaining, thank you. In order for me to really understand what “volition” is - I would need to have direct knowledge of it, mere words and explanation is not enough. If and when I finally see with clarity “how volition arises and how it goes”, I’d probably be surprised with the answer. So, I will keep an open mind for now, I cannot come to a conclusion yet about what volition is, isn’t or how it works. ----------------------- Howard: Wishes and volition have consequences. What other "control" would one hope for? E: This “control” that I hope for, is the ability to make decisions, to choose the path that we want to take in life. Can I add, the ability to put in right effort? I know, you’ll say right effort arises when the condition is right, and I truly don’t know the answer to that. But conventionally speaking, I want to say, we have to put in effort whenever we are able to, and make hay while the sun shines. (hhmm, I keep saying right effort, have I been actually doing the right effort? Nope, I feel like a fake. I feel terrible. ) --------------------------- Howard: Reality is just the opposite of senseless and meaningless. A careful and extended study of the Dhamma augmented by consistent Dhamma practice, does, in my experience, show that to be so and also lead to genuine understanding, confidence, and peace. Be sure not to skip the practice! E: Yay. We should not skip the practice. :-)) -------------------------- Howard: What do you mean by "control"? Do our actions not have consequences? If we touch a hot stove do we not get burned? If we help people in need, does that not benefit both them and us? Our actions have consequences. That is indisputable. If that is what "control" is, then there is control. E: Yes, actions have consequences and this is the first time I hear you say “control”. I hope you and I won’t be bombarded with more no-control arguments from our dhamma friends. Sometimes I feel very bad for writing back and forth like this- instead of reducing my view of “atta”, the more I type, the more it is strengthened instead. Sigh, I feel like I am holding on to too many views and ideas and it is not healthy….it is not my intention to win or to convince anyone of my views. The reason why Buddhism is special, is because in the end, every one of us will come to the same conclusion, when we attain Nibbana, we don't have to 'argue' about it, u know. It is a practical religion, it is a liberating one, not one which we need to type out our opinions like this.... :-(( Other religions won't get to realize Nibbana, and all they do is talk and discuss and then they fight and go to war. Buddhists are not like them, Buddhism is the most special religion. I hope one day we can agree and come to the same conclusions, together (by experiencing Nibbana). ------------------------ Howard: Again, I think the notion of control needs to be examined carefully. There is no "one" who is a controller, but there is volitional action, and it does have consequences. I think that what you think you want is random willing, a willing based on nothing. That does not exist. More than that, I think it is a mistake to think it would be good if it did. E: Everything that involves the word “volition”, I don’t understand, at this moment I’ll try to let it go. ---------------------- Howard: Mental pain (or suffering) is what is not necessary. The Buddha refers to it as a "second dart". The idea is that a dart sticking in the body is painful. react with dislike and distress. That is the "second dart" the Buddha says is unnecessary. It is that dukkha that Dhamma practice can eventually put an end to. E: Yes, I hope dhamma practice can put an end to mental pain and physical pain. Must have faith and confidence that it is possible, must have faith in the Triple Gem. May we gain release from sufferings soon. If I have sounded defensive or have been rude in my speech, please forgive me. I hope we won’t get too attached to words, feelings, and opinions, it is sufferings. May we be well and happy. May we get a glimpse of Nibbana in this very life. Howard, thank you for your sincere opinions. (((Hugs))) Sincerely and with metta, Elaine #77688 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Elaine - In a message dated 10/26/2007 8:25:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, shennieca@... writes: Hi Howard, Thank you for your reply. ---------- Howard: As for our volition being conditioned, what value would one find in randomly arising volition? What we will is largely what we desire. Would it be preferable that our willing have nothing to do with our wishes and be entirely arbitrary? Free will in the sense of *random* willing is literally nonsense, for willing, as all phenomena, is conditioned. E: It is not possible for me to understand “volitionâ€? the way it has been described above. It is not because your explanation is insufficient; the problem is with me. You have tried your best in explaining, thank you. In order for me to really understand what “volitionâ€? is - I would need to have direct knowledge of it, mere words and explanation is not enough. If and when I finally see with clarity “how volition arises and how it goesâ€?, I’d probably be surprised with the answer. So, I will keep an open mind for now, I cannot come to a conclusion yet about what volition is, isn’t or how it works. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that the attitude you express here is excellent. Words may point the way, but genuine understanding of the nature of dhammas can only come about by introspection and long cultivation. We are, all of us here, beginners at this, so what we need, it seems to me, is patience along with steady and sustained "looking" with a mind made calm and alert by sila and samadhi. And, of course, to really know what we are doing, we need to have a reasonable grasp of the central teachings of the Buddha, most especially his practice teachings. --------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------- Howard: Wishes and volition have consequences. What other "control" would one hope for? E: This “controlâ€? that I hope for, is the ability to make decisions, to choose the path that we want to take in life. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Whatever the reality underlying it actually is, you DO make decisions, do you not? Conventional truth is still truth. The speech involved simply isn't fully literal. ----------------------------------------------------------- Can I add, the ability to put in right effort? I know, you’ll say right effort arises when the condition is right, and I truly don’t know the answer to that. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Others here are more likely to put it that way than I. Among the conditions for right effort is repeated attempts to look clearly at what arises in the mind and then seeing what is wholesome and what is not. Right effort is a skill to be cultivated. Wisdom informs it, and it leads to greater wisdom. Right effort requires repeated attempts, without evaluation of how "well" or how "poorly" we are doing. Someone first learning to play the piano will even fail at simple scales. This is true even for prodigies. What if Van Cliburn despaired of ever playing the piano decently the moment he first ran into difficulty? ------------------------------------------------------- But conventionally speaking, I want to say, we have to put in effort whenever we are able to, and make hay while the sun shines. (hhmm, I keep saying right effort, have I been actually doing the right effort? Nope, I feel like a fake. I feel terrible. ) ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I suggest just putting such evaluation away and keep on keeping on! Read what the Buddha taught, and keep at the practice. ----------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- Howard: Reality is just the opposite of senseless and meaningless. A careful and extended study of the Dhamma augmented by consistent Dhamma practice, does, in my experience, show that to be so and also lead to genuine understanding, confidence, and peace. Be sure not to skip the practice! E: Yay. We should not skip the practice. :-)) ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Some here consider no practice of value except for studying and considering the teachings. I urge you to read the suttas and also follow what the Buddha taught in the way of practice. The Buddha did say to take the Dhamma as refuge and to be a light (or an island) unto yourself. The Buddha did teach cultivation of sila, samadhi, and pa~n~na, and he went into much detail as to how to go about this. ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- Howard: What do you mean by "control"? Do our actions not have consequences? If we touch a hot stove do we not get burned? If we help people in need, does that not benefit both them and us? Our actions have consequences. That is indisputable. If that is what "control" is, then there is control. E: Yes, actions have consequences and this is the first time I hear you say “ controlâ€?. I hope you and I won’t be bombarded with more no-control arguments from our dhamma friends. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I never worry about that! ;-) Actions have consequences. That there is no actor is true, but it is a fact to be discovered, not adopted as an article of faith. There is in fact no "one" who controls, but there is willing and acting based on that willing, and the actions do have consequences. That is a fact. Using the word 'control' is a problem only if one presumes that must imply a controller. -------------------------------------------------------------- Sometimes I feel very bad for writing back and forth like this- instead of reducing my view of “attaâ€?, the more I type, the more it is strengthened instead. Sigh, I feel like I am holding on to too many views and ideas and it is not healthy….it is not my intention to win or to convince anyone of my views. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is pointless to simply SAY "There should be no sense of self" and "I should stop clinging to views." But contemplating the Dhamma, calming the mind through sila and meditation, cultivating mindfulness by "staying present" and alert while meditating and when not meditating, and guarding the senses will lead, step by step, to weakening defilements and strengthening favorable mental factors. As for views, we all have them. The trick is to hold them lightly, not cling to them, and realize "I could be wrong." -------------------------------------------------------------- The reason why Buddhism is special, is because in the end, every one of us will come to the same conclusion, when we attain Nibbana, we don't have to 'argue' about it, u know. It is a practical religion, it is a liberating one, not one which we need to type out our opinions like this.... :-(( Other religions won't get to realize Nibbana, and all they do is talk and discuss and then they fight and go to war. Buddhists are not like them, Buddhism is the most special religion. I hope one day we can agree and come to the same conclusions, together (by experiencing Nibbana). -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with you about the specialness of Buddhism. For me, it is the most perfect expression of the way possible. ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ Howard: Again, I think the notion of control needs to be examined carefully. There is no "one" who is a controller, but there is volitional action, and it does have consequences. I think that what you think you want is random willing, a willing based on nothing. That does not exist. More than that, I think it is a mistake to think it would be good if it did. E: Everything that involves the word “volitionâ€?, I don’t understand, at this moment I’ll try to let it go. --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That makes sense to me. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- Howard: Mental pain (or suffering) is what is not necessary. The Buddha refers to it as a "second dart". The idea is that a dart sticking in the body is painful. react with dislike and distress. That is the "second dart" the Buddha says is unnecessary. It is that dukkha that Dhamma practice can eventually put an end to. E: Yes, I hope dhamma practice can put an end to mental pain and physical pain. Must have faith and confidence that it is possible, must have faith in the Triple Gem. May we gain release from sufferings soon. If I have sounded defensive or have been rude in my speech, please forgive me. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Not in the slightest! You've been a pleasure to talk with. :-) ----------------------------------------------------- I hope we won’t get too attached to words, feelings, and opinions, it is sufferings. May we be well and happy. May we get a glimpse of Nibbana in this very life. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, wouldn't that be lovely! :-) ------------------------------------------------ Howard, thank you for your sincere opinions. (((Hugs))) ------------------------------------------------- Howard: The same to you. :-) ----------------------------------------------- Sincerely and with metta, Elaine ================================= With metta, Howard #77689 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 6:25 pm Subject: Re: The doctrine of anatta .. Howard's Contemplation .. buddhistmedi... Hi Howard, - Thank you for sharing your sophisticated thoughts with me. I think they are qualified as vipassana contemplation on sankhara. >Howard: Yes, there are several usages, not all of which are problematical, and not all of which are objected to. ... Self as core identity is denied as well, for what core of identity can there be in what changes (all compounded "entities") and in what ceases (all conditioned paramattha dhammas)? And what core of identity can there be in what has no independent existence (all conditioned dhammas)? And what core of identity can there be in what is entirely beyond conditions (nibbana)? -------------------------------------------------------------- T: Concerning the 'core identity', I concur with your observation. But what is your purpose in reciting the anattaa characteristics of all conditioned dhammas? Are you in agreement with what I said earlier? [Tep: But the logical paraphrases do not cover other cases of attaa.] .......... >Howard: Informally, there is "control" involved. But the willing --> result process occurs in very tiny steps, at a "microscopic level". One cannot successfully directly will "Let this pile of metal, rubber, leather, and plastic coalesce into an automobile!" But cars *can* be built, and willing is involved in that happening. T: Is it correct to say that the above belief (that there is control involved due to the 'willing' that accompanies a decision-making process) deviates quite a bit from the view of any hard-core member of the DSG gang? But the word "informally" that you cleverly placed at the very beginning should delight the Abhidhammikas, because you are implying that your statements are just a conventional conversation about concepts; and you do know the big difference between the ultimate and the conventional truths. ;-) ........... >Howard: .. even "willed" cessation and creation, bodily motion, for example, is an amalgam of a multitude of willed phenomena that occur directly only at a "microscopic level" and in concert with a multitude of other conditions. The intricate, multi-step, sankharic activities that result in bodily motion operate at levels usually invisible to our direct conscious observation, with what we end up observing being a mental construct understood as "our wanting to move and doing so". T: How microscopic are such willed phenomena? Are they down to the single citta level(paramattha) where there is no self? And are the sankharic motions "seen" at the macrolevel (real world of conventional truths and realities)? I like this explanation of sankharic activities that are directed by the consciousness and concomitant dhammas, because you seem to say that both the conventional truths and the ultimate truths are co-existing. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep - > > In a message dated 10/25/2007 10:02:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > tepsastri@... writes: > > Hi Howard, - > > It is very nice of you to continue the discussion. > > > T: It seems to me that the sutta says : Since each of the five > > khandhas is dukkha and anicca, it is 'anattaa'. > > --------------------------------------------------- #77690 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta .. Howard's Contemplation .. upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 10/26/2007 9:25:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi Howard, - Thank you for sharing your sophisticated thoughts with me. I think they are qualified as vipassana contemplation on sankhara. >Howard: Yes, there are several usages, not all of which are problematical, and not all of which are objected to. ... Self as core identity is denied as well, for what core of identity can there be in what changes (all compounded "entities") and in what ceases (all conditioned paramattha dhammas)? And what core of identity can there be in what has no independent existence (all conditioned dhammas)? And what core of identity can there be in what is entirely beyond conditions (nibbana)? -------------------------------------------------------------- T: Concerning the 'core identity', I concur with your observation. But what is your purpose in reciting the anattaa characteristics of all conditioned dhammas? Are you in agreement with what I said earlier? [Tep: But the logical paraphrases do not cover other cases of attaa.] ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I am. What you said is true. ------------------------------------------------------ .......... >Howard: Informally, there is "control" involved. But the willing --> result process occurs in very tiny steps, at a "microscopic level". One cannot successfully directly will "Let this pile of metal, rubber, leather, and plastic coalesce into an automobile!" But cars *can* be built, and willing is involved in that happening. T: Is it correct to say that the above belief (that there is control involved due to the 'willing' that accompanies a decision-making process) deviates quite a bit from the view of any hard-core member of the DSG gang? But the word "informally" that you cleverly placed at the very beginning should delight the Abhidhammikas, because you are implying that your statements are just a conventional conversation about concepts; and you do know the big difference between the ultimate and the conventional truths. ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The problem, as I see it, is that 'control' is a loaded word. The reality as I see it is that there is volition which has consequences. The volition, itself, though, is conditioned, and moreover there is no controller exercising that volition. So, I use the word 'control' with hesitancy. As for who it delights, that is of no concern to me. I simply express matters as I see them as best I can. ------------------------------------------------------------ ........... >Howard: .. even "willed" cessation and creation, bodily motion, for example, is an amalgam of a multitude of willed phenomena that occur directly only at a "microscopic level" and in concert with a multitude of other conditions. The intricate, multi-step, sankharic activities that result in bodily motion operate at levels usually invisible to our direct conscious observation, with what we end up observing being a mental construct understood as "our wanting to move and doing so". T: How microscopic are such willed phenomena? Are they down to the single citta level(paramattha) where there is no self? ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not a single-citta enthusiast. Moreover, who says there is no sense of self at the finest level? In any case, I don't know the answer to your question. My discernment is not so good as to be able to answer it. ----------------------------------------------- And are the sankharic motions "seen" at the macrolevel (real world of conventional truths and realities)? I like this explanation of sankharic activities that are directed by the consciousness and concomitant dhammas, because you seem to say that both the conventional truths and the ultimate truths are co-existing. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Here I'm not clear as to your meaning. Could you expand on it a bit? ---------------------------------------------- Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Tep - > > In a message dated 10/25/2007 10:02:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > tepsastri@... writes: > > Hi Howard, - > > It is very nice of you to continue the discussion. > > > T: It seems to me that the sutta says : Since each of the five > > khandhas is dukkha and anicca, it is 'anattaa'. > > --------------------------------------------------- =================================== With metta, Howard #77691 From: Ken O Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 7:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta ashkenn2k Hi DC That type of statement is what Buddha trying to tell us about the illusion of self. In many suttas, Buddha talk about aggregates, he at time also said feelings feels and not self that feels. Highiest experience is cognize by citta, taste by vedana and also with the help of other mental factors. Because of being cheated by the continuity of citta and not seeing the oppression of the its rise and fall, one thought there is a self Cheers Ken O #77692 From: Sobhana Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:52 pm Subject: Thanks :-) shennieca Hi Howard, Thanks. ....sending mettaa & loving-kindness vibes.... :-)) Cheers, Elaine #77693 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:52 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. gazita2002 hello DC, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > >azita: yes and I think this would make sense to most thinking > people. > However, I think you are grossly over estimating the Buddhas > Teaching. > Cakkuvinnaana is not simple. It is citta - one consciousness moment- > citta-kkhana. > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > DC: How do I understand the above paragraph. > If you can kindly clarify these I would be grateful: a) estimate over what? b) Have I misunderstood the Buddha's teaching? Azita: sorry my mistake, I meant to write that I think ur [a] overestimating the simplicity of the Buddhas words. [b] I dont know. > Now about AN 1 10: I understand it differently. "naaha.m bhikkave a~n~na.m ekadhamma.m samanupassaami ya.m eva.m lahuparivatta.m yathaida.m citta.m. yaava~ncida.m bhikkave upamaapi na sukaraa yaava lahuparivatta.m cittanti." That is the Pali. The word that is translated as changes rapidly is 'lahuparivattam.' So what does the change refer to: From one citta to another. Not the duration of the citta from its birth to its death. If you say it is the duration; dhyaanic states are not possible. Azita: I know very little Pali, but whichever way it is understood either from one citta to the next or the actual durration of a citta, both meanings involve xtremely rapid changes. > > Once and forever, forget something: "cittas that experience" > > azita: your not suggesting that I forget about something that the > Buddha has taught, surely, are you? > ........................ > DC: The Buddha, never taught as far as I know, any such thing. Please give me the reference. Azita: Salayatanasamyatta 27. Full Understanding; " Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the all, withut developing dispassion towardsit and abandoning it, one is incapaable of destroying suffering. And what Bhikkhus, is the all? The eye, forms and eye consciousness [cakkhuvinnana] and things to be cognised by cakkhuvinnana. The ear, sounds, ear consciousness and things to be cognised by ear consciousness......." What is this 'all' - the 5 Khandhas for example. If you exam clo9sely the 5 khandhas ther is no 'I' 2b found. so what is it that sees visible objects or what is it that hears sounds - isnt it cakkhuvinnana that sees forms/color or sotavinnana that hears sounds. Is that not 'citta experiencing' something? > DC: To think that theoretical understanding will help you is a mistake. All the understanding you need is to accept the Buddha as your teacher and then observe the five precepts. Azita: Accept the Buddha as my teacher without having an idea what he taught!? I'm sorry DC I cannot see any sense in what ur saying. Why would I obseve the 5 precepts if I didnt understand what that really meant. Patience, courage and good cheer, azita. #77694 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. dcwijeratna Hi Gazita, Here are responses to a few points. hello DC, >Azita: I know very little Pali, but whichever way it is understood either from one citta to the next or the actual durration of a citta, both meanings involve xtremely rapid changes. DC: There is a world of difference between the two. >Azita: Salayatanasamyatta 27. Full Understanding; " Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the Is that not 'citta experiencing' something? DC: No, citta is a causla process. It arises depending on the conditions. The directly knowing here refers to higher-knowing. It is for the ariyans. >I'm sorry DC I cannot see any sense in what ur saying. Why would I obseve the 5 precepts if I didnt understand what that really meant. DC: My understanding that you can't get even to the first base without that. Patience, courage and good cheer, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77695 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 2:10 am Subject: Re: A bit of a logical argument philofillet Hi Herman Welcome back (?) I hope the job is treating you OK. > the > defining doctrine of Buddhism, which is anatta, is utterly > irreconcilable with the doctrine of kamma. > > The doctrine of anatta asserts the absence of any being, yet the > doctrine of kamma insists that there are both an author and recipient > of action. Interesting points. I haven't rambled for awhile, so please allow me to do so and don't reply if you want an extended discussion. (Not my forte.) I don't think the doctrine of kamma insists on an author and a recipient when approached in its deepest aspects (as taught in deep suttas such as those found in SN, and abhidhamma) but as I've been studying mostly Anguttara Nikaya, in which there are short, easily- understood suttas, mainly, suited for householders (at least according to BB's introduction, and it feels that way to me) I'm not seeing kamma in the light of anatta these days (without forgetting that it ultimately is.) Yes, I am an English teacher, believe it or not. Again and again and again and again (and again) I come across suttas in which "favorable destinations" after death are spoken of. There is even one in which a husband and wife are told that if they live together in perfect moral harmony, they will enjoy the Deva realm (?) after death, and the very strong implication is that they will be together. It sounds very Xtian doesn't it? A pair of elderly gents are told that as they are approaching death, they should reflect on what deeds they have committed in this life, and only that will reassure them in the face of death, with the promise of a favourable destination. Very difficult to reconcile with anatta. And I think we don't have to. We can gradually move toward an understanding of the Buddha's deepest teaching, but in the meantime I think it would demonstrate a lack of truthfulness with others and ourselves if we deny ourselves the sort of comforting encouragement that comes in such suttas. Does this, as Ken always say, imply belief in a permanent, eternal soul or self? I don't think so, but I have to admit it smells of it a bit. But the suttas are there, in clear language. The Buddha is described as the greatest of teachers. If we deny that the suttas say what they say, if we insist on turning to later commentaries that dig into them and find the deeper meaning (which is ultimately more valuable, more liberating, but not to be had so easily) we insult the Buddha, I think, or the First Sangha for having failed to communicate the suttas truthfully. What kind of teacher expresses something in simple terms, only to tell the students that this is not what he means, the students are not to take him for his word? (Yes, the Buddha's teaching is deep, deep, deep, to be understood by the wise, against the ways of the world, as one sutta has it, but this, surely, refers to the deep, deep teachings found in suttas dealing with Dependent Origination, for example. I don't touch those, they are too difficult for me.) I have rambled. My point comes down to what you used to sign off with. There is not a self, but there is an ego, and the Buddha appeals to it in the kind of suttas I am referring to. If I had a dollar for every sutta I have read recently that talked about favourite destinations in rebirth and that encouraged certain behaviour in the light of that I would have about 20 dollars! I think It is impossible to be motivated towards wholesome behave in body, speech and mind without having a healthy ego at work, for a beginner. We can understand that ultimately there are only dhammas at work - this is the true and deep teaching - but to deny the ego at work for people such as us is untruthful, I think. Ego = illusion of self? There is no self, of course not, how could there be? but there is most definitely a very, very strong and deeply rooted illusion of self that motivates us in life, whether we go on and on about anatta or not. We are wise to allow the strong conditioning power of the Buddha's teaching to put that illusion of self, that ego, to work in a way that moves "us" closer to liberation, gradually. Anatta is the deepest teaching, we move towards it gradually. But I think if we insist on behaving in the light of having an understanding of anatta from the beginning we are too attracted to the idea of having deep wisdom. Anyways, just a few thoughts. Metta, Phil p.s feel free to respond to the above, anyone, but I'll let you have the last word, as usual. p.p.s sukin, hi! I do want to respond to your 4 posts to me, someday! thanks again... #77696 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:00 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 11 13. Viisatinipaato 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa On verses: 315. "Bahuuni puttasataani, ~naatisa"nghasataani ca; khaaditaani atiita.mse, mama tu~nha~nca braahma.na. 316. "Saaha.m nissara.na.m ~natvaa, jaatiyaa mara.nassa ca; na socaami na rodaami, na caapi paritappayi.m. 317. "Abbhuta.m vata vaase.t.thi, vaaca.m bhaasasi edisi.m; kassa tva.m dhammama~n~naaya, gira.m bhaasasi edisi.m. 314. Many hundreds of sons, and hundreds of groups of relatives of mine and yours have been caused to be eaten in the past, brahman. 315. Knowing the escape from birth and death, I do not grieve or lament, nor do I mourn. 316. You speak such a truly amazing utterance, Vaase.t.thii. Whose doctrine do you know that you say such a thing? txt: Khaaditaaniiti theriipi braahma.nena vuttapariyaayeneva vadati. Khaaditaani vaa byagghadiipibi.laaraadijaatiyo sandhaayevamaaha. Atiita.mseti atiitako.t.thaase, atikkantabhavesuuti attho. Mama tuyha~ncaati mayaa ca tayaa ca. Pruitt: 314. Have been caused to be eaten (khaaditaani) means: the therii speaks using the same roundabout term as the brahman. Or, you have eaten (khaaditaani) is spoken with reference to birth as a tiger or leopard or cat, etc. [in the past].* In the past (atiita.mse) means: the past division [of time] (atiita-ko.t.thaase), in the past existences (atikkanta-bhavesu). Of mine and yours (mama tuyha~n ca) means: of mind and your (mayaa ca tayaa ca). *Khaaditaanii here is clearly not a causative. The idea is she ate her dead children in past lives when she was born as a feline. Nissara.na.m ~natvaa jaatiyaa mara.nassa caati jaatijaraamara.naana.m nissara.nabhuuta.m nibbaana.m magga~naa.nena pa.tivijjhitvaa. Na caapi paritappayinti na caapi upaayaasaasi.m, aha.m upaayaasa.m na aapajjinti attho. 315. Nor did I mourn means: nor did I despair; I did not enter into despair. That is the meaning. Abbhuta.m vataati acchariya.m vata. Ta~nhi abbhuta.m pubbe abhuuta.m abbhutanti vuccati. Edisinti evaruupi.m, "na socaami na rodaami, na caapi paritappayin"ti eva.m socanaadiina.m abhaavadiipani.m vaaca.m. Kassa tva.m dhammama~n~naayaati kevala.m yathaa ediso dhammo laddhu.m na sakkaa, tasmaa kassa naama satthuno dhammama~n~naaya gira.m bhaasasi edisanti satthaara.m saasana~nca pucchati. 316. Truly amazing means: truly wonderful. For that which is amazing did not happen (abhuuta.m) previously; it is called amazing. Such (edisi.m) means: such (eva-ruupa.m). I do not grieve or lament, nor do I mourn [in verse 315] is thus an utterance of the declaration of the non-existence of grief, etc. Whose doctrine do you know? means: he asks about the Teacher and the Doctrine, saying, "But it is not possible to obtain such a doctrine, so what teacher's doctrine do you know that you say an utterance such as this? On verse: 319. "Tassa brahme arahato, dhamma.m sutvaa niruupadhi.m; tattha vi~n~naatasaddhammaa, puttasoka.m byapaanudi.m. 318. I have heard that Arahat's Doctrine that is without basis for rebirth, brahman, [and] knowing the true Doctrine there, I have thrust away grief for my sons. txt: Niruupadhinti niddukkha.m. Vi~n~naatasaddhammaati pa.tividdha-ariyasaccadhammaa. Byapaanudinti niihari.m pajahi.m. 318. Without basis for rebirth (niruupadhi.m) means: without pain (niddukkha.m). Knowing the true Doctrine (vi~n~naata-saddhammaa) means: having penetrated the Doctrine of the [four] noble truths (pa.tividdha-ariya-sacca-dhammaa). I have thrust away means: I have removed, I have abandoned. On verse: 321. "Addasa braahma.no buddha.m, vippamutta.m niruupadhi.m; svassa dhammamadesesi, muni dukkhassa paaraguu. 320. The braman saw the Buddha, completely released, without basis for rebirth. The Sage who has reached the far shore of pain taught him the Doctrine - cy: Vippamuttanti sabbaso vimutta.m, sabbakilesehi sabbabhavehi ca visa.myutta.m. Svassaati so sammaasambuddho assa braahma.nassa. 320. Completely released (vippamutta.m) means: altogether freed (vimutta.m) from all defilements and all existence, unfettered (visa.m-yutta.m). [He] ... him (svassaa = so + assaa) means: he (so), the Fully and Perfectly Awakened One, [taught] him (assa), the brahman. ===to continue, connie #77697 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:46 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. buddhistmedi... Hi Azita (and DC), - I am very interested in the answer you gave to DC in message # 77693 concerning citta's experience, e.g. "cakkhuvinnana that sees forms/color or sotavinnana that hears sounds" as you put it. The Buddha: "And what Bhikkhus, is the all? The eye, forms and eye consciousness [cakkhuvinnana] and things to be cognised by cakkhuvinnana. The ear, sounds, ear consciousness and things to be cognised by ear consciousness......." Azita: What is this 'all' - the 5 Khandhas for example. If you exam closely the 5 khandhas ther is no 'I' 2b found. so what is it that sees visible objects or what is it that hears sounds - isnt it cakkhuvinnana that sees forms/color or sotavinnana that hears sounds. Is that not 'citta experiencing' something? .............. Tep: The above case you have made about the citta seems to be biased toward vinnana as the nature that knows (cognizes or "experiences") the external sense objects. What about the whole citta-vitthi(cognitive series of consciousness)? I do not see why "experiencing" is adequately defined by just the first citta/vinnana in the cognitive series of cittas. Please advise. Tep === #77698 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Oct 26, 2007 10:24 pm Subject: How to Cure Greed? bhikkhu0 Friends: Seeing Disgusting Objects Dispels Greed! The Blessed Buddha once said: Awareness of the Body induces all advantageous qualities including clear comprehension! The ancients said: Protect the sign, protect the nimitta...! The Asubha Nimitta is a Disgusting Sign fixed in memory by meditation that one can redirect mind to whenever overcome by lust, greed, and desire. This sign detaches the mind from clinging to mere forms of foul impurities... One then gain an 'off' button to turn 'off' desire and craving... This is the KEY to disable suffering as Craving is the primary cause of all suffering... Most effective in reducing lust is Corpse Meditation (Asubha-Bhavana): How to cure compulsive over-eating, bulimia, and anorexia: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_32_Parts.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Body_as_only_Form.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Fire_of_Sense-Desire.htm How to cure sex obsession, porno addiction, and perversions: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Corpse_Meditation.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Body_Contemplation.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_9_Corpse_Meditations.htm How to cure any greed, lust, desire, voracity, lewdness, longing & craving: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_Skeleton.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Experiencing_Disgust.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Meditation_On_the_Body_Kayagata-Sati.htm Clever Disgust cools all obsessive greed and addictive lust: For Inspiration: A collection of Corpse Pictures (Only for Adults!): http://www.flickr.com/photos/16308356@N02/?donelayout=1 Pick out the most disgusting & memorize it firmly. Remember it when greedy! Then the greed instantly vanishes! And the frustrating longing subsides! Evaporating Greed & Lust by Disgust! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * .... #77699 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:54 am Subject: A changing self? Identity vs. Individuality bhikkhu0 Hey Friend who wisely asked: >Why can’t one have a ‘self’ that is changing…??? In short: Because the concept of “self” – itself – prescribe that this “ego” remains the same overtime! So also do we experience it: Though older ‘I’ am the same ‘person’ with the same ‘name’ we say & think… The name = empty designation or ‘label’ remains the same, but nothing of what it ‘names’ or signifies, whether mental or physical remains the same even for a millisecond! Secondly: ‘Self’ is assumed to be in full power over itself… Otherwise: If self have no power over itself: Who has then? But realistically all events depend on specific causes & not any ‘self’! Nothing is the same. Everything is changing. Nothing is a static entity. Everything is a dynamic process. Nothing is under full control of a self. Everything is dependent. Thirdly: There is individuality: Only a single process of the 5 clusters of clinging = A ‘person’ experiences the kammic after effects of it ‘own’ past activities… Other clusters of clinging = ‘persons’ do not get these kammic effects. But there is no identity: Nothing within this ever re-arising process of 5 clusters of clinging is ever the ‘same’ nor ‘identical’, nor an ‘identity’… The ‘person’ is thus neither ever the ‘same’ nor ‘another’, but just a process of ever changing momentary states… Nothing worth clinging to … Hehehe ;-) Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * ...... #77700 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta dcwijeratna Dear Ken, In the morning, I sat in front of the computer. Wrote a reply to you for about 2-3 hours. Then I did some silly thing. And the whole thing vanished. Well that is anicca. What I meant by "doing some silly thing" is that I did not do it with the intention of erasing the e-m I laboured on for 3 hrs. I was upset and really upset, for a while. Then I remembered that I was writing about anicca. My mood changed, and I got to thinking. Forgave myself. In a couple of minutes I was happy. I think I have a much better post than what I drafted in the morning. I'll leave it to you to think about and analyse the situation. Really, I wanted to talk to you about something else. First about 'talking' itself. I talk to you in English. But if I talk to you Sinhala, my vernacular, would a communication be possible? Of course, I am assuming that you don't know Sinhala. When we talk to each other we make further assumptions: For example, that I am a human being and not a computer. Why is it an assumption? Because I haven't seen you and you haven't seen me. But if we meet, we won't have doubts. When a whole society somehow or other agree to the meaning of words (really sounds) we have a means of communication, a language. The Pali word 'vohaara' means usage by such agreement. Now to the question of 'atta'. From the day we are born, we have the concept of 'I'. This is again is a mere word. In my native tongue it is 'mama', in Pali aha.m, and so on. Now there is no agreement about what it really is. Very early people reaslised that it is not the body. The body visibly changes but not 'I'. So we say it is the mind. Even worse than the physical body; may be ego, self, atta and so on. Only thing we can say about this atta is that it is not the body. So 'I' now has mind and body or body and soul, or body and ego, etc. Body we can agree. But not the other component atta, soul etc. Into this scene came the Buddha, the Enlightened One. What the Buddha expounded or his Teaching is the Dhamma. [I will use the word Dhamma from now on] Now Dhamma says: Yes, there is total confusion regarding this fundamental word 'I'. One way to settle the matter is instead of trying to find out what is the reality behind atta, let's define by observable things. What are the characteristics of attaa. 'I', 'me', and mine. The first is the subject, the second is the object. I consider this 'I' mine and many other things. The most important thing is 'I' exist. (I am- eto'hamasmi). These are the fundamental characteristic of 'human beings' according to the teaching of the Buddha. The most important thing about this is we need to use the everyday (vohaara) language to communicate. And the concept of 'atta' is defined as as above. So when we talk of atta all we mean is that this 'word' means a being who has the characteristics of I, me and mine. Anatta implies the absence of these three behavioural characteristics in a being. That is how I understand atta and anatta. I put it down for a purpose. I would be very grateful if you could go through that and find any errors. It will also clarify, as far as we ordinary human beings are concerned, meaningful discourse is possible only through ordinary language. And what we can express through that language is the only truth, the only reality. And fortunately for us the Buddha spoke in the ordinary language of the people. And all other terms he defined using ordinary language. Now to the Kaalaama sutta. The basic sutta is about how a non-Buddhist becomes a follower of the Buddha, accepting him as a teacher. There is a very good translation of the Sutta by Ven. Soma Thera. We can use it as the basic document. If you don't have it, you can download it from Accesstoinsight. If you also like it we can go through it slowly, paragraph by paragraph. With mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77701 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:41 am Subject: Re: A bit of a logical argument christine_fo... Hello Herman, Good to see your post ~ the same old larrikin. How the heck are you... Holy mackerel! I thought you'd be banned by now. :-) :-) I'm in Bangkok at the moment away from computer and so under the control of Mara and Company Internet Cafe. I've been away from the DSG list for a while too. Be back home tomorrow or the next day, and might give your question a go. metta, mate, Chris --The trouble is that you think you have time-- #77702 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta .. Howard's Contemplation .. upasaka_howard Hi again, Tep - In a message dated 10/26/2007 10:05:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: And are the sankharic motions "seen" at the macrolevel (real world of conventional truths and realities)? I like this explanation of sankharic activities that are directed by the consciousness and concomitant dhammas, because you seem to say that both the conventional truths and the ultimate truths are co-existing. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Here I'm not clear as to your meaning. Could you expand on it a bit? ---------------------------------------------- ==================================== I'll give this a try, but please correct me if I've misunderstood what you wrote: The sankharic activities of willing and other cetana-like functions are often missed at the "surface level" where our consciousess typically operarates. When we are experiencing such operations at what you appropriately call the macro-level, I don't think it is a direct experiencing, but a conceptual summing up of an amalgam of numerous operations. With training, our observation can become finer, I believe, able to descend on occasions to the magnifying-glass level and ultimately to the micro-level. But even the macro-level of observation can reveal much of what the reality through conceptual interpretation based on the Dhamma or on occasional deeper vision. And when wisdom is strongly operative, I suspect that there is clear understanding at all levels. An expert on lung tissue who has studied the subject deeply and seen such tissue with bare eye, with magnification, and also with electron microscope has learned to make correspondences, so that when s/he sees tissue with the bare eye s/he often knows what would be seen at the finer levels without even looking. It is useful to see at all levels. At the micro-level, the detailed reality presents itself, but at grosser levels various sorts of relations are revealed that are not seen at the micro-level. It is true that when we look from afar we often don't see the trees for the forest, but when we look very closely we typically don't see the forest for the tree (or even just the bark or leaves). So, yes, the levels of observation are harmonious, and not at odds, unless one is confused of course. With metta, Howard #77703 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. dcwijeratna Dear Tep, This refers to your post: October 27 6:16, addressed to Azita (and DC). 1. The sutta quoted by you is in the sutta pi.taka. The language used there is "vohara" language and not the language of abhidhamma. It is very difficult for me to talk in the language of abhidhamma. So I will talk the vohara language. The language used by the Buddha and that of the Sutta Pi.taka. First a little clarification: The Sutta quoted by Azita is 27, the Sutta quoted by You is 23 of the Salayatana Samyutta. Here is how I understand sutta (23) referred to you. It is one of the most important suttas, in the whole of Sutta Pitaka because that gives the definition of sabba (loka or the universe, whatever a being is capable perceiving). The sutta simply postulates that sabba (everything) is only what can be cognized by eye, form etc. mind, mind-objects concepts. That is the six senses and their corresponding objects. If you read the last sentence you can see the importance placed by the Buddha--"Because, bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain." You can see from the above a process is not being described--citta-viithi, according to the texts is a process or a series. Please I must reiterate, 'sabba' means 'all' everything, really the whole universe including himself. What do you think of it, I mean my understanding? D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77704 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:13 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The doctrine of anatta .. Howard's Contemplation .. buddhistmedi... Hello Howard, - I am surprised to see your second email sooner than I had a chance to respond to the first. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi again, Tep - > > In a message dated 10/26/2007 10:05:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > And are the > sankharic motions "seen" at the macrolevel (real world of > conventional truths and realities)? I like this explanation of > sankharic activities that are directed by the consciousness and > concomitant dhammas, because you seem to say that both the > conventional truths and the ultimate truths are co-existing. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Here I'm not clear as to your meaning. Could you expand on it a bit? > ---------------------------------------------- > > > ==================================== > I'll give this a try, but please correct me if I've misunderstood what > you wrote: > The sankharic activities of willing and other cetana-like functions are often missed at the "surface level" where our consciousess typically operarates. When we are experiencing such operations at what you appropriately call the macro-level, I don't think it is a direct experiencing, but a conceptual summing up of an amalgam of numerous operations. With training, our observation can become finer, I believe, able to descend on occasions to the magnifying-glass level and ultimately to the micro-level. But even the macro-level of > observation can reveal much of what the reality through conceptual > interpretation based on the Dhamma or on occasional deeper vision. And when wisdom is strongly operative, I suspect that there is clear understanding at all levels. > An expert on lung tissue who has studied the subject deeply and seen such tissue with bare eye, with magnification, and also with electron microscope has learned to make correspondences, so that when s/he sees tissue with the bare eye s/he often knows what would be seen at the finer levels without even looking. It is useful to see at all levels. At the micro-level, the detailed reality presents itself, but at grosser levels various sorts of relations are revealed that are not seen at the micro-level. It is true that when we look from afar we often don't see the trees for the forest, but when we look very closely we typically don't see the forest for the tree (or even just the bark or > leaves). So, yes, the levels of observation are harmonious, and not at odds, unless one is confused of course. > > With metta, > Howard .................................... T: Very impressive ! I like your descriptive analysis of the operative consciousness and associated sankharic activities very much. Yes, you have done a great job explaining what I mean by "both the conventional truths and the ultimate truths are co-existing". The micro- level and macro-level are indeed harmonious -- not at odds, or being real only at the micro (ultimate) level. Clear understanding is when one can "see" truths of both levels. Thanks. Tep ;-) ==== #77705 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. buddhistmedi... Hi DC (and Azita), - >DC: > > First a little clarification: The Sutta quoted by Azita is 27, the Sutta quoted by You is 23 of the Salayatana Samyutta. > T: I am confused here. I just copied Azita's sutta quote from her message # 77693, where she said it was Salayatanasamyatta 27. Full Understanding. ................................... >DC: The sutta simply postulates that sabba (everything) is only what can be cognized by eye, form etc. mind, mind-objects concepts. That is the six senses and their corresponding objects. If you read the last sentence you can see the importance placed by the Buddha--"Because, bhikkhus, that would not be within his domain." > > You can see from the above a process is not being described--citta- viithi, according to the texts is a process or a series. T: I wrote to Azita that experiencing might be adequately explained by the cognitive series of cittas, rather than by a single citta at cakkhuvinnana, for example. I did not refer to or try to interpret the Buddha's words in light of citta-viithi. ................... >DC: > > What do you think of it, I mean my understanding? > T: It is different from mine. ;-)) Tep === #77706 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:06 am Subject: Re: A bit of a logical argument buddhistmedi... Hi, Phil, - I have but one line of communication for you below. Don't reply even if you don't want an extended discussion. > >Phil : > Interesting points. I haven't rambled for awhile, so please allow me > to do so and don't reply if you want an extended discussion. (Not my > forte.) > T: That "don't reply if you want an extended discussion" defines a restricted communication. An extreme case is to tell the readers not to read your post. ;-)) Tep ==== #77707 From: Elaine Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 12:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A bit of a logical argument shennieca Hello Phil, all, Thank you for your post. :-)) Yea, I think the real understanding of anatta comes at the end of the path, it is difficult to really know and understand it deeply at the beginning stage. I find that in western countries, the first thing that Buddhists talk about is anatta. I come from Malaysia and the Buddhists there don't talk about anatta very much. I don't know why, maybe they don't read the scripture very much. heheh :) As for me, I think it is weird to talk about "understanding" anatta using the abhidhamma book as a guide or reference. When a person really understands anatta (i.e. becomes an ariya), even without looking at the abhidhamma book, s/he will be able to tell exactly what the book says. You know what I mean? In DSG, I also hear about Right View discussion. The basic Right View/Right Understanding is necessary to learn about what morality is, what meditation is, what 4NT and 8FP is, but the "actual or real" Right View/Right Understanding comes as a "result" of the path, not as a preparation for it. :-)) Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. May we be well and happy. Cheers, Elaine #77708 From: Elaine Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. shennieca Hi DC, all, I found the sutta from accesstoinsight, I'll paste it here. I hope we can discuss it. :-)) SN 35.23 Sabba Sutta The All Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu PTS: S iv 15 CDB ii 1140 --------------------------------- Source: Transcribed from a file provided by the translator. --------------------------------- Copyright © 2001 Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight edition © 2001 --------------------------------- "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." --------------------------------- Note 1. The Commentary's treatment of this discourse is very peculiar. To begin with, it delineates three other "All's" in addition to the one defined here, one of them supposedly larger in scope than the one defined here: the Allness of the Buddha's omniscience (literally, All-knowingness). This, despite the fact that the discourse says that the description of such an all lies beyond the range of explanation. Secondly, the Commentary includes nibbana (unbinding) within the scope of the All described here — as a dhamma, or object of the intellect — even though there are many other discourses in the Canon specifically stating that nibbana lies beyond the range of the six senses and their objects. Sn 5.6, for instance, indicates that a person who has attained nibbana has gone beyond all phenomena (sabbe dhamma), and therefore cannot be described. MN 49 discusses a "consciousness without feature" (viññanam anidassanam) that does not partake of the "Allness of the All." Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the "All" is to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be done. Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10). This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to complicate the uncomplicated — see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all differentiation is allayed. ----------------------------- I think the "All" means the things we can perceive through our senses. Bhante Thanissaro's note says "Perception of self or non-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the "All". :-)) ... hmm.. don't know what that means yet. Looking forward to hear more opinions on this sutta. Thank you. :-)) #77709 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:09 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. buddhistmedi... Hi Elaine and all, - Thank you for your post on the All that includes perception of self or not self. Elaine: I think the "All" means the things we can perceive through our senses. Bhante Thanissaro's note says "Perception of self or non- self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the "All". :-)) ... hmm.. don't know what that means yet. Looking forward to hear more opinions on this sutta. Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10). ................... T: I also have the opinion that Nibbana is beyond the range of our senses and the perception of not self. But, is dispassion the same as Nibbana, since it is "the highest of all dhammas"? If it is the same as Nibbana, then I have no clue why the arahant is beyond dispassion. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > > Hi DC, all, > > I found the sutta from accesstoinsight, I'll paste it here. I hope we can discuss it. :-)) > > SN 35.23 > Sabba Sutta > The All > > Translated from the Pali by > Thanissaro Bhikkhu > > #77710 From: Elaine Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. shennieca Hi Tep, DC, all, - ------ Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10). T: I also have the opinion that Nibbana is beyond the range of our senses and the perception of not self. But, is dispassion the same as Nibbana, since it is "the highest of all dhammas"? If it is the same as Nibbana, then I have no clue why the arahant is beyond dispassion. ----- E: Hmm, I see what you mean. Dispassion is the highest dhamma, and the arahant has gone beyond dispassion. Wow! That means, the arahant's "all" is inconceivable for us. I think, as puthujjana we only have to know that the "all" only concerns what we can see, touch, smell, taste, think, etc. etc. I think my initial confusion was, how can we "see the citta that experience" with our senses (salayatana). --- I see no "citta that experience" while doing daily activities e.g. talking and typing. Do you see your "citta that experience"? I have no idea how DSG abhidhammikas do that "seeing the citta that experience which falls away immediately". For example, this paragraph by Azita. >> Azita: How about seeing or hearing at this present moment. Cittas that experience an object - visible object or sound - and then fall away immediately. I think most of us are familar with that -no? Because of ignorance we take what is a very fleeting moment and put a whole great story to it. What do you think? E: As far as I know, all puthujjana put a whole great story to fleeting moments, not because they want to, it is because they are still ignorant and they can't help it, even if they want to see this fleeting moment, they can't. Only an ariya knows these fleeting moments as fleeting. I mean, not all puthujjana can't see this fleeting citta, a meditator who is in deep concentration and mindfulness would be able to "see the fleeting citta". But even then, not all meditators can come to that high level of seeing fleeting cittas. Do you agree? Azita, may I know how do you do the seeing of the "citta that falls away immediately" with your eyes wide open while doing daily activities? That is a really wonderful ability. #77711 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A bit of a logical argument egberdina Hi Alex, On 27/10/2007, Alex wrote: > > > "Again, Sandaka, a certain teacher goes by logic, arguing logically > brings out a teaching by himself beaten out. In the teaching of a > logical teacher, some arguments may be true and others may not be > true. Sandaka, a wise man should reflect......." Thank you. This last line, in a nutshell, captures the anatta/kamma contradiction perfectly. Even a basic understanding of anatta excludes the possibility that "beings" have the option of choosing to do what they do [next]. Anatta denies self-existent "things" or "beings', but acknowledges the occurrence of process, to wit the process of selfless dependent arising. A thought about what I should do [next] can be understood as having dependently arisen, and also being quite delusional. The Buddha who taught dependent arising cannot logically also have taught that beings exist to reap the results of their "own" actions, and therefore should or ought to act in this or that manner. The notion of what should be done [next] can be maintained only through ignorance of the fact that it has already happened, without the participation of an agent or a subject. Herman #77712 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A bit of a logical argument egberdina Hi Phil, > > Very difficult to reconcile with anatta. And I think we don't have > to. We can gradually move toward an understanding of the Buddha's > deepest teaching, but in the meantime I think it would demonstrate a > lack of truthfulness with others and ourselves if we deny ourselves the > sort of comforting encouragement that comes in such suttas. Does this, > as Ken always say, imply belief in a permanent, eternal soul or self? I > don't think so, but I have to admit it smells of it a bit. Thanks, Phil. Yeah, I agree with you, but would say that it smells a lot like it, not just a bit. Your sentences "... we don't have to" and "We can gradually move towards ....." also betray more than a whiff of atta-belief. Which is, of course, irreconcilable with the doctrine of anatta. But the > suttas are there, in clear language. The Buddha is described as the > greatest of teachers. If we deny that the suttas say what they say, if > we insist on turning to later commentaries that dig into them and find > the deeper meaning (which is ultimately more valuable, more liberating, > but not to be had so easily) we insult the Buddha, I think, or the > First Sangha for having failed to communicate the suttas truthfully. > What kind of teacher expresses something in simple terms, only to tell > the students that this is not what he means, the students are not to > take him for his word? (Yes, the Buddha's teaching is deep, deep, deep, > to be understood by the wise, against the ways of the world, as one > sutta has it, but this, surely, refers to the deep, deep teachings > found in suttas dealing with Dependent Origination, for example. I > don't touch those, they are too difficult for me.) > I do not say the following to insult anything or anyone, but merely to point out what is obvious to me. A sutta like, say, the sutta where the Buddha exhorts Rahula to be mindful before, during and after anything he does, totally contradicts any teaching on Dependent Origination. And the Canon is full of such contradiction; the notion that a non-existent self can make itself realise that it does not exist is not a difficult one, it is fundamentally logically flawed one. Thanks for writing, Phil. The job is fine. It has to be, there is no other option :-) Herman #77713 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 5:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument egberdina Hi Howard, Christine and everyone, Thanks for writing. Things are as they are. And that happens to be no particular way at all, until the question is asked :-) Herman #77714 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:05 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. scottduncan2 Dear Elaine, You have some confusion: E: "Do you see your 'citta that experience'? I have no idea how...that 'seeing the citta that experience which falls away immediately'." Scott: Citta is experience. There is not a person to experience anything. Citta is naama. No one can see citta. E: "As far as I know, all puthujjana put a whole great story to fleeting moments, not because they want to, it is because they are still ignorant and they can't help it, even if they want to see this fleeting moment, they can't. Only an ariya knows these fleeting moments as fleeting." Scott: I'd like you to tell me where you get this notion from. It has been repeated endlessly by many on this list. What is your source? Whose point of view is this? If you can't tell me because you're repeating it, maybe one of the others can tell me the source of this. E: "I mean, not all puthujjana can't see this fleeting citta, a meditator who is in deep concentration and mindfulness would be able to "see the fleeting citta". But even then, not all meditators can come to that high level of seeing fleeting cittas. Do you agree?" Scott: No one can see 'a citta', Elaine. Sincerely, Scott. #77715 From: Elaine Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. shennieca Hi Scott, Thanks for the reply. Yes, I have lots of confusion. ------------ Scott: Citta is experience. There is not a person to experience anything. Citta is naama. No one can see citta. Elaine: I don’t get it. As a normal person that I am right now, it is not possible for me to understand “Citta is experience”. What exactly do you experience, Scott, can you describe it in your own words. Just give an example of any citta that appears in your mind and explain how this citta works. I am just curios about this citta experience that DSG abhidhammikas always talk about. Maybe I am experiencing this citta every moment, I just don’t “realize” it yet. You know what happens when I realize it, right? It will be the A-ha moment. ---------- Scott: I'd like you to tell me where you get this notion from. It has been repeated endlessly by many on this list. What is your source? Whose point of view is this? If you can't tell me because you're repeating it, maybe one of the others can tell me the source of this. Elaine: I don’t have a sutta source; it is from my own opinion that I gathered from reading suttas, listening to dhamma talks and doing Vipassana meditation. I personally find it impossible for a puthujjana to have this ability of “experiencing citta”. If you are saying that there are puthujjana who can “experience citta”, can you cite your source too? Are you saying that you can personally “experience this citta that falls away immediately” though your own experience? Please elaborate on it. ------------------ Scott: No one can see 'a citta', Elaine. Elaine: No one see a citta. Ok. What is the right question that I should ask next, to get the right answer about what citta is? I have read from DSG post, “no one knows - the ‘knowing’ knows”. I don’t understand this sentence. What is, “the knowing knows”? I find from your posts that you understand the abhidhamma very well, please be patient with me because I am still learning. Thank you. #77716 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. scottduncan2 Dear Elaine, Thanks for the reply: E: "I find from your posts that you understand the abhidhamma very well, please be patient with me because I am still learning. Thank you." Scott: I don't know it well, Elaine. I'll hope patience arises. Mostly I study impatience since that is what arises more than patience. Elaine: "I don�t get it. As a normal person that I am right now, it is not possible for me to understand �Citta is experience�. What exactly do you experience, Scott, can you describe it in your own words. Just give an example of any citta that appears in your mind and explain how this citta works. I am just curios about this citta experience that DSG abhidhammikas always talk about." Scott: Abhidhamma deals in ultimates. 'A normal person' is merely conceptual. 'Scott' is conceptual. Citta is mind, Elaine. And citta is dark. E: "Maybe I am experiencing this citta every moment, I just don�t �realize� it yet. You know what happens when I realize it, right? It will be the A-ha moment." Scott: You won't realise a thing. Neither will I. Citta with pa~n~naa realises. You don't experience anything either. Citta is experience. There are six doorways of experience. Elaine: "...I personally find it impossible for a puthujjana to have this ability of �experiencing citta�. If you are saying that there are puthujjana who can �experience citta�, can you cite your source too? Are you saying that you can personally �experience this citta that falls away immediately� though your own experience? Please elaborate on it." Scott: Citta is experience. Please stop looking for experience. I am referring to theoretical Abhidhamma-based knowledge, not wisdom, when I say I know that rise and fall is to be experienced at higher levels of development of pa~n~naa. There is no person who will experience this. The first stage is knowing the difference between naama and ruupa. This is not theoretical knowledge at the point of 'knowing'. This knowing is a function of pa~n~naa, a cetasika, which can arise conascently with citta. Elaine: "No one see a citta. Ok. What is the right question that I should ask next, to get the right answer about what citta is? I have read from DSG post, �no one knows - the �knowing� knows�. I don�t understand this sentence. What is, �the knowing knows�?" Scott: The 'right question to ask' is, 'What is citta?' You can look in the Useful Posts section under 'citta', for a start. Get the book knowledge so Right Riew can develop. Right View is pa~n~naa, and not thinking about what you read, but there is a right way to consider things and a wrong way to consider things.. Sincerely, Scott. #77717 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. scottduncan2 Dear Elaine, Re: Scott: "...Get the book knowledge so Right Riew can develop..." I don't know what 'Right Riew' is. I think you should read this as 'Right View'. It makes more sense... Sincerely, Scott. #77718 From: Elaine Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument shennieca Hi Herman, all, Herman: This last line, in a nutshell, captures the anatta/kamma contradiction perfectly. ---------------------- Elaine: I know what you mean when you say Anatta and Kamma contradict each other. I think this confusion arises because some people have been preaching the "non-control self" and "no self who does the actions but kamma is produced". The "no doer but there is deed", eh? I don’t understand that either. When I learned Buddhism, the first thing my teacher taught was, Kamma. Buddha said, "Intention, is what I call Kamma". All thoughts, speech and actions produce kamma. Typing this post creates kamma, thinking about what to write, creates Kamma. After learning about Kamma, I was taught about Anatta. Anatta is explained by "Form, consciousness, etc, etc, is not self because it is inconstant". Anatta is not explained by using words like "no control, and no freewill". Only insane people have no control, Ariyas actually have "more control" because "conventionally speaking" they are more "in-control" of their thoughts, speech and actions. Ariyas, who truly understand "Anatta" behave in proper ways and not go wild and passionate like normal puthujjanas. People who know what "Anatta really is" don’t go around telling people about "no control", I think. I have heard that - the cittas that appear in the mind is "uncontrollable" because they arise and pass away on it's own accord, but just because these cittas arise and falls away on its own - does not mean that our actions, thoughts and speech becomes "uncontrollable" --- it is difficult for me to explain these because I have no personal experience of it. And if you hear someone says, "no self that controls", s/he is not explaining correctly to you what "Anatta" is. When the Buddha said, "Form is not self because it is inconstant", I don't actually know what is meant by "inconstant", I think it is "anicca" impermanent and because this form is impermanent, it is not-self - this is the Basic and Mundane understanding that we need to know, to start practising the Noble 8 fold path. The "real" understanding of Anatta, comes at the End Of The Path. Understanding Anatta is what you "get as a result" of following the Noble 8 fold path. We cannot understand what "Anatta really is", at the beginning of our path. Anatta is a "realization" - you know what I mean? I believe that, only through practise meditation, will you come to realize Anatta, any other way is quite impossible. Anatta cannot be understood by listening to someone telling you what Anatta is, unless you are like some people who have good paramis, then you can understand immediately by listening to 2 stanzas, like Ven Sariputta. Normally, Buddhists have to practise the N8FP, especially the Right Effort, Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness part, to get to realize Anatta. And when that realization is attained, I think Anatta will not contradict with Kamma. This is all I understand about Anatta and Kamma, it is flawed I know. Please teach me more. Thank you. #77719 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. dcwijeratna Dear Elaine, Read cittaanuppassana in Satipa.t.thaana sutta. "citte cittaanupassii viharati aataapi sampajaano satimaa vineyya loke abhijjaa domanassa.m" It is very good to do so. I have a CD. A monks chants it so beautifully, I listen to it almost everyday. A side effect is it calms your nerves. And sometimes seems to give answers to all the problems. With lots of mettaa, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77720 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Chris) - In a message dated 10/27/2007 8:52:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, Christine and everyone, Thanks for writing. Things are as they are. And that happens to be no particular way at all, until the question is asked :-) ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: An interesting point, Schrödinger! ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------- Herman ============================== With metta, Howard #77721 From: Elaine Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. shennieca Hi Scott, Scott: I don't know it well, Elaine. I'll hope patience arises. ----------- Elaine: I cannot believe that. You mean you sit around all day "hoping" for patience to arise? What if it doesn’t arise?? Then you are doomed!! I feel sad and confused by your email, Scott. I'll try to reply slowly. #77722 From: Elaine Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. shennieca Hi Scott, Sorry about my last e-mail. I was rude to you. How do I delete that post? I know, I can't, it has been written in my kamma. I'm soo dumb and too quick for my own good. :-(( When you say you study impatience, is it studying that "when patience arises you know it as patience" and "when impatience arises you know it as impatience", and you realize that there is no self in the feelings called patience and impatience? With metta, Elaine #77723 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. scottduncan2 Dear Elaine, You are quite kind: E: "Sorry about my last e-mail. I was rude to you. How do I delete that post? I know, I can't, it has been written in my kamma. I'm soo dumb and too quick for my own good. :-((" Scott: Oh good, then you can join my club. Its already gone anyway, Elaine. E: "When you say you study impatience, is it studying that "when patience arises you know it as patience" and "when impatience arises you know it as impatience", and you realize that there is no self in the feelings called patience and impatience?" Scott: I don't study impatience. Conventionally speaking, I get impatient at times. I'm saying that impatience arises more than patience for me. I have come to know its characteristic. I can tell when it is present. This would be sati that remembers this is impatience, if anything, since this is the function of sati, as far as I understand. Patience is the enemy of anger. I don't remember thinking anything like, 'Now Scott, don't get angry here because you know there is really no Elaine, nor is there a Scott and so since this is the case you really needn't get angry'. This wouldn't help anyway. Too much thinking. It would be way too slow. Patience (khanti) is not subject to control. I figure that since no anger arose there might have been patience, but I'm not totally sure. It could have been something else. It was too fast. I told you, I'm a beginner. All I know is there was no experience of anger. Sincerely, Scott. #77724 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument dcwijeratna Dear Elaine, Here is a pointer to understanding anatta. We are accustomed to looking at the world as things.Things we see, hear, smell etc. Now anatta is really na + atta --> an + atta --> anatta. No atta. Just nothing called atta. Which is a mere concept. A mere thought. So what can you understand about anatta? Understanding something that is not there. But if atta is assumed in some-form then antta becomes annihilation. That is something the believer cannot bear. There are no arguments against beliefs. Buddha consistently took this attitude in so many suttas. Clear example is vacchagotta sutta. [This reference is from memory. I am sure know it] My experience is also that. The believer would assume it in some form. Citta experiences is also the same thing. I tried to explain it. It doesn't work. I normally do not use the kamma-theory. The reason is that Buddhist kamma is mixed up with Hindu and Jain kamma theories, and the ideas of sin and punishment in Christianity. I usually use Paticca-samuppaada. But that one is "raagaratta nadakkhinti tamokkhandhena avutaati" (Vinaya Mahaavagga Brahmaayacana kathaa) Those enmeshed in 'desire, greed, thirst' and are surrounded by darkness cannot see (the PS). As you have correctly explained one has to travel the Noble Eightfold Path to understand these things. One will get a first glimpse of nibbaana, on becoming a stream-eterer. But the full understanding of PS and anatta is when one becomes an arahant. I am so pleased (anumodnaa) with your kusala. May the merit accrue to most Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw if he is still not paarangata and to all your other teachers. With kind regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. Life is good, isn't it? And so is death. #77725 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 10:15 pm Subject: Craving is the Cause of Suffering! bhikkhu0 Friends: That Craving Causes Suffering is The Second Noble Truth! The Blessed Buddha once said: What, now, is the Second Noble Truth on the Cause of Suffering? The Cause of suffering is Craving, which bound up with pleasure and desire, delighting now here, now there, gives rise to renewed rebirth! SN 56:11 But where and when does this Craving arise and take root? Wherever in the world there are delightful and pleasurable objects, exactly right there & then this craving arises, takes root & grows... The eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, ideas, thoughts, mental states, consciousness of sensation, sense contacts, feelings born of contact, perceptions, intentions, cravings, thoughts, & reflections are all attractive and pleasurable: Right there & then this toxic craving arises, roots & grows... DN 22 This is called the Noble Truth on the Origin of Suffering! Feeling is the Cause of Craving: If perceiving a form, sound, smell, taste, touch, idea, or mental state as pleasant, then one is attracted: Right there craving, greed, desire, lust, longing, and urge is born. Pleasant feeling thus causes Greed! If perceiving the sense object as unpleasant, then one is repelled: Right there hate, anger, aversion, antipathy, and opposition is born! Unpleasant or painful feeling thus causes Hate & all its derivatives! If perceiving the object as neither pleasant nor unpleasant, then one is disinterested, and thus neither observes nor examines the object: Right there Ignorance, neglect, unawareness, and disregard is born... Neutral & indifferent feeling thus causes Ignorance to arise! MN 38 The 3 kinds of Craving: 1: There is Craving for Sensing forms, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, ideas, thoughts and mental objects & states! (This is KÄ?ma-TanhÄ?)... 2: There is Craving for Becoming this or that like rich, healthy, famous, beautiful, respected, successful & adored etc. (This is Bhava-TanhÄ?)... 3: There is Craving for Non-Becoming this or that like poor, sick, dead, ignored, disregarded, ugly, failed, & despised. (This is Vibhava-TanhÄ?)