#80000 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 10, 2007 11:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: freedom. was: Anatta as a strategy nilovg Dear Alex, the Patthana teaches that conditioning factors that condition other dhammas can be conascent, prenascent and postnascent. Nina. Op 10-dec-2007, om 16:05 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > What happens now is not only dependent on past causes but it ALSO > depends on present input (ie: does feeling leads to craving or not) . #80001 From: han tun Date: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] suttas.To Dieter, Nina, Sarah hantun1 Dear Dieter, Nina, (and PS for Sarah), I read the discussions between Dieter and Nina on SN 2.6 Kaamada Sutta, and I became interested. I thank Dieter for bringing up this sutta, and I thank Nina for her explanations. But unfortunately, the Pali words are unreadable. So I looked up the books, and print below the sutta as translated by Andrew Olendzki, and I supplement it with the Pali words and two foot-notes by Bhikkhu Bodhi. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn02/sn02.006.olen.html -------------------- Kaamada:] So hard it is to do, Lord, it's so very hard to do! [1] Dukkaram bhagavaa, sudukkaram bhagavaati. -------------------- [Buddha:] But still they do what's hard to do, who steady themselves with virtue. For one pursuing homelessness, content arrives, and with it joy. Dukkaram vaapi karonti, sekhaa siilasamaahitaa. Thitattaa anagaariyupetassa, tutthi hoti sukhaavahaati. -------------------- [Kaamada:] So hard it is to get, Lord, this content of which you speak! Dullabhaa bhagavaa, yadidam tutthiiti. -------------------- [Buddha:] But still they get what's hard to get, who delight in a tranquil mind. The mind of those, both day and night, delights in its development. Dullabham vaapi labhanti, citta vuupasame rataa. Yesam divaa ca ratto ca, bhaavanaaya rato manoti. -------------------- [Kaamada:] So hard it is to tame, Lord, this mind of which you speak! Dussamaadaham bhagavaa, yadidam cittanti. -------------------- [Buddha:] But still they tame what's hard to tame, Who delight in senses at peace. Cutting through mortality's net, The nobles, Kamada, proceed. Dussamaadahaü vaapi samaadahanti, indriyuupasame rataa. Te chetvaa maccuno jaalam, ariyaa gacchanti kaamadaati. -------------------- [Kaamada:] So hard it is to go, Lord, on this path that gets so rough! [2] Duggamo bhagavaa, visamo maggoti. -------------------- [Buddha:] Still nobles, Kamada, proceed On paths both rough and hard to take. Those who are less than noble fall On their heads when the path gets rough. But for nobles the path is smooth - For nobles smooth out what is rough! Duggame visame vaapi. ariyaa gacchanti kaamada. Anariyaa visame magge, papatanti avamsiraa. Ariyaanam samo maggo, ariyaa hi visame samaati. -------------------- Bhikkhu Bodhi’s Notes: [1] Spk: This young deva, it is said, had been a meditator in a previous life, but he had thick defilements and thus could suppress them only with much effort. Though he did the work of an ascetic, because his supporting conditions were weak he passed away and took rebirth in the deva world without having reached the plane of the noble ones. He came to the Blessed One’s presence to proclaim the difficulty of the ascetic life. [2] Spk: Although the noble path is neither impassable nor uneven (duggamo visamo), this is said because there are many impediments in the preliminary portion of the path. -------------------- Andrew Olendzki’s Note: This plaintive cry of the deva Kamada, concerning the difficulty of Buddhist practice, will resonate with almost anyone who has embarked on the temporary homelessness of a retreat at IMS or elsewhere. The steady reply of the Buddha here admonishes Kamada to overcome his weaknesses and find the nobility within himself to tread the noble path. The tone of this poem is so typical of the approach the Buddha displays throughout the Pali texts — compassionate yet firm, reasoned but profoundly inspiring. The progression is also characteristic — from virtue to joy, tranquillity to diligent development, and finally cutting through the snares of death and rebirth and proceeding to undying nibbana. Kamada is reminded that others have done, gotten and tamed what he is having such difficulty doing, getting and taming. Others have taken the hard path to the goal, and all he lacks is the resolve, the hero's determination, to forge ahead despite the obstacles. The lyrical almost sing-song quality of the verse has been hopefully retained by translating it in something like its original meter of eight syllables per line. -------------------- Respectfully, Han P.S. for Sarah. You will be happy to read the Note [1] by Bhikkhu Bodhi: “Though he did the work of an ascetic, because his supporting conditions were weak he passed away and took rebirth in the deva world without having reached the plane of the noble ones.” Yes, the “conditions” are very important indeed! Isn’t it? #80002 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views dcwijeratna Hi Howard, Re. SN 4.12, I just want to say that I fully support your comments. May be I would go further. There are number of other suttas in the SN dealing with the same subject more or less. Actually this is related to the process of acquiring "sammaa di.t.thi." Or the right view. The basis of all this is that the Buddha's advice is to give up all views, opinions, etc. based on belief or faith. Then only one can acquire sammaadi.t.thi (mundane). The process is clearly explained in the Kaalaama sutta. It is also part of the rejectction of all metaphysical views by the Buddha. These suttas are at the heart, the very core of Buddhist practice. And is, in a different manner of speaking, is the beginning of the search for 'knowledge'. As long as you hold onto a view, no chance of ever becoming a 'knowledge-seeker' or a true Buddhist. Again 'search for knowledge is not the goal of Buddhism-the goal of Buddhism is ending of dukkha. For that you require knowledge. If you accept even the statments of the Buddha that is a view. That is why people are arguing about Mahaayaana, Theravaada, ataa, anatta, Dhamma Abhidhamma. Actually people who talk of Abhidhamma are just clingers-to-views. You may recollect that I once mentioned theravaada abhidhamma as theist. Actually, I use sometimes the word theist to mean the "Unkonwn", the "Sacred," or "God". God I used not just to mean the God of Christianity bu that of all other religions. The singular characteristic of all this is belief of faith. You were surprised when I mentioned that Abhidhamma or Theravaada as thiestic. Actually I should have said Abhidhammikas or Theravaadin are theist, because they only have beliefs, no knowledge of the subject they are talking about. With mettaa DC D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #80003 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Mon Dec 10, 2007 6:36 pm Subject: Signing on ... glenjohnann Hello all I have been looking at the posts for some time now (lurking in the background, I think you call it!) and on a recent trip to Bangkok Sukin kindly got me signed on to the site. So, I am writing to introduce myself. I was very fortunate some thirty plus years ago to spend several years in Thailand as a Canadian volunteer and to meet a number of people interested in the Dhamma. One thing led to another and I started going to discussions with Achan Sujin - with Jonothan, Tom W., and others who appear on the site from time to time. I later met Nina on a trip to India with Achan Sujin, and again in the Hague several years later with Sarah. After sporadic contact with these friends over the years I returned to Thailand in January 2007 for discussions at the time of Achan Sujin's birthday and then again in October for the most recent trip to India. It is good to be back to Dhamma discussion. I look forward to more and maybe to jumping in from time to time. Ann Marshall Vancouver, Canada #80004 From: Alupotha hemaka Date: Mon Dec 10, 2007 8:49 pm Subject: Knowledge and wisdom alupothahemaka Wisdom is not knowledge.We do gain knowledge after listening,reading and observing many things in this world but it is not wisdom in the real sense.Wisdom only appears in the mind when mental hindrances,obstructions and other impurities are not active in the mind.There are many learned people all over the world who no doubt have wonderful knowledge but unfortunately some of them lack proper wisdom. Many people are intelligent but their behaviour however is not reasonable,as some are hot tempered,egoistic,emotional,jealous,greedy and temperamental.On the other hand,there are others who are very kind and although they have patience tolerance and many other good qualities,their wisdom is very poor as they can be easily misled by others.If we develop our generosity without proper understanding,we could get into trouble as certain people can take undue advantage of us.Understanding and good qualities must therefore go together. ''If the causes we create arise from wisdom, so then will the results. If the causes we create arise from ignorance, so then will the result..!.'' #80005 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Dec 10, 2007 10:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] suttas.To Dieter, Nina, Sarah nilovg Dear Han (and Dietr), thank you very much. I realised that I had forgotten to use the Velthuys spelling for the Pali in the Email. I also read B.B.'s translation, but had no time to present it. Nina. Op 11-dec-2007, om 1:49 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I thank Nina for her explanations. > But unfortunately, the Pali words are unreadable. #80006 From: "R. K. Wijayaratne" Date: Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:27 pm Subject: Understanding * rwijayaratne Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammâ Sambuddhassa! <...> Taken from AccessToInsight.org1 Translated from Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu SUMMARY: The Lord Buddha explains that we have wandered in the never-ending round of birth and death (samsâra) for so long because we have not understood and penetrated a) noble virtue (âriya-sîla),3 b) noble concentration (âriya-samâdhi),3 c) noble wisdom (âriya-paññâ)3 (regarding the realities of life, viz. Four Noble Truths)4 and d) noble awakening (âriya-vimutti - essentially Nibbâna). But when noble virtue (âriya-sîla),3 noble concentration (âriya-samâdhi),3 noble wisdom (âriya-paññâ)3 and noble awakening (âriya-vimutti) are understood and penetrated, the craving (and desire) for futher becoming (essentially further re-birth in samsâra) is put aside and ended (along with all forms of samsaric suffering - dukkha5). UNDERSTANDING Anguttara Nikâya 4.1 - Anubuddha Sutta2 I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Vajjians at Bhanda Village. There he addressed the monks, "Monks!" "Yes, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said: "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating four things that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I. Which four? "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble virtue (âriya-sîla)3 that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I. "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble concentration (âriya-samâdhi)3 that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I. "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble discernment (âriya-paññâ - noble wisdom regarding the realities of life, viz. Four Noble Truths4)3 that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I. "It's because of not understanding and not penetrating noble release (âriya-vimutti - awakening/deliverence - essentially Nibbâna) that we have wandered & transmigrated on such a long, long time, you & I.6 "But when noble virtue is understood & penetrated, when noble concentration... noble discernment... noble release is understood & penetrated, then craving for becoming is destroyed, the guide to becoming (craving & attachment) is ended, there is now no further becoming." That is what the Blessed One said. When the One Well-gone had said that, he — the Teacher — said further: Unexcelled virtue, concentration, discernment, & release: have been understood by Gotama of glorious stature. Having known them directly, he taught the Dhamma to the monks — the Awakened One the Teacher who has put an end to suffering & stress, the One with vision totally unbound. Notes 1. More suttas from AcessToInsight.org can be found here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sutta.html 2. This sutta can be found in full here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.001.than.html 3. Sîla, samâdhi and paññâ refer to the Noble Eightfold Path, see http://www.vihara.org.au/go?to=noblepath 4. Refer to the Four Noble Truths, see http://www.vihara.org.au/go?to=fourtruths 5. Refer to One Hour of Unsatisfactoriness, see http://www.vihara.org.au/go?to=onehour 6. Refer to Make Haste, see http://www.vihara.org.au/go?to=urgency <...> #80007 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:15 am Subject: 7 Links to 7 Wings! bhikkhu0 Friends: The Blessed Buddha once explained: And how, friends, when the Four Foundations of Awareness have been developed, when they have been made much of, do they bring to fulfilment the Seven Links to Enlightenment, the Seven Wings to Awakening ? At the time, friends, when a friend is living in contemplating the Body as a mere body, just a disgusting form, enthusiastic, clearly conscious of it, continually Aware of it, so as to control all desire and aversion for bodies and forms in the world: At that time undisrupted Awareness is aroused in this friend .... At the time, friends, when undisrupted Awareness is aroused in such friend: At that time the Link in Awakening that is Awareness is stirred up in this friend; At that time such friend develops the Link in Awakening that is Awareness ; At that time the link in awakening that is Awareness comes to fulfilment of development in this friend. Living thus Aware, awake, mindfull such curious & interested friend examines, inquires into, bring this thing forward for Investigation , by means of insight. At the time, friends, when such a friend, living thus aware, mindfull examines, inquires into, bring this thing forward for Investigation , by means of insight: At that time the Link in Awakening that is Investigation is stirred up in such friend; At that time the friend develops the Link in Awakening that is Investigation ; At that time the link in awakening that is Investigation into things comes to fulfilment of development in this friend. <...> Friendship is the Greatest :-) Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka * .... #80008 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:06 am Subject: Hi D.C. !/ re:A reminder to us clingers of views... reverendagga... Hi D.C.! Thank you SO mutch for that posting! i should read YOUR postings even more , now that i know that YOU have the TRUE knowledge and NOT just a "belief" like those Abhiddhamika and Theravadin! A belief and experiencial knowledge are NOT exclusive terms. May the Buddhas , Deva and Angels bless ALL of you! bhikkhu aggacitto/aka reverend aggacitto #80009 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views kenhowardau Hi DC (and Howard), Just a brief interruption if I may: -------- DC: > I just want to say that I fully support your comments. May be I would go further. There are number of other suttas in the SN dealing with the same subject more or less. Actually this is related to the process of acquiring "sammaa di.t.thi." Or the right view. The basis of all this is that the Buddha's advice is to give up all views, opinions, etc. based on belief or faith. -------- You must be mistaken. If the Buddha had given that advice then that advice, itself, would have to be given up, wouldn't it? So what should the aspiring disciple do? Should he take the advice and accordingly give it up, or give up the the advice and accordingly accept it? (!) No, this doesn't make sense! ---------------------------------- DC: > Then only one can acquire sammaadi.t.thi (mundane). The process is clearly explained in the Kaalaama sutta. It is also part of the rejectction of all metaphysical views by the Buddha. ---------------------------------- By "metaphysical views" I think you are referring to the Abhidhamma, which you have said you rejected. What about the four noble truths? Does dukkha really exist? Do the cause, the cessation and the path really exist? Or are they just metaphysical views to be rejected? ---------------------- DC: > These suttas are at the heart, the very core of Buddhist practice. And is, in a different manner of speaking, is the beginning of the search for 'knowledge'. As long as you hold onto a view, no chance of ever becoming a 'knowledge-seeker' or a true Buddhist. Again 'search for knowledge is not the goal of Buddhism-the goal of Buddhism is ending of dukkha. For that you require knowledge. If you accept even the statments of the Buddha that is a view. That is why people are arguing about Mahaayaana, Theravaada, ataa, anatta, Dhamma Abhidhamma. Actually people who talk of Abhidhamma are just clingers-to-views. ---------------------- DC, this theory of yours is totally unworkable. I urge you reject it and study the Dhamma that is found in the ancient texts. Ken H > Abhidhamma are just clingers-to-views. You may recollect that I once mentioned theravaada abhidhamma as theist. Actually, I use sometimes the word theist to mean the "Unkonwn", the "Sacred," or "God". God I used not just to mean the God of Christianity bu that of all other religions. The singular characteristic of all this is belief of faith. You were surprised when I mentioned that Abhidhamma or Theravaada as thiestic. Actually I should have said Abhidhammikas or Theravaadin are theist, because they only have beliefs, no knowledge of the subject they are talking about. > > With mettaa > > DC > > #80010 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:36 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 216, 217 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 216, 217. Intro: As we read: naama/ruupa or naama and ruupa condition the bases, the aayatanas which are the sense-bases and the mind-base, that is, citta. In the preceding sections, naama was taken separately as a condition for the bases, and then ruupa was taken separately as a condition for the bases. In the following sections it is explained that the ruupa of life- faculty and the ruupa which is nutrition are conditions for the sense- bases. The verse (216) states this in short and then a further explanation follows. The material life faculty, jiivitindriya ruupa, is a ruupa that arises in each group of ruupas produced by kamma. This ruupa sustains the life of the other ruupas in that group. It does not arise in dead matter, it arises only in the body. As to nutritive essence,(ojaa), this is present in each group of ruupas, it is one of the eight inseparable ruupas. Nutritive essence present in the groups of rúpas of the body cannot produce new rúpas without the support of nutritive essence which is in food, external nutritive essence. When food has been swallowed and nutritive essence has suffused the body, nutrition can produce new rúpas and it supports and sustains the ruupas of the body. Rúpas produced by nutrition arise only in the body of living beings. Nutrition is one of the four factors that produce ruupas of the body, the others being kamma, citta and temperature. ---------- Text Vis. 216: Life and in lifetime food as well, Conditions five in threefold way; These five, the sixth in sixfold way; Basis, the sixth in fivefold way. 217. But in rebirth-linking and in the course of an existence the material life [faculty] is a condition in three ways, as presence, non-disappearance, and faculty conditions, for these five beginning with the eye. ------- N: The five sense-bases are produced by kamma, and thus, life-faculty is conascent with each of the groups of ruupas comprising these sense- bases. Life- faculty, jivitindriya, is a controlling faculty, it is a "leader". In the case of indriya-paccaya, faculty-condition, the conditioning dhamma (paccaya dhamma) has leadership, great control, over the conditioned dhammas (paccayupanna dhammas). Indriyas are “leaders” each in their own field. The ruupa that is life-faculty does not control the dhammas it arises together with at the moment of its arising, but after that moment, at the “static phase”. At its arising moment rúpa is too weak to condition other realities. During the moments of its presence, before it falls away, rúpa-jívitindriya conditions the sense-bases it has arisen together with by way of faculty-condition. It also conditions them by way of presence and non-disappearance, since it is still present to them when it has arisen. --------- Text Vis.: Nutriment too is a condition in three ways, as presence, non-disappearance, and nutriment conditions, and that is so in the course of an existence, not in rebirth-linking, and applies when the bodies of beings subsisting on nutriment are suffused with the nutriment. --------- N: At the moment of rebirth nutriment does not produce ruupas. In the case of human birth, only after the mother has taken food and this has been suffused in the body nutrition can produce ruupas in the body of the newborn being in the womb. ---------- Text Vis.: In the course of an existence, not in rebirth-linking, those five bases beginning with the eye are conditions in six ways, as support, prenascence, faculty, dissociation, presence and non-disappearance conditions, for [that part of] the sixth, the mind base, comprising eye-, ear-, tongue-, and body-consciousness. --------- N: The sense-bases condition the vipaakacittas that are the relevant sense-cognitions in six ways. They are prenascent, they cannot be a base for the sense-cognitions at their arising moment, as we have seen. They are faculty-condition, since they are leaders each in their own field. Eyesense, for example, is faculty-condition for seeing, because without eye-sense there could not be seeing. Dissociation is mentioned, since ruupa that conditions naama is dissociated from it, not associated with it. Only citta and cetasikas that condition one another are associated, sampayutta. Presence and non-disappearance are mentioned, since the sense-bases that are prearisen are still present to the sense-cognitions they condition. ----------- Text Vis. : But in the course of an existence, not at rebirth- linking, the materiality of the [heart-] basis is a condition in five ways, as support, prenascence, dissociation, presence, and non- disappearance conditions, for the remaining mind base apart from the five consciousnesses. -------- N: The remaining mind base apart from the five consciousnesses are the cittas other than the sense-cognitions, as the Tiika repeats, and it adds that this condition [the heart-base as a condition for the cittas other than the sense-cognitions] is to be applied in the planes where there are five khandhas and only in the course of life. The five sense-cognitions have as their physical base the relevant sense-bases. Prenascence is mentioned here, since the heart-base must arise just before it conditions citta by being its physical base. Only at the moment of rebirth it arises together with the rebirth-consciousness. ---------- Text Vis.: This is how it should be understood what bases materiality alone is a condition for in rebirth-linking and in the course of an existence, and how it is a condition. ********** Conclusion: The eyebase that is produced by kamma, is dependent on several other conditions, as we have seen. It arises in a group of ruupas which condition it by way of conascence-condition and other conditions that are conascent. After the enumeration of conditions for the sense-bases, also the conditions of life-faculty and nutrition were mentioned. As we read in this section, the ruupa that is life-faculty present in each group produced by kamma conditions the eye-base by way of faculty- condition, indriya-paccaya. Also nutrition conditions the eye-base. We read in “Guide to Conditional Relations” by U Narada: Thus, the sense-bases that are produced by kamma are supported by nutrition, and this is during life. All these details help us to understand that the bases have no owner. The “Expositor” states about the eyesense (308, 309): “And this is visual element [N: eyesense]' refers to emptiness of essence, of entity’.... 'And this is a world,' refers to its transience, perishableness... 'And this is ocean'- because it cannot be filled.” We never have enough of seeing, we cannot be satisfied, that is why eyesense is compared to an ocean. The text states: “ 'And this is an empty village,' refers to its being common to many and to the absence of a possessor.” There is no owner who can exert control over the eyesense. It is empty of essence as we read. ******** Nina. #80011 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Signing on ... nilovg Dear Ann, welcome to the list, that is wonderful to see you here. I am still listening to the tapes made in India and just heard your voice this morning! It will be appreciated if you also write about your personal impressions about the last India trip, if you have time. Peter's last words to Lodewijk were: the whole trip, it all amounted to anatta. Lodewijk appreciated that very much. Warmest regards, Nina. Op 11-dec-2007, om 3:36 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > Sukin kindly got me signed on to the site. So, I am writing to > introduce myself. #80012 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] question from a hermit monk sarahprocter... Hi Dieter & Han, Thank you so much for sharing the kind letter from the bhikkhu and for your assistance as messenger. It's also great news to hear Han has been in touch as well. Pls do share any further correspondence, any Q & A, so we may all benefit. A shame you'll miss him on this visit, Han. At least it gives me a little longer to get back to you, depending on conditions:-). Metta, Sarah --- Dieter Möller wrote: > Hi Han, Nina , Sarah, Jon and others , > > I received following answer from the Venerable: <...> #80013 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 3:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Signing on ... sarahprocter... Dear Ann, Like Nina, we're delighted to see you posting here again. (All, Ann did sign on and begin to post a little several years ago, but then had some medical issues to deal with...). Also, like Nina, I'd love to hear any of your reflections from your recent trip to India and Thailand (and possibly the one earlier in the year too, after such a long break). Anything that has had particular impact this time round? For us, it's been a real joy to have you on the trips with your keen interest and good humour. I'd like to tell others that it was Ann who first introduced me to recordings by A.Sujin and Nina's books, so I always feel a lot of gratitude for this. Look forward to your 'jumping in' as often as you find time to do so. I've also been wondering about the rest of your time in Thailand after the India trip. How did it go and when did you return home? If you've been following recently, you'll have noticed that there's a very strong Canadian contingent posting at the moment. You'll also have seen that my mother (who you know) is now staying with us. I can hear her and Jon chattering away as I type:-). She sends her best wishes to you, Nina, Lodewijk and everyone else. Metta, Sarah --- glenjohnann wrote: > Hello all > > I have been looking at the posts for some time now (lurking in the > background, I think you call it!) and on a recent trip to Bangkok > Sukin kindly got me signed on to the site. So, I am writing to > introduce myself. #80014 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views upasaka_howard Hi, DC - In a message dated 12/10/2007 11:14:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, dcwijeratna@... writes: Hi Howard, Re. SN 4.12, I just want to say that I fully support your comments. May be I would go further. There are number of other suttas in the SN dealing with the same subject more or less. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Somewhat the same subject. The sutta I picked is one of the most neutral, emphasizing not so much holding right or wrong view, but emphasizing not *clinging* to any view, even an opinion that accords with the facts. The main point is for people to not be "smitten with passion for their own views." Of course, when one has finally *seen* the Dhamma, opinion and belief are gone, to be replaced by right view in the sense of right *perspective*. ------------------------------------------------------ Actually this is related to the process of acquiring "sammaa di.t.thi." Or the right view. The basis of all this is that the Buddha's advice is to give up all views, opinions, etc. based on belief or faith. Then only one can acquire sammaadi.t.thi (mundane). The process is clearly explained in the Kaalaama sutta. It is also part of the rejectction of all metaphysical views by the Buddha. These suttas are at the heart, the very core of Buddhist practice. And is, in a different manner of speaking, is the beginning of the search for 'knowledge'. As long as you hold onto a view, no chance of ever becoming a 'knowledge-seeker' or a true Buddhist. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course, we all do hold a variety of views about many things. and that's okay. In fact, without some opinions we couldn't survive. The point, as I see it, is, in any area, to hold our opinions and understandings lightly and tentatively, distinguishing in principle between what we suspect or even seem to know is the case and the quite-possibly-not-yet-known reality. Clinging of all sorts is to be eased, and clinging to belief is one of the toughest sorts of attachment be loosen. (At least I think so! LOLOL!) ------------------------------------------------------- Again 'search for knowledge is not the goal of Buddhism-the goal of Buddhism is ending of dukkha. For that you require knowledge. If you accept even the statments of the Buddha that is a view. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: And it is okay to hold views, but lightly. We do need maps and guides. ------------------------------------------------------ That is why people are arguing about Mahaayaana, Theravaada, ataa, anatta, Dhamma Abhidhamma. Actually people who talk of Abhidhamma are just clingers-to-views. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Not so. Some are, and some are not. Abhidhamma is a map. It isn't the terrain. ----------------------------------------------------- You may recollect that I once mentioned theravaada abhidhamma as theist. Actually, I use sometimes the word theist to mean the "Unkonwn", the "Sacred," or "God". God I used not just to mean the God of Christianity bu that of all other religions. The singular characteristic of all this is belief of faith. You were surprised when I mentioned that Abhidhamma or Theravaada as thiestic. Actually I should have said Abhidhammikas or Theravaadin are theist, because they only have beliefs, no knowledge of the subject they are talking about. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I suppose you mean clinging to a perceived sacredness as many theists do. But true Buddhist confidence/trust (saddha) is born of direct, untainted experience, not of mere belief. Along the way to direct experience and the resultant sadha lies opinion and belief, and that is fine so long as it is recognized as only such. We don't *know* until we know. ------------------------------------------------------- With mettaa DC D. G. D. C. Wijeratna =========================== With metta, Howard #80015 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:31 am Subject: Re: Anatta as a strategy scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "What I was trying to say was that the development of stream of changes follows probabilities rather than certainties. Or in other words, there is some areas of freedom for volition." Scott: 'Probabilities rather than certainties'. I think Volition has its own effect independent of anything one might think. This notion of 'freedom for volition' is rather puzzling. Conditions, complex and interactive, are the only dynamics 'driving' the whole thing - the whole thing being citta, cetasika, ruupa - and, with cessation, Nibbaana. A: "So are you saying that there is no possibility of chosing to do bad or good things? Are you saying that each of us is like a spinning wheel thrown off a hill and will stop on its own without hastening or slowing down the process?" Scott: If you must keep thinking of 'each of us', then yes, from that perspective we are like a spinning wheel thrown off a hill. 'You' can't choose to do anything. Volition arises with each and every citta, functions in its way in each and every moment of consciousness. Volition accumulates. 'You' - that is all the thinking and wishing and hoping and wanting - are epiphenomenal. A: "Sad sad indeed. If 'there is suffering' and no way of making it cease... So pessemistic that it simply couldn't be the Buddha's word..." Scott: Alex, dukkha is also a characteristic of each conditioned dhamma. You are not yet comprehending what these universal characterstics are. The impersonal development of pa~n~naa, over aeons, leads to cessation. What in Dog's name does 'pessimism' have to do with this? What sort of Buddha's word do you prefer - the Disney version? You seem still very much caught up in a view that has some comfortable notion of free will at its core. This isn't so. It all just rolls on and on and on. I fail to see what 'pessimism' has to do with this. I really think you need to reconsider this. Once I didn't know or seem to care about the Dhamma. Then, entirely outside of my control, I experienced a strong desire to learn and to find out and this persists. I didn't do anything for this to suddenly arise. It may appear - could easily seem - that I choose to do the reading, the considering, the discussing, the thinking of Dhamma during the day, the noticing of various dhammas, the sort of beginning awareness that may be condition some day for sati - but I don't 'do' any of it. It is all just arising naturally and according to conditions I can't begin to know in this current state of mine. It is all happening. I am, only and totally metaphorically, just along for the ride. You may not be 'sad' about 'pessimism'. You may be Very Scared at the thought that 'you' are in no way Important when it comes to this flow. This precious 'me' is a total fabrication. Consider this Commentarial clarification (Atthasaalinii, pp. 147-148); there is no one today, no Neo-Commentator, who knows this stuff in any way better than this: "Volition is that which co-ordinates, that is, it binds closely (abhisandahati) to itself states as objects. This is its characteristic; its function is conation. There is no such thing as volition in the four planes of existence without the characteristic of co-ordinating; all volition has it. But the function of conation is only in moral and immoral states..." Scott: The translator chose 'conation' to describe the function of volition. This can be variously defined but seems to refer to that which impels to effort of any kind or the tendency to act. "...But volition is exceedingly energetic. It makes double effort, a double exertion...it has directing as manifestation. It arises directing associated states, like the chief disciple, the chief carpenter, etc., who fulfill their own and others duties...when volition starts work on its object, it sets associated states to do each its own work. For when it puts forth energy, they also put forth energy. Hence, the statement that it accomplishes its own and other's work, like the chief pupil or the head carpenter. It is also evident that it arises by causing associated states to be energetic in such things as recollecting an urgent work, and so forth." Scott: I think this shows there is no need for thought of self or free will. Cetanaa cetasika - volition - has all of the above as 'inherent properties'. And these are in effect at each absolutely fleeting moment and from moment to moment such that, far removed from the action (ha ha) we think we choose to do something. Sincerely, Scott. #80016 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:51 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 6 Clinging to Self The Buddha taught that there is no self and therefore it was very appropriate that in all the holy sites Acharn Sujin reminded us of our clinging to a self. She said: "We say that there is no self, but do we understand by insight knowledge realities as nåma dhamma and as rúpa dhamma? Nobody can change their characteristics, they have no owner. We have to listen in order to understand their characteristics and if there is gradually more understanding, sati will arise. It is the task of sati to be aware, not our task." We cling to ourselves, to our actions, speech and thoughts, but we do not notice this. When we listen to the Dhamma or read a sutta, is there not an idea of self who is doing this? The test is always at this moment. Only paññå can eliminate clinging to the idea of self and all kinds of lobha, "we" cannot do this. There are different ways of thinking of ourselves. We may think of ourselves with wrong view, ditthi, or just with clinging that is unaccompanied by wrong view, or with conceit, måna. There are eight types of citta rooted in lobha, lobha-múla-cittas, four of which are accompanied by wrong view and four without wrong view. Conceit can accompany lobha-múla-citta that is without wrong view, but it does not arise all the time with these types of lobha-múla-citta [1]. Wrong view is eradicated at the attainment of the first stage of enlightenment, the stage of the streamwinner, sotåpanna. However, he can still think of himself with attachment, or with conceit. We have accumulated these three ways of clinging to self for aeons. Attachment to sense objects, kåmaråga (which is lobha cetasika), wrong view, ditthi, and conceit, måna, are latent tendencies, anusayas, that are very persistent. Latent tendencies are subtle defilements that lie dormant in the citta and do not arise with the citta, but they condition the arising of akusala dhammas time and again. Acharn Sujin referred to a Sutta about lobha in the "Kindred Sayings" , the "Resident Pupil" (IV, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, Ch 5, § 150), where lobha is compared to a resident pupil, a companion one lives with, and to a teacher, who tells someone what to do. Lobha is our life-long companion, it follows us everywhere. Lobha can also be compared to a teacher, who, as Acharn Sujin said, suggests going here or there, and who is followed by citta who obeys the teacher. There is seeing and then clinging, there is hearing and then clinging, there is thinking and then clinging. She said that we know the coarse lobha, but not the more subtle lobha. For example, when we are seeing now we may not notice that we like what we see, but still, there may be a subtle clinging to seeing or to visible object. We often do not notice it when there is akusala citta, in particular when attachment or anger are not strong. When our objective is not dåna, síla or bhåvana, our actions, speech and thoughts are motivated by akusala cittas, and these are bound to be lobha-múla-cittas very often. When we, for example, are just daydreaming, we may not notice it when there is lobha. --------- 1. In the second Book of the Abhidhamma, the "Book of Analysis" Ch 17, "Analysis of Small Items" different ways of craving have been explained in connection with oneself. One thinks of oneself with craving, with wrong view and with conceit. Craving, taùhå, wrong view, ditthi and conceit, måna, are three factors that slow down the development of insight. They are also called papa~nca, diffuseness or aberrations. ****** Nina. #80017 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Signing on ... nilovg Dear Sarah (and Scott), I thought so much of your mother, since you went to the airport yesterday to meet her. I thought of the time gap and jet lag, and remarked about this to Lodewijk. Let us know what your outings are, perhaps swimming and meeting Owen? He is our next starkid, should subscribe to dsg with your help.Those kids know more than we about computers and lovely if James can write to him, he is so good. I just think about Scott's little children, can't they also subscribe and pose some simple questions? Stubborn Rebecca with her hoody. (Is that a coat with a hat attached?) I am just babbling, Nina. Op 11-dec-2007, om 12:27 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > You'll also have seen that my mother (who you know) is now staying > with > us. I can hear her and Jon chattering away as I type:-). She sends her > best wishes to you, Nina, Lodewijk and everyone else. #80018 From: "Robert" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:43 am Subject: Re: A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views avalo1968 Hello Howard. Thank you for the very useful reminder. With metta, Robert A. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > From time to time, I find it useful to re-read Samyutta Nikaya 4.12 that > I copy at the end of this post. > > With metta, > Howard > #80019 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:06 am Subject: Perfections Corner (50) nichiconn Dear All, http://www.zolag.co.uk/ - The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment by Sujin Boriharnwanaket; translated by Nina van Gorkom. Chapter 8: The Perfection of Determination. continued... His parents could not cause him to change his mind, though they tried him for sixteen years with great tests and many smaller ones. They implored him to change his mind many times, saying, 'Prince Temiya, dear child, your parents know that you are not dumb, because your mouth, ears and legs are not like those of someone who is dumb, deaf and crippled. You are the son your parents were wishing for. Do not destroy us now, but deliver us from the blame of all the kings of Rose Apple Land'. Though they entreated him in this way, the boy pretended not to hear them. Then the king summoned the fortune-tellers who said that the prince's feet etc, were not like those of someone who is crippled. They said, 'This boy is not crippled, dumb and deaf. But he is a person of ill-luck. If such a person would stay in your palace, three dangers are threatening: to your life, to your power and to the queen. But when he was born, we did not want to cause grief to you and therefore we said that the prince had all auspicious characteristics.' The king who was afraid of these dangers gave a command to put the boy in an impropitious chariot, take him out by the back gate and bury him in the charnel ground. When the Bodhisatta heard this he greatly rejoiced, and he thought, 'The wish I had for a long time will reach fulfilment.' When queen Candaadevii knew that the king had given a command to bury the prince, she visited the king and asked him as a boon to give the kingdom to the prince. The king said, 'Your son is ill-luck, I cannot give him the kingdom.' Thereupon, the queen said, 'If you will not give it to him for his whole life, give it to him for seven years.' The king said, 'I cannot give it.' The queen said, 'Then give it to him for six years, for five, four, three, two, for one year. Give it to him for seven months, for six, five, four, three, two months, one month, for half a month, or even for seven days only.' The king then consented. Thereupon queen Candaadevii had her son adorned and a proclamation was made in the city to the beat of the drum, with the announcement, 'This is the reign of prince Temiya'. He was seated upon an elephant with a white umbrella held over his head, and he was triumphantly led around the city. When he had returned he was laid on his royal bed. ..to be continued, connie #80020 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:07 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (71) nichiconn dear friends, Part 19 14. Ti.msanipaato 1. Subhaajiivakambavanikaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 397. "Va.t.taniriva ko.tarohitaa, majjhe pubbu.lakaa sa-assukaa; pii.lako.likaa cettha jaayati, vividhaa cakkhuvidhaa ca pi.n.ditaa. 395. [An eye is] like a little ball set in a hollow, having a bubble in the middle, with tears. Eye secretion is produced here, too. Various sorts of eyes are rolled into balls. Va.t.tanirivaati laakhaaya gu.likaa viya. Ko.tarohitaati ko.tare rukkhasusire .thapitaa. Majjhe pubbu.lakaati akkhidalamajjhe thitajalapubbu.lasadisaa. Sa-assukaati assujalasahitaa. Pii.lako.likaati akkhiguuthako. Ettha jaayatiiti etasmi.m akkhima.n.dale ubhosu ko.tiisu visagandha.m vaayanto nibbattati. Pii.lako.likaati vaa akkhidalesu nibbattanakaa pii.lakaa vuccati. Vividhaati setaniilama.n.dalaana~nceva rattapiitaadiina.m sattanna.m pa.talaana~nca vasena anekavidhaa. Cakkhuvidhaati cakkhubhaagaa cakkhuppakaaraa vaa tassa anekakalaapagatabhaavato. Pi.n.ditaati samuditaa. 395. Like a little ball (va.t.tani-r-iva) means: like (viya) a little ball (gu.likaa) of lac. Set in a hollow (ko.tar') means: placed in a hollow (ko.tare) [like] in a hollow tree. Having a bubble (bubbu.lakaa) in the middle means: like a bubble of water that is standing (.thita-jala-bubbu.la-sadisaa) in between the eyelids. With tears (sa-assukaa) means: accompanied by the water of tears (assu-jala-sahitaa). Eye secretion (pii.lako.likaa) means: eye secretion. Is produced here means: it comes out from both ends of this circle of the eye, giving forth a poisonous smell. Or eye secretion means: what comes out of the eyelids is called "secretion" (pii.lakaa). Various (vividhaa) means: of various kinds (anekavidhaa) because of white and blue circles and because of the seven membranes that are red and yellow, etc. Sorts of eyes (cakkhu-vidhaa) means: from their state of being connected with various bundles of parts of eyes (cakkhu-bhaagaa) or ingredients of eyes (cakkhu-ppakaaraa). [They] are rolled into balls means: arisen. 398. "Uppaa.tiya caarudassanaa, na ca pajjittha asa"ngamaanasaa; handa te cakkhu.m harassu ta.m, tassa narassa adaasi taavade. 396. Tearing out [her eye], the [woman who was] beautiful to behold, with an unattached mind, was not attached to it. [She said,], "Come, take this eye for yourself." Straightway she gave [it] to this man. Eva.m cakkhusmi.m saarajjantassa cakkhuno asubhata.m anava.t.thitataaya aniccata~nca vibhaavesi Vibhaavetvaa ca yathaa naama koci lobhaniiya.m bha.n.da.m gahetvaa corakantaara.m pa.tipajjanto corehi palibuddho ta.m lobhaniiyabha.n.da.m datvaa gacchati, evameva cakkhumhi saarattena tena purisena palibuddhaa therii attano cakkhu.m uppaa.tetvaa tassa adaasi. Tena vutta.m "uppaa.tiya caarudassanaa"ti-aadi. Tattha uppaa.tiyaati uppaa.tetvaa cakkhukuupato niiharitvaa. Caarudassanaati piyadassanaa manoharadassanaa. Na ca pajjitthaati tasmi.m cakkhusmi.m sa"nga.m naapajji. Asa"ngamaanasaati katthacipi aaramma.ne anaasattacittaa. Handa te cakkhunti tayaa kaamita.m tato eva mayaa dinnattaa te cakkhusa~n~nita.m asucipi.n.da.m ga.nha, gahetvaa harassu pasaadayutta.m icchita.m .thaana.m nehi. 396. Thus, she made clear to the one who was attached to her eye the disgusting nature of the eye, its unsteady nature, and its impermanent nature. And having made it clear, just as someone who has taken desireable merchandise and gone along a difficult road with thieves, when he is stopped by the theives, he hands over the desirable merchandise then goes away, in the same way, when the therii was stopped by that man who was enamoured of her eye[s], she tore out her own eye and gave it to him. Therefore [the verse] beginning Tearing out [her eye], the [woman who was] beautiful to behold was said. There, tearing out (uppaa.tiya) means: having torn it out (uppaa.tetvaa), having taken it out of the socket of the eye. Beautiful to behold (caaru-dassanaa) means: lovely to behold (piya-dassanaa), charming to behold (mano-hara-dassanaa). Not attached means: she did not come to have any attachment to that eye. With an unattached mind (asa"ngha-maanasaa) means: with a mind that is not clinging (an-aasatta-cittaa) to any support anywhere. "Come, [take] this eye (chakkhu.m) for yourself" means: take this lump of impurity called an eye for yourself, it being given by me as a result of your desire. Having received it, take [it], carry it off to the place of serenity that want [to go to]. == to be continued, connie #80021 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] suttas. moellerdieter Dear Nina and Han, you wrote: N: ( D: quoting ..Concentrating is difficult, Lord, that is the mind.) --------- As to bhaavanaa, the co adds: development of the citta so that it is calm. The question is: what kind of calm, the temporal calm as found in samatha or the calm that is freedom from defilements. The aim is arahatship, the Buddha speaks about the arahat who will reach the deathless. In the beginning the sutta speaks about the sekha, the learner. As we know the sotaapanna (and all ariyans) is established in siila, siila samaahita. As to concentration, the learners are endowed with the ariyan concentration, the concentration that is a factor fo the eightfold Path.You wrote: . Suppressing them is achieved in samatha, but that is temporal. In this sutta we have to remember that the Buddha speaks about the arahat, breaking through Death's net.' D: the Buddha speaks of the sekkha, the student overcoming the difficulties and finally 'Breaking through Death's net those', the realisation of Arahatship at the horizon ( not over aeons in samsara like for the uninstructed persons). The learner will always only succeed in steps (leaps not excluded) , i.e. calm achieved only temporarily . When it is lasting, free of defilements I think it is better called equamity . It is not suppressing .. as how to suppress e.g. restlessness as one aspect of the 5 hindrances, which is so typical for day-by-day mind ? We need to apply a strategy , in particular mindfulness of breathe in order to still the usual over-activity of body functions always in preparation to follow this or that idea ( the simile of the monkey). I can't think of any other progress than by the step-by step development of temporal success. with Metta Dieter #80022 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi DC (and Howard), > > Just a brief interruption if I may: > > -------- > DC: > I just want to say that I fully support your comments. May be I > would go further. There are number of other suttas in the SN dealing > with the same subject more or less. > > Actually this is related to the process of acquiring "sammaa > di.t.thi." Or the right view. The basis of all this is that the > Buddha's advice is to give up all views, opinions, etc. based on > belief or faith. > -------- > > You must be mistaken. If the Buddha had given that advice then that > advice, itself, would have to be given up, wouldn't it? So what should > the aspiring disciple do? Should he take the advice and > accordingly give it up, or give up the the advice and accordingly > accept it? (!) No, this doesn't make sense! >>>> Even BUDDHA'S teaching has to be GIVEN UP at an appropriate stage ( path to Arahatship perhaps). Even 4 NT do not have "Ultimate" validity, althought they do have pragmatic and RELATIVE validity. Why do I say so? An Arahant who is beyond training (4'th NT) and who paranibbana'ed, for him/her 4 NT do NOT exist. Nibbana without remainder does NOT have Dukha, Origin of Dukha, Cessation of Dukha (it was done and finished before), and the path leading to cessation (completed and like a raft let go). > ---------------------------------- > DC: > Then only one can acquire sammaadi.t.thi (mundane). The process > is clearly explained in the Kaalaama sutta. It is also part of the > rejectction of all metaphysical views by the Buddha. > ---------------------------------- > > By "metaphysical views" I think you are referring to the Abhidhamma, >>> Have you percieved 89 cittas and 7 cetasikas? Have you had DIRECT perception of 24 conditional relations? Why is there 89 and not 90 or 88 cittas? How long does each citta last? Have you had direct perception of that? How long does every rupa dhamma lasts, have you had direct perception of that? Etc etc. Can two cittas exist simulteneously at the same mind moment? If yes or no, have you had direct perception of that? >> which you have said you rejected. What about the four noble truths? >>> They ARE relatively true for worldlings. For Arahants they start to lose their existence and after parinibbana they cannot be said to exist for that Arahant. >> > Does dukkha really exist? Do the cause, the cessation and the path > really exist? Or are they just metaphysical views to be rejected? >>> MN22. 4NT as well as any other Buddhist teaching are to be LET GO OFF at APPROPRIATE TIME. Letting go doesn't mean that a moral person reverts to immorality. NEVER. What it means is that you are no longer required to grasp at them. When you become Arahat, you are asekha (no longer in training). 4NT aren't fully existent for an Arahant. Dukkha is only bodily (as long as body still remains) There is no more origination of new mental dukha. Cessation has been realized and what has forever ceased cannot arise again. Path is no longer being trained (asekha) - it becomes as a '2nd nature '. As Buddha has said somewhere. His teaching is IMPROVISED like a raft from branches and twigs (SN). It has a pragmatic validity for worldlings, but not for Arahants who are beyond training. Lots of Metta, Alex #80023 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:15 am Subject: Re: Anatta as a strategy truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Thanks for the reply: > > A: "What I was trying to say was that the development of stream of > changes follows probabilities rather than certainties. Or in other > words, there is some areas of freedom for volition." > > Scott: 'Probabilities rather than certainties'. I think Volition has > its own effect independent of anything one might think. This notion of > 'freedom for volition' is rather puzzling. Scott you seem to think in a LINEAR fashion. You seem to think that Kamma is a linear process when A always causes B and "X" units of cause always cause "X" units of result. This is JAIN view and clearly WRONG if you read the suttas where Buddha ridicules this JAIN idea. Conditions, complex and > interactive, are the only dynamics 'driving' the whole thing - the > whole thing being citta, cetasika, ruupa - and, with cessation, Nibbaana. > > A: "So are you saying that there is no possibility of chosing to do > bad or good things? Are you saying that each of us is like a spinning > wheel thrown off a hill and will stop on its own without hastening or > slowing down the process?" > > Scott: If you must keep thinking of 'each of us', then yes, from that >>> Absolutely not. It seems that you are the one who constantly brings it up as if being afraid of holding atta belief. I have said many times that I (like the Buddha and his Arahant disciples) used, use and will use pronouns and nouns AS A WAY OF COMMUNICATING without implying atta behind them. Look, if you were to name every part of a car rather than saying "Car" then that word could take 100s of pages and would obviously be inconvinient. (Car has 100s if not 1000s of parts. Each of which has billions of atoms and various subparticles). > > Scott: I think this shows there is no need for thought of self or > free will. Cetanaa cetasika - volition - has all of the above as > 'inherent properties'. And these are in effect at each absolutely > fleeting moment and from moment to moment such that, far removed from > the action (ha ha) we think we choose to do something. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > I have NOT argued for "Free" will. What I was saying is that DO process has moments in where multiple outcomes (developments) are possible (note I haven't used atta). One of the outcomes is to keep on building DO and another is to start disassembling it. No need for atta. "And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong view as wrong view, and right view as right view. This is one's right view. And what is wrong view? 'There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is wrong view "And what is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. "And what is the right view that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path? The discernment, the faculty of discernment, the strength of discernment, analysis of qualities as a factor for Awakening, the path factor of right view in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is free from fermentations, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right view that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html#1 What you seem to be saying isn't even Right view with fermentations! (I hope I am mistaken here.) Re: Right View without fermentations. It also implies (impersonal) ACTION. Letting go off clingings, defilments etc. The cessation is not "built" into DO (otherwise Nibbana would be automatically achieved by now). N8P IS TO BE DEVELOPED and for pujjhanas there is a choice. To develop N8P or Wrong path. CHOOSE!!! This finishes this topic. I won't reply to it unless something very new that hasn't been talked over and over again comes up. Lots of Metta, Alex #80024 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta as a strategy upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Scott) - In a message dated 12/11/2007 1:15:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: I have NOT argued for "Free" will. What I was saying is that DO process has moments in where multiple outcomes (developments) are possible (note I haven't used atta). One of the outcomes is to keep on building DO and another is to start disassembling it. No need for atta. ================================= There are (at least) two senses of "randomness": 1) events occuring independent of conditions in general, and 2) events occurring independent of volition. Here it seems to me that you are introducing the first sense of "randomness" into the Dhamma, whereas I don't believe it is part of the Dhamma. As I understand the Dhamma, nothing, even including volition, arises independent of conditions, and when all the requisite conditions for a phenomenon have arisen, the phenomenon will arise. Randomness in the 1st sense (and I believe in the second as well in a certain sense) is not a Dhammic notion so far as I know, and, moreover, I see nothing especially desirable in it. Even for those who cherish an alleged "self", what virtue would there be in a self that acts randomly? (Acting based on desire is not random, but is par for the course.) With metta, Howard #80025 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:10 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta as a strategy truth_aerator Dear Howard, > Hi, Alex (and Scott) - > > In a message dated 12/11/2007 1:15:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > I have NOT argued for "Free" will. What I was saying is that DO > process has moments in where multiple outcomes (developments) are > possible (note I haven't used atta). One of the outcomes is to keep > on building DO and another is to start disassembling it. No need for > atta. > > > ================================= > There are (at least) two senses of "randomness": 1) events occuring independent of conditions in general, and 2) events occurring independent of > volition. Here it seems to me that you are introducing the first sense of > "randomness" into the Dhamma, whereas I don't believe it is part of the Dhamma. >>> You may have misunderstood me or I expressed myself not 100% clearly. Even though there is causality, not all causes are sufficient. Some causes such as "vedana" are necessary (for craving -> further samsara) but are NOT sufficient. In other words: vedana may develop toward Tanha or not. This development is not so random as it depends on a degree of pa~n~na got from past necessary causes (reading/hearing the Buddha Dhamma). When we determine which links are "sufficient" and which are simply "necessary" , the talk of causality will be more clear. Also. Dukha is another necessary (but not sufficient) cause of seeking liberation. >> As I understand the Dhamma, nothing, even including volition, arises independent > of conditions, and when all the requisite conditions for a phenomenon have arisen, the phenomenon will arise. >>> Are these conditions necessary or sufficient? It is very important to distinguish these two. >>>>> > know, and, moreover, I see nothing especially desirable in it. >>>> Quite the opposite. The fact that some conditions are only necessary, it means that there ARE points in the chain that can be broken. One of the first important "conventional" beliefs is the belief that something CAN be done through gradual wise use of Buddha Dhamma. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even for those who cherish an alleged "self", >>> I don't. Some people seem to be very hostile to any hint of "self" (which as far as I am concerned THEIR problem) being meant in my writings. >>> what virtue would there be in a self that > acts randomly? (Acting based on desire is not random, but is par for the course.) > > With metta, > Howard a) not a self. b) Not randomly but with Vijja, Sati, diligency, ardency, energetically, etc. Lots of metta, Alex #80026 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:31 am Subject: Regarding "Will" truth_aerator Hi Scott, Howard and everyone, ---- "If, monks, a person immersed in ignorance determines a meritorious determination (puññañ ce sankháram abhisankharoti), consciousness arrives at merit (puññúpagam hoti viññánam); if he determines a demeritorious determination (apuññañ ce sankháram abhisankharoti), consciousness arrives at demerit (apuññúpagam hoti viññánam); if he determines an imperturbable determination (áneñjañ ce sankháram abhisankharoti), consciousness arrives at the imperturbable (áneñjúpagam hoti viññánam). "But when, monks, a monk has abandoned ignorance and aroused true knowledge (vijjá), then, with the fading away of ignorance and the arising of true knowledge, he does not determine a meritorious determination, or a demeritorious determination, or an imperturbable determination. Since he does not determine or fashion anything by intention, he does not hold on to anything in the world (anabhisankharonto anabhisañcetayanto na kiñci loke upádiyati). Not holding, he is not agitated. Not being agitated, he personally attains nibbána. He understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more coming back to this state.' ... "What do you think, monks, can a monk whose cankers are destroyed (khínásavo) determine a meritorious determination, or a demeritorious determination, or an imperturbable determination?" "No, venerable sir." ---------- S.ii,82-4 http://nanavira.110mb.com/anthol.htm Lots of Metta and may the DHAMMA be with you! Alex #80027 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta as a strategy upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 12/11/2007 2:10:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: You may have misunderstood me or I expressed myself not 100% clearly. Even though there is causality, not all causes are sufficient. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Agreed. The Buddha seems to have expressed the idea that for any dhamma, A, there is an associated collection of requisite conditions which, together, is sufficient for A to arise, but the entire set is required for sufficiency. Until all the conditions for A have occurred, A will not arise, and should other conditions arise instead of these, A may not arise, but instead some dhamma, B, might arise in its stead. ------------------------------------------------------ Some causes such as "vedana" are necessary (for craving -> further samsara) but are NOT sufficient. In other words: vedana may develop toward Tanha or not. This development is not so random as it depends on a degree of pa~n~na got from past necessary causes (reading/hearing the Buddha Dhamma). When we determine which links are "sufficient" and which are simply "necessary" , the talk of causality will be more clear. Also. Dukha is another necessary (but not sufficient) cause of seeking liberation. =========================== With metta, Howard #80028 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:38 pm Subject: Re: A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views kenhowardau Hi Alex and DC, Thanks for this reply, Alex. --------- KH: > > You must be mistaken. If the Buddha had given that advice then that > advice, itself, would have to be given up, wouldn't it? So what should > the aspiring disciple do? Should he take the advice and > accordingly give it up, or give up the the advice and accordingly > accept it? (!) No, this doesn't make sense! >>>> A: > Even BUDDHA'S teaching has to be GIVEN UP at an appropriate stage --------- Ah! By adding "at an appropriate stage" you might be making more sense of it, but I think you will find DC was advocating that we give up the Dhamma now. Correct me if I am wrong, DC, but I think you have said on a number of occasions that considering and discussing Dhamma was "a waste of time." If you did say that you wouldn't be the first at DSG to have done so. Over the years many meditators have frustratedly urged the study bugs to put away their books and JUST DO IT! :-) ------------------------------- A: > (path to Arahatship perhaps). ------------------------------- No, I don't think it would be while the path was still being travelled. The suttas refer to leaving the raft at the 'other shore' don't they? That would imply a time after arahantship. ----------------------------------- A: > Even 4 NT do not have "Ultimate" validity, althought they do have pragmatic and RELATIVE validity. Why do I say so? An Arahant who is beyond training (4'th NT) and who paranibbana'ed, for him/her 4 NT do NOT exist. Nibbana without remainder does NOT have Dukha, Origin of Dukha, Cessation of Dukha (it was done and finished before), and the path leading to cessation (completed and like a raft let go). ------------------------------------ I am not sure we share the same understanding of parinibbana. According to my understanding it occurs at the death of an arahant. You seem to be saying it occurs during his/her lifetime. As for the 4NT's not having ultimate validity, I am sure that is never the case. They are always valid. All arahants - even omniscient Buddhas - revere the 4NT's as being of ultimate validity. Have you read the sutta in which the Buddha said he had no teacher to venerate? Accordingly, he venerated the Dhamma. It was the only thing superior to him - the only thing he could look up to. ---------------------------------- > > > DC: > Then only one can acquire sammaadi.t.thi (mundane). The process > is clearly explained in the Kaalaama sutta. It is also part of the > rejectction of all metaphysical views by the Buddha. > > > KH: > > By "metaphysical views" I think you are referring to the Abhidhamma, > > A: > Have you percieved 89 cittas and 7 cetasikas? Have you had DIRECT perception of 24 conditional relations? ---------------------------------- I have stopped you there because I think you may have misunderstood my point. I was not disputing that the Abhidhamma could be described as "metaphysical views." (I think that term denotes 'an understanding of the way things ultimately are' and so I would not dispute it as a definition.) I was simply referring to the fact that DC wanted us to reject the Abhidhamma. ------------ KH: >> which you have said you rejected. What about the four noble truths? > > A: > They ARE relatively true for worldlings. For Arahants they start to lose their existence and after parinibbana they cannot be said to exist for that Arahant. -------------- Hmm, I am not sure what you are suggesting here. I sounds like an extension of Ven Thanissaro's idea that anatta was just a "strategy." I certainly wouldn't agree with that, However, I do take your point to some extent. After the death of an arahant there is no more consciousness of the 4NT's (or of anything). And that doesn't matter! It doesn't mean that the arahant is missing out on something. Just like us, an arahant is never more than a few fleeting conditioned dhammas. So there is no one (no individual) that misses out on anything. ------------- KH: > > Does dukkha really exist? Do the cause, the cessation and the path > really exist? Or are they just metaphysical views to be rejected? >>> A: > MN22. 4NT as well as any other Buddhist teaching are to be LET GO OFF at APPROPRIATE TIME. Letting go doesn't mean that a moral person reverts to immorality. NEVER. What it means is that you are no longer required to grasp at them. When you become Arahat, you are asekha (no longer in training). 4NT aren't fully existent for an Arahant. Dukkha is only bodily (as long as body still remains) There is no more origination of new mental dukha. Cessation has been realized and what has forever ceased cannot arise again. Path is no longer being trained (asekha) - it becomes as a '2nd nature'. -------------------- I have no great argument with that. My disagreement was with DC's view that the raft should be put down now. I might add, BTW, that even arahants in the Buddha's day delighted in the Dhamma. They continued to listen to the discourses even though, for them, the work had been done. --------------------- A: > As Buddha has said somewhere. His teaching is IMPROVISED like a raft from branches and twigs (SN). It has a pragmatic validity for worldlings, but not for Arahants who are beyond training. ---------------------- Perhaps you should find that sutta and look at it again. I think you will find that the Dhamma is always true regardless of who might know (or not know) about it. Ken H #80029 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:40 pm Subject: Re: A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Alex and DC, > > Thanks for this reply, Alex. > > --------- > KH: > > You must be mistaken. If the Buddha had given that advice > then that > > advice, itself, would have to be given up, wouldn't it? So what > should > > the aspiring disciple do? Should he take the advice and > > accordingly give it up, or give up the the advice and accordingly > > accept it? (!) No, this doesn't make sense! > >>>> > > A: > Even BUDDHA'S teaching has to be GIVEN UP at an appropriate > stage > --------- > > Ah! By adding "at an appropriate stage" you might be making more > sense of it, but I think you will find DC was advocating that we give up the Dhamma now. >>>> Ken. You give up attachment to the Dhamma at an ADVANCED stage. At path to Arahatship. Thats how I understand the Sariputta managed to Achieve Arahatship by FULLY letting go ALL clinging, achieving Nirodha and coming out with wisdom as an Arahant. IN NO WAY DO YOU LET GO OF RAFT NOW! As Ven TB has said, it is like giving up the raft before using it to swim the river or worse - in the middle of the river. However, for a trainee - Dhamma should be used to get rid of unskillful qualities. Including using the Dhamma to win philosophical debates. (Note to myself: I should keep this in mind). >>> Correct me if I am wrong, DC, but I think you have said on a number of occasions that considering and discussing Dhamma > was "a waste of time." >>>. Discussion of the PROPER Dhamma (as opposed to Adhamma) is a factor for Stream entry. > If you did say that you wouldn't be the first at DSG to have done so. Over the years many meditators have frustratedly urged the study bugs to put away their books and JUST DO IT! :-) >>> Dhamma books (Suttas) ARE crucial. But up to a point. Generally if you are quick witted and can read English fast, then you can finish full DN,SN,MN + AN suttas translated in maybe 3-4 month. But however to simply stay at the level of book knowledge - that is not fully skillful. > > ------------------------------- > A: > stage> (path to Arahatship perhaps). > ------------------------------- > > No, I don't think it would be while the path was still being > travelled. The suttas refer to leaving the raft at the 'other shore' don't they? That would imply a time after arahantship. >>> Actually, attachment to the Dhamma is one of the last attachment that one needs to let go off. Thus it is a late stage of path to Arahatship. If I remember correctly (in MN74) Sariputta did this to achieve Cessation + Arahatship when he came out and seen with wisdom. > ----------------------------------- > A: > Even 4 NT do not have "Ultimate" validity, althought they do have > pragmatic and RELATIVE validity. Why do I say so? An Arahant who is > beyond training (4'th NT) and who paranibbana'ed, for him/her 4 NT do > NOT exist. > Nibbana without remainder does NOT have Dukha, Origin of Dukha, > Cessation of Dukha (it was done and finished before), and the path > leading to cessation (completed and like a raft let go). > ------------------------------------ > > I am not sure we share the same understanding of parinibbana. > According to my understanding it occurs at the death of an arahant. > You seem to be saying it occurs during his/her lifetime. >>>> It was my mistake in not writing clearly. An Arahant beyond training is living Arahant. Arahant who paranibbanae'd is ceased one. > As for the 4NT's not having ultimate validity, I am sure that is > never the case. They are always valid. All arahants - even omniscient > Buddhas - revere the 4NT's as being of ultimate validity. > For an Arahant the 4NT are not longer fully valid. In Nibbana 4 NT cannot be said to exist! This disproves their Ultimate (Eternal) existence. 4NT's do have Highest Validity for pujjhanas and sekhas, and only limited AT best personal validity for Arahants. > Have you read the sutta in which the Buddha said he had no teacher to venerate? Accordingly, he venerated the Dhamma. It was the only thing superior to him - the only thing he could look up to. >>> This wasn't what I was talking about. Dhamma has pragmatic validity for those who haven't crossed over. It is not part of the training for the Buddha or Arahants. > ---------------------------------- > > > > DC: > Then only one can acquire sammaadi.t.thi (mundane). The > process > > is clearly explained in the Kaalaama sutta. It is also part of the > > rejectction of all metaphysical views by the Buddha. > > > > > > KH: > > By "metaphysical views" I think you are referring to the > Abhidhamma, > > > > > A: > Have you percieved 89 cittas and 7 cetasikas? Have you had DIRECT > perception of 24 conditional relations? > ---------------------------------- > > I have stopped you there because I think you may have misunderstood > my point. I was not disputing that the Abhidhamma could be described as "metaphysical views." (I think that term denotes 'an understanding of the way things ultimately are' and so I would not dispute it as a definition.) I was simply referring to the fact that DC wanted us to > reject the Abhidhamma. > > ------------ It is better when AP becomes YOUR DIRECT KNOWLEDGE rather than simply "counting cows not belonging to you". > KH: >> > which you have said you rejected. What about the four noble truths? > > > > > A: > They ARE relatively true for worldlings. For Arahants they start > to lose their existence and after parinibbana they cannot be said to > exist for that Arahant. > -------------- > > Hmm, I am not sure what you are suggesting here. I sounds like an > extension of Ven Thanissaro's idea that anatta was just a "strategy." > Dhamma is a raft to be used for crossing over. MN22. Ultimately it has to be let go off like a Raft. However an Arahant, out of compassion can use it as a pragmatic tool for OTHERS, but not for himself where the dhamma has lost all personal value (one is asekha). > I certainly wouldn't agree with that, However, I do take your point > to some extent. After the death of an arahant there is no more > consciousness of the 4NT's (or of anything). > > And that doesn't matter! It doesn't mean that the arahant is missing > out on something. Just like us, an arahant is never more than a few > fleeting conditioned dhammas. So there is no one (no individual) > that misses out on anything. >>> What you are saying is like: "The unicorns are not missing out on anything since they do not exist " ... >>> > I might add, BTW, that even arahants in the Buddha's day delighted in the Dhamma. They continued to listen to the discourses even though, for them, the work had been done. >>>> But it will stop at Paranibbana. Lots of Metta, Alex #80030 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:49 pm Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et buddhatrue Hi Ken H. (and Sarah), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > I'd still like to discuss 'concepts and characteristics' with you, > and I will gladly tone it down if that will change your mind. > > Ken H > Okay, I will respond to your points if you promise to be nice. This is what you previously wrote: Ken H: James, isn't this your own armchair-philosophy being passed off as Dhamma? According to the texts we are studying, anicca and dukkha are characteristics of paramattha dhammas. One can't eliminate the other in any way. Where do the texts say that an overemphasis on anatta will eliminate dukkha? James: I guess I didn't explain myself thoroughly enough. I assume that those familiar with the texts can follow my train of thought. However, let me back up and explain what I mean when I say that an over-emphasis on anatta will eliminate dukkha. Ken H., you write that according to the texts were are studying, anicca and dukkha are characteristics of paramattha dhammas; well, I don't know which texts you are referring to but the Buddha doesn't teach this in the suttas. The Buddha teaches the three characteristics of existence as: All fabrications are anicca All fabrications are dukkha All dhammas are anatta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.than.html#dhp-277 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than.html So, fabrications (forms, processes) are inconstant and suffering, while dhammas are non-self. Dhammas cannot be classified as inconstant or suffering, according to the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha's teaching hinges on suffering; and suffering, and the path to end suffering, is the framework for all that he taught: "Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html#dukkha Form is inconstant and Form is suffering, but not dhammas. Take for example: hardness. Hardness is a Dhamma. Hardness is not really inconstant because it doesn't cease to exist. Does hardness every go away? Would there ever be a time when all `hardness' would be eliminated from the universe? No, that would be impossible. However, a chair, which has the element of hardness, will fall away and never come back again. Once that chair is gone, it is gone forever. So, a chair is truly inconstant, while hardness is only relationally inconstant. Additionally, is hardness suffering? Well, how could hardness suffer? Again, that doesn't make any sense. But, if a person has a favorite chair, and that chair breaks apart (as all chairs do), then that person will suffer. So, the form of chair can be classified as suffering, because it causes suffering, but hardness cannot be classified as suffering. When Sarah takes anatta to an extreme she states that there are no fabrications, there are no forms, there are only dhammas. Well, if there are only dhammas, disconnected and bodiless, then there could be no suffering (accordingly to what the Buddha taught about the three characteristics). That is why Sarah only rarely mentions dukkha, and then only as an afterthought(to keep up appearances ;-). Sarah, and you Ken H., don't really understand dukkha and its impact on existence. You both live in a philosophical, but unreal world, of disconnected dhammas. I hope this explains it better. I'm pretty sure, however, you won't agree. Metta, James #80031 From: "colette" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta as a strategy ksheri3 HELLLLLLLLOO HOWARD, Splendid reply! I enjoyed Alex stating "(note I haven't used atta)." This was key to capturing my interest since that is such a common mistake made by beginers and neophytes: they immediately place themselves as the controlling object in all situations of analysis. They have yet to learn that they can be Shunya and they can certainly fit into the mold of the Doctrine of Shunyata yet they have not arrived at that point in realization. You, Howard, have outdone yourself here. Thank You. ------------------- > > In a message dated 12/11/2007 1:15:39 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > I have NOT argued for "Free" will. What I was saying is that DO > process has moments in where multiple outcomes (developments) are > possible (note I haven't used atta). One of the outcomes is to keep > on building DO and another is to start disassembling it. No need for > atta. > > > ================================= > There are (at least) two senses of "randomness": 1) events occuring > independent of conditions in general, and 2) events occurring independent of > volition. colette: allow me to verify my definition of "volition": intentional act, an act of volition can be an act which is the resultant condition of the conditioning a mind receives which narrow the field of endeavor that the individual can attempt in existance. ---------------------------------------- Here it seems to me that you are introducing the first sense of > "randomness" into the Dhamma, whereas I don't believe it is part of the Dhamma. colette: let me also verify my temporary, this second, view of "randomness" since I may be forced off the computer. Randomness = pure chance, there is no predetermination involved in random events or randomly selecting a "test group" for instance. The randomness occurs as the means with which to raise the conciousness of the Dhamma and therefore it can be discarded after it has served it's purpose of giving rise to the dhamma. Dhamma can be the single occurance which gave the Buddha the chance to give an example which can lead to the Path of Enlightenment. Here, then, the entirety of Dhamma is ramdomness, chance! ------------------------ As I > understand the Dhamma, nothing, even including volition, arises independent > of conditions, colette: NO CHANCE, NOT TRUE, NYET PRAVDA. Thinking is a volitional act therefore you state that you have no thoughts unless they were predetermined by you before you thought them. <....> But we should move on in case my time runs out. ------------------------------------------- and when all the requisite conditions for a phenomenon have > arisen, the phenomenon will arise. Randomness in the 1st sense (and I believe > in the second as well in a certain sense) is not a Dhammic notion so far as I > know, colette: CERTAINLY since ramdomness is not dependent upon Dhamma, however, if you turn the tables then you may see that the Dhamma is utterly dependent on the occurance of Ramdomness. ------------------------------------ and, moreover, I see nothing especially desirable in it. Even for those > who cherish an alleged "self", what virtue would there be in a self that > acts randomly? colette: pardon me Howard, but do you Goose Step in Jack Boots much? I mean you're speaking of a world that is a prison and that everything is pre-arranged. This is the definition of a Caste System. From a Kabballist's perspective while applying your definition above, I would tend toward the actions of Eve & Adam by telling this Yehwey of "god" that "his" Garden of Eden sucks as long as the Garden of Eden is a prison where freedom is a sacriligous word. gots ta go. Thank You for such a splendid post. toodles, colette <....> #80032 From: "Robert" Date: Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:30 pm Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et avalo1968 Hello James and Ken H, James quoted a very familiar Dhammapada verse, but then interpreted it quite differently from how I had heard in interpreted in the past. The verse was: All fabrications are anicca All fabrications are dukkha All dhammas are anatta James added: So, fabrications (forms, processes) are inconstant and suffering, while dhammas are non-self. Dhammas cannot be classified as inconstant or suffering, according to the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha's teaching hinges on suffering; and suffering, and the path to end suffering, is the framework for all that he taught: Robert A: What I had always heard before is that the term dhammas includes the fabrications + one addition, which is Nibbana. Dhammas are inconstant and suffering, except for the dhamma that is Nibbana. Is that correct? Thank you Robert A. #80033 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:22 am Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et kenhowardau Hi James, Thanks for the reply. ------------- <. . .