... DN 22 More on this thorny Craving: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Why_Not.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Cut_Craving.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Sandcastles.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Craving_is_Pain.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_3_kinds_of_Craving.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Feeling_Causes_and_Effects.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Proximate_Causes_of_the_Root_Defilements.ht\ m http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_2nd_Noble_Truth_on_The_Cause_of_Sufferi\ ng.htm Craving is the Cause of Suffering! Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * http://What-Buddha-Said.net #77726 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:25 pm Subject: more discussion on anatta/that's right, even more! reverendagga... Hi everybody! i would lile to say first,that the point is that "no self" is an ultimate dhammic term. As an anology,"nobody step's in the same stream twice" does not mean that the stream under investigation does not exist! The "self" in ultimate dhammic term's is an ever evolving flowing (like the stream)"self".Call it a "no self" self if you like ! Hey! i've got a some question's! In the M.N.sutta#36 Ven. Gotama is asked the question: what is the requirement to be born? His reply: "The woman in season,The seed of the man,and the GANDHABBA must be present." Just what was ment by gandhabba? Now,now,don't chicken out by claiming that he was ONLY speaking as a figure of speach,there is nothing to support that.If so for what? The continuing kammic energy? which some would call a what? A rose by any other name is still called a rose. When he later remark's that one of the irrelavent question's is weather the soul exist's or not AFTER death regarding enlightment, the statement correctly treat's WHAT in a positive sense? When Ven.Gotama in M.N.#77 describe's the "MIND MADE BODY" in term's of what would today be called "ASTRAL PROJECTION" or O.O.B.E.(only one place amongst many where this is discussed) What is the word most popular for this to be called? Should we DARE mention the word? A rose by any other name is still called a what? May the Buddha's,Deva, and Angel's bless all of you! bhikkhu aggacitto #77727 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Oct 27, 2007 11:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument egberdina Hi Howard On 28/10/2007, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Thanks for writing. Things are as they are. And that happens to be no > particular way at all, until the question is asked :-) > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > An interesting point, Schrödinger! ;-) > ---------------------------------------------------------- Miaow, miaow :-) Herman #77728 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 12:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument egberdina Hi Elaine, On 28/10/2007, Elaine wrote: > > > Hi Herman, all, > > Herman: This last line, in a nutshell, captures the anatta/kamma contradiction perfectly. > ---------------------- > > Elaine: I know what you mean when you say Anatta and Kamma contradict each other. I think this confusion arises because some people have been preaching the "non-control self" and "no self who does the actions but kamma is produced". The "no doer but there is deed", eh? I don't understand that either. > I am very happy to read from what you have written that you think critically. It makes me less lonely :-) > When I learned Buddhism, the first thing my teacher taught was, Kamma. Buddha said, "Intention, is what I call Kamma". All thoughts, speech and actions produce kamma. Typing this post creates kamma, thinking about what to write, creates Kamma. > > After learning about Kamma, I was taught about Anatta. Anatta is explained by "Form, > consciousness, etc, etc, is not self because it is inconstant". Anatta is not explained by > using words like "no control, and no freewill". Only insane people have no control, Ariyas > actually have "more control" because "conventionally speaking" they are more "in-control" > of their thoughts, speech and actions. Ariyas, who truly understand "Anatta" behave in > proper ways and not go wild and passionate like normal puthujjanas. People who know > what "Anatta really is" don't go around telling people about "no control", I think. I also have never read anything about control or no control in the recorded statements of the Saints. But times change, as do the ways in which people express themselves. > > I have heard that - the cittas that appear in the mind is "uncontrollable" because they arise and pass away on it's own accord, but just because these cittas arise and falls away on its own - does not mean that our actions, thoughts and speech becomes "uncontrollable" --- it is difficult for me to explain these because I have no personal experience of it. And if you hear someone says, "no self that controls", s/he is not explaining correctly to you what "Anatta" is. > > When the Buddha said, "Form is not self because it is inconstant", I don't actually know what is meant by "inconstant", I think it is "anicca" impermanent and because this form is impermanent, it is not-self - this is the Basic and Mundane understanding that we need to know, to start practising the Noble 8 fold path. > > The "real" understanding of Anatta, comes at the End Of The Path. Understanding Anatta is what you "get as a result" of following the Noble 8 fold path. We cannot understand what "Anatta really is", at the beginning of our path. Anatta is a "realization" - you know what I mean? I am sure I know what you mean. I am reminded of the quote from the Spanish poet Machedo who wrote "Traveller, there is no path, paths are made by walking." And putthujjanas cannot set out to walk the noble eight fold path. If they knew what it was that they were aiming for, they would not be putthujjanas, would they? Walking / working towards a goal is merely an expression of craving, of wanting things to be different to what they are. If seen in that way, the noble eight fold path is not a recipe for realisation, but for turning away from what is there in the hope of finding something different. > > I believe that, only through practise meditation, will you come to realize Anatta, any other way is quite impossible. Anatta cannot be understood by listening to someone telling you what Anatta is, unless you are like some people who have good paramis, then you can understand immediately by listening to 2 stanzas, like Ven Sariputta. > I agree with you about the value of meditation. > Normally, Buddhists have to practise the N8FP, especially the Right Effort, Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness part, to get to realize Anatta. And when that realization is attained, I think Anatta will not contradict with Kamma. > > This is all I understand about Anatta and Kamma, it is flawed I know. Please teach me more. Thank you. You do not have to understand anatta. Anatta is what is happening, and that certainly doesn't depend on your understanding. I think you can safely forget about Kamma, though. It really is damning of any school of thought if it can entertain contradictions for 2500 tears/years Herman #77729 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument egberdina Hi DC, On 28/10/2007, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > > Now anatta is really na + atta --> an + atta --> anatta. No atta. Just nothing called atta. Which is a mere concept. > > > May the merit accrue to most Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw if he is still not paarangata and to all your other teachers. > I was interested that, in the context of a logical argument, and what you write about anatta and kamma, that you would then proceed to ascribe ongoing existence to your teachers, and aim to benefit them. I'm afraid this makes no sense to me at all, logically. Which is it to be, anatta or kamma? Or do you believe they are not mutually exclusive? If so, can you clarify that logically? Herman #77730 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:51 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 12 13. Viisatinipaato 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa On verses: 323. "Tattha vi~n~naatasaddhammo, pabbajja.m samarocayi; sujaato tiihi rattiihi, tisso vijjaa aphassayi. 324. "Ehi saarathi gacchaahi, ratha.m niyyaadayaahima.m; aarogya.m braahma.ni.m vajja, pabbaji daani braahma.no; sujaato tiihi rattiihi, tisso vijjaa aphassayi. 325. "Tato ca rathamaadaaya, sahassa~ncaapi saarathi; aarogya.m braahma.ni.mvoca, 'pabbaji daani braahma.no; sujaato tiihi rattiihi, tisso vijjaa aphassayi. 326. "Eta~ncaaha.m assaratha.m, sahassa~ncaapi saarathi; tevijja.m braahma.na.m sutvaa, pu.n.napatta.m dadaami te. 322. Knowing the true Doctrine there, he found pleasure in going forth. After three nights, Sujaata attained the three knowledges. 323. Come, charioteer. Go, take back this chariot. Bid the brahman lady good health [and say], "The brahman has now gone forth. After three nights, Sujaata has attained the three knowledges." 324. And then taking the chariot and one thousand pieces too, the charioteer bade the brahman lady good health [and said], "The brahman has now gone forth. After three nights, Sujaata has attained the three knowledges." 325. Hearing that the brahman has the triple knowledge, I give you this horse and chariot and one thousand pieces too, a full bowl [as a present for bringning good news]. txt: Tatthaati tassa.m catusaccadhammadesanaaya.m. Ratha.m niyyaadayaahimanti ima.m ratha.m braahma.niyaa niyyaadehi. Sahassa~ncaapiiti maggaparibbayattha.m niita.m kahaapa.nasahassa~ncaapi aadaaya niyyaadehiiti yojanaa. Assarathanti assayuttaratha.m. Pu.n.napattanti tu.t.thidaana.m. 322. There means: in that teaching of the Doctrine of the four [noble] truths. 323. Take back (niyyaadayaahi) this ('mam) chariot means: take back (niyyaadehi) this (ima.m) chariot to the brahman lady. 324. And one thousand pieces too (sahassa~n caapi) means: and taking back the one thousand coins (kahaapa.na-sahassa~n) that were brought for expenses on the way. That is the connection. 325. Horse and chariot (ass-ratha.m) means: a chariot yoked to horses (assa-yutta-ratha.m). A full bowl means: a gift of joy. On verses: 327. "Tuyheva hotvassaratho, sahassa~ncaapi braahma.ni; ahampi pabbajissaami, varapa~n~nassa santike. 328. "Hatthii gavassa.m ma.niku.n.dala~nca, phiita~ncima.m gahavibhava.m pahaaya; pitaa pabbajito tuyha.m, bhu~nja bhogaani sundarii; tuva.m daayaadikaa kule. 329. "Hatthii gavassa.m ma.niku.n.dala~nca, ramma.m cima.m gahavibhava.m pahaaya; pitaa pabbajito mayha.m, puttasokena a.t.tito; ahampi pabbajissaami, bhaatusokena a.t.titaa. 326. Keep the horse and chariot and the one thousand pieces too, brahman lady. I too shall go forth in the presence of the One Who Has Excellent Wisdom. 327. Abandoning elephants, cows and horses, jewels and rings, and this rich domestic wealth, your father has gone forth. Enjoy [this] wealth, Sundarii. You are the heiress in the family. 328. Abandoning elepants, cows and horses, jewels and rings, and this delightful domestic wealth, my father has gone forth, afflicted by grief for his son. I too shall go forth, afflicted by grief for my brother. Cy txt: Eva.m braahma.niyaa tu.t.thidaane diyyagmaane ta.m asampa.ticchanto saarathi "tuyheva hotuu"ti gaatha.m vatvaa satthu santikameva gantvaa pabbaji. Pabbajite pana saarathimhi braahma.nii attano dhiitara.m sundari.m aamantetvaa gharaavaase niyojentii "hatthii gavassan"ti gaathamaaha. Tattha hatthiiti hatthino. Gavassanti gaavo ca assaa ca. Ma.niku.n.dala~ncaati ma.ni ca ku.n.dalaani ca. Phiita~ncima.m gahavibhava.m pahaayaati ima.m hatthi-aadippabheda.m yathaavutta.m avutta~nca khettavatthuhira~n~nasuva.n.naadibheda.m phiita.m pahuuta~nca gahavibhava.m gehuupakara.na.m a~n~na~nca daasidaasaadika.m sabba.m pahaaya tava pitaa pabbajito. Bhu~nja bhogaani sundariiti sundari, tva.m ime bhoge bhu~njassu. Tuva.m daayaadikaa kuleti tuva~nhi imasmi.m kule daayajjaarahaati. Ta.m sutvaa sundarii attano nekkhammajjhaasaya.m pakaasentii "hatthiigavassan"ti-aadimaaha. 326. When the gift of joy was given in this way by the brahman's wife, the charioteer said, "May it be yours," spoke [this] verse, and after going to the Teacher, went forth. 327. When the charioteer had gone forth, the brahman's wife addressed her own daughter Sundarii, and urging household life on her spoke the verse [beginning] [Abandoning] elephants, cows and horses (gav'-assa.m) means: both cows (gaavo ca) and horses (assaa ca). Jewels and rings (ma.ni-ku.n.dala~n ca) means: both jewels (ma.ni ca) and rings (ku.n.dalaani ca). Abandoning this rich domestic wealth means: your father has gone forth, abandoning these things that have been mentioned consisting of elephants, etc, and unmentioned things such as fields, possessions, and gold and gold objects, rich and abundant domestic wealth, the household possessions and the rest, and all the servants both male and female. Enjoy (bhu~nja) [this] wealth (bhogaani), Sundarii means: Sundarii, enjoy (bhu~njassu) these possessions (bhoge). You are the heiress (daayaadikaa) in the family means: you indeed are worthy of the inheritance (daayajjaarahaa) in this family. 328. Hearing this, Sundarii revealed her own desire for renunciation and spoke [the other verse] beginning [Abandoning] elephants, cows and horses. ..to be continued, connie #77731 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Elaine) - In a message dated 10/27/2007 11:43:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: I don't remember thinking anything like, 'Now Scott, don't get angry here because you know there is really no Elaine, nor is there a Scott and so since this is the case you really needn't get angry'. This wouldn't help anyway. Too much thinking. It would be way too slow. Patience (khanti) is not subject to control. ================================== Just an opinion , Scott, born out of experience, and also out of reading suttas: It seems to me that recollecting the harmfulness of impatience, thinking about it, and thinking about the usefulness of being patient serves as a prompt and helps train the mind towards diminishing of impatience and increase in patience. In the four right efforts, more than just being aware of what arises is involved. There is also the intention and expended energy to bring about a wholesome state and to increase a wholesome factor already present, and to avoid an unwholesome state not yet arisen and to relinquish an unwholesome element already arisen. The Buddha did teach the following in Anguttara Nikaya 2.19, the Kusala Sutta: ____________________________________ "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' "Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" --------------------------------------------------------------- With metta, Howard (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.019.than.html) #77732 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:39 am Subject: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott, Elaine, and all - In a message dated 10/28/2007 8:18:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... ends his post as follows: ____________________________________ "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' "Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" --------------------------------------------------------------- With metta, Howard (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.019.than.html) ====================================== What is extremely odd is that so far as I know, I DID NOT write "(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.019.than.html) " after writing "Howard"!! As far as I recall, I did not write that url, with or without parentheses, at all!! Whew! ;-)) With metta, Howard #77733 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A bit of a logical argument philofillet Hi Elaine > Thank you for your post. :-)) Thanks. I've been enjoying yoru discussions with various folks. > > Yea, I think the real understanding of anatta comes at the end of the path, it is difficult to really know and understand it deeply at the beginning stage. Yes. But I think a basic, fundamental understanding of the principle is helpful, especially, I find, to deal with hard times. Helps to "let go" of resentments, etc, though "ownership of kamma" is probably even more helpful to me. I found that when I was very keen on the teachings of Acharn Sujin that I got a lot of emotional comfort from reflecting on anatta, on penetrative panna, that sort of thing. I'm not saying all her students do, but I did, and I came to see that was a bit odd. Now I get emotional comfort from the kind of suttas I referred to in my post - that seems more in line with the way the Buddha taught to sensually addicted householders like me! > I find that in western countries, the first thing that Buddhists talk about is anatta. I come from Malaysia and the Buddhists there don't talk about anatta very much. I don't know why, maybe they don't read the scripture very much. heheh :) Hmmm. Interesting. > As for me, I think it is weird to talk about "understanding" anatta using the abhidhamma book as a guide or reference. When a person really understands anatta (i.e. becomes an ariya), even without looking at the abhidhamma book, s/he will be able to tell exactly what the book says. You know what I mean? > > In DSG, I also hear about Right View discussion. The basic Right View/Right Understanding is necessary to learn about what morality is, what meditation is, what 4NT and 8FP is, but the "actual or real" Right View/Right Understanding comes as a "result" of the path, not as a preparation for it. :-)) I agree. But I want to continue studying Abhidhamma to continue to deepen my understanding of anatta. But it is not a priority for me at this time. The priority for me is avoiding the wrong view that is not believing in kamma, not being diligent about the avoidance of unwholesomeness/evil. > Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. > May we be well and happy. Thanks to you too. Metta, Phil #77734 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:43 am Subject: Re: A bit of a logical argument philofillet Hi Tep > T: That "don't reply if you want an extended discussion" defines a > restricted communication. An extreme case is to tell the readers not to > read your post. ;-)) Ha! I will have to try that someday! :) BTW, I've been enjoying your posts. In a few weeks or months, I don't know, I want to tap the experience of folks who do meditation on breathing, so I'll be asking you for some advice/feedback. Metta, Phil #77735 From: "Phil" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: A bit of a logical argument philofillet Hi again Herman > Thanks, Phil. Yeah, I agree with you, but would say that it smells a > lot like it, not just a bit. Your sentences "... we don't have to" and > "We can gradually move towards ....." also betray more than a whiff > of atta-belief. Which is, of course, irreconcilable with the doctrine > of anatta. Yeah, I don't know how to reconcile the suttas in which there is so clearly a promised reward for good behaviour. Well, yes I do. The Buddha knew that for sensually obsessed householders to be able to begin to develop the conditions for deeper underststanding (sila, samadhi) he had to dangle carrots and sticks - maybe something like that. Just speculation on my part at this point. > >> > I do not say the following to insult anything or anyone, but merely to > point out what is obvious to me. A sutta like, say, the sutta where > the Buddha exhorts Rahula to be mindful before, during and after > anything he does, totally contradicts any teaching on Dependent > Origination. And the Canon is full of such contradiction; the notion > that a non-existent self can make itself realise that it does not > exist is not a difficult one, it is fundamentally logically flawed > one. Well, it's all very interesting. There are actually commentaries that lay out the Rahula sutta you refer to in Abhidhammic terms, it has been discussed in that way here. Even the sutta on reflection on "I will go old, get sick, die and all those I love will too" has been discussed here in terms of dhammas rather than people, and this comes from commentaries, I think. I think that is not a skillful/suitable way to approach that very powerful sutta, myself. Anyways, nice touching bases with you Herman. I will back out now. Metta, Phil #77736 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:00 am Subject: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. buddhistmedi... Hi Howard, - A strange phenomenon? An outer space influence on the citta? >Howard: > What is extremely odd is that so far as I know, I DID NOT write > "(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.019.than.html) " after writing "Howard"!! As far as I recall, I did not write that url, with or without parentheses, at all!! > Whew! ;-)) > No, it was not a computer error. I think this kind of human error happens when you move a paragraph to another location. Tep === #77737 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:32 am Subject: Re: A bit of a logical argument buddhistmedi... Hi Phil, - I am happy to read your reply today. > Phil: > > Hi Tep > > > > T: That "don't reply if you want an extended discussion" defines a > > restricted communication. An extreme case is to tell the readers not > to read your post. ;-)) > > Ha! I will have to try that someday! :) > > BTW, I've been enjoying your posts. In a few weeks or months, I don't know, I want to tap the experience of folks who do meditation on > breathing, so I'll be asking you for some advice/feedback. > ...................... T: Thank you. I am looking forward to your discussion on breathing meditation (anapanasat) with great enthusiasm, Phil. You started Buddhism study with the Abhidhamma and now you are expanding the study into the law of kamma, purification of virtues, and purification of mind (bhavana, meditation, samatha & vipassana). It is a great progression, the top-down approach. BTW, I like your conversation with Elaine very much (below). [Message #77733] > Elaine: In DSG, I also hear about Right View discussion. The basic Right View/Right Understanding is necessary to learn about what morality is, what meditation is, what 4NT and 8FP is, but the "actual or real" Right View/Right Understanding comes as a "result" of the path, not as a preparation for it. :-)) Phil: I agree. But I want to continue studying Abhidhamma to continue to deepen my understanding of anatta. But it is not a priority for me at this time. The priority for me is avoiding the wrong view that is not believing in kamma, not being diligent about the avoidance of unwholesomeness/evil. ................. Tep ==== #77738 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument buddhistmedi... Hello Herman, - After you had left the DSG forum, I often missed you and your critical thinking & questioning. It was the kind of counter-balancing "force" that made this forum more interesting. Hugo was another ex-member whom I missed. I am glad that you are back and as active as ever. >Herman to DC: > I was interested that, in the context of a logical argument, and what > you write about anatta and kamma, that you would then proceed to > ascribe ongoing existence to your teachers, and aim to benefit them. > I'm afraid this makes no sense to me at all, logically. > > Which is it to be, anatta or kamma? Or do you believe they are not > mutually. Good job, Herman. Questioners must be questioned; they reap what they sowed. This is according to the Law of Kamma. :-)) Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi DC, > > On 28/10/2007, DC Wijeratna wrote: > > > > > > Now anatta is really na + atta --> an + atta --> anatta. No atta. Just nothing called atta. Which is a mere concept. > > > > > > > May the merit accrue to most Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw if he is still not paarangata and to all your other teachers. > > > exclusive? If so, can you clarify that logically? > > > Herman > #77739 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:56 am Subject: Re: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Serie... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 10/28/2007 9:00:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi Howard, - A strange phenomenon? An outer space influence on the citta? -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, or deva interference! LOLOL! -------------------------------------------------------- >Howard: > What is extremely odd is that so far as I know, I DID NOT write > "(http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.019.than.html) " after writing "Howard"!! As far as I recall, I did not write that url, with or without parentheses, at all!! > Whew! ;-)) > No, it was not a computer error. I think this kind of human error happens when you move a paragraph to another location. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, of course, something along such lines. The thing is, I never copied the url within parentheses or placed paraentheses around it. In fact, I didn't copy the url at all. (Unless, of course, I was in some weird trance! LOL!) --------------------------------------------------------- Tep ============================= With metta, Howard (http: _www.devaaliens.com_ (http://www.devaaliens.com) ) ;-)) #77740 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:17 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. buddhistmedi... Hello Elaine (Howard, Scott, Azita), - I really enjoy the dialogues between you and Howard and Scott and Azita. Since the day you joined this forum, your very significant contribution has been in pointing out how the hard-core DSG Abhidhammikas' interpretations of the pure Abhidhamma contradict with the main-stream Teachings. The Abhidhamma does not contradict with the Suttas and vice versa; individual interpretations do. Thank you very much. Tep ==== #77741 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:36 am Subject: Re: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Serie... upasaka_howard Hi again, Tep - I have looked again, in two places, at the post I wrote that had the url within parentheses after my name. I looked at the post under "old mail" and under "sent mail". The parenthesized url is indeed present after my name in the "old mail" folder which holds copies of mail I've received and read, but it is entirely absent in the "sent mail" folder which holds copies of emails I've sent out! That strikes me as odd as can be! ;-) It would seem that the url was somehow inserted during the process of being broadcast out to the list members by Yahoo. The workings of the internet may be more mysterious and obscure than anatta! LOLOL! Apologies to all, especially the list owners, for continuing with a non-Dhamma topic, and a trivial one at that. I was just so amazed that I felt the need to write about it. Obviously, Mara made me do it! ;-)) I'll drop the topic now. :-) With metta, Howard #77742 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:41 am Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply: H: "Just an opinion , Scott, born out of experience, and also out of reading suttas:..." Scott: Just a rejoinder, born out of experience, and also out of reading suttas... H: "...It seems to me that recollecting the harmfulness of impatience, thinking about it, and thinking about the usefulness of being patient serves as a prompt and helps train the mind towards diminishing of impatience and increase in patience." Scott: The above suggests that the thinking about patience can make it come. The mind cannot be trained by thinking about training it and adopting techniques to train it. Patience develops as it does by conditions and never by someone deciding to 'be more patient'. There is a constant wish to transform things that occur due to conditions into techniques. Everyone wants to feel in control. Elaine becomes anxious to think that one cannot make oneself be patient, that one can think that one hopes there will be patience, but that the thinking won't make it come. No one can make patience develop. Patience develops according to conditions. H: "...In the four right efforts, more than just being aware of what arises is involved. There is also the intention and expended energy to bring about a wholesome state and to increase a wholesome factor already present, and to avoid an unwholesome state not yet arisen and to relinquish an unwholesome element already arisen..." Scott: I disagree because this is a description of 'intention' and 'effort' that is influenced by a belief that apparently willed action implies a capacity to control. This intention is not you, me, or anyone conventionally 'intending' by just saying so to oneself in the form of some thought or other. The effort is not something done in the form of some technique designed to look like effort, or to somehow hasten development. Anguttara Nikaya 2.19, the Kusala Sutta: 19. Akusala.m bhikkhave pajahatha. Sakkaa bhikkhave akusala.m pajahitu.m. No ce ta.m bhikkhave sakkaa abhavissa akusala.m pajahitu.m, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m "akusala.m bhikkhave pajahathaa"ti. Yasmaa ca kho bhikkhave sakkaa akusala.m pajahitu.m, tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami "akusala.m bhikkhave pajahathaa"ti. Akusala.m ca hida.m bhikkhave pahiina.m ahitaaya dukkhaaya sa.mvatteyya, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m "akusala.m bhikkhave pajahathaa"ti. Yasmaa ca kho bhikkhave akusala.m pahiina.m hitaaya sukhaaya sa.mvattati, tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami "akusala.m bhikkhave pajahathaa"ti. Kusala.m bhikkhave bhaavetha. Sakkaa bhikkhave kusala.m bhaavetu.m. No ce ta.m bhikkhave sakkaa abhavissa kusala.m bhaavetu.m, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m "kusala.m bhikkhave bhaavethaa"ti. Yasmaa ca kho bhikkhave sakkaa kusala.m bhaavetu.m, tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami "kusala.m bhikkhave bhaavethaa"ti. Kusala.m ca hida.m bhikkhave bhaavita.m ahitaaya dukkhaaya sa.mvatteyya, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m "kusala.m bhikkhave bhaavethaa"ti. Yasmaa ca kho bhikkhave kusala.m bhaavita.m hitaaya sukhaaya sa.mvattati, tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami "kusala.m bhikkhave bhaavethaa"ti. Scott: The operative words are (PTS PED): "Pajahati (Ëšjahaati) [pa+jahati of haa] to give up, renounce, forsake, abandon, eliminate, let go, get rid of; freq. as synonym of jahati "Jahati & jahaati...to be devoid (of)...to leave, abandon, lose; give up, renounce, forsake." "Bhavati [bhuu to become...] to become, to be, exist, behave etc." Scott: I would suggest that these words point to the impersonal aspects of conditioning states, conditioned states, and the forces active between them. To think that 'someone' forsakes, abandons or loses or develops anything by wishing to, or can willfully behave in order to forsake or develop anything is to see it wrongly, I opine. Sincerely, Scott. #77743 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:52 am Subject: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Serie... buddhistmedi... Hi Howard, - Your last paragraph says : > Apologies to all, especially the list owners, for continuing with a > non-Dhamma topic, and a trivial one at that. I was just so amazed that I felt the need to write about it. Obviously, Mara made me do it! ;-)) > I'll drop the topic now. :-) > T: On the contrary, I find your discovery of the confusing behavior of the 'sent mail' folder and 'old mail' folder interesting and can be useful to all members to know. Thank you very much for the information. Tep ==== #77744 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:24 am Subject: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Serie... scottduncan2 Dear Howard and Tep, There is no ghost in the machine. It means nothing. Sincerely, Scott. #77745 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:36 am Subject: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Serie... buddhistmedi... Hi Scott and Howard, - This 'ghost in the machine' thing sounds like a title of a popular children's novel. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Howard and Tep, > > There is no ghost in the machine. It means nothing. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > I think there are no ghosts anywhere. Ghosts, unlike cockroaches, are imaginary. But I have no evidence to prove or disprove the no-ghost theory. Howard, do you have a basis to prove that there are devas? Tep === #77746 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:52 am Subject: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Serie... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Just fooling around like you guys: "There is no ghost in the machine. It means nothing." I think it was Gilbert Ryle, arguing against mind-body dualism or some such... Sincerely, Scott. #77747 From: Elaine Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:19 am Subject: Thank you! shennieca Hi DC, Thanks soo much for your post. :-)) Sadhu! With mettaa, Elaine #77748 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument dcwijeratna Hi Herman, Thanks for your query regarding kamma and anatta. Regarding my 'apparent' contradiction, I wrote it as a normal human being would write. Now to this question: Herman> "Which is it to be, anatta or kamma? Or do you believe they are not mutually exclusive? If so, can you clarify that logically?" 1. I'll first give short answers: Which is it to be, anatta or kamma? Both, they are not mutually exclusive. Do you think they are mutually exclusive? If so what is your argument. 2. Or do you believe they are not mutually exclusive? Yes. I believe in the sense that I accept it to be true on the basis of reason. And you don't believe? 3. If so, can you clarify that logically? Yes. [But it will not be acceptable to you, if you insist on direct verification. Still I'll make an attempt provided you can agree to a few assumptions] Before I state the assumptions, I would like to make a few comments on question 1. Your first question assumes that anatta 'is' or 'to be.' With my definition of anatta there is no atta. That is atta doesn't exist. The same is true of kamma. [not any individual act, that is observable] Where is it? Can you show it to me? [Please don't misuderstand my language, this is only to build a logical argument. Not a challenge] In other words they are mere words, expressions, turns of speech in the language of the Buddha. They are required for the purpose of communication. And though those are empty of substance, our language is such that we have to talk about them as substantial things. 1. Our source material is the Pali Sutta Pi.taka minus certain texts from the from Khuddhaka Nikaaya. From the khuddhaka we will take only Dhammapada and Sutta Nipata. Abhidhamma pi.taka and a.t.thakathaa not considered. 2. We will be communicating through English. So the meanings of the words to be defined in accordance with the Oxford Dictionary. This is how we can expect to be logical. 3. Anatta or kamma are concepts. It is not possible to establish validity of statements regarding them by verification. Statements about them can only be made on the basis of a few axioms or laws which we need to agree on. The Four Noble Truths and Dependent-origination. If we have verified them by direct experience, according to the Teachings of the Buddha, we would be arahants. This also means that we cannot bring in thoughts from other systems of thought and argue. Or you need to empty your mind of pre-conceived ideas. 4. This is the most important one. There is only one "real world" and that is what we can percieve through our senses. Why I am making that is we cannot carry on a discussion, if you world is different from mine. Frankly, this is the biggest delusion of the later abhidhammikas. And that is the reason why I scoped out Abhidhamma Pi.taka (Not abhidhamma)? In other words we have to postulate that we have knowledge only through sensory perception. So according to the Dhamma, kamma is just action and nothing more. And that is my definition of kamma as well. Now what would you exactly mean by kamma? Now please go through the above carefully and then respond. These few ground rules are necessary to carry forward a discussion. One more point. I write for the sake of a discussion. And not for argument. I use the word argument only in the sense of logic. So if you find any word offending, please do point it out to me to correct myself. But please understand that such an offence is not intended. Regards, D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. Have you seen anybody behaving in this world as if he had no attaa? #77749 From: Elaine Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:29 am Subject: Re: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] shennieca Hi Howard, Tep, Scott, all, That was too funny! (laughing my head off) :lol: The internet cannot be explained- hahahah I'm kidding! :D With loving kindness, Elaine #77750 From: Elaine Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument - for Herman shennieca Hi Herman, Herman: I was interested that, in the context of a logical argument, and what you write about anatta and kamma, that you would then proceed to ascribe ongoing existence to your teachers, and aim to benefit them. I'm afraid this makes no sense to me at all, logically. Which is it to be, anatta or kamma? Or do you believe they are not mutually exclusive? If so, can you clarify that logically? Elaine: I know exactly what you mean. If there is non-self, then who creates kamma? If there is non-self, then who goes to Nibbana? Right? Another question that I often asked my teacher was, “If I won’t be “me” in my next life and I won’t remember who I will be in my next life, then why should I be doing good deeds, now? I won’t be able to enjoy the good results in my next life anyway, right? So does it matter if I do good or evil in this life? And also, why do I have to suffer the consequences of the actions that the past “me” did, I don’t remember who it was that did this anyway?” Right? This type of questions arises because of the wrong idea of Anatta. Other religions, e.g. Xtians, the concept is simple, when they do good, they go to heaven and they will remember exactly who they are and they will enjoy heavenly bliss because it them, the same person who goes to heaven. In one way, I also think that Buddhism is a bit complex. That’s why the Buddha, at first, didn’t want to teach because he knew that it will be difficult to teach and maybe only a few people who are able understand his teachings. But I think, to be a Buddhist and to gain release from sufferings, we don’t need to go into all these complexities of Anatta. We only have to follow what the Buddha taught, “we reap what we sow”, if we have good intentions and do good deeds, then we will get good results. We cannot fathom how Kamma works, Kamma is not like a formula that we can write out. I thought Kamma was a "direct cause and effect” thing. When I was 10 years old, I heard a Kamma dhamma talk and I thought Kamma works in linear ways, so I asked the monk some questions. “For example, if I stole some money from A in my past life, will A be reborn in this life and steal my money? Or will someone else, B, in the future steal my money? And I also asked, “What will happen to B? Was he born on earth, for his mission to come back to steal my money?” Also, won’t B have the same consequence of his money getting stolen in his future life? But B was only acting out the stealing, only to punish me, right?” Then this vicious cycle would not end, right?” Those questions were the ones I asked when I was 10 years old. I don’t remember what my teacher replied. And this was the same teacher, whom after 20 years, I asked the first set of questions above, “Why do I need to do good if I will not be the same “me” in the future life?”. My teacher said, “You cannot think of it that way, even though it is not the “same you” in the future, there is still kamma! You have to understand the law of Kamma, if you do good deeds, you get good results, bad deeds, you get bad results”. The bottom line is, “we reap what we sow”, don’t ask “who” is it that reaps it in the future. And how this Kamma works, how is it inter-related among human beings, it is complex, only a Buddha knows the answer. So, Herman, I know exactly what you are asking. I get a little doubt here and there, sometimes, but I know there is Kamma. Kamma is not exactly like Newton’s third law of motion, which says “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, Kamma is not as linear as that. But Kamma is real and every good action will reap good results and vice-versa. As for the questions “Why is there no-self but there is Kamma”? I hope you can read Bhikkhu Thanissaro’s essay called “The Questions of Skill”. I think we cannot ask questions that starts with “If there is no-self, then…..?”. This type of questions will not give you satisfactory answers. You have to ask the question in a different way in order to understand it. Ahhh, I’ve written an essay, heheh. Sorry if it has been boring to read. Thank you. :-)) #77751 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:12 pm Subject: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Serie... buddhistmedi... Hi Scott, - Thanks for providing the background info for "no ghost in the machine" --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Just fooling around like you guys: > > "There is no ghost in the machine. It means nothing." > > I think it was Gilbert Ryle, arguing against mind-body dualism or some > such... > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > T: I looked it up and found this at Wikipedia : "The ghost in the machine is British philosopher Gilbert Ryle's derogatory description for René Descartes' mind-body dualism. The phrase was introduced in Ryle's book The Concept of Mind, written in 1949, to highlight the absurdity of dualist systems like Descartes' where mental activity carries on in parallel to physical action, but where their means of interaction are unknown or, at best, speculative." From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia T: I think your philosophy, "Citta is experience. Please stop looking for experience.", implies that physical action and its consequence (kamma) are "in parallel" to mind. So can I say the slogan 'citta is experience' is analogous to 'the ghost in the machine'? :>) Tep === #77752 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 1:29 pm Subject: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Serie... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, T: "I think your philosophy, "Citta is experience. Please stop looking for experience.", implies that physical action and its consequence (kamma) are "in parallel" to mind. So can I say the slogan 'citta is experience' is analogous to 'the ghost in the machine'? :>)" Scott: So you mean we weren't just playing around? Do you wish to discuss? Sincerely, Scott. #77753 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 10/28/2007 10:41:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Thanks for the reply: H: "Just an opinion , Scott, born out of experience, and also out of reading suttas:..." Scott: Just a rejoinder, born out of experience, and also out of reading suttas... H: "...It seems to me that recollecting the harmfulness of impatience, thinking about it, and thinking about the usefulness of being patient serves as a prompt and helps train the mind towards diminishing of impatience and increase in patience." Scott: The above suggests that the thinking about patience can make it come. The mind cannot be trained by thinking about training it and adopting techniques to train it. Patience develops as it does by conditions and never by someone deciding to 'be more patient'. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, it comes about by conditions, Scott. But what conditions? Do you know? Did the Buddha say? Are all conventional actions as good as any others with regard to the development of wholesome factors? ------------------------------------------------------- There is a constant wish to transform things that occur due to conditions into techniques. Everyone wants to feel in control. Elaine becomes anxious to think that one cannot make oneself be patient, that one can think that one hopes there will be patience, but that the thinking won't make it come. No one can make patience develop. Patience develops according to conditions. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, indeed. ----------------------------------------------------- H: "...In the four right efforts, more than just being aware of what arises is involved. There is also the intention and expended energy to bring about a wholesome state and to increase a wholesome factor already present, and to avoid an unwholesome state not yet arisen and to relinquish an unwholesome element already arisen..." Scott: I disagree because this is a description of 'intention' and 'effort' that is influenced by a belief that apparently willed action implies a capacity to control. This intention is not you, me, or anyone conventionally 'intending' by just saying so to oneself in the form of some thought or other. The effort is not something done in the form of some technique designed to look like effort, or to somehow hasten development. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I said nothing about any "one" doing something, thought that is a perfectly legitimate conventional way to express matters. Is it untrue that you decided to write this post to me, Scott? ------------------------------------------------ Anguttara Nikaya 2.19, the Kusala Sutta: 19. Akusala.m bhikkhave pajahatha. Sakkaa bhikkhave akusala.m pajahitu.m. No ce ta.m bhikkhave sakkaa abhavissa akusala.m pajahitu.m, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m "akusala.m bhikkhave pajahathaa"ti. Yasmaa ca kho bhikkhave sakkaa akusala.m pajahitu.m, tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami "akusala.m bhikkhave pajahathaa"ti. Akusala.m ca hida.m bhikkhave pahiina.m ahitaaya dukkhaaya sa.mvatteyya, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m "akusala.m bhikkhave pajahathaa"ti. Yasmaa ca kho bhikkhave akusala.m pahiina.m hitaaya sukhaaya sa.mvattati, tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami "akusala.m bhikkhave pajahathaa"ti. Kusala.m bhikkhave bhaavetha. Sakkaa bhikkhave kusala.m bhaavetu.m. No ce ta.m bhikkhave sakkaa abhavissa kusala.m bhaavetu.m, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m "kusala.m bhikkhave bhaavethaa"ti. Yasmaa ca kho bhikkhave sakkaa kusala.m bhaavetu.m, tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami "kusala.m bhikkhave bhaavethaa"ti. Kusala.m ca hida.m bhikkhave bhaavita.m ahitaaya dukkhaaya sa.mvatteyya, naaha.m eva.m vadeyya.m "kusala.m bhikkhave bhaavethaa"ti. Yasmaa ca kho bhikkhave kusala.m bhaavita.m hitaaya sukhaaya sa.mvattati, tasmaaha.m eva.m vadaami "kusala.m bhikkhave bhaavethaa"ti. Scott: The operative words are (PTS PED): "Pajahati (Ëšjahaati) [pa+jahati of haa] to give up, renounce, forsake, abandon, eliminate, let go, get rid of; freq. as synonym of jahati "Jahati & jahaati...to be devoid (of)...to leave, abandon, lose; give up, renounce, forsake." "Bhavati [bhuu to become...] to become, to be, exist, behave etc." --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't speak Pali, Scott. You're a really fast learner, though, I must say! ;-) -------------------------------------------------------- Scott: I would suggest that these words point to the impersonal aspects of conditioning states, conditioned states, and the forces active between them. To think that 'someone' forsakes, abandons or loses or develops anything by wishing to, or can willfully behave in order to forsake or develop anything is to see it wrongly, I opine. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think you are missing the boat (to the far shore) by opting not to engage in Dhamma practice, and I'm sincerely sorry for that. I suspect you believe it is I who am missing the boat, though! LOL! So - there it is!! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------ Sincerely, Scott. ============================ Withy metta, Howard #77754 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:04 am Subject: Re: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Serie... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Scott) - In a message dated 10/28/2007 1:36:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tepsastri@... writes: Howard, do you have a basis to prove that there are devas? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: No, of course not. :-) ======================== With metta, Howard #77755 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:06 am Subject: Re: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Serie... upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Tep) - In a message dated 10/28/2007 1:52:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Tep, Just fooling around like you guys: "There is no ghost in the machine. It means nothing." I think it was Gilbert Ryle, arguing against mind-body dualism or some such... ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yep, being critical of Descartes. :-) ---------------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ========================= With metta, Howard #77756 From: Elaine Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 2:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. shennieca Hi Howard, Scott, Tep, DC, all, Howard, thanks for quoting the Kusala Sutta and providing it's automatic weblink, heheh. ;-)) I don't understand what Scott wrote. -------------------- Scott: Patience develops according to conditions. Elaine: Scott, can you identify “all the conditions that are necessary” for Patience to develop? Do you know "when and if" these conditions have arisen in your mind? Can a normal puthujjana know/identify these conditions? These conditions that you talk about, is it the “ultimate conditions” or is it a “conventional conditions”? For example, if I am waiting for the bus and the bus is late, I’d get impatient. The condition that made me impatient was, the bus was late. Is this the type of condition that you talk about? Or are you talking about some cetasikas in the mind coming together and forming a set of conditions for impatience to arise? Are all the ultimate conditions in the mind identifiable/knowable/realizable? My opinion is, when impatience arises in the mind, conventionally speaking, I would try to be “aware” of it, watch it and not react to it. If I am “aware” of the impatience arising, and “catch” it fast enough, hopefully it will get toned-down and disappear. For example anger, if I am not aware of anger arising, this anger will explode like an atomic bomb and objects will start flying all over the house (hahah, I’m exaggerating). A person who is not mindful, s/he cannot control his/her anger, if a person is very "mindful", then the anger can be 'umm, slightly controlled' because it will get toned-down and it will disappear quickly. When I get angry or impatient, no matter how much I try to convince myself that “I” am not angry, it doesn’t work. It works better when I am able to watch this anger go by in the mind (it is tough, very tough to do so). This "watching" is a type of mind training (the satipatthana type of training). When a person becomes an expert in this watching, “the moment anger arises”, s/he would be able to identify it immediately and the anger will disappear quickly. I like Kusala Sutta, it is a good one, it says wholesomeness can be developed and unwholesomeness can be abandoned. I think for these to develop, the mind have to be trained. Scott, you are right, when you say impatience is impersonal, but have you actually felt or experienced the impersonal nature of impatience? I think we have to train our mind to be patience and not wait for the conditions to arise. Maybe this training is a mind-training to "identify the conditions that are necessary" for patience to arise. That's why we have to do meditation to cleanse our mind from greed, hatred and delusion? Scott, please explain how these "conditions" work? Thank you. #77757 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument - for Herman buddhistmedi... Hi Elaine and Herman, - I can't help jumping in when I see a good, no-nonsense Dhamma discussion. So please let me give my one-yen worth of comment and move my skinny butt out quickly. ........... Herman: Which is it to be, anatta or kamma? Or do you believe they are not mutually exclusive? If so, can you clarify that logically? Elaine: I know exactly what you mean. If there is non-self, then who creates kamma? If there is non-self, then who goes to Nibbana? Right? Another question that I often asked my teacher was, "If I won't be "me" in my next life and I won't remember who I will be in my next life, then why should I be doing good deeds, now? E: But I think, to be a Buddhist and to gain release from sufferings, we don't need to go into all these complexities of Anatta. We only have to follow what the Buddha taught, "we reap what we sow", if we have good intentions and do good deeds, then we will get good results. We cannot fathom how Kamma works, Kamma is not like a formula that we can write out. ... ... The bottom line is, "we reap what we sow", don't ask "who" is it that reaps it in the future. And how this Kamma works, how is it inter- related among human beings, it is complex, only a Buddha knows the answer. ............ T: In Thailand, too, monks and grown-ups use the same kind of answers that Elaine is talking about to convince inquisitive kids to stop asking more difficult questions. 'You don't need to know an answer to everything! If you ask too many questions, thinking too much, you are going to be very confused and you might even go crazy.' 'The reults of kammas are too complicated for anyone to know, only the Buddha can explain. No, don't ask that question, you shoud ask this question instead." etc. etc. When I was a kid, I was never satisfied with those formatted advice and "warnings" given to me by monks and adults. Of course, I stopped asking them further. But I kept on thinking about how to find better answers myself. Several decades of studying and thinking about the Dhamma did not make me crazy. Although I have not got all answers to all things I wanted to know, yet I have a few good thoughts to share with you below. There is no permanent identity, an ego/soul, that remains the same from one birth to another. That kind of permanent identity is denied by the main-stream Buddhism; so 'no-self' in the Vism and some suttas means no permanent ego-identity can be found in each and all of the five khandhas, ayatanas, and dhatus. Such no-self view does not relate to the not-self in the anatta-lakkha.na sutta, since not-self only relates to the self-views that are influenced by upadana in the khandhas. The kind of 'attaa' or self that was accepted by the Buddha as "one's own person" (including the physical and mental body) is known as 'attapa.tilabha' (DN 9). Another kind is called 'attabhaava' (AN 3.125; DN 33; Dhs. 597). Remember 'Attaa hi attano naatho', 'The self is its own refuge' ? (See Dhp 12,4) This kind of reference reminds us that all actions (bodily, verbally, and mentally action) result in kamma-vipaka, according to the Law of Kamma, so we must avoid akusala kamma by adhering to kusala dhamma if we aspire for happiness. No-one want suffering (dukkha, domanassa) now, regardless of what will happen in the future. The past is already gone, we cannot do anything about it. The future may or may not come; a wise one knows s/he has only the present moment that is the reality right now, and kusala kamma is the only way to guarantee that. If future kamma vipaka arises, it does so from the present and past actions. So if the present is virtuous, the future goodness is guaranteed, regardless of whether anattaa is mutually exclusive or inclusive with kamma. The Right Question about Self and Not-self : ------------------------------------------- 'Venerable sir, how should one know, how should one see so that, in regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external signs, I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit no longer occur within?' 'Any kind of form whatsoever, Raadha, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near -one sees all form as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' '" (And so for any kind of feeling, perception, volitional formations or consciousness.) 'When one knows and sees thus, Raadha, then in regard to this body with consciousness and in regard to all external signs, I-making, mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit no longer occur within.' "Then the Venerable Raadha ...became one of the arahants." [ SN22:71, Raadha Sutta] ............. Tep === #77758 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:55 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. buddhistmedi... Hi Howard and Scott, - Thank you, Howard, for your kindness and patience toward Scott. You kept sending him a lot of kusala signals, but he has not listened. > > Scott: I would suggest that these words point to the impersonal > aspects of conditioning states, conditioned states, and the forces > active between them. To think that 'someone' forsakes, abandons or > loses or develops anything by wishing to, or can willfully behave in order to forsake or develop anything is to see it wrongly, I opine. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think you are missing the boat (to the far shore) by opting not to engage in Dhamma practice, and I'm sincerely sorry for that. I suspect you believe it is I who am missing the boat, though! LOL! So - there it is!! ;-)) > ------------------------------------------------------ T: Scott, it seems to me that you always move back inside the old shell that was painted all over with the following words: 'no- self'; 'no one practices or makes effort'; 'conditioned dhammas cannot be developed'; 'only citta experiences'. Howard, please let Scott stay on the shore. Maybe he does not know how to swim? But I know your kind boat will come back to pick him up again. :( Tep === #77759 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 4:01 pm Subject: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Serie... buddhistmedi... Dear Scott, - You are a nice and stubborn person, Scott. > T: "I think your philosophy, "Citta is experience. Please stop looking > for experience.", implies that physical action and its consequence > (kamma) are "in parallel" to mind. So can I say the slogan 'citta is > experience' is analogous to 'the ghost in the machine'? :>)" > > Scott: So you mean we weren't just playing around? Do you wish to > discuss? > T: The previous topic was funny, so I couldn't help playing around a little. But this new issue is no funny matter, so I'll appreciate your no-joking comments. Thanks. Tep === #77760 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 5:34 pm Subject: (No subject) nichiconn Dear nice and stubborn Scott, a bit of a life jacket, just in case the coast guard's checking: PPn.xiv,31: << ...And there is no special way of developing a meditation subject in order to attain discriminations. ... >> carry on, mate! connie #77761 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 7:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Scott (and Elaine) - > > In a message dated 10/27/2007 11:43:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > scduncan@... writes: > > I don't remember thinking anything like, 'Now Scott, don't get angry > here because you know there is really no Elaine, nor is there a Scott > and so since this is the case you really needn't get angry'. This > wouldn't help anyway. Too much thinking. It would be way too slow. > Patience (khanti) is not subject to control. > > ================================== > Just an opinion , Scott, born out of experience, and also out of reading > suttas: It seems to me that recollecting the harmfulness of impatience, > thinking about it, and thinking about the usefulness of being patient serves as a > prompt and helps train the mind towards diminishing of impatience and > increase in patience. > In the four right efforts, more than just being aware of what arises is > involved. There is also the intention and expended energy to bring about a > wholesome state and to increase a wholesome factor already present, and to > avoid an unwholesome state not yet arisen and to relinquish an unwholesome > element already arisen. The Buddha did teach the following in Anguttara Nikaya > 2.19, the Kusala Sutta: > ____________________________________ > > > "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is > unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say > to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' <. . .> Hi Howard, As I remarked to Elaine recently, the "formal meditators" at DSG are continually misrepresenting the "no-controllers." I am not saying there is any deliberate intention to do this. I think it occurs simply because the formal meditators cannot see a middle way between 'doing something' and 'doing nothing'. Howard, you said to Tep that you were not a 'single-citta enthusiast.' Enthusiast or not, however, you will have to study the single-citta theory in order to see the middle way. If I understand you correctly, you believe the Buddha taught us to calm the mind in order to prepare it for right mindfulness. This [multi-citta] practice would be analogous, I think, to a predatory animal lying in wait (coiled, ready to spring) for its prey to come within range. It's an inspiring thought, and it makes us want to *be* that glorious creature waiting expertly, ready to have right mindfulness of a passing paramattha dhamma. But it doesn't work that way. Desire (to be the one that practises) and craving for results will never lead to right understanding of the middle way. I know I am just repeating myself, but when the no-control perspective is continually (though inadvertently) misrepresented I like to occasionally set the record straight. :-) Ken H #77762 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:08 pm Subject: Craving is Catastrophic! bhikkhu0 Friends: Craving causes conflict, competition, & catastrophic calamity! The Blessed Buddha once said: Truly, caused by craving for sense pleasure, conditioned by craving for simple sense pleasure, propelled by craving for sense pleasure, wholly induced by craving for sense pleasure, kings fight with kings, princes with princes, priests with priests, citizens with citizens and the mother quarrels with the son, the son with the mother, the father with the son, the son with the father; brother quarrels with brother, brother with sister, sister with brother, & friend brawl with friend! Thus, pushed into conflict, quarrelling, & fighting, they readily attack each other with fists and weapons, thereby suffering pain & death! Furthermore, caused by craving for plain sense pleasure, conditioned by craving for simple sense pleasure, propelled by craving for sense pleasure, wholly induced by craving for sense pleasure, people break into houses, rob, plunder, steal from friends, commit highway robbery, seduce the wives of others. Then the rulers have such people caught and inflict on them various forms of punishment. Thereby they meet death or deadly pain. Such is the misery of craving for sense pleasure, accumulation of pain & suffering in this present life, caused, initiated, prepared & entirely dependent upon this evil urge for sense pleasure! Finally: Beings start to take up evil mental, verbal, & bodily behaviour; as a consequence of that, at breakup of the body, right after death, they are whirled into the downfall, and re-arise in a state of misery, in an unhappy destination, in the abyss of the many inferno hells... Such also is the misery of craving for sense pleasure: Accumulation of suffering in the future life, entirely due to craving for pleasure, created by craving for pleasure, caused by craving for pleasure, utterly dependent on this malign sense pleasure craving. MN 13... .... Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * ..... #77763 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:51 pm Subject: Back in Hong Kong sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Slowly catching up..... it's rather like Crocodile Dundee arriving in New York at the moment as we adjusted to HK's airport (super huge, super clean and super bustling) after Bodh Gaya's NEW airport (with seats and some air-con now, but still in need of a paint job, a clean, drinks and maybe just one shop?), adjust to using toilets with a DOOR and without peering faces or a long queue and all the other home comforts...., adjust to being able to being able to walk briskly again, Chinese rather than Indian passers-by and friends..... Just seeing and visible object now and different stories, that's all... Jon was back working in Court today and I'm surrounded by bags and washing.... Will start catching up and replying to various put-aside messages soon... Again, great to see all the discussions and 'old faces' around.... Nina will also be happy when she returns home in a few days' time. [Btw, the beginning of next April is her 80th birthday and she'll be in Bangkok then to celebrate. If anyone would like to join us for the discussions then and in Kaeng Krajan (in English)8th-10th April, just outside Bkk, pls let me know off-list by mid-February at the latest, as I've been asked by her to help co-ordinate this. Recommended for those with the opportunity to join from overseas especially]. Metta, Sarah p.s special thanks to Ken H who has been helping us behind the scenes with the smooth-running of the list when we've been unable to get any internet access. ================ #77764 From: Elaine Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] shennieca Hi Connie, You quoted a very short sentence from the PPn.xiv. I cannot find the whole passage. Can you kindly provide the weblink to it? Usually, short sentences out of nowhere, can be quite misleading. When people quote religious text by taking one sentence out of a whole big passage, they cannot see the whole picture and it becomes even more misleading. Even in real life, when you hear a sentence edited out of a whole conversation (just like they do in reality TV shows nowadays, it is purposely meant to mislead the audience. Just like in TV shows like "America's next top model" and lately, did you hear about the BBC show about the Queen? When the TV editor edited it, it looked like the Queen was angry and walked out of the room, when in actual fact, she was walking in to the room). What I am trying to say is, from the short sentence that you provided, it is difficult to come to a conclusion to what is the actual message. Also, the sentence that you quote, sounds like a mid-sentence. "And there is no special way of developing a meditation subject in order to attain discrimination....". What is after the dots? Does the sentence end like this? Is there any more to it? Hoping to hear from you. Thank you. Sincerely, Elaine L G SAGE wrote: Dear nice and stubborn Scott, a bit of a life jacket, just in case the coast guard's checking: PPn.xiv,31: << ...And there is no special way of developing a meditation subject in order to attain discriminations. ... >> carry on, mate! connie #77765 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: can citta feel itself? sarahprocter... Dear Alex, Good to read your comments. --- Alex wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "vipassana_infonet" > wrote: > > > > dear sarah and dear nina, > > > > at one place nina wrote that citta cannot be aware of itself... > > > > > > What about in a dream? I think that it IS possible for citta to > experience itself. Atleast it can experience past citta. .... S: In a dream, cittas experience concepts. These can be concepts of anything, including concepts of past cittas. At the moment a citta experiences an object, it can experience a citta, a cetasika, a rupa or a concept. Never the citta experiencing the object at exactly that instant. Metta, Sarah ========= #77766 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (68) sarahprocter... Dear Connie & all, The following caught my attention: --- L G SAGE wrote: > on verse: > 302. "Jahanti putte sappa~n~naa, tato ~naatii tato dhana.m; > pabbajanti mahaaviiraa, naago chetvaava bandhana.m. > 301. Wise men leave their sons and relatives and their wealth. Great > heroes go forth, like an elephant that has broken its fastening. > > txt: > Sappa~n~naati pa~n~navanto, sa.msaare aadiinavavibhaaviniyaa pa~n~naaya > samannaagataati adhippaayo. Te hi appa.m vaa mahanta.m vaa > ~naatipariva.t.ta.m bhogakkhandha.m vaa pahaaya pabbajanti. Tenaaha- > "pabbajanti mahaaviiraa, naago chetvaava bandhanan"ti, ayabandhana.m > viya hatthinaago gihibandhana.m chinditvaa mahaaviiriyaava pabbajanti, > na nihiinaviiriyaati attho. > > 301. Wise men (sappa~n~naa) means: those possessing wisdom > (pa~n~avanto). Those who are possess of wisdom that makes clear the > dangers in continued existence. That is the meaning. For they go forth > having abandoned their circle of relative or a mass of wealth, whether > small or great. Therefore, he says: great heroes (mahaa-viiraa) go > forth, like (va) an elephant (naago) that has broken (chetvaa) its > fastening (bandhana.m), which means: like (viya) an elephant > (hatthi-naago) [that breaks] an iron fastening (aya-bandhana.m) those of > great strength (mahaa-viriyaa) go forth after braking (chinditvaa) the > fastening of householder. They are not men of inferior strength. That is > the meaning. .... S: In other words, they are wise men who clearly understand the danger of samsara AND have broken the 'fastening of the householder', therefore, they go forth and ordain. How many people today have really broken this fastening AND really have the wisdom to understand the danger of the rounds? ***** Some interesting comments by KS on the trip in response to a question about bhikkhunis. In brief, it was never a suitable lifestyle for women even in the Buddha's time, but Maha Pajapati and the other great Theriis had the wisdom and accumulations to become arahants (impossible to life as a lay arahant) and so they were ordained. When there were no more women capable of becoming arahants, there was no no longer a need for a bhikkhuni order. Good to read all your other extracts and comments! Metta, Sarah ========== #77767 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: S's e-card from Bkk 2 sarahprocter... Dear Scott (& Tep), Thank you for all your excellent Dhsg and other quotes and helpful comments. --- Scott Duncan wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > Thank you for: > > S: "I brought up a point that had been raised in a discussion between > Tep & Scott, referring to Scott's message #74862 about "The four > foundations are the basis of concentration (samaadhinimitta).." Was > this another meaning of nimitta, I wondered. > > "KS pointed out that we have to appreciate the section is referring to > the 8 fold-path and not to take the comments out of context of this. > When there is the developed understanding of the arising and falling > away of dhammas, it's clear what realities are and what nimittas of > conditioned dhammas are. The passage is talking about satipatthana and > samadhi. So satipatthana is the basis for understanding what is > samaadhinimitta. B.Bodhi suggested that in this context nimitta isn't > a 'sign', in the sense of a distinctive mark or object, but we thought > it was." > > Scott: Samaadhinimitta in this case, then, is the object of > satipa.t.thaana in the sense of being differentiated from realities? .... Sarah: Yes. As I understand it, by clearly understanding the realities themselves (through satipatthana developed to the third stage of insight, the understanding of the arising and falling away of such dhammas), it is then very clear that all conditioned dhammas have nimittas and samaadhinimitta, for example, is clearly understood as distinct from the reality of samaadhi itself. In this sense, satipatthana is the basis for the understanding of concentration (samaadhinimitta). Thanks to you and Tep for raising and discussing this difficult point. Great to read all your discussions too, Tep! Nina was also enthusiastic about all these good posts from the 'reformed Tep'!! Metta, Sarah ========== #77768 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Oct 28, 2007 11:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] From James: So sorry and so disappointed... :-(( sarahprocter... Dear James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I am so sorry and so disappointed that I cannot participate more fully > in DSG lately. ... S: No need to feel sorry or disappointed! Conditions change and I'm sure you'll have more opportunities in future. I really believe that the most important thing in life is the development of wisdom at the present moment, no matter how life turns out for us. Slowly there can be a growth in detachment (as opposed to attachment) to the dhammas which are conditioned now as we speak. We'll be less inclined to think in terms of 'good' and 'bad' situations and more inclined to understand that moments of seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and body consciousness are the results of kamma, fleetingly brief and usually followed by lobha, dosa or moha. .... > Please only send me good vibes as I explore this side-detour in my > spiritual development. Where it will lead me I do not know; but I do > know that I will keep all my friends at DSG foremost in my mind! > Hopefully I will be able to post again regularly. .... S: Take your time, James and of course your friends will be wishing you well in the meantime! Metta, Sarah ======== #77769 From: han tun Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Back in Hong Kong hantun1 Dear Sarah and Jon, Welcome back! I am very glad to know that you are back. Please take some rest. You must be very tired after the trip. With metta and best wishes, Han #77770 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:51 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (69) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 13 13. Viisatinipaato 4. Sundariitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa On verse: 330. "So te ijjhatu sa"nkappo, ya.m tva.m patthesi sundarii; utti.t.thapi.n.do u~ncho ca, pa.msukuula~nca ciivara.m; etaani abhisambhontii, paraloke anaasavaa. 329. May the intention that you seek prosper, Sundarii. Leftover scraps and gleanings [as food], and a rag from a dustheap as a robe - enduring with these, [you will be] free from taints in the next world. txt: Atha na.m maataa nekkhammeyeva niyojentii "so te ijjhatuu"ti-aadinaa diya.d.dhagaathamaaha. Tattha ya.m tva.m patthesi sundariiti sundari tva.m idaani ya.m patthesi aaka"nkhasi. So tava pabbajjaaya sa"nkappo pabbajjaaya chando ijjhatu anantaraayena sijjhatu. Utti.t.thapi.n.doti ghare ghare pati.t.thitvaa laddhabbabhikkhaapi.n.do. U~nchoti tadattha.m gharapa.tipaa.tiyaa aahi.n.dana.m uddissa .thaana~nca. Etaaniiti utti.t.thapi.n.daadiini. Abhisambhontiiti anibbinnaruupaa ja"nghabala.m nissaaya abhisambhavantii, saadhentiiti attho. 329. Then her mother, urging her on to renunciation spoke the verse of three lines beginning [May the intention that] you [seek] prosper. There, that you seek Sundarii means: that you seek, wish for, now Sundarii. That intention of going forth of yours, the desire for going forth, may it prosper, may it be successful and without obstacles. Leftover scraps (utti.t.tha-pi.n.do) means: the scraps of alms food obtained (laddhabba-bhikkhaa-pi.n.do) when going from house to house. Gleanings means: this is referring to wandering from house to house for that purpose and [is referring to] the place.* These means: leftover scraps, etc. Enduring (abhisambhontii) means: enduring (abhisam-bhavantii), accomplishing by the strength of your legs without tiring. *Cf. the commentary below on v.349 (p.305) {Subhaa, Sis70} On verse: 331. "Sikkhamaanaaya me ayye, dibbacakkhu visodhita.m; pubbenivaasa.m jaanaami, yattha me vusita.m pure. 330. Noble lady, the divine eye has been purified for me while still a trainee. I know my previous lives, where I lived before. Cy: Atha sundarii "saadhu, ammaa"ti maatuyaa pa.tissu.nitvaa nikkhamitvaa bhikkhunupassaya.m gantvaa sikkhamaanaayeva samaanaa tisso vijjaa sacchikatvaa "satthu santika.m gamissaamii"ti upajjhaaya.m aarocetvaa bhikkhuniihi saddhi.m saavatthi.m agamaasi. Tena vutta.m "sikkhamaanaaya me, ayye"ti-aadi. Tattha sikkhamaanaaya meti sikkhamaanaaya samaanaaya mayaa. Ayyeti attano upajjhaaya.m aalapati. 330. Then Sundarii, agreeing with her mother, said, "Very well, mother." She went forth, and going to the residence of the bhikkhuniis, she realized the three knowledges even while still a trainee. She told her preceptor, "I shall go to the Buddha," and went to Saavatthi with [a group of] bhikkhuniis. Therefore she says, Noble lady, [the divine eye ahs been purified] for me while still a trainee, etc. There, for me (me) while still a trainee means: for me (mayaa), being a trainee. Noble lady means: she is speaking to her preceptor. Verse: 332. "Tuva.m nissaaya kalyaa.ni, theri sa"nghassa sobhane; tisso vijjaa anuppattaa, kata.m buddhassa saasana.m. 331. Relying on you, lovely one, beauty of the Order of Therii's, I have obtained the three knowledges. I have done the Buddha's teaching. Cy: Tuva.m nissaaya kalyaa.ni, theri sa"nghassa sobhaneti bhikkhunisa"nghe vuddhatarabhaavena thiragu.nayogena ca sa"nghattheri sobhanehi siilaadiihi samannaagatattaa sobhane kalyaa.ni kalyaa.namitte, ayye, ta.m nissaaya mayaa tisso vijjaa anuppattaa kata.m buddhassa saasananti yojanaa. 331. Relying on you, lovely one, beauty (sobhane) of the Order of Theriis means: relying on you, noble lady, because you are the eldest in the Order of Bhikkhuniis (bhikkhuni-sa.mghe vuddhatara-bhaavena) and joined to firm virtues, eldes in the Order (sa.mgha-theri), beauty [of the Order] through being possessed of the beauty (sobhanehi) of virtuous conduct, etc, lovely one, good friend, I ahve obtained the three knowledges. I have done the Buddha's teaching. That is the connection. Verse: 333. "Anujaanaahi me ayye, icche saavatthi gantave; siihanaada.m nadissaami, buddhase.t.thassa santike. 332. Permit me, noble lady, I wish to go to Saavatthi. I shall roar a lion's roar in the presence of the excellent Buddha. txt: Iccheti icchaami. Saavatthi gantaveti saavatthi.m gantu.m. Siihanaada.m nadissaamiiti a~n~naabyaakara.nameva sandhaayaaha. 