> J: > let me back up and explain what I mean when I say that an over-emphasis on anatta will eliminate dukkha. Ken H., you write that according to the texts were are studying, anicca and dukkha are characteristics of paramattha dhammas; well, I don't know which texts you are referring to but the Buddha doesn't teach this in the suttas. The Buddha teaches the three characteristics of existence as: All fabrications are anicca All fabrications are dukkha All dhammas are anatta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.than.html#dhp- 277 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than.html ------------------ Wow, that's a new one! BTW, I meant to say 'anatta and dukkha' not 'anicca and dukkha' but I see my typo has slotted nicely into your theory. If I understand you correctly you are using fabrication as a synonym for concept. And you are saying that fabrications bear the characteristics, anicca and dukkha, while dhammas do not: they bear only the anatta characteristic. ------------------ J: > So, fabrications (forms, processes) are inconstant and suffering, while dhammas are non-self. Dhammas cannot be classified as inconstant or suffering, according to the Buddha's teaching. The Buddha's teaching hinges on suffering; and suffering, and the path to end suffering, is the framework for all that he taught: "Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html#dukkha Form is inconstant and Form is suffering, but not dhammas. Take for example: hardness. Hardness is a Dhamma. Hardness is not really inconstant because it doesn't cease to exist. Does hardness every go away? Would there ever be a time when all `hardness' would be eliminated from the universe? No, that would be impossible. However, a chair, which has the element of hardness, will fall away and never come back again. Once that chair is gone, it is gone forever. So, a chair is truly inconstant, while hardness is only relationally inconstant. Additionally, is hardness suffering? Well, how could hardness suffer? Again, that doesn't make any sense. But, if a person has a favorite chair, and that chair breaks apart (as all chairs do), then that person will suffer. So, the form of chair can be classified as suffering, because it causes suffering, but hardness cannot be classified as suffering. When Sarah takes anatta to an extreme she states that there are no fabrications, there are no forms, there are only dhammas. Well, if there are only dhammas, disconnected and bodiless, then there could be no suffering (accordingly to what the Buddha taught about the three characteristics). That is why Sarah only rarely mentions dukkha, and then only as an afterthought(to keep up appearances ;-). Sarah, and you Ken H., don't really understand dukkha and its impact on existence. You both live in a philosophical, but unreal world, of disconnected dhammas. I hope this explains it better. I'm pretty sure, however, you won't agree. ------------ No, of course I won't agree, but I have the give you credit. That's a very impressive theory! Can you copyright it? :-) As you know, 'fabrications' is a translation that is sometimes given for the sankhara khandha. Sankharas (fabrications) are of course, dhammas . . . Jees, where do I start? We have no common ground for a discussion! May I ask if the above theory is entirely your own? Or is it from Access To Insight? I am flabbergasted. I'll have to come back to this when I've had time to get my thoughts together. Ken H #80034 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:26 am Subject: Hidden Horror: Anti-Senso-Mania! bhikkhu0 Friends: Impermanent & ill is both the Internal & the External! Thus have I heard: The Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in price Jeta’s Groove, in Anathapindika’s Park. There The Blessed One addressed the Bhikkhus saying: Bhikkhus. Lord. responded those bhikkhus to The Blessed One. The Blessed Buddha then explained this: The eye, friends, is impermanent. What is impermanent, that is ill. What is ill, that is void of self. What is void of self that is not mine: I am not it, it is not my person. That is how eye should be regarded with perfected insight of what it really is. So seeing, friends, the well-taught Noble Learner, is repelled by eye, being repelled such friend lusts not for eye. Not lusting, such Noble Friend is set free. In this freedom comes certain insight of being free, of being relinquished from obsession with the eye. The eye, friends, is impermanent, vanishing and by that miserable, ill, void, not-self, neither me nor mine, not I both in the past and in the future, not to speak of the present. So seeing, friends, the well-taught Noble Learner cares not for an eye that is past, is not in love with any future eye to be, and regarding the present eye, such friend seeks to be repelled by it, seeks detachment from it, and seeks the ceasing of it. Seen objects, friends, are impermanent. What is impermanent, that is ill. What is ill, that is void of the self. What is void of the self that is not mine: I am not it, it is not my self. That is how visible forms should be regarded with perfect insight of what they really are. So seeing, friends, the well-taught Noble Learner, is repelled by shape, being repelled such friend lusts not for any form. Not lusting such Noble Friend is set free. In this freedom comes certain insight of set being free, of having been relinquished from obsession with visible forms. The visible forms, friends, are impermanent, vanishing and by that stressing, ill, void, not-self, neither me nor mine, not I, both in the past and in the future, not to speak of the present. So seeing, friends, the well-taught Noble Learner cares not for a form that is past, whether it is internal or external, is not in love with any future shape to be, & regarding the present sights, then such wise one seeks to be repelled by the seen, seeks detachment from it, and seeks the ceasing of it, the stilling of it. So also it is, friends, with the ear, nose, tongue and body they are all impermanent. What is impermanent, that is ill. What is ill, that is void of the self. What is void of the self that is not mine: I am not it, it is not my self. That is how these senses should be regarded with perfect insight of what they really are. So seeing, friends, the well-taught Noble Learner, is repelled by ear, nose, tongue and body, lusts not for any of them. Not lusting such Noble Friend is set free. In this freedom comes certain insight of having been set free of a deep addiction to common sensuality. The ear, nose, tongue and body, friends, are impermanent, vanishing, and by that: Stressing, ill, void, not-self, neither me nor mine, not I, both in the past and in the future, not to speak of the present. So seeing, friends, the well-taught Noble Learner cares not for any ear, any nose, any tongue nor any body that is past, whether internal or external is not in love with any future ear, nose, tongue, nor any body to be, and regarding the present ear, nose, tongue and body, he seeks to be repelled by them, seeks detachment from them, seeks the ceasing of them, the silencing of them. Sensed objects, sounds, scents, savours, things tangible, friends, are impermanent. What is impermanent, that is ill. What is ill, that is void of the self. What is void of the self that is not mine: I am not it, it is not my self. That is how sensed objects should be regarded with perfect insight of what they really are. So seeing, friends, the well-taught Noble Learner, is repelled by the sensed, lusts not for the sensed. Not lusting such Noble Friend is set free. In this freedom comes insight of being free of senso-mania! The sensed objects, friends, are impermanent, vanishing by that stressing, ill, void, not-self, neither me nor mine, not I both in the past and in the future, not to speak of the present. So seeing, friends, the well-taught Noble Learner cares not for any sensed experience that is past, whether internal or external, is not in love with any future sensation to be, and regarding the present sounds, smells, tastes and touches he seeks to be repelled by the them, seeks release from them, seeks the ceasing of them, & the fading away of them. Even so the mind too, friends, is impermanent. What is impermanent, that is ill. What is ill, that is void of the self. What is void of the self that is not mine: I am not it, it is not my self. That is how the mental should be regarded with perfect insight of what it really is. So seeing, friends, the well-taught Noble Learner, is repelled by the mind, being repelled such friend lusts not for the mental. Not lusting, such Noble Friend is set free. In this freedom comes certain insight of being free. The mind, friends, is impermanent, vanishing and by that stressing, ill, void, not-self, neither me nor mine, not I, not soul, not ego, not personality, not identity, whether internal or external, both in the past and in the future, not to speak of the present. So seeing, friends, the well-taught Noble Learner cares not for any mind, mood or mentality that is past, is not in love with any future mind to be, and regarding any present mind, there he seeks to be repelled by it, seeks detachment from it, seeks the ceasing of it, peace from it. Mental states indeed to, friends, are impermanent. What is impermanent, that is ill. What is ill, that is void of the self. What is void of the self that is not mine: I am not it, it is not my self. That is how all mental states, all thoughts, all moods, all ideas should be regarded, with perfect insight of what they really are. So seeing, friends, any well-taught Noble Learner, is repelled by all mental phenomena, being repelled such friend craves not for any particular mental state. Not lusting such Noble Friend is set free. In this freedom comes assured insight of being free of all mind & mentality. The mental states, friends, are impermanent, vanishing and by that stressing, ill, void, not-self, neither me nor mine, not I whether internal or external, both in the past and in the future, not to speak of the present. So seeing, friends, the well-taught Noble Learner cares not for any mental state that is past, is not in love with any future mental state to be, and regarding any present mental state, he seeks to be repelled by the it, seeks detachment from it, seeks the ceasing of it. Not lusting nor urging any such Noble Friend is set utterly free. In this freedom comes positive direct knowledge of being free. That is how any such Noble Friend comes to realize: Rebirth is destroyed, lived is the righteous Noble life, done is the task, for life in these conditions there is no hereafter, no returning, no more reappearing hidden horror... --- Comments: So keep cool, clear, calm, and cut down this abundant ever up-sprouting porno and all other senso-manias ... again and again ... whenever they arise, until this sense-fire is quenched with not even any smoke remaining... Source: Samyutta Nikaya V: Salayatana Vagga: The book on the Sixfold Senses. Friendship is the Greatest Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka ... #80035 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:20 am Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > ------------ > > No, of course I won't agree, but I have the give you credit. That's a > very impressive theory! Can you copyright it? :-) > Oh gosh, and I thought you had promised to be nice. Well, since you can't help but an obnoxious smart ass, I won't be posting to you any longer. With difficult metta, James #80036 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:30 am Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et buddhatrue Hi Robert A., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > Hello James and Ken H, > > James quoted a very familiar Dhammapada verse, but then interpreted > it quite differently from how I had heard in interpreted in the past. The > verse was: > > All fabrications are anicca > All fabrications are dukkha > All dhammas are anatta > > James added: > So, fabrications (forms, processes) are inconstant and suffering, > while dhammas are non-self. Dhammas cannot be classified as > inconstant or suffering, according to the Buddha's teaching. The > Buddha's teaching hinges on suffering; and suffering, and the path to > end suffering, is the framework for all that he taught: > > Robert A: > What I had always heard before is that the term dhammas includes the > fabrications + one addition, which is Nibbana. Dhammas are inconstant > and suffering, except for the dhamma that is Nibbana. > > Is that correct? James: Thank you for the nice post. This is actually a very controversial subject and has caused dissention within the Buddhasangha for centuries. How one defines this will depend on how much you accept the Abhidhamma or not. Personally, I don't accept the Abhidhamma so I see fabrications and dhammas as two distinct things descriptions of reality. Fabrications are form and dhammas are phenomenon. Now, where does Nibbana fit into with what the Buddha taught? It doesn't!! The Buddha only taught suffering and the ending of suffering. When he taught the three characteristics of existence, he taught it in terms of suffering. Nibbana isn't samsaric existence so it isn't included in what the Buddha taught of the three characteristics. > > Thank you James: No, thank you for being so polite. I wish other members could follow your example. > > Robert A. > Metta, James #80037 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Ken & Sarah) - In a message dated 12/11/2007 11:50:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Ken H. (and Sarah), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > I'd still like to discuss 'concepts and characteristics' with you, > and I will gladly tone it down if that will change your mind. > > Ken H > Okay, I will respond to your points if you promise to be nice. This is what you previously wrote: Ken H: James, isn't this your own armchair-philosophy being passed off as Dhamma? According to the texts we are studying, anicca and dukkha are characteristics of paramattha dhammas. One can't eliminate the other in any way. Where do the texts say that an overemphasis on anatta will eliminate dukkha? James: I guess I didn't explain myself thoroughly enough. I assume that those familiar with the texts can follow my train of thought. However, let me back up and explain what I mean when I say that an over-emphasis on anatta will eliminate dukkha. Ken H., you write that according to the texts were are studying, anicca and dukkha are characteristics of paramattha dhammas; well, I don't know which texts you are referring to but the Buddha doesn't teach this in the suttas. The Buddha teaches the three characteristics of existence as: All fabrications are anicca All fabrications are dukkha All dhammas are anatta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.20.than.html#dhp-277 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than.html So, fabrications (forms, processes) are inconstant and suffering, while dhammas are non-self. Dhammas cannot be classified as inconstant or suffering, according to the Buddha's teaching. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You're drawing an inference incorrectly, I believe, James. The term 'dhamma' is the general one. It refers to any and all phenomena, though often excluding what the Abhidhammikas call "pa~n~natti". In any case, all fabricating activities and all phenomena conditioned by them (the "sankhara" of the first and second of the tilakkhana), are included among the "dhamma" mentioned in the third of the tilakkhana. Most Buddhist writers of today, of all schools, understand the tilakkhana to state that the conditioned dhammas neither remain nor satisfy nor have (or are) self, and the unconditioned reality, alone among dhammas, is neither anicca nor dukkha. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The Buddha's teaching hinges on suffering; and suffering, and the path to end suffering, is the framework for all that he taught: "Both formerly and now, monks, I declare only stress and the cessation of stress. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html#dukkha Form is inconstant and Form is suffering, but not dhammas. Take for example: hardness. Hardness is a Dhamma. Hardness is not really inconstant because it doesn't cease to exist. Does hardness every go away? Would there ever be a time when all `hardness' would be eliminated from the universe? No, that would be impossible. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Hardness, or, better, "every hardness", is a rupa that arises and ceases. Actually, not all "hardness" is the same. There really is no "hardness" apart from concept. The instances of that concept arise and cease and are all different, and it is *they* that actually occur. Every instance of "hardness" IS conditioned. There is only one unconditioned reality, nibbana. When you think of form as not going away, you are thinking of form-the-concept. The Buddha taught five aggregates of conditioned phenomena, and one of these was the aggregate of form. That *aggregate* is concept, but the elements of that aggregate are among the fabrications. They are conditioned, they arise, and they cease. When you move your hand, that motion is newly arisen, and then it ceases. It is an example of mind-created rupa. ------------------------------------------------------------------ However, a chair, which has the element of hardness, will fall away and never come back again. Once that chair is gone, it is gone forever. So, a chair is truly inconstant, while hardness is only relationally inconstant. Additionally, is hardness suffering? Well, how could hardness suffer? ------------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: It is a mistake to translate 'dukkha' as "suffering" in 'Sabba sanhara dukkha', which means "All fabrications are unsatisfactory'. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Again, that doesn't make any sense. But, if a person has a favorite chair, and that chair breaks apart (as all chairs do), then that person will suffer. So, the form of chair can be classified as suffering, because it causes suffering, but hardness cannot be classified as suffering. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The term 'dukkha' ranges in meaning from horrrendously terrible down to mildly imperfect. As for hardness, extreme hardness is exactly what we feel as physical pain. Instances of hardness can be entirely intolerable -dukkha to the max. ----------------------------------------------------------------- When Sarah takes anatta to an extreme she states that there are no fabrications, there are no forms, there are only dhammas. Well, if there are only dhammas, disconnected and bodiless, then there could be no suffering (accordingly to what the Buddha taught about the three characteristics). That is why Sarah only rarely mentions dukkha, and then only as an afterthought(to keep up appearances ;-). Sarah, and you Ken H., don't really understand dukkha and its impact on existence. You both live in a philosophical, but unreal world, of disconnected dhammas. I hope this explains it better. I'm pretty sure, however, you won't agree. Metta, James =================================== With metta, Howard #80038 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:46 am Subject: Re: Anatta as a strategy scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for the reply: A: "...This finishes this topic. I won't reply to it unless something very new that hasn't been talked over and over again comes up." Scott: Okay, thanks for discussing. See you next time. Sincerely, Scott. #80039 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:59 am Subject: Perfections Corner (51) nichiconn Dear All, http://www.zolag.co.uk/ - The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment by Sujin Boriharnwanaket; translated by Nina van Gorkom. Chapter 8: The Perfection of Determination. continued... Queen Candaadevii implored him all night, 'O Temiya, I did not sleep for sixteen years, I have wept because of you, my child, so that my eyes have become swollen and my heart is pierced with sorrow. I know that you are not cripple, deaf and dumb, do not make me utterly destitute.' The queen implored the prince day after day for five days. Then on the sixth day the king summoned the charioteer Sunanda and said to him: 'Early tomorrow morning you have to take the boy in an unlucky chariot, and bury him in the charnel ground; then fill the whole well up with earth and return.' When the queen heard this, she said to her son: 'My child, the king of Kaasi has given orders that you are to be buried in the charnel ground tomorrow. Tomorrow you will die.' When the Bodhisatta heard this, he greatly rejoiced that his sixteen years of endeavour had almost come to an end. But his mother's heart was as it were cleft. At the end of that night, in the early morning, the charioteer yoked the chariot and let it remain at the gate. He came to queen Candaadevii and said, 'O queen, be not angry with me. I just follow the king's command.' Then he carried the prince and came down from the palace. The queen lamented with a loud cry and collapsed. Then the Bodhisatta looked at his mother and thought, 'When I do not speak she will die because of her sorrow, and thus, I would like to speak.' But he refrained from speaking with the thought, 'If I speak, my efforts of sixteen years will have become fruitless. But if I do not speak, it will be to the benefit of myself and my parents.' Then the charioteer lifted him into the chariot, and it went a distance of three leagues and there the end of a forest appeared to the charioteer as if it were a charnel ground. He thought that it was a suitable place and turning the chariot he stopped it by the roadside. He took off all the Bodhisatta's ornaments and laid them down. Thereupon he took a spade and began to dig a hole not far from there. ..to be continued, connie #80040 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:00 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (71) nichiconn dear friends Part 20 14. Ti.msanipaato 1. Subhaajiivakambavanikaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 399. "Tassa ca viramaasi taavade, raago tattha khamaapayii ca na.m; sotthi siyaa brahmacaarinii, na puno edisaka.m bhavissati. 397. And straightway his passion ceased there, and he begged her pardon. "Become whole again, you who lead the holy life. Such a thing will not happen again. Tassa ca viramaasi taavadeti tassa dhuttapurisassa taavadeva akkhimhi uppaa.titakkha.ne eva raago vigacchi. Tatthaati akkhimhi, tassa.m vaa theriya.m. Atha vaa tatthaati tasmi.myeva .thaane. Khamaapayiiti khamaapesi. Sotthi siyaa brahmacaariniiti se.t.thacaarini mahesike tuyha.m aarogyameva bhaveyya. Na puno edisaka.m bhavissatiiti ito para.m evaruupa.m anaacaaracara.na.m na bhavissati, na karissaamiiti attho. 397. And straightway (taavade) his passion ceased (viranaasi) there means: immediately (taava-d-eva), the moment the eye was torn out, that rogue's passion disappeared. There means: in connection with that eye or in connection with that therii. Or there means: in that very place. He begged her pardon (khamaapayii) means: he begged her pardon (khamaa-pesi). Become whole again, you who lead the holy life (brahma-caarinii) means: O you who lead the best [of lives] (se.t.tha-caarini), O great sage, may you be free from illness. Such a thing will not happen again (bhavissati) means: from now on there will not be (bhavissati), I will not perform, such immoral conduct again. 400. "Aasaadiya edisa.m jana.m, aggi.m pajjalita.mva li"ngiya; ga.nhiya aasiivisa.m viya, api nu sotthi siyaa khamehi no. 398. "In smiting such a person, in embracing a blazing fire, having seized a poisonous snake, as it were. Become whole again. Forgive me." Aasaadiyaati gha.t.tetvaa. Edisanti evaruupa.m sabbattha viitaraaga.m. Aggi.m pajjalita.mva li"ngiyaati pajjalita.m aggi.m aali"ngetvaa viya. 398. Such means: completely free from impurity, of such a kind. In embracing (li"ngiya) a blazing fire means: having embracd (aali"ngetvaa) a blazing fire, as it were. 401. "Muttaa ca tato saa bhikkhunii, agamii buddhavarassa santika.m; passiya varapu~n~nalakkha.na.m, cakkhu aasi yathaa puraa.nakan"ti.- 399. And released by him, that bhikkhunii went to the presence of the excellent Buddha. When she saw the One with the Marks of Excellent Merit, [her] eye was restored to its former condition. Tatoti tasmaa dhuttapurisaa. Saa bhikkhuniiti saa subhaa bhikkhunii. Agamii buddhavarassa santikanti sammaasambuddhassa santika.m upagacchi upasa"nkami. Passiya varapu~n~nalakkha.nanti uttamehi pu~n~nasambhaarehi nibbattamahaapurisalakkha.na.m disvaa. Yathaa puraa.nakanti poraa.na.m viya uppaa.tanato pubbe viya cakkhu pa.tipaakatika.m ahosi. Yamettha antarantaraa na vutta.m, ta.m vuttanayattaa suvi~n~neyyameva. Subhaajiivakambavanikaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. Ti.msanipaatava.n.nanaa ni.t.thitaa. 399. By him (tato) means: by that (tasmaa) rogue. That bhikkhunii means: that bhikkhunii Subhaa. [She] went to (agamii) the presence of the excellent Buddha (Buddha-varassa) means: she went to (upagacchi), she approached, the Fully and Perfectly Awakened One (sammaa-sam-buddhassa). When she saw the One With the Marks of Excellent Merity (vara-pu~n~na-lakkha.na.m) means: having seen the One with the Marks of a Great Man that have come into existence (nibbatta-mahaa-purisa-lakkha.na.m) through the accumulation of the highest merit (uttamehi pu~n~na-sambhaarehi). Its former condition (yathaa-puraa.naka.m) means: they eye was restored [to being] as [it was] formerly (poraa.na.m), as before being torn out. For whatever is not explained here and there [in the verses], the meaning of what is said is easily understood. Here ends the commentary on the verses of Therii Subhaa Jivakambavanikaa. Here ends the commentary on the section of thirty [verses]. ::::::::::::::::: RD: http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/davids/psalms/psalms.html Pruitt: PTS 1999 - The Commentary on the Verses of the Theriis txt: vri ::::::::::::::::: connie #80041 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:49 am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James (and Ken & Sarah) - > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > You're drawing an inference incorrectly, I believe, James. > The term 'dhamma' is the general one. It refers to any and all > phenomena, though often excluding what the Abhidhammikas call "pa~n~natti". James: I believe that the Buddha used different terms for a reason; especially since he used the same formula in different suttas. To say that the last of the formula is the same as the first is a cop- out. In any > case, all fabricating activities and all phenomena conditioned by them (the > "sankhara" of the first and second of the tilakkhana), are included among the > "dhamma" mentioned in the third of the tilakkhana. James: I don't agree. Most Buddhist writers of > today, of all schools, understand the tilakkhana to state that the conditioned > dhammas neither remain nor satisfy nor have (or are) self, and the > unconditioned reality, alone among dhammas, is neither anicca nor dukkha. James: Are any of them enlightened?? Metta, James #80042 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 6:49 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the Sutta of "The Resident Pupil" that the Buddha said: “Without a resident pupil, monks, and without a teacher this righteous life is lived. A monk who dwells with a resident pupil or dwells with a teacher dwells woefully, dwells not at ease. And how, monks, does a monk who has a resident pupil, who has a teacher, not dwell at ease? Herein, monks, in a monk who sees an object with the eye, there arise evil, unprofitable states, memories and aspirations connected with fetters. Evil, unprofitable states are resident, reside in him. Hence he is called ‘co-resident’. They beset him, those evil, unprofitable states beset him. Therefore he is called ‘dwelling with a teacher.’ So also with the ear... the tongue... the mind... Thus, monks, a monk who has a resident pupil, who has a teacher dwells not at ease.” The opposite has been stated about a monk who dwells without a resident pupil and without a teacher. He dwells at ease. Acharn Sujin asked someone of our group who had gone shopping whether "the teacher" had told her to go to the market. Everything is dhamma, lobha and dosa are dhamma, but we still consider them as "my lobha", "my dosa". We had a Dhamma discussion sitting on the grass near the great Stupa in Sarnath, where the Buddha gave his first sermon to his five disciples. There were many people going around the Stupa and Burmese pilgrims were beating a drum and chanting to express their respect to the Buddha. After our discussion we were also going around the Stupa three times with lighted candles. Instead of thoughts of reverence I happened to have thoughts of dosa because of something that worried me. However, I remembered a conversation I had with a friend who had told me that we do not necessarily have wholesome thoughts at the holy sites. It is very natural that there are also akusala cittas. Then I considered that it did not matter to have dosa. Later on Acharn Sujin reminded me that even such thoughts can be motivated by lobha: someone may like it that he is unconcerned about his dosa. This shows again how easily we can be deceived with regard to ourselves. Attachment to sense objects can only be eradicated at the attainment of the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the non-returner, anågåmí. First wrong view of realities, ditthi, has to be eradicated before other defilements can be eradicated. We have the latent tendency of wrong view, ditthanussaya, and this can condition the arising of lobha-múla-citta (citta rooted in attachment) that is accompanied by wrong view. When we have studied the Dhamma we may have intellectual understanding of the Buddha's teaching on nåma and rúpa, but we may still follow the wrong practice instead of developing right understanding of what appears now. We may engage in wrong practice without noticing this. We may, for example, believe that we should visit the holy sites and pay respect to the Buddha's relics in order to have more sati of satipatthåna. Acharn Supee reminded us that we may try to induce sati by acting in a specific way. That is not the right Path. He explained that the "teacher" lobha may tell us to follow special techniques in order to gain more understanding, but that this is not the development of right understanding of realities that are conditioned and appear now. ******* Nina. #80043 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 12/12/2007 9:50:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, James (and Ken & Sarah) - > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > You're drawing an inference incorrectly, I believe, James. > The term 'dhamma' is the general one. It refers to any and all > phenomena, though often excluding what the Abhidhammikas call "pa~n~natti". James: I believe that the Buddha used different terms for a reason; especially since he used the same formula in different suttas. To say that the last of the formula is the same as the first is a cop- out. ------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't say it's the same. The first two say that only the conditioned dhammas are anicca & dukkha, whereas the 3rd says that ALL dhammas are anatta. ------------------------------------------ In any > case, all fabricating activities and all phenomena conditioned by them (the > "sankhara" of the first and second of the tilakkhana), are included among the > "dhamma" mentioned in the third of the tilakkhana. James: I don't agree. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Then you are the one! LOL! ---------------------------------------------- Most Buddhist writers of > today, of all schools, understand the tilakkhana to state that the conditioned > dhammas neither remain nor satisfy nor have (or are) self, and the > unconditioned reality, alone among dhammas, is neither anicca nor dukkha. James: Are any of them enlightened?? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I haven't taken a poll. Are WE? ;-) ---------------------------------------------- Metta, James ======================= With metta, Howard #80044 From: "Robert" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:59 am Subject: Sutta vs Abhidhamma avalo1968 Hello DSG, Does anyone know of a book or paper (online or otherwise) that analyzes the differences between the Suttas and the Abhidhamma, or where the Abhidhamma draws conclusions not directly supported by the Suttas? I understand the Abhidhamma is canonical, but what is its authority in relation to the Suttas, which are considered the actual words of the Buddha? Is the contention made that the Abhidhamma has equal authority? Thank you, Robert A. #80045 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:23 am Subject: Re: Sutta vs Abhidhamma truth_aerator Dear Robert A, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > I understand the Abhidhamma is canonical, but what is its authority in > relation to the Suttas, which are considered the actual words of the > Buddha? Is the contention made that the Abhidhamma has equal authority? > > Thank you, > > Robert A. > Abhidhamma is considered canonical by the Theravada School. However some other (as early if not earlier) schools such as early sautrantikas, REJECT IT. As far as I know, the historians and researchers say that AP and about 3/4 of later books found in KN are mostlikely LATER additions. --------- Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These dhammas are unskillful; these dhammas are blameworthy; these dhammas are criticized by the wise; these dhammas, when adopted and carried out, lead to harm and to suffering' — then you should abandon them... When you know for yourselves that, 'These dhammas are skillful; these dhammas are blameless; these dhammas are praised by the wise; these dhammas, when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and to happiness' — then you should enter and remain in them." — AN 3.65 IF AP works for you, then great. If not, then let it go. Direct experience is what counts. It is up to you, do you believe in one (of many) traditions OR historical RESEARCH? MAY THE DHAMMA BE WITH YOU! Lots of Metta, Alex #80046 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 2. moellerdieter Dear Nina, you wrote: snip.. We had a Dhamma discussion sitting on the grass near the great Stupa in Sarnath, where the Buddha gave his first sermon to his five disciples. There were many people going around the Stupa and Burmese pilgrims were beating a drum and chanting to express their respect to the Buddha. After our discussion we were also going around the Stupa three times with lighted candles. Instead of thoughts of reverence I happened to have thoughts of dosa because of something that worried me. However, I remembered a conversation I had with a friend who had told me that we do not necessarily have wholesome thoughts at the holy sites. It is very natural that there are also akusala cittas.' D: first of all: thanks for sharing . Not having been myself at the holy cites I appreciate to learn from friends who have. Using the opportunity in respect to our discussion of 'calm', I find it interesting that you mention 'Instead of thoughts of reverence I happened to have thoughts of dosa because of something that worried me'. As we talked before about ' stilling the mind' , it is perhaps a very good example to explain what I mean. Your mind was restless during the procession , occupied with trouble caused by previous kamma. (your friend had better advised you that by a brief exercise before , watching your breathe, you may have calmed down and easier handled the path practise of right effort ) But why do you have /had the idea that you needed thoughts of reverence? It may sounds pert, but the thought occurs to me that going through all the trouble of visiting the site, I would try my best to be quite and sense what the place 'has to say'.. possibly having remembrance of the ancient situation in mind.. so when you mention: 'We may engage in wrong practice without noticing this. We may, for example, believe that we should visit the holy sites and pay respect to the Buddha's relics in order to have more sati of satipatthåna. Acharn Supee reminded us that we may try to induce sati by acting in a specific way.' there seems to me misunderstanding: we should not visit the holy sites and pay respect to the Buddha's relics in order to have more sati of satipatthåna, but paying respect to the Buddha Dhamma is to see it with sati ... with Metta Dieter #80047 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 2. nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 12-dec-2007, om 18:57 heeft Dieter Möller het volgende geschreven: > Instead of thoughts of reverence I > happened to have thoughts of dosa because of something that worried > me. However, I remembered a conversation I had with a friend who had > told me that we do not necessarily have wholesome thoughts at the > holy sites. It is very natural that there are also akusala cittas.' > > D: first of all: thanks for sharing . Not having been myself at the > holy cites I appreciate to learn from friends who have. > Using the opportunity in respect to our discussion of 'calm', I > find it interesting that you mention 'Instead of thoughts of > reverence I happened to have thoughts of dosa because of something > that worried me'. > As we talked before about ' stilling the mind' , it is perhaps a > very good example to explain what I mean. Your mind was restless > during the procession , occupied with trouble caused by previous > kamma. ------ N: The latent tendency of dosa (pa.tighaanusaya), not past kamma conditioned the arising of citta rooted in aversion. -------- > D: (your friend had better advised you that by a brief exercise > before , watching your breathe, you may have calmed down and easier > handled the path practise of right effort ) -------- N: There was no before, it arose when it was the right time for it. -------- > > D: But why do you have /had the idea that you needed thoughts of > reverence? > It may sounds pert, but the thought occurs to me that going through > all the trouble of visiting the site, I would try my best to be > quite and sense what the place 'has to say'.. > possibly having remembrance of the ancient situation in mind.. ------ N: I certainly did that. I wish you would visit too. But, cittas are beyond control, they have already arisen and fallen away before we know it. -------- > D: so when you mention: > 'We may engage in wrong practice without noticing this. We may, for > example, believe > that we should visit the holy sites and pay respect to the Buddha's > relics in order to have more sati of satipatthåna. Acharn Supee > reminded us that we may try to induce sati by acting in a specific > way.' > > there seems to me misunderstanding: we should not visit the holy > sites and pay respect to the Buddha's relics in order to have more > sati of satipatthåna, but paying respect to the Buddha Dhamma is to > see it with sati ... ------- N: Paying respect is kusala dhamma and it is accompanied by sati already, as you say. Each kusala is accompanied by sati that does not waste an opportunity for kusala by forgetfulness. However, hoping and expecting to have more kusala cittas at the holy places is lobha. It may arise, but then it should be known as a conditioned dhamma. ***** Nina. #80048 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] suttas. nilovg Dear Dieter, Op 11-dec-2007, om 18:31 heeft Dieter Möller het volgende geschreven: > D: the Buddha speaks of the sekkha, the student overcoming the > difficulties and finally 'Breaking through Death's net those', > the realisation of Arahatship at the horizon ( not over aeons in > samsara like for the uninstructed persons). > -------- Let us look again at the sutta: ------ Virtuous is here the translation of learner, sekha as you know. Thus, sekhas are ariyans that are not yet arahat. They are well on their way leading to the end goal. They would not need a special strategy to calm the mind before they develop insight. They have developed insight and reached stages of enlightenment. They have to bring pa~n~naa to fulfillment so that all defilements will be eradicated. They may have developed samatha as well as vipassana, or vipassana alone. I think that in this sutta the emphasis is more on the true calm that is freedom from ignorance and all defilements than the calm of samatha that is being secluded from sensepleasures. As monks they were already leading a life away from sense-pleasures. ----------- > D: The learner will always only succeed in steps (leaps not > excluded) , i.e. calm achieved only temporarily . > -------- N: The ariyan (the sekha) would not be satisfied with just temporal calm. He may develop jhana but after emerging he will be aware of the jhanafactors or the jhanacitta that arose before, and realize these as mere dhammas, non-self. Do not forget that in this sutta the Buddha speaks of ariyan monks. Sutta: D: When it is lasting, free of defilements I think it is better > called equamity . ------ N: Equanimity has many meanings. The sixfold equanimity of the arahat is different from tatramajjhattataa arising with each kusala citta. -------- > D: It is not suppressing .. as how to suppress e.g. restlessness as > one aspect of the 5 hindrances, which is so typical for day-by-day > mind ? We need to apply a strategy , in particular mindfulness of > breathe in order to still the usual over-activity of body functions > always in preparation to follow this or that idea ( the simile of > the monkey). > I can't think of any other progress than by the step-by step > development of temporal success. ------- N: Restlessness arises and also lobha or dosa arise, but they are conditioned dhammas. Their characteristics can be learnt when they appear. Instead of thinking of strategies to avoid them I like to think of a learning process: they are realities and why should they not be known? Nina. #80049 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma nilovg Dear Robert A, Op 12-dec-2007, om 16:59 heeft Robert het volgende geschreven: > Does anyone know of a book or paper (online or otherwise) that > analyzes > the differences between the Suttas and the Abhidhamma, or where the > Abhidhamma draws conclusions not directly supported by the Suttas? -------- N: The three parts of the Tipitaka are in conformity with each other. They are the one teaching of the Buddha. In the suttas the same realities have been taught as in the Abhidhamma but here the Buddha uses often conventional terms. But there are also many suttas with the terse way of teaching as we find in the Abhidhamma. There is more to say, but see the archives, or U.P. Or the search function abhidhamma, it will keep you busy for days. An example is the way dukkha is explained. In the suttas it is explained: as pain (dukkha that is obvious, dukkha/dukkha), dukkha in change or dukkha of the five khandhas. The last is by way of paramattha dhammas. The Abhidhamma teaches mostly by way of paramattha dhammas, ultimate truth. But I must add: also the suttas teach paramattha dhammas, only sometimes we do not notice that a sutta points to paramattha dhammas since the explanation is by way of conventional language. If we do not see this there may be misunderstandings of dukkha that is translated as pain, suffering or stress. We may not understand dukkha in the ultimate sense that pertains to this moment. Seeing arises and falls away immediately. Its falling away is dukkha. The falling away of dhammas is dukkha. Nina. #80050 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Robert) - In a message dated 12/12/2007 3:15:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes to Robert Avalo: In the suttas it [Howard's note here: dukkha] is explained: as pain (dukkha that is obvious, dukkha/dukkha), dukkha in change or dukkha of the five khandhas. The last is by way of paramattha dhammas. The Abhidhamma teaches mostly by way of paramattha dhammas, ultimate truth. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ultimate phenomena, not truth, right? But the Buddha taught the same in the suttas - namely the five khandhas and the dhatus. Nothing especially conventional about these. And much that is in the Abhidhamma Pitaka is quite "conventional". ------------------------------------------------------ But I must add: also the suttas teach paramattha dhammas, only sometimes we do not notice that a sutta points to paramattha dhammas since the explanation is by way of conventional language. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Not always. And language in the Abhidhamma Pitaka is often quite conventional. I really don't think that the "ultimacy" of language is a basis for distinguishing the Abhidhamma Pitaka from the Sutta Pitaka. The main difference is that most of the Abhidhamma Pitaka consists of list, tables, synopses, and recapitulations & summations, whereas the suttas are reports of direct addresses together with the social and environmental contexts in which the teachings were given. There are also terminological differences such as the citta & cetasika & rupa break-down in Abhidhamma in place of the five-khandha break-down and the ayatana breakdowns in the suttas (for no apparent reason, but without harm either). ------------------------------------------------------ If we do not see this there may be misunderstandings of dukkha that is translated as pain, suffering or stress. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Throughout most of the Sutta Pitaka, the appropriate translation of 'dukkha' seems to me to be "unsatisfactory" or "unsatisfying" or "off the mark" or "off kilter" (as in a wagon with different size wheels), or, my favorite (in German and Yiddisch), "nicht gut". ------------------------------------------------------- We may not understand dukkha in the ultimate sense that pertains to this moment. Seeing arises and falls away immediately. Its falling away is dukkha. The falling away of dhammas is dukkha. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: So is their arising, if they are unwanted (or even if they *are* wanted, for they will not satisfy! ;-) ============================ With metta, Howard #80051 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:24 pm Subject: Re: A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views kenhowardau Hi Alex, I think we have reached some agreement on when 'setting down the raft' needs to occur. Now we should discuss what it means. -------- A: > You give up attachment to the Dhamma at an ADVANCED stage. At path to Arahatship. Thats how I understand the Sariputta managed to Achieve Arahatship by FULLY letting go ALL clinging, achieving Nirodha and coming out with wisdom as an Arahant. IN NO WAY DO YOU LET GO OF RAFT NOW! As Ven TB has said, it is like giving up the raft before using it to swim the river or worse - in the middle of the river. However, for a trainee - Dhamma should be used to get rid of unskillful qualities. Including using the Dhamma to win philosophical debates. (Note to myself: I should keep this in mind). ---------- I am sure no one at DSG would do that. :-) The most important thing to bear in mind, I think, is that attachment (lobha) is akusala. Any volition that is accompanied by lobha is automatically and inevitably akusala kamma. It can never be wholesome kamma. Therefore, attachment to the Dhamma is never wholesome. It can never be conducive to path progress. So when the suttas speak of 'setting down the raft' they do not imply that attachment was previously conducive to the path. At every step along the path - ranging from the first, basic, intellectual understanding right up to the final attainment of arahantship - there is always non-attachment (alobha). I am not sure, but I think you might be a bit confused about this. So let me reiterate: The simile of 'setting down the raft' does not imply that attachment to the Dhamma was ever a good thing. Therefore, it must mean something else. My guess is it addresses the question of parinibbana vis-à-vis arahantship. The Dhamma is wonderful and the life of an arahant is wonderful, but that must not be taken to mean that parinibbana is somehow less wonderful. After parinibbana there is no more consciousness of the Dhamma or of life or of anything. But that is not a problem. When there is right understanding (even at the basic intellectual stage) of the true nature of conditioned reality there is no attachment. There is no attachemnt to consciousness and so there is no fear of letting go of consciousness - or of anything. When the time has come for an arahant to die he will have no regrets. He will not regret being unable, in the future, to hear and consider the Dhamma. He will simply 'set down the raft' and die. That's just my guess. DSG has discussed the raft simile several times, but my memory is not good. And I can't look it up just now - too busy talking! :-) -------------- <. . .> KH: > >Over the years many meditators have frustratedly urged the study bugs to put away their books and JUST DO IT! :-) >>> A: > Dhamma books (Suttas) ARE crucial. But up to a point. Generally if you are quick witted and can read English fast, then you can finish full DN,SN,MN + AN suttas translated in maybe 3-4 month. But however to simply stay at the level of book knowledge - that is not fully skillful. -------------- That's true, but I must add something important. According to the Buddha's Dhamma there are ultimately only fleeting conditioned dhammas (mental and physical phenomena - namas and rupas). Therefore, when we read something like, "Book knowledge is not enough, there must eventually be direct knowledge," we can understand that to be true, *but* we must somehow understand it in the light of this ultimate, fleeting, momentary reality that the Buddha taught. That is not easy to do. You and I need to read many DSG post and to ask many questions. And we must be prepared to get it wrong time after time and to have to ask the same questions again and again. It is not easy. ------------ A: > For an Arahant the 4NT are not longer fully valid. In Nibbana 4 NT cannot be said to exist! This disproves their Ultimate (Eternal) existence. 4NT's do have Highest Validity for pujjhanas and sekhas, and only limited AT best personal validity for Arahants. ------------ You may have got those definitions from some other school of Buddhism, or maybe from someone's homemade version of the Dhamma. It happens! :-) Dhamma discussions become even more difficult when people are using the same terminology but in different ways. I think, at DSG, we should not use "ultimate existence" to mean "eternal existence." We should use it to mean "absolute existence" or, better still "absolute reality." There can be conditioned absolute reality (citta, cetasika and rupa) and there can be unconditioned absolute reality (nibbana). Both forms are absolutely real. There is a lot more in your post that would be good for discussion, but I will leave it there for now. My eyes react badly to computer screens, and sometimes they demand a rest for a day or so. Ken H #80052 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:48 pm Subject: Re: A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > So when the suttas speak of 'setting down the raft' they do not imply that attachment was previously conducive to the path. At every step along the path - ranging from the first, basic, intellectual > understanding right up to the final attainment of arahantship - there > is always non-attachment (alobha). > > I am not sure, but I think you might be a bit confused about this. So > let me reiterate: The simile of 'setting down the raft' does not > imply that attachment to the Dhamma was ever a good thing.> > Therefore, it must mean something else. >>> One has to chose to follow Dhamma as opposed to Adhamma. So there IS a preference of putting in causes for akusala states to arise. > > That's true, but I must add something important. According to the > Buddha's Dhamma there are ultimately only fleeting conditioned > dhammas (mental and physical phenomena - namas and rupas). Therefore, > when we read something like, "Book knowledge is not enough, there > must eventually be direct knowledge," we can understand that to be > true, *but* we must somehow understand it in the light of this > ultimate, fleeting, momentary reality that the Buddha taught. That is > not easy to do. >>> If the container is dirty than even the best of knowledge will be contaminated. There are many stories of people achieving ariyahood by listening to the discources of the Buddha. Today most of us have read 100x as much as an illiterate Arahant could hear Buddha or his disciples speak. Yet we aren't even close. Proper, Samma-Samadhi, helps to prepare the container. Scripturally, it appears possible to achieve Arahatship through listening (if you have very well developed mind, cleansed with fire of Jhana). > > A: > For an Arahant the 4NT are not longer fully valid. In Nibbana 4 > NT cannot be said to exist! This disproves their Ultimate (Eternal) > existence. > > 4NT's do have Highest Validity for pujjhanas and sekhas, and only > limited AT best personal validity for Arahants. > ------------ > > You may have got those definitions from some other school of > Buddhism, or maybe from someone's homemade version of the Dhamma. >>> Those are implications found for giving objective permanence to ANYTHING. > at DSG, we should not use "ultimate existence" to mean "eternal > existence." We should use it to mean "absolute existence" or, better > still "absolute reality." There can be conditioned absolute reality (citta, cetasika and rupa) and there can be unconditioned absolute > reality (nibbana). Both forms are absolutely real. > If something is conditioned, how can it be absolute? May the DHAMMA be with you! Lots of Metta, Alex #80053 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:28 pm Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... buddhatrue Hi Howard, Actually, I am little confused about what you are trying to say. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't say it's the same. The first two say that only the conditioned > dhammas are anicca & dukkha, whereas the 3rd says that ALL dhammas are anatta. James: Okay, if I am reading you correctly, you believe that the three characteristics of existence apply to dhammas, conditioned and unconditioned. Well, I'm afraid I would have to disagree. The first two apply to forms and the last one applies to dhammas (only conditioned). Now, for some reason, you seem to think I am really wayyyyy out there with this thinking, but that isn't the case at all. Nyanaponika Thera wrote: These three basic facts of all existence are: 1. Impermanence or Change (anicca) 2. Suffering or Unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) 3. Not-self or Insubstantiality (anattaa). The first and the third apply to inanimate existence as well, while the second (suffering) is, of course, only an experience of the animate. The inanimate, however, can be, and very often is, a cause of suffering for living beings: for instance, a falling stone may cause injury or loss of property may cause mental pain. In that sense, the three are common to all that is conditioned, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html So, the important thing to realize is that the truth of suffering applies only to that which is animate, or living. Dhammas are not animate, they are just phenomenon. > ------------------------------------------ > > > > In any > > case, all fabricating activities and all phenomena conditioned by > them (the > > "sankhara" of the first and second of the tilakkhana), are > included among the > > "dhamma" mentioned in the third of the tilakkhana. > > James: I don't agree. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Then you are the one! LOL! > ---------------------------------------------- James: Oh, one is the loneliest number! ;-)) Actually, I'm not sure if I agree or not with this statement because I don't quite understand what you are getting at. The Buddha taught that all dhammas are non-self. It isn't necessary to state that all forms (sankhara) are non-self as well. That is just redundant and misplaces the emphasis the Buddha wanted to teach. > > > > Most Buddhist writers of > > today, of all schools, understand the tilakkhana to state that > the conditioned > > dhammas neither remain nor satisfy nor have (or are) self, and > the > > unconditioned reality, alone among dhammas, is neither anicca nor > dukkha. > > James: Are any of them enlightened?? > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I haven't taken a poll. Are WE? ;-) > ---------------------------------------------- James: My point with this question is that you shouldn't form a philosophical viewpoint of the Buddha's teaching based on what "Buddhist writers" state. The Buddha taught us to be a lamp onto ourselves. Unless there is no shadow of a doubt that a particular Buddhist writer is enlightened, their opinions are no better than anyone else's. So, I am just offering my opinion...you don't have to agree. (I just ask that you and others be polite, :-). Metta, James #80054 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma buddhatrue Hi Nina (and Robert), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > We may not understand dukkha in the ultimate sense that pertains to > this moment. Seeing arises and falls away immediately. Its falling > away is dukkha. The falling away of dhammas is dukkha. > Nina. The falling away is classified as anicca, not dukkha. Metta, James #80055 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 12/12/2007 8:28:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, Actually, I am little confused about what you are trying to say. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't say it's the same. The first two say that only the conditioned > dhammas are anicca & dukkha, whereas the 3rd says that ALL dhammas are anatta. James: Okay, if I am reading you correctly, you believe that the three characteristics of existence apply to dhammas, conditioned and unconditioned. Well, I'm afraid I would have to disagree. The first two apply to forms and the last one applies to dhammas (only conditioned). ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm just not following you here, James. First of all, what do you mean by "forms"? Secondly, if anatta applies only to conditioned dhammas, do you maintain, then, that nibbana is atta? Do you think that the Buddha maintained that? ------------------------------------------------------- Now, for some reason, you seem to think I am really wayyyyy out there with this thinking, but that isn't the case at all. Nyanaponika Thera wrote: These three basic facts of all existence are: 1. Impermanence or Change (anicca) 2. Suffering or Unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) 3. Not-self or Insubstantiality (anattaa). The first and the third apply to inanimate existence as well, while the second (suffering) is, of course, only an experience of the animate. The inanimate, however, can be, and very often is, a cause of suffering for living beings: for instance, a falling stone may cause injury or loss of property may cause mental pain. In that sense, the three are common to all that is conditioned, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel186.html --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Is this the same as what you have been saying? ---------------------------------------------------------- So, the important thing to realize is that the truth of suffering applies only to that which is animate, or living. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, of course. Unsatisfactory/unsatisfying means "unsatisfactory for, or unsatisfying to, sentient beings". As any good Abhidhammika will tell you (LOL!), rupas don't experience. --------------------------------------------------------- Dhammas are not animate, they are just phenomenon. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Consciousness, feeling, recognizing, attending, and so on aren't animate either - and they are dhammas. What is there to a sentient being other than dhammas? Nothing so far as I know. ----------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------ > > > > In any > > case, all fabricating activities and all phenomena conditioned by > them (the > > "sankhara" of the first and second of the tilakkhana), are > included among the > > "dhamma" mentioned in the third of the tilakkhana. > > James: I don't agree. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Then you are the one! LOL! > ---------------------------------------------- James: Oh, one is the loneliest number! ;-)) Actually, I'm not sure if I agree or not with this statement because I don't quite understand what you are getting at. The Buddha taught that all dhammas are non-self. It isn't necessary to state that all forms (sankhara) are non-self as well. That is just redundant and misplaces the emphasis the Buddha wanted to teach. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Whoa, now you're really confusing me! Because all dhammas are not-self, it is redundant that sankhara are, since they are the conditioned dhammas. (Unless, of course, by a sankhara you mean a thing like a person, tree, house, or computer, but for me, these are not rupas, but aggregates of interrelated rupas mentally grasped as units, which makes them mind-door objects.) James, please recall the Sabba Sutta: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "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_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html#n-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." -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Of this "all", what is rupa? Answer: Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations. And the "forms" mentioned in "eye & forms" are exactly sights - whatever appears when we look. Not "a tree", but the "whole scene". Not "a car", but the "whole scene". The "tree" and the "car" aren't eye objects, but are mind-door objects. The car and tree are concepts, not rupa. ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Most Buddhist writers of > > today, of all schools, understand the tilakkhana to state that > the conditioned > > dhammas neither remain nor satisfy nor have (or are) self, and > the > > unconditioned reality, alone among dhammas, is neither anicca nor > dukkha. > > James: Are any of them enlightened?? > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I haven't taken a poll. Are WE? ;-) > ---------------------------------------------- James: My point with this question is that you shouldn't form a philosophical viewpoint of the Buddha's teaching based on what "Buddhist writers" state. The Buddha taught us to be a lamp onto ourselves. Unless there is no shadow of a doubt that a particular Buddhist writer is enlightened, their opinions are no better than anyone else's. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The bottom line is that I put no head above my own. ----------------------------------------------------------- So, I am just offering my opinion...you don't have to agree. (I just ask that you and others be polite, :-). ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course. Have I been impolite? --------------------------------------------------------- Metta, James ============================ With metta, Howard #80056 From: "Robert" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma avalo1968 Hello Nina, Thank you for your reply. What is U.P.? Regards, Robert A. #80057 From: "Robert" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:32 pm Subject: Re: Sutta vs Abhidhamma avalo1968 Hello Alex, Thank you for your reply. I am still looking for a reference that clearly describes the differences in viewpoints between the Abhidhamma and the Suttas, but maybe such a reference does not exist. Regards, Robert A. #80058 From: "Robert" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 8:51 pm Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et avalo1968 Hello James, Thank you for your reply. James: Thank you for the nice post. This is actually a very controversial subject and has caused dissention within the Buddhasangha for centuries. How one defines this will depend on how much you accept the Abhidhamma or not. Personally, I don't accept the Abhidhamma so I see fabrications and dhammas as two distinct things descriptions of reality. Fabrications are form and dhammas are phenomenon. Now, where does Nibbana fit into with what the Buddha taught? It doesn't!! The Buddha only taught suffering and the ending of suffering. When he taught the three characteristics of existence, he taught it in terms of suffering. Nibbana isn't samsaric existence so it isn't included in what the Buddha taught of the three characteristics. Robert A: This still differs from the traditional understanding I have seen before. Fabrications is a translation for sankharas or conditioned things, as distinquished from unconditioned things, of which there is only one - Nibbana. So, all conditioned things are impermanent, all conditioned things are suffering, and both conditioned and unconditioned things are not self. Regards, Robert A. #80059 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma dcwijeratna To: Robert A. This is with respect to your post on: Dhamma and Abhidhamma. If you can get hold of the Encyclopedia of Buddhism published by the Government of Sri Lanka, you can get a comprehensive idea of how Abhidhamma originated. It tells you the difference between the two. It can be recommended more than any other because both Theravaada and Mahaayana (Chinese and Japanaese) versions are mentioned there. You can also look at Warder, Indian Buddhism. One of the most comprehensive studies, I am not aware of any later study, is in "Philosophy & Its Development in the Nikaayas & Abhidhamma," by Fumimaro Watanabe. The author devotes sixty five pages to the topic, "The origin of Abhidhamma Philosphy." I would just draw your attention to the word "philosophy." Philosophy by definition is speculation and has no experiential basis. Even here in Sri Lanka, the Universities teach courses on "Abhidhamma philosophy." If you go through Bhikkhu Bodhi's Introduction to the Compendium (Abhidhammatthasa.ngaha), you will note that he also refers to it as a "philosophy, psychology, and ethics." Finally, if you can get to a library, you can read any book on the history of Pali literature or the History of Buddhism. The word "Abhidhamma" is mentioned only in two places in the Suttas. There is no agreement as to the meaning of the word Abhidhamma, among scholars. Actually, they use the term Abhidhamma to mean what is in the Abhidhamma pi.taka. One fact is there is only one Sutta Pi.taka, but there are at least three Abhidhamma pi.takas in existence. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #80060 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:10 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > Whoa, now you're really confusing me! Because all dhammas are not-self, > it is redundant that sankhara are, since they are the conditioned dhammas. > (Unless, of course, by a sankhara you mean a thing like a person, tree, house, > or computer, but for me, these are not rupas, but aggregates of interrelated > rupas mentally grasped as units, which makes them mind-door objects.) We do not understand each other because we are defining the terms in different ways. Sankhara (Sankhaara) are fabrications. That is, anything which is compounded and put together by conditions. This would include such things as: trees, clouds, rocks, animals, thoughts, molecules, and, yes, people. People are Sankhaara Punja. The Buddha taught that: All sankhara are anicca All sankhara are dukkha All dhammas are anatta Now, until we can agree on the meaning of the terms we are going to be talking over each other. And, no, you are not impolite in the least. I always enjoy our conversations. Metta, James #80061 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:17 pm Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et buddhatrue Hi Robert A., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > Robert A: This still differs from the traditional understanding I have > seen before. Fabrications is a translation for sankharas or conditioned > things, as distinquished from unconditioned things, of which there is > only one - Nibbana. So, all conditioned things are impermanent, all > conditioned things are suffering, and both conditioned and > unconditioned things are not self. I am having the same problem with you as with Howard. You seem to be defining sankhaaras in a vague and nebulous way. Sankhara (Sankhaara) are fabrications. That is, anything which is compounded and put together by conditions. This would include such things as: trees, clouds, rocks, animals, thoughts, molecules, and, yes, people. People are Sankhaara Punja. The Buddha taught that: All sankhara are anicca All sankhara are dukkha All dhammas are anatta Robert, you are not being very specific when you write "things". There are namas and rupas, there are khandas, and there are sankharas- all of which could be referred to as 'things'. But they are not the same 'things'. ;-)). Metta, James #80062 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma nilovg Hi James (Howard), Op 13-dec-2007, om 2:37 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > The falling away is classified as anicca, not dukkha. --------- N: Realities fall away, they are impermanent, and this also shows their nature of dukkha, they are of no refuge. Ven. Samahita quoted from K.S.IV, and this made me think of your dilemma: is anatta over-stressed? The three characteristics of conditioned realities are closely connected. This sutta is also an example of the teaching about ultimate realities in the suttas. Sutta: This should not stay 'in the book', let us apply the sutta to this moment. James, please, touch a chair. Is there no hardness, without having to think of a chair? That is a characteristic of an element, the element of hardness. It appears now, and this means that it has arisen. Whatever appears has arisen. But, as soon as we notice it, it has already fallen away, we cannot catch the present moment. We cannot do anything about what has fallen away. It is beyond control, and this is another way of explaining anatta. I considered this especially in India and the fact that whatever appears has already fallen away helps me to understand that it cannot be manipulated, that it is anatta. I gave an example to Dieter about my dosa. It has already fallen away when we notice dosa, how could we direct it? I hasten to add that the situation is not hopeless. By the development of understanding that sees its true nature it can eventually be lessened. That is the Way the Buddha pointed out. James, I do not know whether this is of any help to you, but see for yourself. I would not say that the chair has fallen away, is impermanent, but, just as the King's chariot that is wearing out, mentioned in the sutta, it can remind us of the impermanence of each reality that appears. Nina. #80063 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] U.P. Sutta vs Abhidhamma nilovg Dear Robert A, Op 13-dec-2007, om 5:26 heeft Robert het volgende geschreven: > What is U.P.? ------ N: Useful Posts. It is a section selected by the mods. It does not mean that other posts are not useful. Nina. #80064 From: "colette" Date: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:37 pm Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et ksheri3 Hi Robert A. and James, I think this post here shows a great deal of the society we all exist in today. For instance James does not appreciate the Abhidharma or Abhidhamma while others do. This does not make James' views less applicable nor less true. It does flavor or color his views more differently than those who study the Abhidhamma or Abhidharma. Maybe, through James' studies, we can find different means to achieving Nibbana and to achieving Enlightenment, yet we know that staying in the same place where we first put out foot down in the stream, will not get us to where it is we intend on going. Robert A. has an equally enlightening position yet he failed to carry his analysis further. For instance, how can he be sure of what is and is not a conditioned thing if he does not first possess PRE- CONCEPTIONS? I'm trying to get to the point of defining a FABRICATION, how did a fabrication occur, what are fabrications made of or made from, why did a fabrication occur, when was the actual time that the fabrication took place -- I mean did the fabrication take place before, for instance, the sun came up or after the sun came up, I'm getting into Process Psychology here -- was the fabrication intentional -- here we can get into Shunyata but I've gotta be going and don't have the time to address these classic issues and splendid operational techniques. thank you both. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > <...> > > Robert A: This still differs from the traditional understanding I have > seen before. Fabrications is a translation for sankharas or conditioned > things, as distinquished from unconditioned things, of which there is > only one - Nibbana. So, all conditioned things are impermanent, all > conditioned things are suffering, and both conditioned and > unconditioned things are not self. #80065 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James (Howard), > > Op 13-dec-2007, om 2:37 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > > The falling away is classified as anicca, not dukkha. > --------- > N: Realities fall away, they are impermanent, and this also shows > their nature of dukkha, they are of no refuge. They have the nature of dukkha to who? Metta, James #80066 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [d-l] Fwd: Standing A Young Woman Up .... In My Dream This Morning sarahprocter... Dear Suan, (Scott, Connie, All) Thank you for your quotes and comments on dreams (#79556). --- abhidhammika wrote: > So, Stephen, the kamma you do in dreams do not generate vipaaka > because the cetanaa that normally generates vipaaka does not count > in dreams. .... S: There is a long section in the Sammohavinodani on dreams (ch 16, Classification of Knowledge). I'm little busy to go into the interesting detail now (you, Scott, Connie or others may), but it concludes with this paragraph for your comments/consideration: "But how, then does profitable and unprofitable kama done in a dream have result or no result? It has result. But owing to weakness it cannot bring about rebirth linking. But when rebirth linking has been given by other kamma, it may be experienced during the course [of an existence]. Metta, Sarah ======== #80067 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sutta vs Abhidhamma sarahprocter... Hi Robert A, --- Robert wrote: > Thank you for your reply. I am still looking for a reference that > clearly > describes the differences in viewpoints between the Abhidhamma and the > Suttas, but maybe such a reference does not exist. ... S: There has been quite a lot of discussion comparing Abhidhamma and Suttas as Nina said. If you go to 'Useful Posts' in the files section of DSG and scroll down to 'Abhidhamma vs Suttanta', you'll find this: Abhidhamma9 vs Suttanta 2206, 2263, 21858, 22028, 25296, 29118, 31789, 32100, 37595, 40380, 40645, 43190, 47709, 51231, 53864, 58532. 58533, 58534, 61346, 64161, 65088, 69759, 74053, 77211, 77331 The numbers in 'U.P.' are all highlighted, so you can just click on them. They refer to past messages in the archives which may be of interest to you. If you don't go to the files section, you can just key in the numbers. Let us know if you find anything of interest or anything you disagree with:-). Here are just a couple of personal reflections about why Mike and Jon study the Abhidhamma as well as the Suttas which I think you'll find interesting. I'm sure they'll be glad to hear further comments too. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/2263 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/25296 Metta, Sarah ======= #80068 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Thanks for your helpful feedback and consideration in #79884 --- upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > There is never a problem with an extreme of true understanding > (which is > "your" extreme for the most part, IMO), but as for "extremes" in > general," > how to evaluate them depends on the exact nature of those particular > extremes. > > Involvement in the welfare of others, for example, is good, but > involvement that has become obsessional is not, and goes beyond the > behavioral middle > way. ... S: I think it always comes back to the cittas - to whether the 'involvement in the welfare of others' is kusala or akusala. Is it with metta or attachment, for example? Moments of kindness and metta cannot be too 'extreme'. However, attachment that becomes obsessional can easily be extreme attachment which is very unhealthy. We can speak conventionally about 'a behavioral middle way' and it can be useful to know our limits in this regard. However, this has nothing to do with the 'Middle Way' as taught by the Buddha, the middle way of understanding present dhammas for what they are. .... > Knowing that eating comes down to nothing but a series of rupas and > accompanying namas is good knowledge, but letting the knowledge that > eating as a > thing-in-itself, like all concepts, is illusion lead to not taking > sustenance > is an extreme that is "unhealthy" to say the least and goes beyond the > behavioral middle way. ... S: 'Knowing eating comes down to nothing but a series of rupas and accompanying namas is good knowledge'. Yes, this is right understanding. 'but letting the knowledge that eating as a thing-in-itself, like all concepts, is illusion lead to not taking sustenance is an extreme'. I'd call it wrong understanding. Not an extreme of the right understanding above. ... <...> > Howard: > And going in the opposite direction: Truly believing in "no people" > in a > nihilistic manner, an incorrect "extreme", amounts to insanity. .... S: Again, understanding that there are only namas and rupas, no 'people' in actuality, is right view. Having an idea that nothing exists is again, not an extreme of this, but a serious wrong view. Again, I've heard many mutterings about 'anatta' and 'extremes', but I have yet to see an example of anatta having been taken to an unhealthy extreme. As I said, I think we all have a very, very long way to go to appreciate the 'extreme' right understanding of the Buddha in this regard. I'll look forward to seeing any examples of this. Metta, Sarah ======== #80069 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma nilovg Hi James, Op 13-dec-2007, om 9:03 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > They have the nature of dukkha to who? ------- N: I would not phrase it in this way. When we learn: realities are impermanent, or realities are anattaa, we do not say: to whom. Realities have these three characteristics, no matter someone experiences them or not. No matter a Buddha has appeared or not. We read in the “Gradual Sayings”, Book of the Threes, Ch XIV, § 134, Appearance, that the Buddha said: Nina. #80070 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > Op 13-dec-2007, om 9:03 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > > They have the nature of dukkha to who? > ------- > N: I would not phrase it in this way. When we learn: realities are > impermanent, or realities are anattaa, we do not say: to whom. James: Okay. But I didn't ask about anicca or annatta. I asked about dukkha. Realities have the characteristic of dukkha to who? > Realities have these three characteristics, no matter someone > experiences them or not. James: Not in regards to dukkha. Nina, could you explain what dukkha means to you- without using anicca or anatta in your explanation? It seems to me that dukkha has no meaning to you whatsoever. No matter a Buddha has appeared or not. James: This has nothing to do with whether someone experiences them or not. Apples and oranges. > > We read in the "Gradual Sayings? Book of the Threes, Ch XIV, ? 134, > Appearance, that the Buddha said: > > Tathågata, this causal law of nature, this orderly fixing of dhammas > prevails, namely, all phenomena are impermanent. > About this a Tathågata is fully enlightened, he fully understands it. > So enlightened and understanding he declares, teaches and makes it > plain. He shows it, he opens it up, explains and makes it clear: this > fact that all phenomena are impermament. > > The same is said about the truth that all conditioned dhammas are > dukkha and that all dhammas are non-self.> This is different from the sutta I have read: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than.html What is the Gradual Sayings? > > Nina. Metta, James #80071 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views sarahprocter... Hi Alex & Ken H, --- kenhowardau wrote: > So > let me reiterate: The simile of 'setting down the raft' does not > imply that attachment to the Dhamma was ever a good thing. <...> >... DSG has discussed the raft simile several > times, but my memory is not good. And I can't look it up just now - > too busy talking! :-) ... S: :-) As you say, attachment to the Dhamma was never a good thing. You may care to look at the following I wrote some time ago. It is attachment which is to be abandoned, not the Dhamma or the 'good states'. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/24878 It included the following from B.Bodhi's translation: "Simile of the Raft p.229: “Bhikkhus, when you know the Dhamma to be similar to a raft, you should abandon even good states, how much more so bad states.” Note 225: ““Dhammaa pi vo phaatabbaa pageva adhammaa” MA identifies the good states with serenity and insight (samatha-vipassana), and paraphrases the meaning: “I teach, bhikkhus, even the abandoning of desire and attachment to such peaceful and sublime states as serenity and attachment, how much more so to that low, vulgar, contemptible, coarse, and impure thing that this foolish Arittha sees as harmless when he says that there is no obstruction in desire and lust for the five cords of sensual pleasure.” "The commentator cites MN 66.26-33 as an example of the Buddha teaching the abandonment of attachment to serenity, MN 38.14 as an example of his teaching the abandonment of attachment to insight. Note that it is in each case the ATTACHMENT to the good states that should be abandoned, not the good states themselves. The Buddha’s injunction is not an invitation to moral nihilism or a proposal that the enlightened person has gone beyond good and evil. In this connection see MN 76.51” (end Bodhi quote>" ***** Look forward to more of your good discussion. Metta, Sarah =========== #80072 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Asoka, Ch 6, no 6. sarahprocter... Hi Elaine (Dieter & all), --- shennieca wrote: > I found another translation of SN 2.6 from accesstoinsight. <...> > > Elaine: > Even a deva says it is difficult to do Buddhist practice but humans > and devas have managed to tame their minds. So, it is possible > (provided the conditions are right). ;-)) .... S: Right, with the proviso you give ;-)) ... > When the conditions are right, they will automatically get it. Those, > whose conditions aren't right, will never get it, no matter how hard > the 'trying' gets going. Is this correct? ... S: Pretty much ;-)). Of course, the important condition is having heard and considered carefully what the path is. Even having heard about the path in a lot of detail, if the conditions aren't right, no amount of wishing or 'trying' will bring any result. Remember the sutta about the chicken sitting on her eggs in SN? The eggs hatch when they've been properly incubated in spite of any wishing by the chicken. Also, remember the Bhumija Sutta, MN 126: "If one follows the holy life inappropriately, even when having made a wish [for results], one is incapable of obtaining results. If one follows the holy life inappropriately, even when having made no wish... both having made a wish and having made no wish... neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, one is incapable of obtaining results. [But] if one follows the holy life appropriately, even when having made a wish, one is capable of obtaining results. If one follows the holy life appropriately, even when having made no wish... both having made a wish and having made no wish... neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, one is capable of obtaining results." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.126.than.html Any further comments? Metta, Sarah ========= #80073 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 12/13/2007 2:10:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > Whoa, now you're really confusing me! Because all dhammas are not-self, > it is redundant that sankhara are, since they are the conditioned dhammas. > (Unless, of course, by a sankhara you mean a thing like a person, tree, house, > or computer, but for me, these are not rupas, but aggregates of interrelated > rupas mentally grasped as units, which makes them mind-door objects.) We do not understand each other because we are defining the terms in different ways. Sankhara (Sankhaara) are fabrications. That is, anything which is compounded and put together by conditions. This would include such things as: trees, clouds, rocks, animals, thoughts, molecules, and, yes, people. People are Sankhaara Punja. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There are several senses of 'sankhara', including at least the following: a) "fabricating operations", b) "mental constructs produced by fabricating operations", and c) "conditioned dhammas" (the elements of "the all"). What you list above seem to fall under b). The items you list are sankhara in that broad sense, but my point is that they are mental constructs and mind-door objects, and not rupa. Sights, sounds, tastes, smells, hardness & softness, warmth & cold, pressures, and so on are instances of rupa. As for the existential status of such mentally fabricated (i.e., constructed) phenomena as you list, I do not attribute unreality to them, but I do attribute only derivative reality to them. From my perspective, once one takes away the interrelated sights, instances of felt hardness, etc, and the sankharic operations that are the basis for the mental construct/projection that is my dining-room table, for example, there is no table. The dhammas that are its basis are, of course, also derivative, but not in the same sense of sankharic construction. They are derivative in the more fundamental sense of being conditioned and not self-existent, arising on the basis of prior conditions. ----------------------------------------------------------- The Buddha taught that: All sankhara are anicca All sankhara are dukkha All dhammas are anatta Now, until we can agree on the meaning of the terms we are going to be talking over each other. And, no, you are not impolite in the least. I always enjoy our conversations. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks. :-) Likewise. -------------------------------------------------------- Metta, James =========================== With metta, Howard #80074 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:05 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 12/13/2007 3:44:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: S: Again, understanding that there are only namas and rupas, no 'people' in actuality, is right view. Having an idea that nothing exists is again, not an extreme of this, but a serious wrong view. =============================== There is a sense in which people exist. It is based on the underlying interrelated phenomena. If that sense were rejected to the point that one truly believed that there are no people AT ALL and yet that one posted messages on DSG to such figments, that poster would indeed be insane. ;-) The "taking to an extreme" of a truth of which I speak is a perversion of mentality. People are prone to that. (Note, Sarah: That last statement is meaningful - and true, even though it speaks of "people.") With metta, Howard #80075 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma dcwijeratna Hello Robert, I sent you an e-m in the morning on the subject of Abhidhamma. Just now, I found that the Introduction of Ven. Nyanatiloka's Abhidhamma Studies is on the internet. Easiest thing to do is to do a Google search with Nyanatiloka and Abhidhamma. I hope that will give you the answer that you are seeking. The book was originally published in 1965 by the Buddhist Publication Society, Kandy, Sri Lanka. But now a Wisdom Publications (Boston) edition is available; published in 1998. The book is very difficult reading; it is subtitled "Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time". This little book is more or less an exposition of Dhammasanganii. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #80076 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and James) - In a message dated 12/13/2007 4:23:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi James, Op 13-dec-2007, om 9:03 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > They have the nature of dukkha to who? ------- N: I would not phrase it in this way. When we learn: realities are impermanent, or realities are anattaa, we do not say: to whom. Realities have these three characteristics, no matter someone experiences them or not. No matter a Buddha has appeared or not. We read in the “Gradual Sayingsâ€?, Book of the Threes, Ch XIV, § 134, Appearance, that the Buddha said: ============================== I think James has a proper point here. Being impermanent and not-self are properties of all conditioned dhammas *independent* of the dhammas being experienced. Anicca and anatta are strictly properties. Dukkha, however, is a relational property. That all conditioned dhammas are dukkha means that they are unsatisfying. It is reasonable to ask, conventionally "unsatisfying to whom?" That they are unsatisfying says something about the relationship between conditioned dhammas and the states and features of namarupic streams (a.k.a. sentient beings). If there were rupas ("out there" ;-) but no consciousness to experience the rupas, it would be entirely meaningless to speak of the rupas as dukkha. With metta, Howard #80077 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:42 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, Acharn Sujin always stresses that we cannot do anything to have sati, it arises because of its own conditions. When we listen to the Dhamma conditions for the arising of sati are accumulated. However, we may still unknowingly try to be aware. It is paññå that can detect such moments. Conceit, måna, is another akusala cetasika that can arise with lobha- múla-citta. When there is conceit we attach importance to ourselves. Because of conceit we compare ourselves with others: we think ourselves better, equal or less than someone else. However, also when we do not compare ourselves with others we may find ourselves important and then there is conceit. Acharn Sujin reminded us that even when we laugh, conceit may arise. When we laugh about the way someone else is dressed, there can be conceit: we may find that he is dressed in a funny way while we are well dressed. Also when we are with other people who tell us stories and we join in their laughter we may find ourselves important, we may attach importance to our way of laughing, our manners. Acharn Supee explained that when there is a sense of "me" and "he" there may already be conceit. Conceit may arise when we think of someone else who takes medicine while we do not have to take it; when we think of ourselves who perspire in the hot climate of India, while others do not; when we think of ourselves who have taken the food from the buffet table already while others have not yet; when we think of ourselves who visit the holy sites, while others do not. There are countless instances of thinking with conceit, but these are very intricate. When we have a thought of "me and the others" and our objective is not dåna, síla or bhåvanå, very often conceit is bound to arise. Even when we think, "He sits there and I am here", there can already be conceit, Acharn Supee said. When we have mettå, loving kindness, for someone else, we do not think with conceit, thus this is a way to have less akusala when we are with others. However, cittas arise and fall away very rapidly, and there may even be clinging to the idea of trying to have mettå instead of conceit. Mettå and conceit can arise very rapidly one after the other. Only paññå can know these different moments. Acharn Sujin said: "If we try to analyse different moments it is not paññå, it is thinking. When there is more understanding there will be less thinking about `me' all the time. We should think of other people rather than thinking of ourselves. Any time satipatthåna arises, it is so useful. It is like a drop of water falling in a big jar, even if it is a tiny drop." In other words, eventually the jar will be filled with water, even if there is a little drop at a time. Evenso, a short moment of sati is useful, because it is accumulated little by little, so that right understanding can grow. ****** Nina. #80078 From: "Robert" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:48 am Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et avalo1968 Hello Colette, Thank you for your suggestions. I understood none of it, but I appreciate your efforts in any case. Regards, Robert A. #80079 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:55 am Subject: Perfections Corner (52) nichiconn Dear All, http://www.zolag.co.uk/ - The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment by Sujin Boriharnwanaket; translated by Nina van Gorkom. Chapter 8: The Perfection of Determination. continued... When the charioteer Sunanda was digging the hole, the Bodhisatta thought, 'This is my time for effort.' He rose up, rubbed his hands and feet and he thought that he still had strength. He thought that he could come down from the chariot, and so he did. He walked backwards and forwards several times and thought that he had the strength to go even a hundred leagues. He seized the back of the chariot and lifted it up as if it were a toy-cart for children. He reflected, 'If the charioteer would want to harm me, I have enough strength to defend myself.'......." We then read that the Bodhisatta taught the Dhamma to the charioteer, saying, "You are dependent on me, the son of the king. If you bury me in the forest, you will commit evil. It is as if a person who sits or lies in the shade of a tree will not break the branches. Because someone who harms his friend is an evil person. The king is like the tree, I am like the branch, and you, charioteer, are like the traveller who sits in its shade. If you bury me in the forest, you commit an evil deed." We read further on that when the charioteer heard this, he implored the Bodhisatta to return, because he knew that he was not dumb. The Bodhisatta explained the reason why he did not want to return, and he spoke about his inclination to become a recluse. He explained about his past lives and his fear of the danger of hell. When the charioteer had listened to the Bodhisatta's teaching of Dhamma, he wanted to apply it and also become a recluse. Thereupon the Bodhisatta said, "O, charioteer, take the chariot back and return after you have paid your debts, because a recluse should not have debts, as is the exhortation of all hermits." Then he sent the charioteer back to the king. The charioteer took the chariot and the ornaments, went to visit the king and informed him of what had happened. The king departed from the city together with his fourfold army, the wetnurses, the citizens and the villagers, in order to visit the Bodhisatta. The Bodhisatta wanted to become a recluse and sat down on a cloth made of branches. He attained the eight attainments and the five supernatural knowledges (abhi~n~naas). He sat down in a hut with great delight in his recluseship. ..to be continued, connie #80080 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:57 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (72) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 1 of 21 15. Cattaaliisanipaato 1. Isidaasiitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa XV. The Section of the Group of Forty [Verses] 1. The commentary on the verses of Therii Isidaasii Cattaaliisanipaate nagaramhi kusumanaameti-aadikaa isidaasiyaa theriyaa gaathaa. Ayampi purimabuddhesu kataadhikaaraa tattha tattha bhave purisattabhaave .thatvaa viva.t.tuupanissaya.m kusala.m upacinantii carimabhavato sattame bhave akalyaa.nasannissayena paradaarikakamma.m katvaa, kaayassa bhedaa niraye nibbattitvaa tattha bahuuni vassasataani niraye paccitvaa, tato cutaa tiisu jaatiisu tiracchaanayoniya.m nibbattitvaa In the section of forty [verses], the verses beginning In the city named for a flower are Therii Isidaasii's. She too did meritorious deed[s] under previous Buddha, living in the state of a man*, and having accumulated good deeds in various lives, in her seventh existence before her final existence, because of an inclination to bad conduct committed the act of adultery. Having died, she was born in hell. When she died there, she was conceived as a hermaphrodite in the womb of a servant girl. *Ce omits mention of this here. tato cutaa daasiyaa kucchismi.m napu.msako hutvaa nibbatti. Tato pana cutaa ekassa daliddassa saaka.tikassa dhiitaa hutvaa nibbatti. Ta.m vayappatta.m giridaaso naama a~n~natarassa satthavaahassa putto attano bhariya.m katvaa geha.m aanesi. Tassa ca bhariyaa atthi siilavatii kalyaa.nadhammaa. Tassa.m issaapakataa saamino tassaa viddesanakamma.m akaasi. When she died there, she was born as the daughter of a certain poor cart driver. When she came of age, Giridaasa, the son of a certain caravan leader, made her his weife and brought her to his home. And his [first] wife was virtuous and of good character. Overcome by envy of her, she made her husband hate* her [the first wife]. *Veddesana-kamma.m akaasi. This may mean: "she performed an incantation to excite hatred in her husband for her" (cf. MW sv vi-dvesha[-karman]). RD: SHE too, having made her resolve under former Buddhas, and persisting in her former disposition in this and that rebirth, in that she heaped up good of age-enduring efficacy, in the seventh rebirth before her last phase of life, susceptible to sex-attraction, wrought adulterous conduct. For this she did purgatory for many centuries, and thereafter for three rebirths was an animal. Thereafter she was brought forth by a slave-woman as an hermaphrodite, and thereafter she was born as the daughter of a poor common man, and was, when of age, married to the son of a caravan-leader named Giridaasa. Now the wife that he had was virtuous and of noble qualities, and the new wife envied her, and quarrelled with the husband because of her. Saa tattha yaavajiiva.m .thatvaa kaayassa bhedaa imasmi.m buddhuppaade ujjeniya.m kulapadesasiilaacaaraadigu.nehi abhisammatassa vibhavasampannassa se.t.thissa dhiitaa hutvaa nibbatti, isidaasiitissaa naama.m ahosi. Ta.m vayappattakaale maataapitaro kularuupavayavibhavaadisadisassa a~n~natarassa se.t.thiputtassa ada.msu. Saa tassa gehe patidevataa hutvaa maasamatta.m vasi. Athassaa kammabalena saamiko virattaruupo hutvaa ta.m gharato niihari. Ta.m sabba.m paa.lito eva vi~n~naayati. She lived out her life span there, and after she died, in this Buddha era, she was reborn in Ujjenii as the daughter of a merchant who was wealthy and honoured for his qualities of practising morality and [being from a good] family and a [good] region, etc. When she came of age, her mother and father gave her to a certain merchant's son who was her equal with regard to family, good looks, age, and wealth. She lived in his house for a month and was dutiful to her husband. Then due to the power of her [former] deeds, her husband became displeased with her and threw her out of the house. All this is to be understood in the text [of the verses]. RD: After her death she was, in this Buddha-era, reborn at Ujjenii *397 as the daughter of a virtuous, honoured and wealthy merchant, and was named Isidaasii. *398 When she was of age, her parents gave her in marriage to a merchant's son, a good match with herself. For a month she dwelt with him as a devoted wife; then, as the fruit of her previous actions, her husband became estranged from her, and turned her out of his house. All this is told in the Pali text. *397 See n. to verse 405. *398 = Slave of the sage. Tesa.m tesa.m pana saamikaana.m aruccaneyyataaya sa.mvegajaataa pitara.m anujaanaapetvaa, jinadattaaya theriyaa santike pabbajitvaa vipassanaaya kamma.m karontii nacirasseva saha pa.tisambhidaahi arahatta.m patvaa, phalasukhena nibbaanasukhena ca viitinaamentii Then because of the fact that one husband after the other was led to being displeased with her, a profound stirring arose in her. After her father gave his permission, she went forth in the presence of Therii Jinadattaa*. She devoted herself to the gaining of insight, and in a very short time she gained the state of Arahatship together with the [four] discriminations. And she spent her time in the happiness of the fruition state and the happiness of quenching. *KRN says, "The name Jinadattaa suggests that the nun was a Jain" (EV II p157, ad v 428). ==to be continued, connie #80081 From: "Robert" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:00 am Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et avalo1968 Hello James, Sorry if I wasn't clear. The point I was trying to make was simply that all conditioned things - and it this case you can take that to mean all objects of mind and body - are impermanent and dukkha, and that all objects of mind and body as well as Nibbana are not-self. That is all. Thanks, Robert A. #80082 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views dcwijeratna Hi Ken H, This is a response to your e-m of Dec. 12. >>KenH: "Ah! By adding "at an appropriate stage" you might be making more sense of it, but I think you will find DC was advocating that we give up the Dhamma now. Correct me if I am wrong, DC, but I think you have said on a number of occasions that considering and discussing Dhamma was "a waste of time." << DC: Giving up dhamma and discussing dhamma are two different things. There is another important point: dhamma could refer to the teaching of the Buddha or to virtuous behaviour. In the latter meaning, virtuous behaviour, it cannot be given up; to discuss it without behaving according to that is a waste of time. Now if you consider the former meaning, the teaching of the Buddha, it is a waste of time to discuss it also. One can never, never, never understand it by discussion; one must travel the path in accordance with the Fourth Noble Truth. Only arahants can understand that. That should clarify the intent of whatever I said. One more point: You must give up all views and di.tthis at the very beginning. You can't give it up on the way. When you give up only you can enter the Buddhist path; sammaadi.t.thi. Sammaadi.t.thi is knowledge as far as 'human beings' are cocerned. It is di.t.thi or a view only in the eyes of the Arahants. Sammaadi.t.thi is a view only int the context of "avijaa paccayaa sankhaara." So you need to give up all views to become a disciple of the Buddha and follow the path. This is the message of the Kaalaamasutta and so many other suttas scattered throughout the canon. >>KenH: "I have stopped you there because I think you may have misunderstood my point. I was not disputing that the Abhidhamma could be described as "metaphysical views." (I think that term denotes 'an understanding of the way things ultimately are' and so I would not dispute it as a definition.) I was simply referring to the fact that DC wanted us to reject the Abhidhamma."<< DC: Well, the meaning of the Abhidhamma is a hot debate aming scholars. What they are agreed about is that the term can unequivocally refer only to Theravaada Abhidhamma Pi.taka, which is a later interpretation of the teaching of the Buddha after his parinibbaana. Today the Abhidhamma that is being discussed most such as the thoery of momentariness, seems to have been developed even after Dhammasanganii and Pa.tthana. It is well known tha Kathaavatthu was compiled after the 3rd Council. And generally Abhidhamma is referred to as a philosophy or a psychology. So if one's interest it philosophy or psychology then it is a very good subject for discussion. But for those who go for refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, that discussion is a total waste of time. I hope the above would clarify my point of view. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna P. S. Thank you for a good discussion. #80083 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:11 am Subject: Re: Sutta vs Abhidhamma truth_aerator Dear Robert A, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > Hello DSG, > > Does anyone know of a book or paper (online or otherwise) that analyzes > the differences between the Suttas and the Abhidhamma, or where the > Abhidhamma draws conclusions not directly supported by the Suttas? > > I understand the Abhidhamma is canonical, but what is its authority in > relation to the Suttas, which are considered the actual words of the > Buddha? Is the contention made that the Abhidhamma has equal authority? > > Thank you, > > Robert A. > Another point. Where did the Buddha has said: "Monks, don't be heeedless. Over there there are roots of the trees, over there an empty huts. Study Dhammasangani, Vibhanga, Dhatukatha, Puggalapaññatti, Kathavatthu,Yamaka and Patthana books of Abhidhamma Pitaka. Don't regret it later" . If this quote was found, it'd be written on the front doors of every Abhidhammika. As far as I know there is NOT a single reference to AP in the 4 Nikayas. Even though the word "Abhidhamma" is mentioned like 10 times, it doesn't need to refer to 7 books above. First, almost any word would be mentioned more than 10 times in 12800 pages of the PTS suttas. Secondly, Abhidhamme for example is mentioned near Abhivinaye. Just like Abhivinaya doesn't mean pitaka of that name, so is with "abhi" dhamma. In a non-literate (peasant) society of those times, we being literate and very complicated, put too much emphasis on books (which very almost non-existent in those time. Only few Vedas and some commerce books may have existed in india of ~14th century AD which is when the Buddha has lived) May the Dhamma be with you, Lots of Metta, Alex #80084 From: "Robert" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:11 am Subject: Re: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 3. avalo1968 Hello Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Acharn Sujin always stresses that we cannot do anything to have sati, > it arises because of its own conditions. When we listen to the Dhamma > conditions for the arising of sati are accumulated. Robert A: I'm sorry to be so slow on this, but I still do not understand why you say we cannot do anything to have sati arise, and then say when we listen to Dhamma, conditions for Sati are accumulated. Choosing to listen to Dhamma is volition, through our actions the conditions for Sati to arise are accumulated, so why is it not possible for us to choose to do other things besides listening to Dhamma and through those volitions, conditions for Sati to arise are accumulated? Thank you, Robert A. #80085 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 3. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/13/2007 9:42:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Acharn Sujin always stresses that we cannot do anything to have sati, it arises because of its own conditions. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: According to her, it would seem, we can't do anything at all. (Yes, I know - there is no "we" to do anything. That's not in debate. I'm simply using human language.) ----------------------------------------------------- When we listen to the Dhamma conditions for the arising of sati are accumulated. However, we may still unknowingly try to be aware. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: So, lesson to be learned in the Twilight Zone: Never try to pay attention, never go against the stream. Just let the mind go wherever it will. (Of course, where it will go is where the defilements take it!) Nina, I can't take this seriously. It is not the Dhamma that I know. (Sorry, but I find this really off the mark.) --------------------------------------------------- It is paññå that can detect such moments. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Or not! ========================= With metta, Howard #80086 From: "Robert" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:37 am Subject: Re: Sutta vs Abhidhamma avalo1968 Hello Alex, I have been referred to the Useful Posts section of this group, so I will browse around there for awhile and see what I find. Thank you for your thoughts. Robert A. > #80087 From: "Robert" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma avalo1968 Hello DC, Thank you for your suggestions. Robert A. #80088 From: "Robert" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma avalo1968 Hello DC, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: > One fact is there is only one Sutta Pi.taka, but there are at least three Abhidhamma pi.takas in existence. > > > D. G. D. C. Wijeratna Did you mean there are three Pali versions of the Abhidhamma or are you referring to versions in other languages? Thanks, Robert A. #80089 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma truth_aerator Dear Robert, There are MANY versions of Abhidhamma within other early schools. Sarvastivada version is another early AP (maybe even earlier than Theravada because Sarvastivada may have came earlier than Theravada). Also there is NO proof that PALI was Buddha's native language. While we can be certain that he knew Sanskrit and probably spoke some Pali or precursor to it - we simply do not know (re PALI but not Sanskrit). There is NO such thing as an "Indian" language. In those times (~ 14 century AD) as well as today in India (and in China) there are MANY regional dialects. So which dialects did the Buddha know and speak in??? May the Dhamma be with you! Lots of Metta, Alex #80090 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma nilovg Hi Howard and James, I understand the phrase to whom and why this is asked. Op 13-dec-2007, om 15:27 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I think James has a proper point here. Being impermanent and not-self > are properties of all conditioned dhammas *independent* of the > dhammas being > experienced. Anicca and anatta are strictly properties. > Dukkha, however, is a relational property. --------- N: Yes, James is approaching dukkha in an affective way, he thinks of unhappy feeling. But this is only one aspect. There are many aspects and many names and descriptions are used. That is why your translations of suffering and unsatisfactoriness are not wrong. As you said: dukkha, nicht gut, no good; also the Dispeller of Delusion (p. 102): du: in the sense of vile. (su is good). < The word kha is met with in the sense of empty, for they call empty space kha. And this first truth is vile because it is the haunt of many dangers, and it is empty because it is devoid of the lastingness, beauty, pleasure and self which are conceived by foolish people; therefore it is called suffering (dukkha) because of vileness and emptiness.> p. 113 deals with the three aspects of dukkha I mentioned before: bodily and mental painful feeling are dukkha/dukkha: because of their individual essence [N:sabhaava: their distinct nature], bodily and mental pleasant feeling are suffering in change. ------- > H: That all conditioned dhammas > are dukkha means that they are unsatisfying. It is reasonable to ask, > conventionally "unsatisfying to whom?" That they are unsatisfying > says something > about the relationship between conditioned dhammas and the states > and features > of namarupic streams (a.k.a. sentient beings). If there were rupas > ("out > there" ;-) but no consciousness to experience the rupas, it would > be entirely > meaningless to speak of the rupas as dukkha. ------ N: Also ruupas are oppressed by rise and fall, no matter they are experienced or not. Dukkhaness is inherent in all conditioned dhammas. See my quoted text: The same is said about dukkha. Phenomena roll on, anyway. Dispeller of Delusion (p. 108): "For there is suffering but none who suffers, Doing exists although there is no doer; While there is peace no person is at peace. A path exists but none who goes thereby." Dukkha as characteristic of each dhamma that arises and falls away is difficult to see. It can be penetrated through the development of insight in stages. Then dukkha will be realized without naming it, without thinking of it. We have to learn to apply the truth of dukkha to this moment. Seeing appears, and this means that it has arisen and that it falls away very rapidly, it is oppressed by rise and fall. So is hardness and each dhamma that appears. ***** Nina. #80091 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 3. nilovg Hi Howard, and Robert A, Op 13-dec-2007, om 16:18 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Acharn Sujin always stresses that we cannot do anything to have sati, > it arises because of its own conditions. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > According to her, it would seem, we can't do anything at all. (Yes, I > know - there is no "we" to do anything. That's not in debate. I'm > simply using > human language.) > ----------------------------------------------------- > N: I just quoted to you: > <...Doing exists although there is no doer; > While there is peace no person is at peace. > A path exists but none who goes thereby." > > You said this is not in debate, but it is. This is not a mere > riddle. It is essential to understand this verse. It is deep and > perhaps hard to take for us who still cling to an idea of self. You know also that there are cetasikas such as energy, volition, determination, which are active. Cetasikas, not self. Inspite of knowing this, there is this feeling of self, clinging to self who wants to do this or that. -------- > It is paññå that can detect such moments. > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Or not! ------- N: And also that depends on the right conditions. Association with the right friend in Dhamma. I am glad and grateful to hear these reminders: Self tries to be aware, self wants to do this or that. This reminds me of the Abbot of the Thai temple in Kusinara who said: where would we be without Khun Sujin? This time we met him in another temple that was being built and he said again that he listens every day to Kh Sujin. He sees the benefit of listening. --------- > When we listen to the Dhamma > conditions for the arising of sati are accumulated. However, we may > still unknowingly try to be aware. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So, lesson to be learned in the Twilight Zone: Never try to pay > attention, never go against the stream. Just let the mind go > wherever it will. (Of > course, where it will go is where the defilements take it!) Nina, I > can't take > this seriously. It is not the Dhamma that I know. (Sorry, but I > find this > really off the mark.) > --------------------------------------------------- > N: Of course there can be wise attention, yoniso manasikara, and > you know this. I feel that I do not need to add anything else, you > know what I mean. --------- Robert A: Choosing to listen to Dhamma is volition, through our actions the conditions for Sati to arise are accumulated, so why is it not possible for us to choose to do other things besides listening to Dhamma and through those volitions, conditions for Sati to arise are accumulated? -------- N: Through listening and study understanding grows and it is this understanding that is indispensable to enable us to develop the right understanding of the eightfold Path. All the perfections should be developed and among them is pa~n~naa, so that eventually defilements can be eradicated. But also metta and the other brahmavihaaras, and all kinds of kusala are most beneficial. They are all necessary in order to reach the goal. Kh Sujin likes to stress that the perfections are developed at this moment while we listen. When we have the confidence to listen, there is also patience, energy, evenmindedness (upekkhaa), renunciation (nekkhamma), we renounce at least for a moment worldly pleasures. This is also my answer to Howard who said: No, not true, there is also renunciation as a perfection. ------- > Nina. > #80092 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/13/2007 2:03:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: N: Also ruupas are oppressed by rise and fall, no matter they are experienced or not. ========================== Why "oppressed"? They merely arise and fall. There is nothing wrong with arising and ceasing! It is neither good nor bad except as grasping makes it so. And without vi~n~nana to be accompanied by upadana, there is no grasping. With metta, Howard #80093 From: "Robert" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 3. avalo1968 Hello Nina, Thank you very much for the good reply: N: Through listening and study understanding grows and it is this understanding that is indispensable to enable us to develop the right understanding of the eightfold Path. All the perfections should be developed and among them is pa~n~naa, so that eventually defilements can be eradicated. But also metta and the other brahmavihaaras, and all kinds of kusala are most beneficial. They are all necessary in order to reach the goal. Kh Sujin likes to stress that the perfections are developed at this moment while we listen. When we have the confidence to listen, there is also patience, energy, evenmindedness (upekkhaa), renunciation (nekkhamma), we renounce at least for a moment worldly pleasures. Robert A: Are you saying it is through listening and only through listening that these all of these perfections are developed. Is that it - only through listening? I know that if I suggest something like generousity, you might say that self view would enter, making this akusala, etc. But isn't that true of anything, including listening. There are ways self-view can enter any volitional act, as choosing to listen to a Dhamma talk would be. We could have conceit as a learned person, or we could listen to become more knowledgable to win debates or who knows what. I can see how fear of self view would eventually make us paralyzed. Nina: I am glad and grateful to hear these reminders: Self tries to be aware, self wants to do this or that. This reminds me of the Abbot of the Thai temple in Kusinara who said: where would we be without Khun Sujin? This time we met him in another temple that was being built and he said again that he listens every day to Kh Sujin. He sees the benefit of listening. Robert A: Isn't is self that wants to listen? I don't see the difference between that and any other volitional action. I know you have done your best to explain this to me, and if I fail to get it, the fault is on my side. This one point is the one I find most difficult when I come to DSG. There has to be more to Buddhism than listening to Dhamma talks, reading commentaries, and debating them. Best regards, Robert A. #80094 From: "Robert" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma avalo1968 Hello Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Also there is NO proof that PALI was Buddha's native language. While > we can be certain that he knew Sanskrit and probably spoke some Pali > or precursor to it - we simply do not know (re PALI but not > Sanskrit). There is NO such thing as an "Indian" language. In those > times (~ 14 century AD) as well as today in India (and in China) > there are MANY regional dialects. So which dialects did the Buddha > know and speak in??? Most of what I have read indicates the Buddha probably did not speak Pali, but another dialect. However, what I was interested in is how many versions of the Pali Abhidhamma exist. Thank you, Robert A. #80095 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There are several senses of 'sankhara', including at least the > following: a) "fabricating operations", b) "mental constructs produced by fabricating > operations", and c) "conditioned dhammas" (the elements of "the all"). James: Huh? Sankhara are fabrications, that's it. Where did you get this definition of 'conditioned dhammas'? It makes no sense whatsoever. Could you please give me some sort of reference? What > you list above seem to fall under b). The items you list are sankhara in that > broad sense, but my point is that they are mental constructs and mind-door > objects, and not rupa. Sights, sounds, tastes, smells, hardness & softness, > warmth & cold, pressures, and so on are instances of rupa. James: Fine, I didn't say that they were rupa, I said that they are sankhara. > As for the existential status of such mentally fabricated (i.e., > constructed) phenomena as you list, I do not attribute unreality to them, but I do > attribute only derivative reality to them. From my perspective, once one takes > away the interrelated sights, instances of felt hardness, etc, and the > sankharic operations that are the basis for the mental construct/projection that > is my dining-room table, for example, there is no table. The dhammas that are > its basis are, of course, also derivative, but not in the same sense of > sankharic construction. They are derivative in the more fundamental sense of being > conditioned and not self-existent, arising on the basis of prior conditions. James: What in the devil are you saying?? You seem to be saying that sankharas are less real than dhammas, but they are still both have a 'derivative reality' (which I think you mean conditioned). What is your point? Howard, you are teetering dangerously close to the dark side. Pretty soon you will be flying to Bangkok to worship at the feet of KS. ;-)) Metta, James #80096 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Also ruupas are oppressed by rise and fall, no matter they are > experienced or not. Dukkhaness is inherent in all conditioned > dhammas. James: Rupas cannot know anything so how could they be "oppressed" by their own rise and fall? Metta, James #80097 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:16 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,218 Vism.XVII,219 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII [(3) Mentality-Materiality as Condition] 218. Which mind-cum-matter combination Is a condition for which kind And how it is so in each case, A wise man should now seek to find. 219. For example, firstly, in rebirth-linking in the five-constituent becoming, the mentality-materiality, in other words, the trio of aggregates with the materiality of the [heart-] basis, is a condition, as conascence, mutuality, support, kamma-result, association, dissociation, presence, and non-disappearance conditions, etc., for the sixth, the mind base. This is merely the heading; but since it can all be construed in the way already stated, the detail is not given here. This is the detailed explanation of the clause 'With mentality-materiality as condition, the sixfold base'. ******************* 218. naamaruupa.m panubhaya.m, hoti ya.m yassa paccayo. yathaa ca tampi sabbattha, vi~n~naatabba.m vibhaavinaa.. 219. seyyathida.m . pa.tisandhiya.m taava pa~ncavokaarabhave khandhattayavatthuruupasa"nkhaata.m naamaruupa.m cha.t.thaayatanassa sahajaataa~n~nama~n~nanissayavipaakasampayuttavippayuttaatthiavigatapaccayaa diihi paccayo hotiiti. idamettha mukhamatta.m. vuttanayaanusaarena pana sakkaa sabba.m yojetunti na ettha vitthaaro dassitoti. aya.m naamaruupapaccayaa sa.laayatananti padasmi.m vitthaarakathaa. #80098 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:40 pm Subject: Loooong Post Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's .../James upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 12/13/2007 7:20:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There are several senses of 'sankhara', including at least the > following: a) "fabricating operations", b) "mental constructs produced by fabricating > operations", and c) "conditioned dhammas" (the elements of "the all"). James: Huh? Sankhara are fabrications, that's it. Where did you get this definition of 'conditioned dhammas'? It makes no sense whatsoever. Could you please give me some sort of reference? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: From Nyanatiloka's dictionary there is the following: ***************************************************** saá¹…khÄ?ra: This term has, according to its context, different shades of meaning, which should be carefully distinguished. (I) To its most frequent usages (s. foll. 1-4) the general term 'formation' may be applied, with the qualifications required by the context. This term may refer either to the act of 'forming or to the passive state of 'having been formed' or to both. 1. As the 2nd link of the formula of dependent origination, (paá¹? da, q.v.), saá¹…khÄ?ra has the active aspect, 'forming, and signifies kamma (q.v.), i.e. wholesome or unwholesome volitional activity (cetanÄ?) of body (kÄ? ya-s.), speech (vacÄ«-s.) or mind (citta- or mano-s.). This definition occurs, e.g. at S. XII, 2, 27. For s. in this sense, the word 'kamma-formation' has been coined by the author. In other passages, in the same context, s. is defined by reference to (a) meritorious kamma-formations (puññÄ?bhisaá¹…khÄ?ra), (b) demeritorious k. (apuññabhisaá¹…khÄ?ra), (c) imperturbable k. (Ä?neñjÄ?bhisaá¹…kh Ä?ra), e.g. in S. XII, 51; D. 33. This threefold division covers karmic activity in all spheres of existence: the meritorious kamma-formations extend to the sensuous and the fine-material sphere, the demeritorious ones only to the sensuous sphere, and the 'imperturbable' only to the immaterial sphere. 2. The aforementioned three terms, kÄ?ya-, vacÄ«- and citta-s. are sometimes used in quite a different sense, namely as (1) bodily function, i.e. in-and-out-breathing (e.g. M. 10), (2) verbal function, i.e. thought-conception and discursive thinking, (3) mental-function, i.e. feeling and perception (e.g. M. 44). See nirodhasamÄ?patti. 3. It also denotes the 4th group of existence (saá¹…khÄ?rakkhandha), and includes all 'mental formations' whether they belong to 'kammically forming' consciousness or not. See khandha, Tab. II. and S. XXII, 56, 79. 4. It occurs further in the sense of anything formed (saá¹…khata, q.v.) and conditioned, and includes all things whatever in the world, all phenomena of existence. This meaning applies, e.g. to the well-known passage, "All formations are impermanent... subject to suffering" (sabbe saá¹…khÄ?ra aniccÄ? ... dukkhÄ? ). In that context, however, s. is subordinate to the still wider and all-embracing term dhamma (thing); for dhamma includes also the Unformed or Unconditioned Element (asaá¹…khata-dhÄ?tu), i.e. NibbÄ?na (e.g. in sabbe dhammÄ? anattÄ?, "all things are without a self"). (II) Saá¹…khÄ?ra also means sometimes 'volitional effort', e.g. in the formula of the roads to power (iddhi-pÄ?da, q.v.); in sasaá¹…khÄ?ra- and asaá¹…khÄ? ra-parinibbÄ?yÄ« (s. AnÄ?gÄ?mÄ«, q.v.); and in the Abhidhamma terms asaá¹…khÄ?rika- (q.v.) and sasaá¹…khÄ?rika-citta, i.e. without effort = spontaneously, and with effort = prompted. In Western literature, in English as well as in German, saá¹…khÄ?ra is sometimes mistranslated by 'subconscious tendencies' or similarly (e.g Prof Beckh: "unterbewußte Bildekräfte," i.e. subconscious formative forces). This misinterpretation derives perhaps from a similar usage in non-Buddhist Sanskrit literature, and is entirely inapplicable to the connotations of the term in PÄ?ḷi Buddhism, as listed above under I, 1-4. For instance, within the dependent origination, s. is neither subconscious nor a mere tendency, but is a fully conscious and active karmic volition. In the context of the 5 groups of existence (s. above I, 3), a very few of the factors from the group of mental formations (saá¹…khÄ?rakkhandha) are also present as concomitants of subconsciousness (s. Tab. I-III), but are of course not restricted to it, nor are they mere tendencies. ************************************************ The ATI glossary gives the following: ********************************************** sankhara [sankhaara]: Formation, compound, fashioning, fabrication — the forces and factors that fashion things (physical or mental), the process of fashioning, and the fashioned things that result. Sankhara can refer to anything formed or fashioned by conditions, or, more specifically, (as one of the five _khandhas_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#khandha) ) thought-formations within the mind. ********************************************* At the end of this post, I copy an entire article by Bhikkhu Bodhi on sankhara. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What > you list above seem to fall under b). The items you list are sankhara in that > broad sense, but my point is that they are mental constructs and mind-door > objects, and not rupa. Sights, sounds, tastes, smells, hardness & softness, > warmth & cold, pressures, and so on are instances of rupa. James: Fine, I didn't say that they were rupa, I said that they are sankhara. > As for the existential status of such mentally fabricated (i.e., > constructed) phenomena as you list, I do not attribute unreality to them, but I do > attribute only derivative reality to them. From my perspective, once one takes > away the interrelated sights, instances of felt hardness, etc, and the > sankharic operations that are the basis for the mental construct/projection that > is my dining-room table, for example, there is no table. The dhammas that are > its basis are, of course, also derivative, but not in the same sense of > sankharic construction. They are derivative in the more fundamental sense of being > conditioned and not self-existent, arising on the basis of prior conditions. James: What in the devil are you saying?? You seem to be saying that sankharas are less real than dhammas, but they are still both have a 'derivative reality' (which I think you mean conditioned). --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sankhara are conditioned dhammas, including a variety of volitional operations. The term is very broad, and it includes productions and produced, and it includes khandhic elements and aggregations. -------------------------------------------------------- What is your point? Howard, you are teetering dangerously close to the dark side. Pretty soon you will be flying to Bangkok to worship at the feet of KS. ;-)) --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: My light saber's bigger than your saber, Luke! ---------------------------------------------------------- Metta, James ============================= With metta, Howard P.S. BB's article follows: Anicca Vata Sankhara by Bhikkhu Bodhi Source: BPS Newsletter cover essay no. 43 (3rd mailing, 1999). ____________________________________ Copyright © 1999 Buddhist Publication Society Access to Insight edition © 2005 For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted, and redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish, however, that any such republication and redistribution be made available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that translations and other derivative works be clearly marked as such. ____________________________________ Anicca vata sankhara — "Impermanent, alas, are all formations!" — is the phrase used in Theravada Buddhist lands to announce the death of a loved one, but I have not quoted this line here in order to begin an obituary. I do so simply to introduce the subject of this essay, which is the word sankhara itself. Sometimes a single Pali word has such rich implications that merely to sit down and draw them out can shed as much light on the Buddha's teaching as a long expository article. This is indeed the case with the word sankhara. The word stands squarely at the heart of the Dhamma, and to trace its various strands of meaning is to get a glimpse into the Buddha's own vision of reality. The word sankhara is derived from the prefix sam, meaning "together," joined to the noun kara, "doing, making." Sankharas are thus "co-doings," things that act in concert with other things, or things that are made by a combination of other things. Translators have rendered the word in many different ways: formations, confections, activities, processes, forces, compounds, compositions, fabrications, determinations, synergies, constructions. All are clumsy attempts to capture the meaning of a philosophical concept for which we have no exact parallel, and thus all English renderings are bound to be imprecise. I myself use "formations" and "volitional formations," aware this choice is as defective as any other. However, though it is impossible to discover an exact English equivalent for sankhara, by exploring its actual usage we can still gain insight into how the word functions in the "thought world" of the Dhamma. In the suttas the word occurs in three major doctrinal contexts. One is in the twelvefold formula of dependent origination (paticca-samuppada), where the sankharas are the second link in the series. They are said to be conditioned by ignorance and to function as a condition for consciousness. Putting together statements from various suttas, we can see that the sankharas are the kammically active volitions responsible for generating rebirth and thus for sustaining the onward movement of samsara, the round of birth and death. In this context sankhara is virtually synonymous with kamma, a word to which it is etymologically akin. The suttas distinguish the sankharas active in dependent origination into three types: bodily, verbal, and mental. Again, the sankharas are divided into the meritorious, demeritorious, and "imperturbable," i.e., the volitions present in the four formless meditations. When ignorance and craving underlie our stream of consciousness, our volitional actions of body, speech, and mind become forces with the capacity to produce results, and of the results they produce the most significant is the renewal of the stream of consciousness following death. It is the sankharas, propped up by ignorance and fueled by craving, that drive the stream of consciousness onward to a new mode of rebirth, and exactly where consciousness becomes established is determined by the kammic character of the sankharas. If one engages in meritorious deeds, the sankharas or volitional formations will propel consciousness toward a happy sphere of rebirth. If one engages in demeritorious deeds, the sankharas will propel consciousness toward a miserable rebirth. And if one masters the formless meditations, these "imperturbable" sankharas will propel consciousness toward rebirth in the formless realms. A second major domain where the word sankharas applies is among the five aggregates. The fourth aggregate is the sankhara-khandha, the aggregate of volitional formations. The texts define the sankhara-khandha as the six classes of volition (cha cetanakaya): volition regarding forms, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile objects, and ideas. Though these sankharas correspond closely to those in the formula of dependent origination, the two are not in all respects the same, for the sankhara-khandha has a wider range. The aggregate of volitional formations comprises all kinds of volition. It includes not merely those that are kammically potent, but also those that are kammic results and those that are kammically inoperative. In the later Pali literature the sankhara-khandha becomes an umbrella category for all the factors of mind except feeling and perception, which are assigned to aggregates of their own. Thus the sankhara-khandha comes to include such ethically variable factors as contact, attention, thought, and energy; such wholesome factors as generosity, kindness, and wisdom; and such unwholesome factors as greed, hatred, and delusion. Since all these factors arise in conjunction with volition and participate in volitional activity, the early Buddhist teachers decided that the most fitting place to assign them is the aggregate of volitional formations. The third major domain in which the word sankhara occurs is as a designation for all conditioned things. In this context the word has a passive derivation, denoting whatever is formed by a combination of conditions; whatever is conditioned, constructed, or compounded. In this sense it might be rendered simply "formations," without the qualifying adjective. As bare formations, sankharas include all five aggregates, not just the fourth. The term also includes external objects and situations such as mountains, fields, and forests; towns and cities; food and drink; jewelry, cars, and computers. The fact that sankharas can include both active forces and the things produced by them is highly significant and secures for the term its role as the cornerstone of the Buddha's philosophical vision. For what the Buddha emphasizes is that the sankharas in the two active senses — the volitional formations operative in dependent origination, and the kammic volitions in the fourth aggregate — construct the sankharas in the passive sense: "They construct the conditioned; therefore they are called volitional formations. And what are the conditioned things they construct? They construct the body, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness; therefore they are called volitional formations" (SN XXII.79). Though external inanimate things may arise from purely physical causes, the sankharas that make up our personal being — the five aggregates — are all products of the kammically active sankharas that we engaged in our previous lives. In the present life as well the five aggregates are constantly being maintained, refurbished, and extended by the volitional activity we engage in now, which again becomes a condition for future existence. Thus, the Buddha teaches, it was our own kammically formative sankharas that built up our present edifice of personal being, and it is our present formative sankharas that are now building up the edifices of personal being we will inhabit in our future lives. These edifices consist of nothing other than sankharas as conditioned things, the conditioned formations comprised in the five aggregates. The most important fact to understand about sankharas, as conditioned formations, is that they are all impermanent: "Impermanent, alas, are formations." They are impermanent not only in the sense that in their gross manifestations they will eventually come to an end, but even more pointedly because at the subtle, subliminal level they are constantly undergoing rise and fall, forever coming into being and then, in a split second, breaking up and perishing: "Their very nature is to arise and vanish." For this reason the Buddha declares that all sankharas are suffering (sabbe sankhara dukkha) — suffering, however, not because they are all actually painful and stressful, but because they are stamped with the mark of transience. "Having arisen they then cease," and because they all cease they cannot provide stable happiness and security. To win complete release from suffering — not only from experiencing suffering, but from the unsatisfactoriness intrinsic to all conditioned existence — we must gain release from sankharas. And what lies beyond the sankharas is that which is not constructed, not put together, not compounded. This is Nibbana, accordingly called the Unconditioned — asankhata — the opposite of what is sankhata, a word which is the passive participle corresponding to sankhara. Nibbana is called the Unconditioned precisely because it's a state that is neither itself a sankhara nor constructed by sankharas; a state described as visankhara, "devoid of formations," and as sabbasankhara-samatha, "the stilling of all formations." Thus, when we put the word sankhara under our microscope, we see compressed within it the entire worldview of the Dhamma. The active sankharas consisting in kammically active volitions perpetually create the sankhara of the five aggregates that constitute our being. As long as we continue to identify with the five aggregates (the work of ignorance) and to seek enjoyment in them (the work of craving), we go on spewing out the volitional formations that build up future combinations of aggregates. Just that is the nature of samsara: an unbroken procession of empty but efficient sankharas producing still other sankharas, riding up in fresh waves with each new birth, swelling to a crest, and then crashing down into old age, illness, and death. Yet on it goes, shrouded in the delusion that we're really in control, sustained by an ever-tantalizing, ever receding hope of final satisfaction. When, however, we take up the practice of the Dhamma, we apply a brake to this relentless generation of sankharas. We learn to see the true nature of the sankharas, of our own five aggregates: as unstable, conditioned processes rolling on with no one in charge. Thereby we switch off the engine driven by ignorance and craving, and the process of kammic construction, the production of active sankharas, is effectively deconstructed. By putting an end to the constructing of conditioned reality, we open the door to what is ever-present but not constructed, not conditioned: the asankhata-dhatu, the unconditioned element. This is Nibbana, the Deathless, the stilling of volitional activities, the final liberation from all conditioned formations and thus from impermanence and death. Therefore our verse concludes: "The subsiding of formations is blissful!" #80099 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:42 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,218 Vism.XVII,219 nichiconn Naamaruupa.m panubhaya.m, hoti ya.m yassa paccayo; yathaa ca tampi sabbattha, vi~n~naatabba.m vibhaavinaa. [(c) Mentality-Materiality as Condition] 218. Which mind-cum-matter combination Is a condition for which kind And how it is so in each case, A wise man should now seek to find. {PoP p.678} [565] What name-and-form is cause of whatever, So everywhere the wise should understand. Seyyathida.m Pa.tisandhiya.m taava pa~ncavokaarabhave khandhattayavatthuruupasa"nkhaata.m naamaruupa.m cha.t.thaayatanassa sahajaata-a~n~nama~n~nanissayavipaakasampayuttavippayutta-atthi-avigatapaccayaad\ iihi paccayo hotiiti. Idamettha mukhamatta.m. Vuttanayaanusaarena pana sakkaa sabba.m yojetunti na ettha vitthaaro dassitoti. Aya.m "naamaruupapaccayaa sa.laayatanan"ti padasmi.m vitthaarakathaa. 219. For example, firstly, in rebirth-linking in the five-constituent becoming, the mentality-materiality, in other words, the trio of aggregates with the materiality of the [heart] basis, is a condition, as conascence, mutuality, support, kamma-result, association, dissociation, presence, and non-disappearance, conditions, etc., for the sixth, the mind base. This is merely the heading; but since it can all be construed in the way already stated, the detail is not given here. This is the detailed explanation of the clause 'With mentality-materiality as condition, the sixfold base'. {PoP p.678} For instance, at rebirth name-and-form, which is called the three aggregates, and basic matter, in a world of the five constituents, is a cause of the sixth sense by way of co-existence, reciprocity, dependence, result, association, dissociation, presence, non-absence and so on. This is only a digest. The detailed account has not been made since one could construe everything from the method shown. This is the detailed discourse on the clause: "Conditioned by name-and-form the sixfold sense comes to pass." #80100 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:24 pm Subject: Loooong Post Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's .../James buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sankhara are conditioned dhammas, including a variety of volitional > operations. The term is very broad, and it includes productions and produced, and > it includes khandhic elements and aggregations. > -------------------------------------------------------- James: I have read the definition and the article and I still don't see anywhere where it says that sankhara are conditionded dhammas. Sankhara are conditioned FORMATIONS. Granted, the word has many nuances because formations are very complicated and vast, but sankhara is not synonymous with dhamma. Sankhara are formations and dhammas are phenomenon. > > > What is > your point? Howard, you are teetering dangerously close to the dark > side. Pretty soon you will be flying to Bangkok to worship at the > feet of KS. ;-)) > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > My light saber's bigger than your saber, Luke! > ---------------------------------------------------------- James: Now Howard, trying to turn me on isn't going to work! LOL! Metta, James #80101 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:39 pm Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et buddhatrue Hi Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > Hello James, > > Sorry if I wasn't clear. The point I was trying to make was simply that > all conditioned things - and it this case you can take that to mean all > objects of mind and body - are impermanent and dukkha, and that all > objects of mind and body as well as Nibbana are not-self. That is all. > If nibbana is included in the three characteristics or not is an entirely different matter. In this thread I was wanting to focus on dukkha. Different people have different opinions on this matter. My opinion is that nibbana shouldn't be viewed as self or non-self, it is beyond speculation. But, if one should speculate, as humans are bound to do, it should be viewed as non-self as opposed to self. Metta, James #80102 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:13 pm Subject: Re: Loooong Post Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's .../James upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 12/13/2007 9:24:31 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sankhara are conditioned dhammas, including a variety of volitional > operations. The term is very broad, and it includes productions and produced, and > it includes khandhic elements and aggregations. > -------------------------------------------------------- James: I have read the definition and the article and I still don't see anywhere where it says that sankhara are conditionded dhammas. Sankhara are conditioned FORMATIONS. Granted, the word has many nuances because formations are very complicated and vast, but sankhara is not synonymous with dhamma. Sankhara are formations and dhammas are phenomenon. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The term 'dhamma' also has several senses. The most general is simply "thing", meaning pretty much "anything at all". Another sense is "idea" or "thought", and another is "basic element of experience". Among the dhammas are the sankhara. The material I provided clearly includes the meaning for 'sankhara' of conditioned phenomena. The only dhamma that is not conditioned is nibbana. (I don't think I really understand what you mean by "formation." If something is formed, it certainly is conditioned.) ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > What is > your point? Howard, you are teetering dangerously close to the dark > side. Pretty soon you will be flying to Bangkok to worship at the > feet of KS. ;-)) > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > My light saber's bigger than your saber, Luke! > ---------------------------------------------------------- James: Now Howard, trying to turn me on isn't going to work! LOL! ------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Uh, oh! LOLOL! ------------------------------------------------------------------- Metta, James ================================= With metta, Howard #80103 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:51 pm Subject: Re: Loooong Post Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's .../James TGrand458@... Hi Howard and James Nice posts. Although it may be a fine point, I just hate the term "dhammas." It teeters toward a subjective view and I think the proof is in the "ultimate reality with its own characteristic" pudding. The term "Dhamma" (non-plural) does not lead in that direction IMO. When terms like "formations" are used to represent sankhara; the conditioned/causal/D.O. nature of the term is well integrated within the term and the term in-and-of-itself does not incorporate a tendency to lead astray...i.e., toward self view. I also don't know why one needs to say -- "Sankhara are conditioned Dhammas." What's the purpose of the term "Dhammas" in that? To obscure the meaning? Personally, I think that usually IS the purpose! Since "Dhamma" has so many flavors, why not nail it down and say -- "Sankhara are conditioning formations, or conditioning phenomena, etc.." I even like the term "conditioning energies"...since that's what conditions are. (That will probably upset a few bookologists!) :-) The dynamic, causal, continuous, altering, flow of phenomena needs to contained as part of the description as much as possible IMO. Seeing causality is simultaneously seeing impermanence and non-self. TG #80104 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, Back to the comments about taking anatta to extremes:-). --- upasaka@... wrote: > There is a sense in which people exist. It is based on the > underlying > interrelated phenomena. If that sense were rejected to the point that > one truly > believed that there are no people AT ALL and yet that one posted > messages on > DSG to such figments, that poster would indeed be insane. ;-) ..... S: I think 'the perversion of mentality' is when we really think that 'in a sense' people exist, computers exist, trees and tables exist. When we don't accept that there are 'no people AT ALL', this is the illusion or insanity of the worldling. "He is called a worldling for such reasons As that he generates a multitude of things, Because he is immersed in the herd, And because he is a man who is distinct. "They generated a multitude of defilements, hence they are worldlings. They have not destroyed the multiple forms of personality view, they look up to a multitude of teachers, they have not emerged from the multitude of destinations, they form multiple kamma-formations, they are swept away by a multitude of floods, afflicted by a multitude of afflictions, consumed by a multitude of fevers - hence they are wordlings......Again one who is included among the incalculable multitude of people who live according to an inferior doctrine and are averse to the doctrine of the ariyans is called a worldling. And a person distinct or remote from the ariyans endowed with such noble qualities as virtue, learning, etc., is called a worldling" "....the wordling is like a madman. He seizes upon anything he can in whatever way he can." (Mulapariyaya Sutta commentaries, transl by B.Bodhi in "The Discourse on The Root of Existence") ... I'm also reminded of an extract from a discussion in India I listened to this morning. K.Sujin was reminding us that we are dreaming from birth to death. We think we live with many people, but actually there is just seeing and thinking or only thinking at such times. The only difference between now and in a dream is that visible object is appearing now in between the thinking. It is sanna which remembers so well that it can condition such stories again and again of permanent beings and things, she stressed. When we wake up, she was asking, where is the object of the story in the dream? Now, it's the same. If there's no thinking about people to write to or people around us, where are the people? When it is right view about dhammas as anatta, no people at all, however 'extreme' this may sound, I see it as the sanity as taught by the wise, rather than the insanity of the herd. Metta, Sarah ======= #80105 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Dec 13, 2007 11:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist Boomers - free of fun? sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- upasaka@... wrote: > Howard: > Sometimes one is actually at a disadvantage being born into a > religion. > There is some validity to the maxim that "Familiarity breeds contempt". > And > if not contempt, then an illusion of depth of knowledge when there > really is > none. Part of the reason may be that the familiarity may actually be > superficial and that one knows much less of the riches in a religion > due to cultural > overlay and to satisfaction with rite and ritual empty of genuine > content. ... S: I understand what you mean and think you make a good point. The careful considering of what one has heard and been taught is very important. Metta, Sarah ======== #80106 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:23 am Subject: Loooong Post Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's .../James buddhatrue Hi Howard and all, > Howard: > The term 'dhamma' also has several senses. The most general is simply > "thing", meaning pretty much "anything at all". Another sense is "idea" or > "thought", and another is "basic element of experience". Among the dhammas are > the sankhara. The material I provided clearly includes the meaning for > 'sankhara' of conditioned phenomena. The only dhamma that is not conditioned is > nibbana. (I don't think I really understand what you mean by "formation." If > something is formed, it certainly is conditioned.) > ------------------------------------------------------------------ Howard, you are going to drive me batty! ;-)) Your definitions are obscuring the issue more than clarifying. Yes, "dhammas" has different meanings, depending on the context- so let's examine more closely the context. We are talking about the three characteristics: All sankhara are anicca All Sankhara are dukkha All dhammas are anatta Sankhara are fabrications, constructions, things which are put together and the process which puts them together (which isn't really that different since all things are processes). The Buddha taught that all fabrications, constructions, things put together, will always fall apart (anicca) and will always cause suffering (dukkha). Dhammas are phenomena, objects of the senses, characteristics, nature of things, etc. All dhammas, or all phenomena, characteristics, nature of things, etc. are non-self. So, all objects of the senses (tastes, smells, feelings, etc.) are non-self. So, the Buddha taught that the most basic element of our experience- dhammas- are non self. This doesn't create the opportunity for a self to be found anywhere because everything inside of us, outside of us, and between the two, is non-self. And those things which are fabricated or constructed will fall apart and cause suffering (because we cling to them). Now, the Abhidhamma goes a step further and states that all dhammas, phenomena, are anicca and dukkha as well. Well, that's all fine and good but no one (or very few) is really able to perceive the anicca and dukkha of phenomena because of the continuation of experience. The anicca and dukkha of phenomena can only be seen during meditation and the mind should be properly prepared for seeing this. The Buddha wanted us to be constantly aware of the anicca and dukkha of sankhara because that is what we really cling to. Again, I have been stressing that when you over-emphasize anatta, anatta of phenomena, and you reject the existence of people (sankhara punja), then you virtually eliminate the truth of dukkha. It is sankhara which are dukkha- but if you state that there are no sankharas then there is no dukkha. That is why in DSG you read all kinds of talk about anatta but rarely a peep about dukkha. The members tell themselves that they shouldn't experience dukkha because they and the objects of their desires don't really exist. Well, sorry, but insight doesn't arise that way. Denial is not the way to insight. Well, I guess I have written enough. I will rest (and meditate) this weekend and I am going to be very busy with classes next week. I will post more on this thread when I have time. Metta, James #80107 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] - Nirodha sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- Alex wrote: > But also let us not forget the verse of Dhammapada #372. > > There's no jhana for one with no discernment, no discernment > for one with no jhana. But one with both jhana & discernment: > he's on the verge of Unbinding. - > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.25.than.html .... S: See a message I wrote on this before: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/67402 We have to keep in mind the 2 meanings of jhana and consider the verse carefully. > > > BTW. A certain Saydaw says that cessation can lead to > Sotapannaship... > > ... > > S: A certain Sayadaw is mistaken. Show me the text! > > ... > > You mean the sutta? ... S: I don't mind whether it's a sutta, Vinaya, Abhidhamma or ancient commentary. You won't find it:-) ... > When the phrase "Whatever is subject to origination, all that is > subject to cessation" + the direct knowledge of Dependent Origination > this implies a very quick achievement of "cessation of perception & > feelings". ... S: 'All that is subject to cessation' is not referring to nirodha samapatti (the topic of discussion)! It is referring to the fact that all conditioned dhammas arise by conditions and fall away by conditions. This is the truth regardless of any 'achievement'. Metta, Sarah ======= #80108 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:25 am Subject: Re: was Re: [dsg] Alchohol & 5th Precept. - Nirodha sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- Alex wrote: > > ....> S: What can be understood or contemplated whilst in Jhana? > >> > > Whatever qualities there are in the first jhana — directed thought, > evaluation, rapture, pleasure, singleness of mind, contact, feeling, > perception, intention, consciousness,2 desire, decision, persistence, > mindfulness, equanimity, & attention > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.111.than.html .... S: These are the mental factors which arise with jhana cittas. They are not the OBJECTS of the jhana cittas. They are not understood or contemplated whilst in jhana. ..... > > Thus MN111 isn't the only sutta with Jhanas being more than > simply "blanking out". ... S: There is no question of Jhanas being a 'blanking out' as you put it. ... > >S:Surely only the > > nimitta appearing as object. The understanding of the ti-lakkhana of > > dhammas can only occur at moments of insight, not at moments of > jhana cittas. > >> ... >A: Insight (or atleast collecting data to use after emerging) happens IN > Jhana > "'I tell you, the ending of the mental fermentations depends on the > first jhana.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it > said? There is the case where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, > withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first > jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by > directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there > that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & > consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an > arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, > not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having > done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: 'This is > peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the > relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; > dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.' > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.036.than.html .... S: After the jhana cittas have fallen away, even these cittas are known for what they are - anicca, dukkha and anatta, not worth clinging to at all. Metta, Sarah ====== #80109 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- han tun wrote: > Sarah: I'd like to know more about; > a) what you mean by successful > b) whether the actual practice as you see it is really > so different, in spite of the changed circumstances. > Can you relate this to the verse from the Jataka: <...> > (b) I know the meaning of the verse from the Jaataka. > But I do not know how it relates to my practice. What > gives you the idea that there may be any relationship? ... S: You mentioned that your practice was not successful according to the pre-war practice of elderly Burmese or according to modern practices of going on retreats. The verse from the Jataka referred to how 'the teaching of the wise is ageless and never changes'. In other words, even though the circumstances and way of living may be different for us now from how the elderly rural community lived in Burma before, the Truths are the same. The Path to follow is the same, regardless. So the dhammas which make up our lives, such as seeing and visible object have just the same characteristics. Certainly the concepts we think about may be different, just as different dreams are different. However, thinking is just thinking, regardless of whether we are at the temple, on retreat or at home with family. In this sense, it's not a question of 'success' in the worldly sense that you use the term. The only success that counts is the development of understanding of these common, ordinary dhammas which arise and fall now, just as they've always done. So, Han, no need to think that the practice would be any better in different circumstances. This is why I also asked whether the circumstances make any/much difference with regard to the Vinnana sutta you had quoted which discussed desires for sense objects and dhammas to be known. ... >H: (c) SN 27.3 Vi~n~naana sutta is a very short sutta > which says that desire and lust (chanda-raaga) for > eye-consciousness etc is the corruption of the mind > (citta-upakkilesa). When a bhikkhu has abandoned the > mental corruptions in these six cases, the mind > becomes wieldy in regard to those things that are to > be realized by direct knowledge. > > I quoted this sutta to show the importance of vipaaka > cittas which are consequential in that they can cause > the corruption of the mind. But I do not understand > your current question: “do the circumstances make > any/much difference?” What do you mean by that > question? .... S: My suggestion was that there is visible object, eye-consciousness and corruptions of the mind in all these different circumstances. So the path concerns the understanding of these dhammas and the abandoning of these corruptions, rather than living in a particular environment. Metta, Sarah ======== #80110 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) To Sarah sarahprocter... Dear Han, --- han tun wrote: > Han: > I am thinking about your question again. Maybe you are > not asking me to relate my practice and the verse from > the Jaataka. Maybe you are asking how the teachings as > mentioned in the Jaataka relate to the pre-war > practice in Burma and the modern-day practice in > Burma. Is that right? ... S: Yes, I think the teachings relate to anytime, any circumstances, any practices (as you use the word here). ... > > If so, my answer would be the teachings are the same. > They do not grow old or decay or modified in any way. ... S: Yes, we see it the same way. .... > But the practices have changed. During pre-war period > in Burma (especially in rural areas) it was less > stressful and easy. Although the Nibbaana was and is > the ultimate goal for the people then and now, the > people before the war took things easy and most of > them were satisfied with daana and siila, and > bhaavanaa consisted mainly of what they did at the > temple which I had already described. But the > modern-day practice in Burma is like that in Thailand > which you already know. .... S: It's true that circumstances may be easier at different times and in different places and we're all susceptible to the worldly conditions of course. I think in any of the circumstances, it is the daana, siila and bhaavanaa that count. However, these have to be clearly understood. Much of what is taken for daana, siila and bhaavanaa may be different kinds of 'practice' rather than true kusala cittas. Without the development of understanding of present dhammas, we'll never know. I also wished to encourage you not to think that if you were able to be in other circumstances (such as pre-war Burma) that the development of bhaavanaa would be any better/different. The kilesa are just the same. I'm sure I haven't expressed myself well (I can't help listening to Jon and my mother chattering in the background as I type:-)), but you'll have followed my gist. Metta, Sarah ======== #80111 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 4, no 3. sarahprocter... Hi DC, --- DC Wijeratna wrote: >What is real are vedana, sa~n~naa, > sa"nkhaara, and vi~n~naa.na. Four of the 'mental' khandhas. This is the > Dhammic analysis. .... S: What about ruupa? Do you mean that ruupas are not real? I look forward to any elaborations. Btw, I appreciate the details you give on various Paali terms in different posts. Very interesting. Metta, Sarah ======= #80112 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et sarahprocter... Hi James, Good to see your various discussions. --- buddhatrue wrote: > Sarah, you > are always speaking of no-self and emphasizing no-self, but I rarely > read you speak of dukkha, suffering. .... S: I seldom initiate new threads, so in my responses, I tend to follow the lead, as I'm doing here. It depends very much whom I'm writing to as to what I see as a need/interest to emphasise:-). Having said that, I do think that without a growing appreciation of dhammas as anatta, we'll tend to go off-track all the time. ... >This isn't unusual because with > your over-emphasis on anatta, you have eliminated suffering. .... S: No one eliminates suffering. No one and only at parinibbana. .... >After > all, if there are no people, then there is no one who suffers. ... S: Right. Suffering, but no sufferer. .... >If > everything is disconnected phenomena arising and falling, then > suffering has no place to land. .... S: Who said anything about 'disconnected phenomena' and suffering with/without a 'place to land'. No idea what this is. ... > "Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth about Ill. Birth is Ill, Aging is > Ill, Sickness is Ill, Death is Ill, likewise Sorrow and Grief, Woe, > Lamentation and Despair. To be conjoined with things we dislike, to be > separated from things which we like — that also is Ill. Not to get > what one wants, that also is Ill, In a word, this Body, this fivefold > mass which is based on grasping, that is Ill." > > So, Sarah, when you take anatta to an extreme and eliminate people, > you eliminate dukkha. If you eliminate dukkha, you eliminate any > reason for the Buddha's teaching. .... S: These 5 khandhas are dukkha because they are impermanent and cannot mastered by Self. By understanding that dhammas cannot be controlled at all, how we cling on and on to phenomena which fall away as soon as they've arisen, we appreciate how they really are dukkha. I'm very happy to discuss and reflect on the different meanings of dukkha and the dukkha of dhammas arising now as we speak anytime you like. Metta, Sarah ====== #80113 From: han tun Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your kind post. Sarah: So, Han, no need to think that the practice would be any better in different circumstances. This is why I also asked whether the circumstances make any/much difference with regard to the Vinnana sutta you had quoted which discussed desires for sense objects and dhammas to be known. Han: No, I don’t think that the practice would be any better in different circumstances. So, if I feel like following what the pre-war elders did, I follow that. If I feel like following the present day practice I follow that. The main purpose for me is to get my inner satisfaction. I would not mind if my inner satisfaction is accompanied by right understanding or not. --------------------- Sarah: My suggestion was that there is visible object, eye-consciousness and corruptions of the mind in all these different circumstances. So the path concerns the understanding of these dhammas and the abandoning of these corruptions, rather than living in a particular environment. Han: I have no specific preference to live in any particular environment. It won’t make any difference, because, as I have said before, I am not result-oriented. I am action-oriented. I will try to do meritorious deeds to the best of my ability and will leave the result to my kamma. But I sincerely thank you for your kind thoughts and wise advice. Respectfully, Han #80114 From: han tun Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (5) To Sarah hantun1 Dear Sarah, Once again, I thank you very much for your kind posts. Sarah: It's true that circumstances may be easier at different times and in different places and we're all susceptible to the worldly conditions of course. I think in any of the circumstances, it is the daana, siila and bhaavanaa that count. However, these have to be clearly understood. Much of what is taken for daana, siila and bhaavanaa may be different kinds of 'practice' rather than true kusala cittas. Without the development of understanding of present dhammas, we'll never know. Han: You may be right to say that much of what is taken for daana, siila and bhaavanaa may be different kinds of 'practice' rather than true kusala cittas. But who will know that? Who will be the judge? You rightly said that without the development of understanding of present dhammas, we'll never know. But, again, how can one know that the right understanding has been developed? Have you developed the right understanding? ------------------------------ Sarah: I also wished to encourage you not to think that if you were able to be in other circumstances (such as pre-war Burma) that the development of bhaavanaa would be any better/different. The kilesa are just the same. I'm sure I haven't expressed myself well (I can't help listening to Jon and my mother chattering in the background as I type:-)), but you'll have followed my gist. Han: You have expressed yourself well. If I cannot understand, it will be my fault. I have already expressed my opinion as regards the preference between pre-war practice and present-day practice in my last post. Thank you once again. Respectfully, Han #80115 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:24 am Subject: [dsg] Re: [d-l] Fwd: Standing A Young Woman Up .... In My Dream This Morning scottduncan2 Dear Sarah, Thanks for the following: "But how, then does profitable and unprofitable kama done in a dream have result or no result? It has result. But owing to weakness it cannot bring about rebirth linking. But when rebirth linking has been given by other kamma, it may be experienced during the course [of an existence]." Scott: The whole section is very interesting. Here is the immediately preceding text: "2056. But how, when he sees them, does he do so asleep or waking, or neither asleep nor waking? And how [is this] here? For if in the first place he sees it when asleep, there is conflict with the Abhidhamma. For he sleeps with the life continuum consciousness, and that does not have the sign of visible data, etc. as object nor does it become associated with greed, etc.: but such consciousnesses arise in one seeing a dream. Then, [on the one hand, if] he sees waking he sees with normal (sa.mvohaarika) consciousness; and when a transgression is committed with normal consciousness there is no absence of an offence. But when a transgression is committed by one seeing a dream, there is entire absence of an offence. Then he sees it while neither asleep nor waking. He does not see [properly]. 'This being so, absence of dream is implied'. 'But there is no such absence [here].' 'Why?' 'Because he sees it overcome by "ape's drowsing" (kapimiddha). For this is said: 'Overcome by ape's drowsing, Majesty, he sees a dream' (Mil 300). "Overcome by ape's drowsing" means sleeping with monkey sleep (makka.taniddaa); for just as a monkey's sleep is easily broken, one who is sleeping with sleep which is easily broken because of being interspersed again and again with profitable, etc. consciousness, and in the occurrence of which there is dipping again and again into the life continuum, sees dreams. Hence this dream is either profitable or unprofitable or indeterminate. 2057. Herein, in one doing in a dream [such things as] paying homage at shrines, listening to the Law, preaching the Law, etc., it is profitable; in one doing [such things as] killing of living things, it is unprofitable; when free from either extreme, at the moment of advertence and registration it is indeterminate. It should be understood this way. At the time of saying: 'It was as though seen by me, heard by me in a dream,' it is indeterminate only." Scott: One can imagine that what we refer to as 'R.E.M..' sleep is being discussed. I like how the distinction is made here. Dreamless sleep seems to consist of bhavanga citta and while dreaming seems to involve normal processes within the mind-door only (I assume this since the senses are not involved as in waking. I think this latter point is implied earlier when the process of waking is discussed. There, in the beginning of waking, it is the mind-door adverting only which interrupts bhavanga, later in the sequence to be interrupted by sense-door adverting which leads to waking. In what way is kamma produced by thoughts? Sincerely, Scott. #80116 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:29 am Subject: Perfections Corner (53) nichiconn Dear All, http://www.zolag.co.uk/ - The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment by Sujin Boriharnwanaket; translated by Nina van Gorkom. Chapter 8: The Perfection of Determination. continued... The king of Kaasi went to see the Bodhisatta and exhorted him to rule over the kingdom. Prince Temiya refused this. He taught Dhamma to the king in many different ways, and this was a condition for the king to have a sense of urgency and to see the impermanence and the disadvantages of sense pleasures. He saw the benefit of detachment from them and wanted to become a recluse, together with queen Candaadevii and many of the courtiers. They all at the end of life were reborn in the Brahma world. The Buddha said at the end of this story that the goddess who was dwelling in the white umbrella at that time was Uppalava.n.naa, that the charioteer was the Elder Saariputta, the parents the royal family, the court the Buddhist followers and the wise Temiya the Buddha himself, the protector of the world. The perfection of determination of the Bodhisatta which was of the highest degree (paramattha or ultimate) in that life is the "adi.t.thaana paramattha paaramii". The perfection of determination is the firm resolve for kusala with the aim to develop pa~n~naa and to eliminate defilements. However, one may not have accumulated this perfection sufficiently. We may see that kusala is beneficial, that it should be developed and accumulated, and that our determination for kusala should become stronger. But it is difficult to remain steadfast in our resolution, because we have accumulated so much akusala. Akusala is the condition for being unstable, not steadfast in the determination to develop kusala. Someone who studied the Dhamma was reflecting on the cycle of birth and death and on the extent of his defilements; he longed for the end of rebirth. However, desiring the end of rebirth is not the same as being steadfast in one's determination to develop pa~n~naa. This person did not take an interest in the development of satipa.t.thaana, even though he had listened to the Dhamma and saw the benefit of satipa.t.thaana. He was not steadfast in his determination to listen to the Dhamma and develop pa~n~naa; he had no conditions for the perfection of determination. ..to be continued, connie #80117 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:30 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (72) nichiconn dear friends, Part 2 15. Cattaaliisanipaato 1. Isidaasiitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa ekadivasa.m paa.taliputtanagare pi.n.daaya caritvaa pacchaabhatta.m pi.n.dapaatapa.tikkantaa mahaaga"ngaaya.m vaalukapuline nisiiditvaa bodhittheriyaa naama attano sahaayattheriyaa pubbapa.tipatti.m pucchitaa tamattha.m gaathaabandhavasena vissajjesi "ujjeniyaa puravare"ti-aadinaa. Tesa.m pana pucchaavissajjanaana.m sambandha.m dassetu.m- 402. "Nagaramhi kusumanaame, paa.taliputtamhi pathaviyaa ma.n.de; sakyakulakuliinaayo, dve bhikkhuniyo hi gu.navatiyo. 403. "Isidaasii tattha ekaa, dutiyaa bodhiiti siilasampannaa ca; jhaanajjhaayanarataayo, bahussutaayo dhutakilesaayo. 404. "Taa pi.n.daaya caritvaa, bhattattha.m kariya dhotapattaayo; rahitamhi sukhanisinnaa, imaa giraa abbhudiiresun"ti.- Imaa tisso gaathaa sa"ngiitikaarehi .thapitaa. Then one day, she went on her alms round in the city of Paa.taliputta. After eating, returning from her alms round, she sat down on a sandbank of the Mahaa-Gan"gaa [River]. The therii who was her companion, named Therii Bodhii, asked about her former conduct, and she answered with the verses connected with that matter, beginning In Ujjenii, best of cities [vv.405-407]. But in order to show the connection between their questions and answers, these three verses were added by those holding the council:* 400. In the city named for a flower, Paa.taliputta, in the best part of the world, [there were] two bhikkhuniis, members of the Sakyan clan, possessed of good qualities. 401. One of them was called Isidaasi. The second was called Bodhii. [Both] possessed virtue, delighted in the contemplation of the absorption state, and had great learning. They had shaken off the defilements. 