332. I wish (icche) means: I wish (icchaami). To go to Saavatthi (Saavatthi gantave) means: to go to Saavatthi (Saavatthi.m gantu.m). She said I shall roar a lion's roar with reference to her declaration of perfect knowledge. ===to be continued, connie #77771 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:51 am Subject: Perfections Corner (31) nichiconn Dear All, This is the continuation of Chapter 7: The Perfection of Truthfulness, 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. ------------------------------ Studying the Dhamma and applying it, and knowing the importance of the truth is the way leading to the realization of the noble Truths. In the "Verses of Uplift" (Udaana), Ch 1, no. 9, Matted Hair (Ja.tila) it has been explained that if one does not accumulate sati-sampaja~n~na, one will become deluded. We read: "Thus have I heard: On a certain occasion the Exalted One was staying near Gayaa, on Gayaa Head. Now on that occasion a great number of ascetics, on the cold winter nights between the eighths {*} in time of snowfall, were plunging up and down (in the water) and sprinkling and burning sacrifice, thinking: This way comes purity. Now the Exalted One saw that great number of ascetics so doing, and at that time, seeing the meaning of it, gave utterance to this verse of uplift: 'Not by water is one pure, tho' many folk bathe here. In whom is truth and dhamma, he is pure and he's a braahmin.' " {*} The eighth day before and after the full moon of Maagha, January, and Phaggu.na, February. We read in the "Paramatthadiipanii", the Commentary to the "Verses of Uplift" (Udaana), Khuddaka Nikaaya, the following explanation of this Sutta {**}: "... Or else there is no one who is clean, no being said to be purified from the stain of evil, through the aforementioned water. Why? Or abundant folk would bathe here. For were there that which is known as purity from evil through submersion in the water and so on as aforementioned, abundant folk would bathe here in the water, just as there would be purity from evil for them all- for the one performing evil acts such as matricide and so on, as well as for any other (creature) upwards from and including fish and tortoises even, such as cows and buffaloes and so forth; but this is not the case. Why? On account of bathing not being an opponent of the root-causes of evil. For surely (something can only be said to be) an opponent of that which it destroys, as is light that of darkness, and knowledge that of ignorance-bathing being no such (opponent) of evil. Therefore the conclusion has to be reached that 'There is no being clean through water'. He then says 'In whom there be truth' and so on to indicate the means by which there is, rather, being clean. Herein, In whom (ya.mhi): in the person in whom. There be truth (sacca.m): there be both telling the truth and truth as abstinence (from lying speech). Or alternatively there be that which is true (sacca.m): there be both that which is truein the form of knowledge and that which is true in its highest sense {***}. Dhamma (dhammo): Dhamma in the form of the ariyan paths and Dhamma in the form of their fruitions; in the person in whom all of this is discovered- that is the one who is clean and that is the one who is the brahmin (so suci so ca braahma.no): that ariyapuggala, especially the one in whom the aasavas have been destroyed, is the one who, by way of a purity that is perpetual, clean and the brahmin. But why, in this connection, is truth included separately from Dhamma? On account of the fact of truth being of great service. For instance, the virtues of truth are made manifest in countless sutta passages." {**} This is the Commentary of Achaariya Dhammapala, translated by P. Masefield. Dhammapala is the author of several Commentaries and Sub commentaries, including those to the Commentaries of Buddhaghosa. {***} Truth of pa~n~naa, ~naa.na sacca.m, and paramattha sacca.m, ultimate truth. The Commentary then refers to different sutta passages: "Truth is indeed the Deathless word. Truth is, for sure, the sweetest of flavours. In truth, and in the goal and in the Dhamma, are the good established. Brahmin recluses stationed in the truth and so on. That which is the converse of the truth is made manifest by way of 'For the person who has transgressed, who is of lying speech, who gets not (even) one thing right' and 'The one who speaks of what did not take place goes to hell' and so forth." ===to be continued, connie #77772 From: Elaine Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. shennieca Hi KenH, all, It is good to hear from you again. ------------------------ KenH: I think it occurs simply because the formal meditators cannot see a middle way between 'doing something' and 'doing nothing'. E: What is the middle way between doing something and doing nothing? What do you mean by 'doing nothing'? -------------------------- KenH: Howard, you said to Tep that you were not a 'single-citta enthusiast.' Enthusiast or not, however, you will have to study the single-citta theory in order to see the middle way. E: How do you study a 'single-citta' and see the middle way? I can read a sentence and say that I understand it, kinda like reading - "Light exhibits the characteristics of wave/particle duality". I think I understand that sentence but to really, really understand it, I have to go to a Physics lab and do some experiments and write out the formulas, then I will be convinced that it has properties of waves and particles. When I verify it with my own eyes, I will know that it exhibits these 2 properties, depending on the type of experimental methods used to measure it. So, KenH, when you say single citta, do you take it, based on belief and hearsay? Or on what basis do you understand it? And no, I do not doubt your ability to understand this single citta, I just want to know how you understand this single citta, I want to learn from you. ---------------------------------- KenH: If I understand you correctly, you believe the Buddha taught us to calm the mind in order to prepare it for right mindfulness. This [multi-citta] practice would be analogous, I think, to a predatory animal lying in wait (coiled, ready to spring) for its prey to come within range. E: What is this multi-citta? When you think, or walk, how many cittas are working? And how do you single out one citta and study it? Did you know that in the Milinda Panha, Nagasena told King Milinda that the study of the separation of these citta is even more difficult than going to the ocean, and scooping up some ocean water in your hands and indentifying where this water come from, saying, this water is from the Ganges and this is from the Ramuna (it is impossible for a normal human being to do that). And the identification and separation of the citta and cetasika in the mind, is far, far, more difficult than identifying the ocean water, only a Buddha can do the single citta and multi-citta identification. So, how do you study something so complex and understand it, is an amazing ability, you are an extraordinary person. But I believe a human being can personally experience a grosser level, that the body (rupa) and the mind (nama) are different entities. This can be observed through vipassana bhavana, by watching the breath or the rising/falling of the abdomen. When a person watches the rising/falling of the abdomen, they are watching the air element (vayo-dhatu) and if you watch it closely, you would see that the body is one thing and the mind that is watching it, is a different thing. (I am regurgitating this from a book because I could not see it for myself yet). When a person becomes very advanced in meditation, then maybe he can identify all the citta in the mind??? Hmmmm, I don’t know if it is even possible for a human being to do that. I have Never ever heard anyone telling me, I can "personally" identify and study a single citta in my mind. Only DSG members can do that, it's really wonderful. ------------------------------- KenH: I know I am just repeating myself, but when the no-control perspective is continually (though inadvertently) misrepresented I like to occasionally set the record straight. :-) E: Yes please, can you please explain the no-control perspective from your point of view? Thank you. Sincerely, Elaine #77773 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:19 am Subject: Re: Back in Hong Kong buddhistmedi... Dear Sarah, - Like my good friend Han, I am also glad to know that you, Jon, Nina and everyone else are safely on the way back home. Even though this body is a little bit younger than Nina's, a long travel is always painfully torturing to all its joints and muscles. So I think Nina must be a wonder woman in that regard. I did not know Nina was born in April too (my birthday is April 4). I am sorry to hear that after such a long and tiresome travel, still there are bags and washing to do before you can rest. Tep === #77774 From: Elaine Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Citta ... A Break ... shennieca Hi Tep, LoL!! :D :lol: :-)) I'm moving further and further back to the back seat of the lecture halls. :-)) Hahahahh With mettaa, Elaine :-)) #77775 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:35 am Subject: vsm 429 (was 'no subject') nichiconn Hi Elaine, As far as I know, neither "The Path of Purification" nor "The Path of Purity" is online. But you can find "Visuddhimaggo" on tipitaka.org (for one). I've no idea who punctuated the Roman text, but the sentence in question << Pa.tisambhidaappattiyaa ca paa.tiyekko kamma.t.thaanabhaavanaanuyogo naama natthi. >> is in book 2 (which our translators call Part III), ch.14, section 429 there. Section 429 in PPn is xiv, 27-31; in PoP, most of pp. 513-4. It seems if you look in 'the Harvard text' for our sentence, it is in section 443. Leaving out my dots (added to indicate the quote was only a portion of the section as Nanamoli worked & quotes to him are usually referenced; Pe Maung Tin doesn't number his 'paragraphs'), the above Pali sentence (or fragment if you like) is translated in PPn. xiv, 31 as: << And there is no special way of developing a meditation subject in order to attain discriminations. >> PoP (p.514) gives: << There is no such thing as special application to the development of a subject of meditation in order that analytical knowledge may be attained. >> I don't mind whether one says the Queen is coming or going. If she's doing one, she's doing the other. I just go on about this numbering and splitting because I'm led to wonder where/how/when/why we concern ourselves with drawing lines for saying something's in or out of context. Are all the divisions arbitrary and/or artificial or are some more valid than others? Whose lines? Is the concern more with context or comfort? etc. I suppose my real question is more to do with how confining our own lines of thought are or just how open, really, we might be, to wonder. peace, connie ps. apologies for no subject line earlier. I'd like to blame it on the ghost or deva... possibly maara. How ARE we supposed to see them, btw? (thinking of manish's questions). #77776 From: Elaine Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] vsm 429 (was 'no subject') - Thx shennieca Hey Connie, Thanks a lot for providing the info on vsm 429. :-)) C: the above Pali sentence (or fragment if you like) is translated in PPn. xiv, 31 as: << And there is no special way of developing a meditation subject in order to attain discriminations. >> PoP (p.514) gives: << There is no such thing as special application to the development of a subject of meditation in order that analytical knowledge may be attained. >> E: I agree with the above about analytical knowledge, Buddhism is much deeper than being analytical. About seeing devas? I have not personally seen them but I heard from some friends/acquaintances that sometimes when they walk around in temple compounds at night, they see a bright light and they think it is an "earth-bound-deva". But this is subject to individual belief on the account of the story-teller. I think my friends are telling the truth about the 'bright light' but they may be seeing some other things, I don't know, it's probably a deva. Personally, I believe in devas but I don't have proof that they exist. In religions like Paganism (?), people pray to trees and stones and etc. because they think invisible beings reside in them. So, maybe the beings are devas..(?) it is only a speculation. :-)) I respect the devas that are present in my house or in temple dwellings, if they are present. :-)) I don't think too much about devas. I just wish I could pray to someone who could make all my wishes come true.. sigh.. Can devas make our dreams come true? I wish they could... I want to be cured of my unexplained infertility problem! Big sigh. Life is stressful, lots of stress. Thanks for your regular posts on the Theriigaathaa suttas, love them. :-)) Warmest regards, Elaine L G SAGE wrote: Hi Elaine, As far as I know, neither "The Path of Purification" nor "The Path of Purity" is online. But you can find "Visuddhimaggo" on tipitaka.org (for one). I've no idea who punctuated the Roman text, but the sentence in question << Pa.tisambhidaappattiyaa ca paa.tiyekko kamma.t.thaanabhaavanaanuyogo naama natthi. >> is in book 2 (which our translators call Part III), ch.14, section 429 there. Section 429 in PPn is xiv, 27-31; in PoP, most of pp. 513-4. It seems if you look in 'the Harvard text' for our sentence, it is in section 443. Leaving out my dots (added to indicate the quote was only a portion of the section as Nanamoli worked & quotes to him are usually referenced; Pe Maung Tin doesn't number his 'paragraphs'), the above Pali sentence (or fragment if you like) is translated in PPn. xiv, 31 as: << And there is no special way of developing a meditation subject in order to attain discriminations. >> PoP (p.514) gives: << There is no such thing as special application to the development of a subject of meditation in order that analytical knowledge may be attained. >> I don't mind whether one says the Queen is coming or going. If she's doing one, she's doing the other. I just go on about this numbering and splitting because I'm led to wonder where/how/when/why we concern ourselves with drawing lines for saying something's in or out of context. Are all the divisions arbitrary and/or artificial or are some more valid than others? Whose lines? Is the concern more with context or comfort? etc. I suppose my real question is more to do with how confining our own lines of thought are or just how open, really, we might be, to wonder. peace, connie ps. apologies for no subject line earlier. I'd like to blame it on the ghost or deva... possibly maara. How ARE we supposed to see them, btw? (thinking of manish's questions). #77777 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:01 pm Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (68) nichiconn Dear Sarah, ... S: In other words, they are wise men who clearly understand the danger of samsara AND have broken the 'fastening of the householder', therefore, they go forth and ordain. How many people today have really broken this fastening AND really have the wisdom to understand the danger of the rounds? ***** Some interesting comments by KS on the trip in response to a question about bhikkhunis. In brief, it was never a suitable lifestyle for women even in the Buddha's time, but Maha Pajapati and the other great Theriis had the wisdom and accumulations to become arahants (impossible to life as a lay arahant) and so they were ordained. When there were no more women capable of becoming arahants, there was no no longer a need for a bhikkhuni order. ========== connie: Yes, there's pleasure to be found in the laundering (welcome home!) - and all those other iron bonds. Just what we wished for all along: a dusty life amidst soap suds or other globs of foam. How many any day even want to give that up or consider that detachment and right view walk hand in hand, not pulling in separate directions. You remind me, too, about the life-span of the Buddha - there was no need for him to keep on living once the last of the crop was in... eventually people would've had ugly thoughts about old men and young boys because there weren't any older people with the accumulations to break free. So, just like with the bhikkhunis, there's already the beginning of the decline. No, there's no 'revival' in trying to bring back something whose time is past... just more hastening the further decline. Nothing to do with sexism or woman hating the way people who point out things like the bhikkhunis not being able to undertake all the ascetic practices, etc. like to claim. peace, connie #77778 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:42 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Citta ... A Break ... buddhistmedi... Dear Elaine, I didn't know you were sitting there in the lecture room. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Elaine wrote: > > Hi Tep, > > LoL!! :D :lol: :-)) > I'm moving further and further back to the back seat of the lecture halls. :-)) Hahahahh > You are a better student than I, since you have not yet dropped the course. :-)) Tep ==== #77779 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:57 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: S's e-card from Bkk 2 buddhistmedi... Dear Sarah, - I appreciate your effort in asking Khun Sujin about 'samadhi-nimitta'. I hope you may elaborate a bit more on her reply, because it does not yet ring the bell for me. > .... > Sarah: Thanks to you and Tep for raising and discussing this difficult point. Great to read all your discussions too, Tep! Nina was also enthusiastic about all these good posts from the 'reformed Tep'!! > T: The truly reformed Tep is 'not Tep'. Tep ==== #77780 From: Elaine Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Citta ... A Break ... shennieca Hiya Tep, all, I've been dropping in and out of class unnoticed, LOL. ;-)) :D This is a tough subject, I'm not joking. My teacher (the late Bhante Suvanno), he taught Abhidhamma classes at the Lunas temple in the evening. I used to work late and couldn't attend the class, so I guess my karmic conditions were not ripe then to learn about the abhidhamma. I really want to learn, I'd like to understand how the mind works. The way it is explained as a no-control-dhamma sounds scary to me. But I think it is an interesting subject if it is explained properly or else the subject is too dry and strange. Hoping to learn, share and understand the dhamma with all the members here. :-)) Thank you. Be well and happy! Warmest regards, Elaine #77781 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:39 pm Subject: Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. kenhowardau Hi Elaine, You ended your message with: "can you please explain the no-control perspective from your point of view?" Well, almost every message I ever post to DSG tries to explain the no-control perspective from my point of view. This message won't be any different from the others, but here it is - for what it's worth: ------------- > > KenH: I think it occurs simply because the formal meditators cannot see a middle way between 'doing something' and 'doing nothing'. > > > E: What is the middle way between doing something and doing nothing? What do you mean by 'doing nothing'? -------------------------- The non-meditators at DSG are often accused of "doing nothing." It is said that we believe in sitting around waiting for enlightenment to happen. Nothing could be further from the truth. Surely, only someone who believed in a permanent self could believe in waiting for enlightenment to happen. Can you see what I mean? Without having wrong view I can wait for my coffee to brew, or I can wait for a number 9 bus to arrive (etc). But I can't wait for enlightenment to happen. Only by having wrong view can I do that. The same applies to the opposite of doing nothing. Only by having wrong view can I try (in the conventional sense of "doing something") to *make* enlightenment happen. Wrong view is not the mere absence of right view. Wrong view is the denial - or refutation - of right view. The Dhamma tells us that there is enlightenment but no self that becomes enlightened. In response, the formal-meditator says (in effect) "Hang that! I want to be the one that gets enlightened! I refute any doctrine that would leave me - my self - out of the action!" --------------------------------------------- > > KenH: Howard, you said to Tep that you were not a 'single-citta enthusiast.' Enthusiast or not, however, you will have to study the single-citta theory in order to see the middle way. > > > E: How do you study a 'single-citta' and see the middle way? ----------------------------------------------- To be precise, I referred to studying the single-citta *theory.* I wasn't suggesting Howard take a citta out of his pocket and have a darn good look at it. :-) It is not enough to know that there is no self (that either 'strives' or 'sis around waiting'). We also need to know what *does* exist. What does exist is the single, presently-arisen citta and its physical base (along with its cetasikas and any paramattha dhamma that may have been taken as their object). --------------------------------- E: > I can read a sentence and say that I understand it, kinda like reading - "Light exhibits the characteristics of wave/particle duality". I think I understand that sentence but to really, really understand it, I have to go to a Physics lab and do some experiments and write out the formulas, then I will be convinced that it has properties of waves and particles. When I verify it with my own eyes, I will know that it exhibits these 2 properties, depending on the type of experimental methods used to measure it. So, KenH, when you say single citta, do you take it, based on belief and hearsay? ---------------------------------- I open a book - or I click on DSG - and I study the single-citta theory. ------------------------ E: > Or on what basis do you understand it? And no, I do not doubt your ability to understand this single citta, I just want to know how you understand this single citta, I want to learn from you. ------------------------ Thanks for your interest. But, as I was saying, every message I post to DSG expresses my understanding (for what it's worth) of the single- citta theory. In other words, they all express my understanding of 'the reality of the present moment' or 'the dhammas that are arising now' or 'ultimate reality' or 'the loka' or 'the way things are' or 'Abhidhamma in daily life.' ---------------- > > KenH: If I understand you correctly, you believe the Buddha taught us to calm the mind in order to prepare it for right mindfulness. This [multi-citta] practice would be analogous, I think, to a predatory animal lying in wait (coiled, ready to spring) for its prey to come within range. > > >E: What is this multi-citta? ----------------- In Dhamma-study terminology, a "formal practice" is one that would involve more than the single, present-moment reality. It involves the idea of multiple cittas - a kind of continuation from past, to present, to future. So it purports to be a "continuing" practice. In other words, a kind of atta. Something that persists. Some meditators tend to agree with what I have just said. They justify their practice by saying that a small peg can be used to knock out a large peg. That is, a small belief in a continuing self can be used as a way of seeing no-self. However, there is no evidence in the Pali texts that the Buddha ever taught such a practice. According to the texts, the Dhamma is a matter of right understanding. This applies from the beginning (when right understanding is weak and under-developed) to the end (when it is strong and fully developed). I might stop there, Elaine. This post is getting long, and I wouldn't want to bore anyone. :-) I will be happy to give my response to the rest of your post later if you still want to hear it. Ken H. #77782 From: "colette" Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] vsm 429 (was 'no subject') - Thx ksheri3 Hi Elaine, Oh, contraire, > About seeing devas? I have not personally seen them but I heard from some friends/acquaintances that sometimes when they walk around in temple compounds at night, they see a bright light and they think it is an "earth-bound-deva". But this is subject to individual belief on the account of the story-teller. I think my friends are telling the truth about the 'bright light' but they may be seeing some other things, I don't know, it's probably a deva. > colette: Isn't it wonderful how science and religion or theology or philosophy seem to butt heads with eachother to contradict? Surely the "bright light" was something that they, your friends, saw, but the light is only an ENERGY of existance. Can we have tactile consciousness, through touch, of Light? What about ear-consciousness of Sound by touching Sound? Sound touches us though, doesn't it? Glad you brought up the word Paganism, below. > Personally, I believe in devas but I don't have proof that they exist. In religions like Paganism (?), people pray to trees and stones and etc. because they think invisible beings reside in them. colette: are you suggesting that Buddha Nature does not exist in all living things? In accordance to science we dismiss a stone as being alive or living but can we be sure since the majority of the entire universe that we know of does not possess the same life that we possess here. Can we be sure that life does not exist, for instance, on Mars or planets that happen across Black Holes? Can we be sure that life does not exist in a Black Hole? We can only be sure of what we know, and how do we know something? We are taught or maybe it's called CONDITIONED to know something and we certainly are conditioned to NOT KNOW THINGS, ... --------------------------------- So, maybe the beings are devas..(?) it is only a speculation. :-)) colette: aren't you speculating that Connie and I are actual people that have thoughts and think? Life is one big crap shoot huh? Of course, outside of ORDERED SOCIETY life can be a gamble but even in an ORDERED SOCIETY, such as China, or Republican U.S.A., we can only be sure of our paranoia and how what we have is something that every other person wants and will stop at nothing to take from us. Those obscurations, I mean walls, make nice boxes (see Chinese Box experiment), and nice compartments where the ole adage "everything has a place and everything in it's place" certainly supplies the rationale for the Caste System or a prison. ------------------------------------- I respect the devas that are present in my house or in temple dwellings, if they are present. :-)) > colette: not very respectful, huh? Telling a Deva that they may not be present in the temple or the house. Gots ta get a handle on that DOUBT of yours. It causes hesitation and fear. ---------------------------------- > I don't think too much about devas. colette: how true, let them do their thing and you should do your thing. --------------------------------- I just wish I could pray to someone who could make all my wishes come true.. sigh.. colette: a little vanity showing, no? How will the fulfillment of all your wishes bring enlightenment and happiness to you? How will having money help you when you will be constantly worring about those conspirators trying to scam your money out of you? Or when having that money will not be enough to satiate the wishes you have after you get the money? That's a "For Instance" statement. The dharma can show you the path to finding and obtaining happiness and contentment where your desires are checked in the baggage compartment of the vehicle you're traveling in but you have to find that path and walk that path. ------------------------------------------- Can devas make our dreams come true? colette: dreams I do believe, are desires and it's Elementary Buddhism to know that desires tend to give bad fruits, kindof like those dates that Indiana Jones almost ate while in Cyro Egypt, thanx to that monkey that sprinkled the Dates with a poison. ----------------------------------------- I wish they could... I want to be cured of my unexplained infertility problem! colette: science to the rescue, no? In-vetro-fertilization, no? ----------------------------- Big sigh. Life is stressful, lots of stress. colette: I just had the feeling you were playin' with us. STRESS, you've hit upon a major point in the suttras. Please start using Buddhist Dictionaries and even searching the Access To Insight website for suttras on Stress. You'll discover a lot. I just knew you were gonna give us a little insight to your educated position. Thank you for the chance to say something after a while. toodles, colette ... #77783 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:13 pm Subject: Re: vsm 429 (was 'no subject') - Thx nichiconn Hi again, Elaine, E: Thanks a lot for providing the info on vsm 429. C: You're welcome. Thanks for the thoughts on devas. To give a little more context to the phrase we were talking about earlier, pretty much right off the bat, chapter 14 gives a set of questions dealing with understanding understanding. The first asks what understanding is. The last sentence of the abbreviated / short answer: << Kusalacittasampayutta.m vipassanaa~naa.na.m pa~n~naa. >> Insight knowledge associated with profitable or moral consciousness or thought. The 4th question asks how many kinds of understanding there are. The brief answer to that: PPn. xiv, 8: 1. Firstly as having the characteristic of penetrating the individual essences of states, it is of one kind. 2. As mundane and supramundane it is of two kinds, 3. Likewise as subject to cankers and free from cankers, and so on, 4. As the defining of mentality and of materiality, 5. As accompanied by joy or by equanimity, 6. As the planes of seeing and of development. 