402. When they had wandered for alms, had their meal, and washed their bowls, happily seated in a lonely place, they uttered these words: *For a discussion of the date of Therii Isadaasi's verses, see EV II, p148 ad vv 400-47. RD: Because she had not proved desirable for one husband after another, she grew agitated and, gaining her father's consent, took orders under the Therii Jinadattaa. And studying for insight, she not long after attained Arahantship, together with thorough grasp of the Norm in form and meaning. Dwelling in the bliss of fruition and Nibbana, she one day, after seeking her meal in the city of Patna and dining, sat down on a sandbank of great Ganges, and being asked by her companion, the Therii Bodhi, about her previous experience, she related it by way of verses. And to show the connection of her former and latter replies, these three stanzas were inserted by the Recensionists: In the fair city of Patna, earth's fairest city, Named for its beauty after the Trumpet-flower, *399 Dwelt two saintly Sisters, born of the Saakiyas, (400) Isidaasii the one, Bodhi the other. Precept-observers, lovers of Jhaana-rapture, Learne'd ladies and cleansed from the taint of all worldliness. (401) These having made their round, and broken their fasting, Washed their bowls, and sitting in happy seclusion, Spake thus one to the other, asking and answering: (402) *399 Paa.taliputta. On the rise of this city as the capital of the Mauryan dynasty, and the Buddha's prophecy of that rise, see Rhys Davids, Buddhist Suttas, xi., pp. xv. 18; Buddhist India, pp. 262 ff., where the testimony of Megasthenes is largely quoted. ==tbc, connie #80118 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:49 am Subject: Re: Loooong Post Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's .../James upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and James) - In a message dated 12/14/2007 1:51:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard and James Nice posts. Although it may be a fine point, I just hate the term "dhammas." It teeters toward a subjective view and I think the proof is in the "ultimate reality with its own characteristic" pudding. The term "Dhamma" (non-plural) does not lead in that direction IMO. When terms like "formations" are used to represent sankhara; the conditioned/causal/D.O. nature of the term is well integrated within the term and the term in-and-of-itself does not incorporate a tendency to lead astray...i.e., toward self view. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard In the suttas, the Buddha most often used 'dhamma' in much the same way as we informally use in English the word 'thing', and it applied to really just about anything. I am very happy with using 'phenomenon' in place of 'dhamma' in all the places and senses that 'dhamma' is used. The "paramattha dhammas" of Abhidhamma, then, are, nibbana plus the elementary phenomena that serve as raw material upon which fabricational mental operations work. As for 'sankhara', I think that 'formation' falls short as translation, because it tends to not explicitly include the meaning of a "fabricational mental operation", which is one of its central meanings. It only easily includes the sense of a "phenomenon constructed by mental operations" which refers to just a mental construct and, also very broadly, to any phenomenon created in response to conditions (what I have called a "conditioned dhamma"). The latter, broad sense, is allowable because of the role of kamma in all creation. Simply put, but not as simply as I'd like, the sankhara are "fabricational activities and their products". The only thing excluded from the range of the term 'sankhara', then, is nibbana. ---------------------------------------------------------- I also don't know why one needs to say -- "Sankhara are conditioned Dhammas." What's the purpose of the term "Dhammas" in that? To obscure the meaning? Personally, I think that usually IS the purpose! Since "Dhamma" has so many flavors, why not nail it down and say -- "Sankhara are conditioning formations, or conditioning phenomena, etc.." I even like the term "conditioning energies"...since that's what conditions are. (That will probably upset a few bookologists!) :-) ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: "Conditioned phenomena" would be fine for me. I see nothing sinister, though, in using 'dhamma' any more than in using 'dukkha' or 'kamma'. ------------------------------------------------------------- The dynamic, causal, continuous, altering, flow of phenomena needs to contained as part of the description as much as possible IMO. Seeing causality is simultaneously seeing impermanence and non-self. TG ============================= With metta, Howard #80119 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:21 am Subject: Taking Anatta to an Extreme Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn .../Sarah upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 12/14/2007 2:18:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard & all, Back to the comments about taking anatta to extremes:-). --- upasaka@... wrote: > There is a sense in which people exist. It is based on the > underlying > interrelated phenomena. If that sense were rejected to the point that > one truly > believed that there are no people AT ALL and yet that one posted > messages on > DSG to such figments, that poster would indeed be insane. ;-) ..... S: I think 'the perversion of mentality' is when we really think that 'in a sense' people exist, computers exist, trees and tables exist. When we don't accept that there are 'no people AT ALL', this is the illusion or insanity of the worldling. "He is called a worldling for such reasons As that he generates a multitude of things, Because he is immersed in the herd, And because he is a man who is distinct. "They generated a multitude of defilements, hence they are worldlings. They have not destroyed the multiple forms of personality view, they look up to a multitude of teachers, they have not emerged from the multitude of destinations, they form multiple kamma-formations, they are swept away by a multitude of floods, afflicted by a multitude of afflictions, consumed by a multitude of fevers - hence they are wordlings......Again one who is included among the incalculable multitude of people who live according to an inferior doctrine and are averse to the doctrine of the ariyans is called a worldling. And a person distinct or remote from the ariyans endowed with such noble qualities as virtue, learning, etc., is called a worldling" "....the wordling is like a madman. He seizes upon anything he can in whatever way he can." (Mulapariyaya Sutta commentaries, transl by B.Bodhi in "The Discourse on The Root of Existence") ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sarah, this proves my point, not yours! Who is this "worldling" the Buddha refers to? Who is this "person distinct or remote from the ariyans," and who are the "ariyans"? I don't notice the Buddha saying that there are no worldlings and no ariyans! And, Sarah, who is it you are writing to? If you really believe that, in every sense, there is nobody you are writing to, what does that say about you? --------------------------------------------------------------- ... I'm also reminded of an extract from a discussion in India I listened to this morning. K.Sujin was reminding us that we are dreaming from birth to death. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Who are these dreamers? Are there any in some reasonable sense? Are they the same or different? If there are none, who is Khun sujin talking about, and who is she talking TO??? To realize that sentient beings are aggregates merely referred to and thought of as individuals is wisdom. To truly think that they are utter nullities and complete figments of imagination, however, is lunacy, especially if one then attempts to interact with "them". -------------------------------------------------------------- We think we live with many people, but actually there is just seeing and thinking or only thinking at such times. The only difference between now and in a dream is that visible object is appearing now in between the thinking. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: True, but incomplete. You are not me, and I am not you. The seeing and hearing and thinking that are "yours" are not the same as the seeing and hearing and thinking that are "mine". My kamma is my inheritance, and not yours, and vice-versa. And, Sarah, you know that!! If one ignores that, one is hiding, or attempting to hide, an essential aspect of reality. --------------------------------------------------------------- It is sanna which remembers so well that it can condition such stories again and again of permanent beings and things, she stressed. -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that precious few of us here believe in any permanent beings and things. I know I do not. I think that for most of us that is a red herring. -------------------------------------------------------------- When we wake up, she was asking, where is the object of the story in the dream? Now, it's the same. If there's no thinking about people to write to or people around us, where are the people? When it is right view about dhammas as anatta, no people at all, however 'extreme' this may sound, I see it as the sanity as taught by the wise, rather than the insanity of the herd. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: No people as individuals is correct. No people at all is utterly false. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah =============================== With metta, Howard #80120 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:28 am Subject: Re: Loooong Post Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's .../James upasaka_howard Hi, James - Hmm, I've read this post of yours which I copypart of below without comment, and I seem to find no problem of any import with it. Please see my last post to Sarah entitled "Taking Anatta to an Extreme Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn .../Sarah". With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/14/2007 3:23:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard and all, > Howard: > The term 'dhamma' also has several senses. The most general is simply > "thing", meaning pretty much "anything at all". Another sense is "idea" or > "thought", and another is "basic element of experience". Among the dhammas are > the sankhara. The material I provided clearly includes the meaning for > 'sankhara' of conditioned phenomena. The only dhamma that is not conditioned is > nibbana. (I don't think I really understand what you mean by "formation." If > something is formed, it certainly is conditioned.) > ------------------------------------------------------------------ Howard, you are going to drive me batty! ;-)) Your definitions are obscuring the issue more than clarifying. Yes, "dhammas" has different meanings, depending on the context- so let's examine more closely the context. We are talking about the three characteristics: All sankhara are anicca All Sankhara are dukkha All dhammas are anatta Metta, James #80121 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] - Nirodha truth_aerator Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > --- Alex wrote: > > But also let us not forget the verse of Dhammapada #372. > > > > There's no jhana for one with no discernment, no discernment > > for one with no jhana. But one with both jhana & discernment: > > he's on the verge of Unbinding. - > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.25.than.html > .... > S: See a message I wrote on this before: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/67402 > > We have to keep in mind the 2 meanings of jhana and consider the verse > carefully. >>>> Thank you for the link, I've briefly looked at it. I don't remember any sutta which divides Jhana into "mundane" and supramandane. This seems to be later concept. To be precise there IS a separation of Miccha-Samadhi (wrong Samadhi, ie with sensuality or for example when a sniper concentrates on a target.) and Samma- Samadhi. But this isn't that sort of separation you are implying above in that link. Furthere according to suttas such as AN 9.36 & mn111 there isn't a separation between proper Jhana practice and "insight". > ... > > When the phrase "Whatever is subject to origination, all that is > > subject to cessation" + the direct knowledge of Dependent Origination this implies a very quick achievement of "cessation of perception & > > feelings". > ... > S: 'All that is subject to cessation' is not referring to nirodha > samapatti (the topic of discussion)! It is referring to the fact that all conditioned dhammas arise by conditions and fall away by conditions. >>> But how does one get the direct experience that ALL dhammas (including Citta) arise and fall away by conditions? Cessation shows this blatanly clear that even Vinnana is impermanent and can cease. Depending on wisdom, mindfulness and observational sharpness, etc, the result can be higher or lower stages of Ariahood. Without seeing cessation of consciousness how can you have direct experience that even (mind)consciousness isn't the ultimate ground of being? Inference and logic may not be powerful enough to do this! May the DHAMMA be with you, Lots of Metta, Alex #80122 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:10 am Subject: Re: Loooong Post Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's .../James moellerdieter Hi TG, just between an applause for : snip ..'Seeing causality is simultaneously seeing impermanence and non-self' very well said! with Metta Dieter. #80123 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:17 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, We learn that all realities are anattå, but we have wrong understanding of anattå. We forget that the reality appearing at this moment is anattå. Acharn Sujin stressed the importance of truthfulness and sincerity. We should be sincere as to our development of understanding and not pretend to know what we do not know yet. Someone asked what an "upright person" is. Acharn Sujin answered: "An upright person knows that dhamma is dhamma, non-self. One becomes an upright person by listening, considering and awareness. When satipaììhåna arises, and a person is aware of the characteristic that appears, studies it and understands it, he follows the right Path. He is not following another practice, different from the right Path. Gradually he studies realities and understands them, and he is not neglectful, so that insight knowledge can arise. He knows that he cannot select any object of satipaììhåna." She reminded us many times that the development of paññå should be very natural, that we can learn about our own accumulations. We can take life easy, not, of course, as an excuse for akusala, but we should not be downhearted. Lobha arises because it is accumulated, otherwise it would not arise. We have to be sincere, truthful. It is good to know our accumulated inclinations. She said: "If akusala does not arise, how can we know that we still have it?" Thus, we can learn from our akusala. This is the way to develop understanding. Acharn Sujin explained in particular the different conditions for the arising of lobha, because it arises more often than we ever thought and we are inclined to take it for self. The Buddha taught twentyfour classes of conditions, paccayas, for the phenomena of our life, so that we can have more understanding of the truth of non-self. Nåma can condition nåma, rúpa can condition rúpa, nåma and rúpa can condition each other in various ways. Citta, cetasika and rúpa cannot arise without conditions. There are several conditions that operate at the same time when a reality arises. The object citta experiences is one of the conditions for the arising of citta. Each citta experiences an object, and there cannot be citta without experiencing an object; the object conditions citta by way of object-condition, årammana-paccaya. Some objects are very desirable and then one gives preponderance to them; they condition the citta by way of object predominance-condition, årammanådhipati-paccaya [1] . Only desirable objects can condition the citta by way of object predominance-condition, not unpleasant objects, such as painful feeling. Wholesomeness such as dåna or the development of right understanding can be object predominance- condition for the kusala citta that esteems it and gives preponderance to it. A desirable object that is experienced can condition lobha by way of object predominance-condition. In the hotels where we stayed there was a large selection of delicious foods displayed on the buffet table in the dining hall. Each one of us selected different dishes. Acharn Sujin said: "When you go to select food, what conditions the selection? When an object is so very pleasant, you will not let go of it, you want to have it more than anything else. When you see many different things and you select something in particular, this is because of the object predominance-condition, the object conditions one to cling to it. Lobha is so attached to that object." ---------- 1. Årammana means object and adhipati means predominance. ******* Nina. #80124 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... moellerdieter Hi Howard, there are quite interesting points at the present discussion .. just a first question between , you wrote: 'What is there to a sentient being other than dhammas? Nothing so far as I know.' D: isn't it being conscious of the things/dhammas? with Metta Dieter #80125 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 12/14/2007 12:31:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, there are quite interesting points at the present discussion .. just a first question between , you wrote: 'What is there to a sentient being other than dhammas? Nothing so far as I know.' D: isn't it being conscious of the things/dhammas? with Metta Dieter ============================ In being very precise, I wouldn't put it quite as you have, but, sure, consciousness is itself one of the types of dhammas, the main type, in fact, that constitute what is called a sentient being. A sentient being is a dynamic aggregate of interrelated mental and physical phenomena conceived of as a unity. With metta, Howard #80126 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 2. moellerdieter Dear Nina, we have different understandings in particular about the path approach. To avoid argueing I think we better postpone our discussion to an opportunity when common ground is visible again .. with Metta Dieter #80127 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... moellerdieter Hi Howard, 'In being very precise, I wouldn't put it quite as you have, but, sure, consciousness is itself one of the types of dhammas, the main type, in fact, that constitute what is called a sentient being. A sentient being is a dynamic aggregate of interrelated mental and physical phenomena conceived of as a unity. ' D: are you saying , the fact of conceiving, being aware, conscious of the unity is equal with the phenomena (dhammas as I understand you translate it) ? I mean knowing e.g. the point of water is something else/more than its parts hydrogen and oxygen, isn't it? with Metta Dieter #80128 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 4, no 3. dcwijeratna Hi Sarah, Thank you for your e-m re. above. You asked: " S: What about ruupa? Do you mean that ruupas are not real? I look forward to any elaborations." DC: I wrote my e-m in a different context. That was trying to explain my understanding of attaa. We can put together the four 'mental khandhas' and call it naama; or what we normally call the mind. It is the mind that we imagine survives death. Everybody knows that we leave the body here and depart. Of course, ruupa is 'real' as much as the other four khandhas are. But I think I must say what I mean by real. Anything I can experience through my senses is real. Anything which is a "concept", a mere name, is not real. Whatever I get to know except by direct experience is not 'real' to me. Because, it may be true or not but I have no way of concluding that it is true. But we end up in a great difficulty here, because all these things are impermanent-they arise and fall (uppaada-vaya) sometimes in a fraction of a second; or may be a nano-second or even faster; the Buddha said that He couldn't even find a simile to explain that. So what could we mean by real? So there is nothing!!! Really this is what is the law of causality is about. According to Dhamma, we human beings can't understand that: (1) we have delusion (moha); in fact that is why we travel throug samsaara (avjjaa paccayaa sankhaara); (2) we puthujjanas (mere worldlings) can't see the DO--raagarataa na dakkhintii tamokkhndhena avu.taati. We who are enveloped in darkness and full of greed and desire for sense-pleasures. These are some thoughts I have on the subject. Hope that will give you some food for thought. D. G. D. C. Wijeratna #80129 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 3. nilovg Dear Robert A, Thank you for your kind post. I try to add something. Op 14-dec-2007, om 0:14 heeft Robert het volgende geschreven: > N: Through listening and study understanding grows and it is this > understanding that is indispensable to enable us to develop the right > understanding of the eightfold Path... --------- > Robert A: Are you saying it is through listening and only through > listening that these all of these perfections are developed. Is > that it - > only through listening? ------- N: Also daana, siila and metta are perfections and there is opportunity for them in our daily life. Any kind of kusala through body, speech and mind. Like speaking now, our writing, is that not a kind of speech? And I appreciate it so much that you are aware of this, of good and gentle speech. Listening is stressed all the time because when there is no understanding of what is kusala and what is not, it is difficult to develop kusala as a perfection. That means: kusala not with the aim to get something favorable for yourself, but with the aim to have less defilements such as stinginess, harshness in behaviour, a bad temper, etc. If there is no correct understanding we mistake akusala for kusala. For instance we may be polite, but only in order to make a good impression on others, to be popular. ------------ > R: I know that if I suggest something like > generousity, you might say that self view would enter, making this > akusala, etc. ------- N: Kusala is kusala and it cannot be made into akusala. But it is good to know that kusala cittas are alternated with akusala cittas, and that there is more akusala in a day than kusala. --------- > R: But isn't that true of anything, including listening. There > are ways self-view can enter any volitional act, as choosing to > listen to a > Dhamma talk would be. We could have conceit as a learned person, or > we could listen to become more knowledgable to win debates or who > knows what. I can see how fear of self view would eventually make us > paralyzed. ------- N: True, but it should by no means paralyze us. Whatever arises, also akusala, is conditioned. Knowing that akusala often arises should not prevent us from kusala. Just knowing the facts is beneficial. ------ > > Nina: > This time we met him (the abbot) in another temple that was being > built and he > said again that he listens every day to Kh Sujin. He sees the benefit > of listening. > > Robert A: Isn't it self that wants to listen? I don't see the > difference > between that and any other volitional action. --------- N: Everybody should find out for himself if and when there is an idea of self who wants to listen. Again: we are listening with kusala cittas and with akusala cittas. --------- > > R: I know you have done your best to explain this to me, and if I > fail to get > it, the fault is on my side. This one point is the one I find most > difficult > when I come to DSG. There has to be more to Buddhism than listening > to Dhamma talks, reading commentaries, and debating them. ------ N: No fault on your side. Our different pasts, back ground, the people we associate with, actions in the past, all these are factors that condition our ideas, our way of thinking. Listening, reading, debating, it depends how we listen. The question is: how do we gain more understanding of kusala, akusala, the Path to be developed, the objects of insight, etc. We have to find out whether listening helps and to whom we are listening. Or what we are reading. We can read Abhidhamma texts as mere classifications, as theory, or we can see them as pointers to the present moment. We can see that Abhidhamma and Vipassana go together. This will also influence the way we interprete the texts. The outcome can be quite different. Nina. > #80130 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 2. nilovg Dear Dieter, I do not mind. I also have too much work on hand at the moment. Thank you for telling me. Nina. Op 14-dec-2007, om 19:01 heeft Dieter Möller het volgende geschreven: > we have different understandings in particular about the path > approach. > To avoid argueing I think we better postpone our discussion to an > opportunity when common ground is visible again .. #80131 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma nilovg Hi Howard, Op 13-dec-2007, om 20:39 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > N: Also ruupas are oppressed by rise and fall, no matter they are > experienced or not. > > ========================== > Why "oppressed"? They merely arise and fall. There is nothing wrong > with > arising and ceasing! It is neither good nor bad except as grasping > makes it > so. And without vi~n~nana to be accompanied by upadana, there is no > grasping. -------- N: I see it differently. Just as impermanence is inherent in the nature of rupa, so is dukkha. This is independent of the fact whether we cling or not. Dispeller of Delusion (p. 60): Topics of Abhidhamma (p. 9): In the Dispeller p. 30 we discussed before: ruppati. Rupa is 'molested by cold, by heat', etc. as is said in the sutta. But these observations may not be acceptable to you since you prefer to see phenomena from the point of view of a subject who experiences. ----- Nina. #80132 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma nilovg Hi James, sorry, I just now saw your post. I answered Howard, maybe it is sufficient? It is not that rupas feel so unhappy, but a way of showing the dukkha nature of rupas. They are molested, as it were. Nina. Op 14-dec-2007, om 1:28 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > James: Rupas cannot know anything so how could they be "oppressed" by > their own rise and fall? #80133 From: "m. nease" Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... m_nease Hi Sarah, sarah abbott wrote: > It is sanna which remembers so well that it can condition such stories > again and again of permanent beings and things, she stressed. > > When we wake up, she was asking, where is the object of the story in the > dream? Now, it's the same. If there's no thinking about people to write to > or people around us, where are the people? > > When it is right view about dhammas as anatta, no people at all, however > 'extreme' this may sound, I see it as the sanity as taught by the wise, > rather than the insanity of the herd. Nicely put, thanks. mike #80134 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - In a message dated 12/14/2007 1:25:44 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, moellerdieter@... writes: Hi Howard, 'In being very precise, I wouldn't put it quite as you have, but, sure, consciousness is itself one of the types of dhammas, the main type, in fact, that constitute what is called a sentient being. A sentient being is a dynamic aggregate of interrelated mental and physical phenomena conceived of as a unity. ' D: are you saying , the fact of conceiving, being aware, conscious of the unity is equal with the phenomena (dhammas as I understand you translate it) ? I mean knowing e.g. the point of water is something else/more than its parts hydrogen and oxygen, isn't it? with Metta Dieter ================================= I'm saying that there is nothing more to a sentient being than the intricately interrelated, underlying namas and rupas, and that these, in turn, are vanishing, ungraspable, utterly dependent, wispy ghosts and shadows, and nothing at all in-and-of-themselves. I DO believe that the Buddha was the teacher of not-self, no-self, and thoroughgoing emptiness, which is the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism, and the middle way between substantialism/self-existence view and nihilism. I am saying that sentient beings are mere aggregates of ephemeral, experiential flashings, and not individuals, and it is merely a convenience to speak of them as individuals and an error to believe in them as such. (I consider it also an error to believe that they are nothing at all.) My view is that expressed in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. As for physics and chemistry, I don't learn Dhamma from them. Dhamma is a matter of phenomenology, liberation psychology, and, most of all, the fact of spiritual slavery and the possibility of release from that slavery, and not analogous to a theoretical story about molecules, atoms, and posited subatomic wavicles. (And any reading of Abhidhamma that makes it an alternative to physics and chemistry is just another theoretical story of only mild and passing interest to me.) With metta, Howard #80135 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/14/2007 2:42:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 13-dec-2007, om 20:39 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > N: Also ruupas are oppressed by rise and fall, no matter they are > experienced or not. > > ========================== > Why "oppressed"? They merely arise and fall. There is nothing wrong > with > arising and ceasing! It is neither good nor bad except as grasping > makes it > so. And without vi~n~nana to be accompanied by upadana, there is no > grasping. -------- N: I see it differently. Just as impermanence is inherent in the nature of rupa, so is dukkha. This is independent of the fact whether we cling or not. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Using a Pali word isn't enough. What does 'dukkha' mean? As it applies to dhammas, it means inadequate unsatisfying, unsatisfactory, and painful. Inadequate for what and to what? Unsatisfying to whom? Unsatisfactory for what? Painful? Where is there pain, physical or mental without consciousness? -------------------------------------------------------- Dispeller of Delusion (p. 60): -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Who or what is oppressed? Words do have meaning, Nina. They are not just sounds. ------------------------------------------------------ Topics of Abhidhamma (p. 9): In the Dispeller p. 30 we discussed before: ruppati. Rupa is 'molested by cold, by heat', etc. as is said in the sutta. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Gosh, should we take up a collection for the poor, molested rupas? Remember, rupas do not experience! ----------------------------------------------------- But these observations may not be acceptable to you since you prefer to see phenomena from the point of view of a subject who experiences. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: NO, Nina! I do not accept that reply. You *know* that I do not believe in a subject who experiences. In fact, I've directly seen it to be an illusion. There is experiencing, but no experiencer. But without experiencing there cannot be mental pain - there cannot be dukkhata, and it would then be meaningless to speak of rupas as dukkha. They are dukkha because there is no lasting satisfaction experienced by citta & cetasikas (if you wish to speak that way) in experiencing them, and, they are even conditions for suffering when craved, disliked, and clung to. Take away experiencing, and there is no dukkhata at all! ------------------------------------------------------ ----- Nina. ============================= With metta, Howard #80136 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma truth_aerator Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > It is not that rupas feel so unhappy, but a way of showing the dukkha nature of rupas. They are molested, as it were. >>> How can insentient, non-feeling rupa feel pain (dukha)? In order to feel pain there MUST be consciousness that is consious of pain. Just like rocks don't feel pain, the rupas by themselves do NOT feel anything. Attachment to rupas do cause mental pain, but not without accompanying consciousness that is conscious of pain. Lots of Metta, Alex #80137 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Nina writes: "It is not that rupas feel so unhappy, but a way of showing the dukkha nature of rupas. They are molested, as it were." You misunderstand, I think because of your idiosyncratic take on "characteristic': A: "How can insentient, non-feeling rupa feel pain (dukha)? In order to feel pain there MUST be consciousness that is consious of pain. Just like rocks don't feel pain, the rupas by themselves do NOT feel anything. Attachment to rupas do cause mental pain, but not without accompanying consciousness that is conscious of pain." Scott: Visuddhimagga XI 95-96: "As to variety and unity: there is variety in the specific characteristics etc., of all the elements; for the characteristic, function, and manifestation of the earth element is one, and those of the water element, etc., are different. But there is unity in them as materiality, great primary, element, state (dhamma), impermanence, etc., notwithstanding the fact that they are various according to [specific] characteristic, etc., and according to origination by kamma and so on. "All these elements are 'instances of materiality' (ruupaani) because they do not exceed the characteristic of 'being molested' (ruppana)..." Scott: To 'be molested' is the characteristic of ruupa. This does not in any way attribute to ruupa a capacity to feel pain. Ruupa is the dhamma that does not experience anything. Sincerely, Scott. #80138 From: "Andrew" Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 4, no 3. corvus121 Hello DC I do apologise - I am a very bad correspondent with little time on my hands at the moment. I did read your post and thank you for all your effort. I think your approach to the Dhamma may come as somewhat of a shock to many here. Firstly, your contextual interpretation of the suttas seems to produce a result at odds with the likes of Bhikkhu Bodhi's English translations. The difference is actually so striking as to make one wonder if Pali is a very imprecise language and whether or not the Buddha's audiences went away with a generally uniform message or radically different interpretations of what they had just heard? For example, see below regarding the word "lokuttaraa" which you say contextually should not be given its usual meaning of "supramundane". I have ZERO knowledge of Pali and so my curiosity about these things is totally uneducated. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, DC Wijeratna wrote: Well, what made you go into this sutta? There is virtually nothing worthwhile in the commentary or in the sub-commentaries about this sutta. So I will give my understanding of the sutta. My usual approach is to try to understand a sutta contextually. So I will go that way:.... > The Buddha's answer [as translated by Bh. Bodhi] is "Therefore, Dhammadinna, you should train yourselves thus: 'From time to time we will enter and dwell upon those discourses spoken by the Tathaagata that are deep, deep in meaninng, suparamundane, dealing with emptiness." It is in such a way that that you should train yourselves." The Buddha advises them to train themselves (sikkhitabba.m). Now one cannot enter or dwell upon the suttas. The sutta here refers to the dhamma now made into suttas for purposes of remembering and not discourses in general and connected with the path and training directly. The Pali that is translated is "upasampajja viharassaama." The word upasampajja defies translations; may be one can say "to become"; that is for example if you undertake the first precept, then your behaviour is such that whatever the provocation is you don't kill. So this expression means that you behave strictly according to the dhamma that you have undertaken to observe. You may > notice that the sentence begins wiht 'from time to time.' This is important: you are not to dwell in these "suttas" all the time. The Buddha's exhortation is for them to "meditate"--to develop the path that culminates in sammaasamaadhi. The Pali describing the sutta is: "tathaagatsbhaasita (spoken by the tathaagata), deep with deep meaning (in the sense of giving welfare and happiness-gambhiiraa gambhiratthaa); "lokuttaraa," this should not be understood in the normal sense of supramundane; it really means it is above the our puthujjana world; "su~n~natapa.tisa.myuttaa"--I wouldn't translate this as dealing with emptiness; I would understand it as "empty of the world--really empty of any 'contact' with the world through all the senses. A description of sammaa-samaadhi. In short, Buddha advised them to train in Samaadhi. Andrew: I can't help but wonder why, in that event, the Buddha replied to his lay audience in that manner instead of just giving them a plain discourse on training in Samaadhi? Do you have any thoughts on this, DC? I do note that the audience became sotapannas. Does this indicate that, although lay, they actually possessed a high degree of panna? Are there audiences like that today? > The message of the sutta is: if you are a gihi, and still wish to move in the direction of Nibbaana, then perfect the five precepts; along with this you will develop aveccappasada in the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha. And when you perfect them, you will be a stream-enterer. Andrew: So this lay audience had obviously perfected sila and the discourse by the Buddha was a condition for them to complete their perfection of aveccappasada. Is that correct? The second reason why I think many here would be quite shocked by your approach to Dhamma is probably better illustrated in your post # 80128 to Sarah. It is a post I quite enjoyed, by the way. You have a very deep and profound acceptance of just how PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT we worldlings are. What a mire of ignorance we swim in! To even attempt an intellectual understanding of aspects of the Dhamma (like anatta) that are not yet matters of direct experience you seem to see as the mark of ignorance itself. Given that the suttas as so full of detailed explanations of things beyond our direct experience/knowledge, I can only assume that you believe "we" are not part of the intended audience of those suttas. Is that correct? Many thanks again! Best wishes Andrew #80139 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:10 pm Subject: Re: Loooong Post Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's .../James TGrand458@... In a message dated 12/14/2007 8:50:11 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: "Conditioned phenomena" would be fine for me. I see nothing sinister, though, in using 'dhamma' any more than in using 'dukkha' or 'kamma'. Hi Howard As my post said, I have no problem with the term "dhamma." It is the term "dhammas" I disapprove of. Actually, that was pretty much the whole point of my post. I think that point was lost in your response. TG #80140 From: "Robert" Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 3. avalo1968 Nina, Thank you for your always patient replys. Robert A. #80141 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > Nina writes: > > "It is not that rupas feel so unhappy, but a way of showing the > dukkha nature of rupas. They are molested, as it were." > > You misunderstand, I think because of your idiosyncratic take on > "characteristic': > > A: "How can insentient, non-feeling rupa feel pain (dukha)? In order > to feel pain there MUST be consciousness that is consious of pain. > Just like rocks don't feel pain, the rupas by themselves do NOT feel > anything. Attachment to rupas do cause mental pain, but not without > accompanying consciousness that is conscious of pain." > > Scott: Visuddhimagga XI 95-96: > > "As to variety and unity: there is variety in the specific > characteristics etc., of all the elements; for the characteristic, > function, and manifestation of the earth element is one, and those of > the water element, etc., are different. But there is unity in them as > materiality, great primary, element, state (dhamma), impermanence, > etc., notwithstanding the fact that they are various according to > [specific] characteristic, etc., and according to origination by kamma > and so on. >>>> The paragraph does not seem to adress the issue. > "All these elements are 'instances of materiality' (ruupaani) because > they do not exceed the characteristic of 'being molested' (ruppana)..." > > Scott: To 'be molested' is the characteristic of ruupa. This does not > in any way attribute to ruupa a capacity to feel pain. Ruupa is the > dhamma that does not experience anything. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > How can something "that does not experience anything" 'be molested' ? It doesn't experience anything ! May the dhamma be with you! Lots of Metta, Alex #80142 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:04 am Subject: Perfections Corner (54) nichiconn Dear All, http://www.zolag.co.uk/ - The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment by Sujin Boriharnwanaket; translated by Nina van Gorkom. Chapter 8: The Perfection of Determination. continued... We should not be neglectful in our determination for kusala. Day after day we are infatuated with the objects appearing through eyes, ears, nose, tongue and bodysense, and we are absorbed in thinking of the objects we experience. If we often listen to the Dhamma, we accumulate the inclination to contemplate the Dhamma instead of thinking of insignificant things. Even if we do not always have the opportunity to listen, we may still reflect on the Dhamma and this shows us the strength of accumulated inclinations. It reminds us not to be neglectful with regard to the perfection of determination. The Dhamma as taught by the Buddha is of immense benefit to all of us. We should contemplate the Dhamma in all details. If we wish to develop pa~n~naa and all the different ways of kusala, we should not neglect knowing and understanding our own akusala. Otherwise we cannot accumulate the perfections of determination and of truthfulness. If we see the danger and disadvantage of akusala, it can condition the firm resolution to develop kusala with the aim to eradicate defilements, and this is the perfection of determination. If a person does not know himself as he really is and if he believes himself to be superior to other people, he is attached to the good qualities he erroneously pretends to have. We are full of all kinds of akusala, no matter whether we are eating, enjoying ourselves or performing our tasks in daily life. If we do not know ourselves as we really are and if we take ourselves for a righteous person who does not need to develop kusala, we do not notice that we are guided by akusala. As we develop the perfection of determination, we shall be steadfast in our resolution to develop pa~n~naa through the study and practice of the Dhamma with the aim of eradicating all defilements. We also need the perfection of truthfulness and this means that we should be sincere and straightforward in our determination. If we do not develop the perfection of truthfulness we shall vacillate and be defeated by akusala. We can see that we need a refined and detailed understanding of our different cittas for the development of kusala. We should not be neglectful with regard to this. ..to be continued, connie #80143 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:06 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (72) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 3 15. Cattaaliisanipaato 1. Isidaasiitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 405. "Paasaadikaasi ayye, isidaasi vayopi te aparihiino; ki.m disvaana byaalika.m, athaasi nekkhammamanuyuttaa. 