7. It is of three kinds as consisting in what is reasoned, consisting in what is learnt (heard), and consisting in development, 8. Likewise as having a limited, exalted, or measureless, object, 9. As skill in improvement, detriment, and means. 10. As interpreting the internal, and so on. 11. It is of four kinds as knowledge of the four Truths, 12. And as the four Discriminations. Again, the 'Discriminations' are the 'Analytical Knowledges' or 'Patisambhidaa', depending on who you read. The Pali for #7: << Tividhaa cintaasutabhaavanaamayavasena. >>. And PM Tin's version : "It is of three kinds as being made by imagination, by tradition, by culture (triad 1);". Culture, development... bhaavana; some say "meditation" (but most of the time I don't know what people really mean when they use the m-word). How about that 'imagination' instead of 'reasoning' for 'cintaa'? I imagine you know I really like it. Glad you're enjoying the sisters' stories. Have you noticed how many times there's something to the effect that "she attained arahantship together with the four discriminations"? I'm not saying they're important merely because of how often they're mentioned there, but I doubt we do ourselves any favor if we dismiss them simply because we don't care much for words like 'logical analysis'. We could always call them something else if you want to talk more about them... maybe just stick with patisambhida and look at a bit more of the Vsm or some other text(s) if you'd be interested? Or not - I'm expecting "The Path of Discrimination" so I'll probably be quoting bits of that anyway once I start reading it. And of course, there's always the Useful Posts. peace, connie << Pa.tisambhidaappattiyaa ca paa.tiyekko kamma.t.thaanabhaavanaanuyogo naama natthi. >> #77784 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:39 pm Subject: Re: An Odd Occurrence Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Serie... sarahprocter... Hi Howard & Tep, --- upasaka@... wrote: >The parenthesized url is indeed present after my > name in > the "old mail" folder which holds copies of mail I've received and > read, but > it is entirely absent in the "sent mail" folder which holds copies of > emails > I've sent out! That strikes me as odd as can be! ;-) It would seem that > the > url was somehow inserted during the process of being broadcast out to > the list > members by Yahoo. The workings of the internet may be more mysterious > and > obscure than anatta! LOLOL! .... S: Yes, interesting - the first time I've come across this. I just checked in my yahoo in-box and also in my g-mail account. Indeed, the url in parantheses is there at the end of your message in both accounts. Perhaps yahoo has a way of making sure attributions and urls are given! Personally, I think this is rather helpful of them:-). Metta, Sarah ====== #77785 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Response to DC Part 1. .. Cognitive Series .. dcwijeratna Dear Elaine, Even before I start, a request for pardon. If you by any chance, think my question at the end of this e-m impertinent, or not proper, please forgive me ("thousand apologies"). Curiosity got the better of me. I remember that in one of your e-ms you mentioned that you learnt Dhamma when you were a kid, in the simple traditional way. But your e-m's, here and there, made me that your understanding of Dhamma was more than that. That you have studied Dhamma from a much deeper perspective. After reading the following, it would not be far from the truth to say that I am convinced. [I actually took this off from a post of KenH] "E: > I can read a sentence and say that I understand it, kinda like reading - "Light exhibits the characteristics of wave/particle duality". I think I understand that sentence but to really, really understand it, I have to go to a Physics lab and do some experiments and write out the formulas, then I will be convinced that it has properties of waves and particles. When I verify it with my own eyes, I will know that it exhibits these 2 properties, depending on the type of experimental methods used to measure it. So, KenH, when you say single citta, do you take it, based on belief and hearsay? ------------ --------- --------- ---- This to my mind, could not have been written by somebody without a very good knowledge of physics; but more importantly, philosophy of science and nature of scientific knowledge and knowledge in general. Words like: belief, hearsay, allusion to experimental methods, verify, convinced, is the basis of my statement above. That piece of text is carefully crafted by a very knowledgeable person. Now to my impertinent question: Could you please tell me about your educational background? The secular educational background. I ask this question not out of mere curiosity. I have attempted to discuss some issues, which I think are important to the understanding of the Dhamma, with a number of DSG members. But they have all ended up in dead-ends? With lots of mettaa D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #77786 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A bit of a logical argument sarahprocter... Hi Phil, --- Phil wrote: > I found that when I was very keen on the teachings of Acharn Sujin > that I got a lot of emotional comfort from reflecting on anatta, on > penetrative panna, that sort of thing. I'm not saying all her > students do, but I did, and I came to see that was a bit odd. Now I > get emotional comfort from the kind of suttas I referred to in my > post - that seems more in line with the way the Buddha taught to > sensually addicted householders like me! .... S: I wonder whether this 'emotional comfort' you look for and find is detachment or more attachment? You also mentioned sometime back something along the lines of looking for and finding a 'change of character'. Again, this may reflect a difference in aim and purpose. Good to read your discussions....no need to reply to this one:). Metta, Sarah =========== #77787 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Some basic Sutta&Abhidhamma questions. sarahprocter... Hi Ken O & all, --- Ken O wrote: >Abhidhamma is a text > where learners embark on a path to understand the different aspects > of dhamma, its relations, its conditions, its main purpose is to help > us understand about anicca, dukkha and anatta. Not everyone likes it > because it could be a very dry subject. It is a great help in my > personal opinion in the understanding of the sutta. I am faith in > Abhidhamma and after learning it, I have very little confusion over > the sutta meanings .... S: Yes, I think that the more understanding there is about (paramattha) dhammas, the less confusion there is about sutta meanings. For example, there is no confusion or conflict between the teaching of anatta and kamma because there is no question about any *person* doing kamma or receiving results. There are only cittas, cetasikas and rupas rolling on. Metta, Sarah =========== #77788 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:17 pm Subject: Leaving for Burma! reverendagga... Hi everybody! i'm leaving for Burma tomorrow,and i just wanted to say that it's been fun asking a few "troublesome question's". There is certainly a difference between teachig something "no self" as a conventional metaphysical assertation and as a practical stratagy to help one over come attachment's to conventional construct's and acheve liberation.Don't beleave me?Try answering those "troublesome" question's i recently posted! In perticular the one concerning GANDHABBA. Last i looked this was a discussion group looking to study the teaching's of THERAVADA buddhism.There is the doctrine of Theravada Buddhism called the TATHAGATAGARBHA.This is the unconditioned self that is with in all being's and which is fundamentally eternal. It is also taught that the rejection of this doctrine (as" ultimate dhamma") is wrong and associated with negitive kammic consequences. Read the Pali Canon M.N.sutta#36. i'm not sure when i will be able to post again. i'll do my best to stay in touch! Until then have fun subscribing to the notion of the " self" that's not really a self because it's the "no self " "self"! May the Buddha's, Deva and Angel's Bless you all! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #77789 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Leaving for Burma! sarahprocter... Dear Ven Aggacitto & all, --- reverendaggacitto wrote: > Hi everybody! > i'm leaving for Burma tomorrow,and i just wanted to say that it's been > fun > asking a few "troublesome question's". ... S: Please be very careful* and return safely to ask more "troublesome questions" We appreciate them! ... >...There is the doctrine of Theravada Buddhism > called the TATHAGATAGARBHA.This is the unconditioned self that is > with in all being's and which is fundamentally eternal. > It is also taught that the rejection of this doctrine (as" ultimate > dhamma") > is wrong and associated with negitive kammic consequences. ... S: There is no conditioned or unconditioned self, no beings, nothing eternal. The acceptance of such a doctrine would ensure perpetual continuation in samsara. See Nyantiloka's dictionary under 'Tathaagata': "To the often asked questions, whether the Tathaagata still exists after death, or not, it is said (e.g. S. XXII, 85, 86) that, in the highest sense (paramattha, q.v.) the Tathaagata cannot, even at lifetime, be discovered, how much less after death, and that neither the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.) are to be regarded as the Tathaagata, nor can the Tathaagata be found outside these corporeal and mental phenomena. The meaning intended here is that there exist only these ever-changing corporeal and mental phenomena, arising and vanishing from moment to moment, but no separate entity, no personality. When the commentaries in this connection explain Tathaagata by 'living being' (satta), they mean to say that here the questioners are using the merely conventional expression, Tathaagata, in the sense of a really existing entity." ***** Metta, Sarah * We had some brief discussion in India about the importance of the Vinaya and how the recent political activities by certain bhikkhus in Burma (no matter the provocation) would have serious negative kammic consequences. Also, whilst we were recently in Jetavana, some friends were asked by some Indian bhikkhus for funds. They said they were very hungry. A.Sujin's response to those who were inclined to offer funds to the bhikkhus was to ask which is worse: for them to starve or to send them straight to hell! =============== #77790 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:52 pm Subject: Intention is the Kamma! bhikkhu0 Friends: The Intention behind the Action is the resulting Kamma! The Blessed Buddha once said: It is the intention behind the action, that I call kamma. Having wanted, wished, & willed, one acts by body, speech, and mind. There are actions (kamma) which cause later effects to ripen in hell! There are actions which cause later effects to ripen when an animal! There is kamma which cause later effects to ripen as a hungry ghost! There are actions which cause later effects to ripen as human being! There is kamma which cause later effects to ripen in divine states! The result of actions (vipÄ?ka) is of three kinds: Ripening here & now in the present life, in the next life, or in future lives. AN 6:63 Ownership & inheritance of the delayed results of action: All beings are the owners of their actions, inheritor of their deeds! They are literally created by & born of their behaviour, they are tied to their acts, & their undertakings determines their future destiny... Whatever they do, good as bad, the delayed results of that action, will be the only theirs... AN 10:206 Wherever beings spring into existence, there their actions will ripen! Wherever the effects of their past actions matures, there, they will earn the fruits of those deeds, be it in this life, or in the next life, or in any other remote future life. AN 3:33 Neither high up in the air or free space, nor deep down in the oceans, Nor hidden inside any distant remote & secret mountain cleft or cave Nowhere... is a place or location found in any universe, where one can escape the inevitable later results of wrong, bad, & evil behaviour... Dhammapada 127 Comments: Cause & Effect. Everything arises from a reason or cause! Doing Good gets Good! The result of advantageous action is pleasure! Doing Bad begets Evil! The result of disadvantageous action is pain! Suffering now is often the delayed result of own past bad behaviour! Enjoying now is often the delayed result of own past good behaviour! .... Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * .... #77791 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Bodh Gaya sarahprocter... Hi Elaine, I've been enjoying your writings and thanks for your interest in my e-cards from India. --- Sobhana wrote: > Hi Sarah, > You are very fortunate to go for a pilgrimage to Buddhist holy places. > Thanks for sharing, it brought joy to my heart, reading about Bodhgaya > and Vulture peak from your e-mail. :-)) .... S: These are both wonderful places to visit if you have the chance. Vulture's Peak is always one of my favourite spots. ..... > > -------------------------- > > Sarah: The Chief monk (who also presides at the Thai temple in > Sarnath), joined us and showed a lot of interest. Some of his questions > and comments about practice, meditation and the Satipatthana Sutta were > raised. He likes to go to the top of Vulture's Peak in the early evening > when it's quiet, to meditate without being disturbed. Is this calm or > attachment? > > > E: Do you know whether the chief monk is practicing Samatha or Vipassana > meditation at the Vulture’s Peak? You said some Satipatthana Sutta > questions were raised, so I presume that he is practicing Vipassana. .... S: Please clarify what you mean by 'practicing Samatha' and 'Practicing Vipassana'. ..... > A person needs some calmness, in order to observe the body, > feelings, mind and mental qualities during Vipassana meditation. If the > chief monk is practicing Vipassana correctly - when calmness arises, he > knows it as calmness; when attachment arises, he knows that it as > attachment. .... S: I think we have a different understanding of what 'calmness' is and what 'vipassana' is. As I understand the meaning of vipassana, no one can practice it. It refers to the development of insights through satipatthana. .... > So, when you ask, “is this calm or attachment”, it will depend on > whether he is meditating the correct way or not. ... S: I think it depends on whether the cittas are kusala (wholesome) or akusala (unwholesome). When we look for a quiet place away from disturbances, usually it's with attachment masquerading as calm. .... <...> > I think the important point that I want to make is, when we see a person > meditating, it is difficult to make a judgement whether he is attached > to calmness, or he is on his way to Nibbana. .... S: Yes, only understanding with awareness can know what the cittas are at any given moment. However, if we have the idea of the practice or meditation as being more favourable at another time, in another place, it suggests attachment to one's self, rather than detachment towards what is conditioned now. .... > So, if you ask "is this calm or attachment", is a not very well put > question, I think... ... S: How about now? If I ask whether there is calm or attachment now, is that appropriate, would you say? Thanks again for your comments which help me to reflect further, Elaine. Metta, Sarah ========== #77792 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What is Motion? sarahprocter... Dear Ven Samahita, I beg to differ on one point which you repeat several times in your good series on rupas: --- Bhikkhu Samahita wrote: > The 4 Primary Elements are: > 1: The Element of Solidity... (pathavÄ«-dhÄ?tu) > 2: The Element of Fluidity... (Ä?po-dhÄ?tu) > 3: The Element of Heat... (tejo-dhÄ?tu) > 4: The Element of Motion... (vÄ?yo-dhÄ?tu) > > What, now then, is the Element of Motion? > The Element of Motion may be one's own internal, or it may be > external... > What is one's own internal Element of Motion? Whatever there is in one's > own person or body of kammically induced motion, movement or mobility, > such as the upward, downward, in & out going motions, movements, & > flows, > in stomach, intestines, blood-&-lymph-vessels, and nerves, > heart-beating, > in- and out-breathing, etc: This is one's own internal Element of > Motion... > Now, whether it be one's own Element of Motion or whether it be the any > external Element of Motion such as storms and tides, they are both > merely > the Element of Motion. One should therefore understand, according to the > utter reality & true Wisdom: This does not belong to me! This I am not! > This is not my self! <...> > Comment: > The 4 Primary Elements are not 'real substances out there', but more > realistically: Experienced qualities or properties appearing 'in > here'... .... S: I understand that these elements arise both internally and externally 'out there' as it says in the quote. Whether one touches one's arm or the computer mouse, mere elements of solidity, temperature and motion are experienced. At such a time, there is no idea of 'internal' or 'external'. Furthermore, these various elements continue to rise and fall regardless of whether they are ever experienced, as in the various parts of the body or the storms and tides referred to. None of these elements are atta as the sutta stresses. Metta, Sarah ======== #77793 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wheel of life sarahprocter... Hi Friend (Ehasas?)* Welcome to DSG! I'm not sure that anyone replied to your good questions , so let me try: --- ehasas500 wrote: > What i can not figure out is that, in the case of non-arhats, how this > chain -- feeling > craving > clinging > becoming -- is explained in > terms of cetasikas. Feeling is vedana cetasika. Craving is probably > lobha cetasika [but what happens when feeling is an unpleasant or > neutral one]. And finally what namas does abhidhamma indicate to be > clinging and becoming? Any help will be highly appreciated. .... S: As you say, feeling is vedana cetasika, craving and clinging are lobha cetasika. Lobha is of different strengths. Now there is likely to be lobha, but not of the degree that leads to akusala kamma patha. Becoming (bhava) refers to cetana (kamma) as in akusala kamma patha which conditions vipaka (vipaka cittas and cetasikas) in future. When the feeling is unpleasant, it conditions dosa (aversion). Without lobha for pleasant feelings, there is no dosa for unpleasant feelings, so in this sense it is also conditioned by lobha. When a feeling is neutral, there can still be lobha. Some lobha arises with pleasant feeling and some with neutral feeling. It can be very subtle, like now when we look at the wall or computer keys. I hope this helps. Please ask anything further....lots here to explore. *Grateful if you'd sign off with your name so that we know how to address you. May I ask where you live too? Metta, Sarah ========= #77794 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Bodh Gaya sarahprocter... Hi Dieter, --- Dieter Möller wrote: > Hi Sarah and Jon, > > I enjoyed reading about your trip ..thanks a lot for sharing ! ... S: Thank you too. I've also been glad to read your discussions with Howard and others. .... > P.S. : "when it's quiet, to meditate without being disturbed. Is this > calm or attachment?" > I guess it is that kind of attachment which cares to overcome the 5 > hindrances for the benefit of insight.. ;-) ... S: ;-) Not sure about this. Attachment is attachment and I think the overcoming of the 5 hindrances comes about with detachment. Metta, Sarah ======= #77795 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] dr han tun, sarah and nina sarahprocter... Dear Manish (& Han), --- vipassana_infonet wrote: > dear dhamma brothers and sisters, > > i would like to express my heartfelt thanks and metta to respected dr > han tun and respected upasikas sarah and nina. they have been very > kind to teach me dhamma. nina and sarah wrote long answers to my > questions. ... S: We haven't finished! I gave Nina copies of your further comments and I know she is intending to write more to you on these when she returns, so please don't run away! She particularly enjoyed your introduction. I know there is a message to me as well which I'll come to and discuss further. Please be patient with us. ... > I am deeply grateful to respected elder dr han tun for teaching the > golden dhamma of the bhagava and for so much time and attention. > > dear dhamma sisters - nina and sarah, dr han tun has answered ALL my > questions in deep detail and I am still processing his replies. that > may be enough for now. I may get back to you, with just a few > questions - if the need arises. many many thanks. .... S: I remember he replied in detail to a couple of the questions, but I don't remember seeing his replies to ALL your questions. Would one of you kindly share these, perhaps one a day? If you prefer, you could wait til Nina returns to do this. In this way, everyone benefits as Nina mentioned before, I think:-). Thanks again for the excellent questions. Please add any more anytime (maybe one or two at a time is easier:-)). Metta, Sarah =========== #77796 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Listening/learning of the dhammas sarahprocter... Hi Tep, --- Tep Sastri wrote: > The Path of Discrimination, a major discourse of the great Arahant > Sariputta, is one of the most difficult books I have ever studied. > And I cannot think of any single book that is more important, except > the Suttanta-Pitaka. > > Today I was pondering on the group of total 73 knowledges in the > Treatise I (On Knowledge) when a thought came to me that only the > first seven knowledges(~naana) were good enough for anyone to become > at least Sotapanna. > > The first seven ~naanas are the following. > > 1. Suttamaya~naana = knowledge that results from hearing/learning the > dhammas first hand. > 2. Silamaya~naana = knowledge of sense restraint (siila, virtue) > after hearing or learning of the Teachings. > 3. Bhavanamaya~naana = knowledge of concentrating after restraining. > 4. Dhammathiti~naana = knowledge of the causal relationship of the > dhammas. > 5. Sammasana~naana = knowledge consisting in comprehension of past, > future and present dhammas. > 6. Udayabbaya nupassana~naana = knowledge of contemplation of rise- > and-fall of presently-arisen dhammas. > 7. Vipassana~nana = knowledge of insight from contemplating > dissolution, after reflecting on an object by udayabbaya > nupassana~naana. .... S: I think these are definitions of different kinds of panna. I'm a little puzzled by some of the English translations. For example, vipassana~nana refers to all the insights necessary to be attained in order to become enlightened. Can you give me the page no.? ..... > > Indeed, even the very first ~naana alone is sufficient to turn any > person into a Sotapanna. Do you think this first ~naana is the same > as intellectual understanding through listening to or book learning > about the dhammas? .... S: I don't think that sutamaya~naana (or panna) without cittamaya~naana and bhavanamaya~naana can ever lead to enlightenment. There has to be the wise reflection, consideration and direct understanding of the dhammas that we have heard and read about. Let me know if I'm missing something here. Metta, Sarah ========= #77797 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:25 am Subject: RE: [dsg] Leaving for Texas sarahprocter... Hi Chuck, --- Charles Thompson wrote: > I am finally "catching up" on my e-mail here in Bangkok. Never got to > the > foundation as I could not speak to someone in English. Dr. > Tun > was helpful in giving me the website; but, refused my invitation to > accompany my planned visit to the foundation. Perhaps, I will just drop > in > next time - unannounced!! Is that acceptable??? .... S: There's no point visiting the foundation unannounced if no one will be there!! I suggest next time that you contact Sukin off-list as he visits regularly. Usually, there is a discussion on Saturday afternoons in English. Sometimes, if there are visitors, there's an extra session. Sometimes, no session, if A.Sujin is travelling. Hope to meet you there sometime! Metta, Sarah =========== #77798 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A bit of a logical argument - for Herman egberdina Hi Elaine and Tep, On 29/10/2007, Elaine wrote: > > > Elaine: I know exactly what you mean. If there is non-self, then who creates kamma? If there is non-self, then who goes to Nibbana? Right? > Thank you both very much for your further comments. They were much appreciated. Herman #77799 From: "tom" Date: Tue Oct 30, 2007 1:03 am Subject: how to live? zorroelbueno `Do you live at all?' is my question. It has been proved that the thing that lives from birth till death is the same, changeless `I'-principle. The `I' is the centre of life. That alone lives. The `how' and the `why' of life are sought in the manifestations outside. When you turn to the manifestation, you lose sight of your centre and cease to live really. So the best way, for the best living, is to cling on to the living alone, forgetting the `how' and the `why' of it completely. atmananda