406. "Evamanuyu~njiyamaanaa saa, rahite dhammadesanaakusalaa; isidaasii vacanamabravi, su.na bodhi yathaamhi pabbajitaa. Ito para.m vissajjanagaathaa. 407. "Ujjeniyaa puravare, mayha.m pitaa siilasa.mvuto se.t.thi; tassamhi ekadhiitaa, piyaa manaapaa ca dayitaa ca. 408. "Atha me saaketato varakaa, aagacchumuttamakuliinaa; se.t.thii pahuutaratano, tassa mama.m su.numadaasi taato. 409. "Sassuyaa sasurassa ca, saaya.m paata.m pa.naamamupagamma; sirasaa karomi paade, vandaami yathaamhi anusi.t.thaa. [Therii Bodhii:] 403. You are lovely, noble Isidaasii. Your youth has not yet faded. What fault have you seen [in household life] that you are intent on renunciation [of the world]. [The Council:] 404. Asked in this way in the lonely place, Isidaasi, proficient in the teaching of the Doctrine, spoke these words: "Hear, Bodhii, how I went forth." After that, there are the verses with the answer: [Therii Isidaasii:] 405. In Ujjenii, best of cities, my father was a merchant, restrained by virtuous conduct. I was his only daughter, dear and charming and beloved. 406. Then from Saaketa came men belonging to a most excellent family to woo me. A merchant with abundant treasure [sent them]. My father gave me to him as a daughter-in-law. 407. Approaching morning and evening, I did obeisance with my head to my father-in-law and mother-in-law. I paid homage to their feet as I had been instructed. RD: 'Thou hast a lovely mien, Isidaasii, Fresh and unwithered yet thy woman's prime, What flaw in the life yonder hast thou seen, That thou didst choose surrender for thy lot?' (403) Then in that quiet spot Isidaasii, Skilled in the exposition of the Norm, Took up her tale and thus did make reply: 'Hear, Bodhi, how it was that I came forth. (404) In Ujjenii, *400 Avantii's foremost town, My father dwells, a virtuous citizen, His only daughter I, his well-beloved, The fondly cherished treasure of his life. (405) Now from Saaketa came a citizen Of the first rank and rich exceedingly To ask my hand in marriage for his son. And father gave me him, as daughter-in-law. (406) My salutation morn and eve I brought To both the parents of my husband, low Bowing my head and kneeling at their feet, According to the training given me. (407) *400 On Ujjenii and Saaketa, see Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, pp. 39, 40; Neumann, op. cit., 361 n. They may have been some 500 miles apart, and the journey would be largely by river. Cf. Rhys Davids, op. cit., 103. ===to be continued, connie #80144 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: [d-l] Fwd: Standing A Young Woman Up .... In My Dream This Morning abhidhammika Dear Sarah, Scott, Chris F, Nina, Robert K, Mike N, Connie and all How are you? Sarah quoted from Sammohavinodanii: "But how, then does profitable and unprofitable kama done in a dream have result or no result? It has result. But owing to weakness it cannot bring about rebirth linking. But when rebirth linking has been given by other kamma, it may be experienced during the course [of an existence]." Thank you for the above quote. That is what I would call one of the fine print remarks offered by Abhiddhamma commentaries. It must have been more than 2 years that I haven't consulted Sammohavinodaii. When today I checked Sammohavinodanii Bhaasaa.tiikaa by the late Ashin Janakaabhivamsa, I noticed that a silver colour ribbon was still there between the pages dealing with dreams. I totally forgot the above fine print remarks in Abhidhamma commentaries. I agree with them, and I withdrew my wrong statement: "the kamma you do in dreams do not generate vipaaka" which I made by generalising in light of the Buddha's resolution in Vinaya Pi.taka. Abhidhamma is so exacting, so dissecting, and so unforgiving. Even weak mental actions in dreams can produce results in future rebirths. It is all the more reason for formal development of the Right Concentration (Sammaa Samaadhi). Before we can eradicate latent akusala cetasikas by the Right Paññaa, we have recourse to the Right Siila and the Right Sammadhi. The Right Siila will correct and tame our wrong bodily actions while the Right Samaadhi will correct and tame our unhealthy mental actions. The Right Samaadhi, if formally and properly developed, will prevent the wrong mental actions from happening in waking moments and in dreams alike. The fine print remarks of Sammohavinodanii have given me sober and grave thoughts today. We can't even dream vipaaka-free! With regards, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #80145 From: "Robert" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:48 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (54) avalo1968 Hello Connie and Nina, Quotations from Nina's book: "If we often listen to the Dhamma, we accumulate the inclination to contemplate the Dhamma instead of thinking of insignificant things. " Questions: What would be the Pali translation of the word 'contemplate' in this sentence? I know the term 'Yoniso Manasikara', but this seems more attention then contemplation. Contemplation in English has a sense of 'thinking about things' or 'pondering'. Is this what it means in the passage above? Thank you, Robert A. #80146 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma nilovg Dear Scott and Alex, Op 14-dec-2007, om 23:25 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > N: > It is not that rupas feel so unhappy, but a way of showing the > dukkha nature of rupas. They are molested, as it were. > >>> > > A: How can insentient, non-feeling rupa feel pain (dukha)? In order to > feel pain there MUST be consciousness that is consious of pain. Just > like rocks don't feel pain, the rupas by themselves do NOT feel > anything. Attachment to rupas do cause mental pain, but not without > accompanying consciousness that is conscious of pain. -------- The Topics of Abhidhamma and Co (Abhidhammatta Sangaha) p. 8 and 9. It is first said as to dhammas in general : This may help to understand that expressions such as being molested is a relative way of speaking. We read (p. 9): Thus, these are words of the sutta. Ruupas are fragile, they break up at each moment, they are dukkha. They are no good! Nina. #80147 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:26 am Subject: [dsg] Re: [d-l] Fwd: Standing A Young Woman Up .... In My Dream This Morning scottduncan2 Dear Suan, I hope you are well. Thank you for: S: "Abhidhamma is so exacting, so dissecting, and so unforgiving. Even weak mental actions in dreams can produce results in future rebirths...The fine print remarks of Sammohavinodanii have given me sober and grave thoughts today. We can't even dream vipaaka-free!" Scott: I like: 'exacting', 'sobering', 'dissecting', 'unforgiving', 'sober', 'grave'. Sincerely, Scott. #80148 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma nilovg Hi Howard, I know you do not believe in an experiencer, but from your answer appears that your approach is: how is it experienced, this dukkha. I just sent a post to Scott and Alex. Maybe this clarifies? We should not think of pain, the translation is misleading. I like your nicht gut, no good. As we read in the sutta: the eye is dukkha. It is impermanent and thus dukkha. Fragile, constantly breaking up. What do you think? Nina. Op 14-dec-2007, om 22:13 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > But these observations may not be acceptable to you since you prefer > to see phenomena from the point of view of a subject who experiences. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > NO, Nina! I do not accept that reply. You *know* that I do not believe > in a subject who experiences. In fact, I've directly seen it to be an > illusion. > There is experiencing, but no experiencer. But without experiencing > there cannot be mental pain - there cannot be dukkhata, and it > would then be > meaningless to speak of rupas as dukkha. They are dukkha because > there is no > lasting satisfaction experienced by citta & cetasikas (if you wish > to speak that > way) in experiencing them, and, they are even conditions for > suffering when > craved, disliked, and clung to. Take away experiencing, and there > is no > dukkhata at all! > - #80149 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [d-l] Fwd: Standing A Young Woman Up .... In My Dream This Morning moellerdieter Hi Scott, you wrote: 'Scott: I like: 'exacting', 'sobering', 'dissecting', 'unforgiving','sober', 'grave'. D: in brief: bone-dry ( ? ) ;-) with Metta Dieter #80150 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you, very clarifying: N: "...The explanation in these terms should be understood as for the purpose of indicating the non-existence of an agent, etc. apart from the particular nature of a dhamma." Scott: This is how I see it as well. N: "...Thus, these are words of the sutta. Ruupas are fragile, they break up at each moment, they are dukkha. They are no good!" Scott: As I see it. Sincerely, Scott #80151 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:45 am Subject: [dsg] Re: [d-l] Fwd: Standing A Young Woman Up .... In My Dream This Morning scottduncan2 Dear Dieter, Thanks for: D: "in brief: bone-dry ( ? ) ;-)" Scott: Hilarious. I always like it with a Bit of Milk myself, although, if I happen to have a cold, this is somewhat productive of mucous... Sincerely, Scott. #80152 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 2:54 am Subject: Re: Loooong Post Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's .../James upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 12/15/2007 12:10:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard As my post said, I have no problem with the term "dhamma." It is the term "dhammas" I disapprove of. Actually, that was pretty much the whole point of my post. I think that point was lost in your response. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not really. Whether singular or plural, I view 'dhamma' (lower-case 'd') as signifying no more than phenomenon (in the sense of element of experience). If one reifies the term, that's a problem, but anyone can reify almost any noun, including 'phenomenon'. Generally, I prefer English vernacular to Pali, because I actually *understand* English! LOLOL! ------------------------------------------------- TG ======================= With metta, Howard #80153 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Scott) - In a message dated 12/15/2007 1:43:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: How can something "that does not experience anything" 'be molested' ? It doesn't experience anything ! ================================= Not only that - there is also the question of what 'molested' means in that case. Does it refer to physical contact or buffeting of some sort? How does warmth get "molested" or a sound or a sight or hardness? And what if these DO get "molested", whatever the meaning of that might be. How does that make them unsatisfactory? Perhaps the translation "molested" is poor. But without a genuine explanation somewhere, that ruppano business is worthless. And aside from all that, without there being experiencing of dissatisfaction to some lesser or greater degree, the notions of "unsatisfactory" and "hurtful" as regards namas and rupas are meaningless. With metta, Howard #80154 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/15/2007 10:20:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Thus, these are words of the sutta. Ruupas are fragile, they break up at each moment, they are dukkha. They are no good! ================================= In and of itself, there is just no problem with being fragile, breaking up, and ceasing. In and of itself it is simply a matter of fact. It becomes a problem only for "US"! The notion of dukkha comes down to the dissatisfaction of "sentient beings". Being dukkha is in relation to experience, and without that it is meaningless. Speaking of dukkha as a nonrelational characteristic is analogous to speaking of something being "exterior" without there being anything that it is exterior TO, or to speaking of something "making contact" without there being anything it is making contact WITH. With metta, Howard #80155 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 3:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/15/2007 10:28:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I know you do not believe in an experiencer, but from your answer appears that your approach is: how is it experienced, this dukkha. I just sent a post to Scott and Alex. Maybe this clarifies? We should not think of pain, the translation is misleading. I like your nicht gut, no good. As we read in the sutta: the eye is dukkha. It is impermanent and thus dukkha. Fragile, constantly breaking up. What do you think? Nina. ============================= I just sent off a reply to another post that I think answers this. I also like 'nicht gut' ("no good") as the sense of dukkha. But it always means relative to experience or relative to some specific purpose. (With regard to purpose: Meat is no good for building a car. ;-) In general, as regards the second of the tilakkhana, all conditioned dhammas being dukkha pertains to the matter of satisfying sentient beings. (N.B. I can't keep on using quotation marks! ;-) No lasting satisfaction can be found in conditioned dhammas for a variety of reasons, among which are their impermanence, their ungraspability, the onset of boredom and the craving for more, and the actual unpleasantness of some of them, but, always, this is experience-oriented. With metta, Howard #80156 From: "m. nease" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [d-l] Fwd: Standing A Young Woman Up .... In My Dream This Morning m_nease Hi Suan, Sarah and Han, I'm fine, thanks, hope you are too. Thanks for the good postscript. I found Sarah's citation particularly interesting, too. We had discussed vipaaka short of rebirth-linking a couple of years ago (as I recall), a subject I always find interesting because there is (I assume) so much of it. Just result--no kamma--as I think Sarah mentioned--but potentially 'consequential' as I understood Han to say--as a condition for further kamma. I'm very glad, too, to share your appreciation for the Abhidhamma texts. abhidhammika wrote: > That is what I would call one of the fine print remarks offered by > Abhiddhamma commentaries. > > It must have been more than 2 years that I haven't consulted > Sammohavinodaii. When today I checked Sammohavinodanii > Bhaasaa.tiikaa by the late Ashin Janakaabhivamsa, I noticed that a > silver colour ribbon was still there between the pages dealing with > dreams. > > I totally forgot the above fine print remarks in Abhidhamma > commentaries. I agree with them, and I withdrew my wrong > statement: "the kamma you do in dreams do not generate vipaaka" > which I made by generalising in light of the Buddha's resolution in > Vinaya Pi.taka. > > Abhidhamma is so exacting, so dissecting, and so unforgiving. Even > weak mental actions in dreams can produce results in future > rebirths. By the way, wouldn't this also include results occurring in 'this existence'? mike #80157 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... moellerdieter Hi Howard, you wrote: H:A sentient being is a dynamic aggregate of interrelated mental and physical phenomena conceived of as a unity. ' (D: are you saying , the fact of conceiving, being aware, conscious of the unity is equal with the phenomena (dhammas as I understand you translate it) ? I mean knowing e.g. the point of water is something else/more than its parts hydrogen and oxygen, isn't it?) 'I'm saying that there is nothing more to a sentient being than the intricately interrelated, underlying namas and rupas, and that these, in turn, are vanishing, ungraspable, utterly dependent, wispy ghosts and shadows, and nothing at all in-and-of-themselves. I DO believe that the Buddha was the teacher of not-self, no-self, and thoroughgoing emptiness, which is the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism, and the middle way between substantialism/self-existence view and nihilism. I am saying that sentient beings are mere aggregates of ephemeral, experiential flashings, and not individuals, and it is merely a convenience to speak of them as individuals and an error to believe in them as such. (I consider it also an error to believe that they are nothing at all.) My view is that expressed in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. D:didn't you say ones that you are a 'convinced phenomenologist'? ;-) I wonder how does the heart (Brahmavihara ) fit into your pérspective? The whole teaching is aimed for the individual sufferer and yes , ' there is suffering but no sufferer can be found' . The Buddha was the teacher of anatta , but besides its ultimate truth he taught anatta as a strategy for detachment , for liberation. I can't follow you in 'thoroughgoing emptiness, which is the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism, and the middle way between substantialism/self-existence view and nihilism. Can you explain that in more conventional terms respectively quote? H:As for physics and chemistry, I don't learn Dhamma from them. Dhamma is a matter of phenomenology, liberation psychology, and, most of all, the fact of spiritual slavery and the possibility of release from that slavery, and not analogous to a theoretical story about molecules, atoms, and posited subatomic wavicles. (And any reading of Abhidhamma that makes it an alternative to physics and chemistry is just another theoretical story of only mild and passing interest to me.)' D: hm.. water isn't exactly a theoretical story. I used it as a simile in respect to the unity you mentioned before. The unity or whole is more /something else than its parts... The Buddha talked about a cart .... the point- I believe you miss to see - is that there is a assembly of parts , not only a sum, which we call cart as a functioning unity. Though the cart itself can not found ..there is nothing else than parts coming together (and you can't find the parts in the unity) , without doubt there is a functioning reality of the cart , which in our case includes a self dynamic:the unity of 5 khandas driven by ignorant volition/will/kamma force (avijja -sankhara). with Metta Dieter #80158 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:41 am Subject: Re: Loooong Post Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's .../James TGrand458@... In a message dated 12/15/2007 8:55:18 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: Not really. Whether singular or plural, I view 'dhamma' (lower-case 'd') as signifying no more than phenomenon (in the sense of element of experience). If one reifies the term, that's a problem, but anyone can reify almost any noun, including 'phenomenon'n Generally, I prefer English vernacular to Pali, because I actually *understand* English! LOLOL! Hi Howard Yea. My point was that a "tendency" for the term "dhammas" to lead toward an outlook as seeing things "as themselves." Of course if one does not succumb to that tendency, then no harm done on that "individual basis." I also view dhamma as all phenomena or potential phenomena, not just an "element of experience." Hence the Buddha would discuss potential future states and external/material states (such as mountains, pebbles, etc.) as impermanent and non-self ... as well. I agree about using English. To me, there are two groups who prefer to use Pali ... those who truly know what they're doing; and those who are pretending they know what they are doing. I think the latter is more dominant in discussion groups. Therefore, I don't buy the argument that using Pali is clarifying the matter. The reverse is more often the case IMO. It depends on the circumstances. TG #80159 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:45 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (54) nichiconn Dear Robert A, RA: Quotations from Nina's book: "If we often listen to the Dhamma, we accumulate the inclination to contemplate the Dhamma instead of thinking of insignificant things. " Questions: What would be the Pali translation of the word 'contemplate' in this sentence? I know the term 'Yoniso Manasikara', but this seems more attention then contemplation. Contemplation in English has a sense of 'thinking about things' or 'pondering'. Is this what it means in the passage above? CP: Sounds good to me... reflect, consider, study, etc. & must include yoniso manasikaara. A few words that might fit: adhiiyati - studies, learns by heart anucinteti - thinks upon, considers anusikkhati - learns; follows one's example jhaayati - meditates, contemplates parituleti - weighs, considers, estimates pariyaapunaati - learns thoroughly, masters samekkhati - looks for, considers ugga.nhaati - learns, takes up upadhaareti - surmises; looks out for; considers or concludes upanijjhaayati - meditates upon, reflects on vicaareti - thinks over; manages; plans; administers viima.msati - investigates; tests; considers vitakketi - reflects, considers peace, connie #80160 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... upasaka_howard Hi, Dieter - D:didn't you say ones that you are a 'convinced phenomenologist'? ;-) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm certainly a phenomenalist, though I don't recall ever having said "convinced". ----------------------------------------------------- I wonder how does the heart (Brahmavihara ) fit into your pérspective? The whole teaching is aimed for the individual sufferer and yes , ' there is suffering but no sufferer can be found' . The Buddha was the teacher of anatta , but besides its ultimate truth he taught anatta as a strategy for detachment , for liberation. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: The brahmaviharas fit in just fine. Suffering really occurs, and I commiserate with it. The suffering that arises in an experiential stream is, fortunately, just one aspect of that dynamic aggregate. ----------------------------------------------------- I can't follow you in 'thoroughgoing emptiness, which is the middle way between eternalism and annihilationism, and the middle way between substantialism/self-existence view and nihilism. Can you explain that in more conventional terms respectively quote? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Uh, no, I really cannot except to say that "existence" is not what it seems to be: It is neither illusion nor is it self-existence, and, in fact, it is quite other from what we usually sense it to be. The Buddha expresses it in the Kaccayangotta Sutta probably as well as anyone can, IMO. --------------------------------------------------------- H:As for physics and chemistry, I don't learn Dhamma from them. Dhamma is a matter of phenomenology, liberation psychology, and, most of all, the fact of spiritual slavery and the possibility of release from that slavery, and not analogous to a theoretical story about molecules, atoms, and posited subatomic wavicles. (And any reading of Abhidhamma that makes it an alternative to physics and chemistry is just another theoretical story of only mild and passing interest to me.)' D: hm.. water isn't exactly a theoretical story. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: In fact, it is - at least so called objective, external water is. Only what is directly experienced is other than theoretical as I view it. For me, physics, chemistry, biology, and so on are ever-changing, predictive stories of pragmatic use. ------------------------------------------------ I used it as a simile in respect to the unity you mentioned before. The unity or whole is more /something else than its parts... ---------------------------------------------- Howard: What is missing from the parts alone are the relations holding among them. That is all. After all, what else IS there? ---------------------------------------------- The Buddha talked about a cart .... the point- I believe you miss to see - is that there is a assembly of parts , not only a sum, which we call cart as a functioning unity. -------------------------------------------- Howard: No, I don't miss that at all. That is my emphasis on relations, which I have brought up again and again on DSG (ad nauseum to many, I'll bet). The relations are the basis for our sound conceptualization, and conceptualizing is our means for grasping relations. --------------------------------------------- Though the cart itself can not found ..there is nothing else than parts coming together (and you can't find the parts in the unity) , without doubt there is a functioning reality of the cart , which in our case includes a self dynamic:the unity of 5 khandas driven by ignorant volition/will/kamma force (avijja -sankhara). ------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't disagree. ------------------------------------------- with Metta Dieter ====================== With metta, Howard #80161 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Perfections Corner (54) nilovg Dear Connie, thank you, very good. Nina Op 15-dec-2007, om 19:45 heeft L G SAGE het volgende geschreven: > CP: Sounds good to me... reflect, consider, study, etc. & must > include yoniso manasikaara. A few words that might fit: > > adhiiyati - studies, learns by heart > anucinteti - thinks upon, considers > anusikkhati - learns; follows one's example > jhaayati - meditates, contemplates > parituleti - weighs, considers, estimates > pariyaapunaati - learns thoroughly, masters > samekkhati - looks for, considers #80162 From: "Robert" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:33 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (54) avalo1968 Hello Connie, Thank you very much for the wealth of alternatives. However, there is still something I am trying to understand. Consider the word 'anupassanaa' or 'anupassati. I have seen these words translated more with a sense of observes or sees. This is very different from the idea of thinking about things. The key difference is when thinking about something takes you away from the actual experience of that thing. I am skeptical of our ability to think our way to insight. Doesn't the insight arise from knowing what is, even if you do not know how you know and you do not necessarily have a rational path to that knowing, or is Bhaavanaa a rational process of thought? Thank you for your help. Robert A. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" wrote: > > CP: Sounds good to me... reflect, consider, study, etc. & must include yoniso manasikaara. A few words that might fit: > > #80163 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma truth_aerator Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > 'comes to or is brought to change (vikaara) as a result of such > opposing conditions as cold or heat ' is what is meant. So the > Blessed One spoke the words beginning: 'It is afflicted by cold, it > is afflicted by heat.' Here, being afflicted is just taking a > different form in the presence of opposing conditions like cold...> > Thus, these are words of the sutta. Ruupas are fragile, they break up > at each moment, they are dukkha. They are no good! > Nina. > Insentient form is as afflicted as a rock is! :) . It is not the form that is afflicted, it is the consciousness (mind) dependent on rupa which is afflicted! Without ANY feelings, perceptions, consciousness, etc it is IMPOSSIBLE TO BE AFFLICTED! Rupa CAN and often IS one of the things that afflict, but only a sentient being THROUGH cognition can be "afflicted". Lots of Metta, Alex #80164 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/Nina et buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > I'm very happy to discuss and reflect on the different meanings of dukkha > and the dukkha of dhammas arising now as we speak anytime you like. Sure, let's keep talking about dukkha. It's such a fun topic! ;-)) Right now I have a nasty cold (runny nose, sore throat, slight fever, chills, etc.). This cold I have is dukkha- as the Buddha taught sickness is dukkha. So, could you explain to me how there could be suffering without a sufferer? How could I have sickness if I don't really exist? Metta, James ps. BTW, the doctor I saw yesterday seemed pretty convinced that I exist so he gave me some medicine and a flu shot. :-) #80165 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:01 pm Subject: Re: A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views kenhowardau Hi Alex, I think you have rejected my advice, which was to learn about momentary, paramattha, reality. When you do eventually learn it you will recognise momentary phenomena throughout the suttas and the Abhidhamma-pitaka. I'm sorry to say that, until that time, you will never really know what the Buddha's teaching was all about. ------------------- <. . .> A: > If the container is dirty than even the best of knowledge will be contaminated. There are many stories of people achieving ariyahood by listening to the discources of the Buddha. Today most of us have read 100x as much as an illiterate Arahant could hear Buddha or his disciples speak. Yet we aren't even close. Proper, Samma-Samadhi, helps to prepare the container. Scripturally, it appears possible to achieve Arahatship through listening (if you have very well developed mind, cleansed with fire of Jhana). ----------------- In momentary reality every kusala citta is [momentarily] cleansed of defilements. However, there is no possibility of anything being cleansed in advance. There is no thing that lasts for more than a trillionth of a second. As a meditator you have the misconception of a persisting mind that can be put into some kind of "receptive state" ready for the practice of insight. I sympathise with you because that is a difficult misconception to break. ----------------------------------- > > A: > For an Arahant the 4NT are not longer fully valid. In Nibbana 4 > NT cannot be said to exist! This disproves their Ultimate (Eternal) > existence. > > 4NT's do have Highest Validity for pujjhanas and sekhas, and only > limited AT best personal validity for Arahants. > ------------ > KH: > > You may have got those definitions from some other school of > Buddhism, or maybe from someone's homemade version of the Dhamma. >>> A: > Those are implications found for giving objective permanence to ANYTHING. ------------------------------------ Sorry, I don't know what you mean. ------------------------- KH: > > > at DSG, we should not use "ultimate existence" to mean "eternal > existence." We should use it to mean "absolute existence" or, better > still "absolute reality." There can be conditioned absolute reality (citta, cetasika and rupa) and there can be unconditioned absolute > reality (nibbana). Both forms are absolutely real. > A: > If something is conditioned, how can it be absolute? -------------------------- A conditioned dhamma momentarily arises, performs its functions and falls away. During those three stages it is an absolute, existent, reality. By contrast, a chair or a tree or a sentient being etc is never real. It is an illusion created by thinking. Ken H #80166 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... upasaka_howard Hi, James - ps. BTW, the doctor I saw yesterday seemed pretty convinced that I exist so he gave me some medicine and a flu shot. :-) ================================= All it takes is to experience even once the absence of personal self to see that all the things that are taken for self can arise and cease quite well on their own without there being any owner of them or any agent for them. With metta, Howard #80167 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 4:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/15/2007 11:04:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Alex, I think you have rejected my advice, which was to learn about momentary, paramattha, reality. When you do eventually learn it you will recognise momentary phenomena throughout the suttas and the Abhidhamma-pitaka. I'm sorry to say that, until that time, you will never really know what the Buddha's teaching was all about. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, IMO you're being amazingly arrogant here, probably without realizing it. You haven't even included one "I think" phrase! No-self opinions aren't much of a substitute for humility, which is no-self in action. Ken, please reconsider the business of judging and condemning , and consider that others might have a piece of true understanding. ---------------------------------------------------- ------------------- <. . .> A: > If the container is dirty than even the best of knowledge will be contaminated. There are many stories of people achieving ariyahood by listening to the discources of the Buddha. Today most of us have read 100x as much as an illiterate Arahant could hear Buddha or his disciples speak. Yet we aren't even close. Proper, Samma-Samadhi, helps to prepare the container. Scripturally, it appears possible to achieve Arahatship through listening (if you have very well developed mind, cleansed with fire of Jhana). ----------------- In momentary reality every kusala citta is [momentarily] cleansed of defilements. However, there is no possibility of anything being cleansed in advance. There is no thing that lasts for more than a trillionth of a second. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, present conditions influence conditions-to-be. Are you ignoring all that Nina has said about accumulations? --------------------------------------------------- As a meditator you have the misconception of a persisting mind that can be put into some kind of "receptive state" ready for the practice of insight. I sympathise with you because that is a difficult misconception to break. ----------------------------------- > > A: > For an Arahant the 4NT are not longer fully valid. In Nibbana 4 > NT cannot be said to exist! This disproves their Ultimate (Eternal) > existence. > > 4NT's do have Highest Validity for pujjhanas and sekhas, and only > limited AT best personal validity for Arahants. > ------------ > KH: > > You may have got those definitions from some other school of > Buddhism, or maybe from someone's homemade version of the Dhamma. >>> A: > Those are implications found for giving objective permanence to ANYTHING. ------------------------------------ Sorry, I don't know what you mean. ------------------------- KH: > > > at DSG, we should not use "ultimate existence" to mean "eternal > existence." We should use it to mean "absolute existence" or, better > still "absolute reality." There can be conditioned absolute reality (citta, cetasika and rupa) and there can be unconditioned absolute > reality (nibbana). Both forms are absolutely real. > A: > If something is conditioned, how can it be absolute? -------------------------- A conditioned dhamma momentarily arises, performs its functions and falls away. During those three stages it is an absolute, existent, reality. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: What does 'absolute' mean, then? The philosophical meaning is "being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships." It is always contrasted with 'relative'. Whatever is conditioned is relative, not absolute. ----------------------------------------------------- By contrast, a chair or a tree or a sentient being etc is never real. It is an illusion created by thinking. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: So, certainly your computer and keyboard are illusions created by thinking, and people for sure! So, what are you doing interacting with illusions, Ken? If these are entirely illusion, does that, then, make you insane? ------------------------------------------------------ Ken H ========================== With metta, Figment Howard #80168 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 10:02 pm Subject: Monk Fashion Show... buddhatrue Hi Howard and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > All it takes is to experience even once the absence of personal self to > see that all the things that are taken for self can arise and cease quite > well on their own without there being any owner of them or any agent for them. Wow Howard, this is some pretty high philosophy! ;-)) Of course I know that insight- it is linked very strongly to anicca btw- but that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about taking anatta to an extreme where the sufferer doesn't exist in any sense, not even as an impermanent process (sankhara). Check out this Monk Fashion Show: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_re_as/japan_monk_fashion Goodness gracias what is becoming of the Buddhasangha! Metta, James #80169 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Monk Fashion Show... upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 12/16/2007 1:03:01 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > All it takes is to experience even once the absence of personal self to > see that all the things that are taken for self can arise and cease quite > well on their own without there being any owner of them or any agent for them. Wow Howard, this is some pretty high philosophy! ;-)) Of course I know that insight- it is linked very strongly to anicca btw- but that isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about taking anatta to an extreme where the sufferer doesn't exist in any sense, not even as an impermanent process (sankhara). ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, I gotcha. (And I agree.) --------------------------------------------------------- Check out this Monk Fashion Show: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071215/ap_on_re_as/japan_monk_fashion Goodness gracias what is becoming of the Buddhasangha! --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Brings to mind that old Pali expression: "Oy, vey!" ;-)) ----------------------------------------------------------- Metta, James ============================ With metta, Howard #80170 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:55 pm Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (54) nichiconn Dear Robert A, RA: Consider the word 'anupassanaa' or 'anupassati. I have seen these words translated more with a sense of observes or sees. This is very different from the idea of thinking about things. The key difference is when thinking about something takes you away from the actual experience of that thing. I am skeptical of our ability to think our way to insight. Doesn't the insight arise from knowing what is, even if you do not know how you know and you do not necessarily have a rational path to that knowing, or is Bhaavanaa a rational process of thought? CP: In a technical sense, manasikaara refers to aavajjana or adverting, the first glimpse or taking to heart of the object at the sense or mind door and thus could be considered as where view is born or originates. The yoni of 'yoniso manasikaara' {"fixing one's attention with a purpose or thoroughly"; proper or orderly attention or reflection; "having thorough method in one's thought"} points to getting back to, finding, seeing, or understanding the source. I think that relates to the 'passati' (sees, finds, understands) of anupassati {to look at, view, contemplate, observe, consider, realise} and vipassanaa [vi + passati] {insight, intuition, vision, etc}. Guess that puts us back to the old "right view is the forerunner" saying. I don't know, but it all sounds like a bunch of mental processes to me and that would be more or less, thinking... the more rational the better, I'd guess... not being sure what rational means. peace, connie #80171 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:02 am Subject: Mighty Magic Majesty! bhikkhu0 Friends: Establishing Awareness creates a Mighty Magic Power! SÄ?keta was the place where Venerable Sariputta said this to Venerable Anuruddha : Friend Anuruddha, by cultivating and making much of which conditions have you developed such mighty magic power and supreme majesty ? Friend, it is by cultivating and making much of the Four Foundations of Awareness that I have done so. What four? Herein friend, I dwell contemplating body just as a form ... & the rise and fall of body ... both own and other ... internal and external ... I dwell contemplating feeling just as reaction ... & the rise and fall of feeling ... both own and other ... internal and external ... I dwell contemplating all mind just as moods ... & the rise and fall of mind ... both own and other ... internal and external ... I dwell contemplating all phenomena just as mental states ... & rise and fall of mental states ... both own and other ... internal and external ... Moreover, friend it is by cultivating and making much of these Four Foundations of Awareness that I have come to completely & directly experience this thousandfold galactic world-system. Moreover, it is because of having cultivated & made much of these Four Foundations of Awareness that the painful feelings that come upon my body make no impression on my mind. <...> Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ..... #80172 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:57 am Subject: Anatta special vs. anicca and dukkha (was, Report ...) jonoabb Hi Dieter Dieter Möller wrote: > D: I thought we you understood eachother: > (D: I think (the relation of) anicca and dukkha are rather obvious, whereas anatta is > is 'veiled' ... Without anicca and dukkha we wouldn't really care for anatta , would we ? > J: I agree more or less with your comments here. But I thought we were discussing a somewhat different point. ) > > I do not see the different point. > There is something special about anatta: whereas anicca and dukkha can be accepted as facts of life and most people do so , arranging themselves with samsara if not clinging to annihilistic view (when I am dead, I am dead' ) , the issue of anatta goes much deeper , needs examination, khanda analysis , seeing the conditioning (D.O.) , hence providing the necessary insight for detachment, letting go.. because of clinging to self such a long time > > Though the 3 wisdoms are interrelated and ultimate truths , anatta needs a far more difficult process of realisation ( by the path training). > Whereas anicca and dukkha may be clearly seen far below the Arahat state , anatta is finally unveiled /completed only at this level.. so, not the same , is it? > OK, I think I understand you better now. You regard the characteristic of anatta as different from the characteristics of anicca and dukkha, in that the latter 2 are more easily appreciated and experienced because they are already known to us. So while anicca and dukkha can be readily seen by even the unenlightened, anatta is fully understood only by the arahant. Is that what you are saying here? I don't think you'll find any such distinction (between anatta and the other 2 characteristics) being made in the texts. To my understanding, these 3 characteristics are characteristics of dhammas, and an understanding of them is developed only at moments when dhammas are the object of insight development. They can be directly known only to the extent that insight has been developed. So the fact that everyone knows impermanence and suffering at a conventional level does not have any real bearing on the matter. As insight is (gradually) developed then, and only then, the 3 characteristics (gradually) become more apparent. I believe it is explained in the texts that for different people, a different one of the 3 characteristics will be fully penetrated just before or at the moment of full enlightenment, and that all 3 are fully known only by the arahant. But no special mention is made of anatta in this regard, to my knowledge. Jon #80173 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta as a strategy jonoabb Hi Alex Thanks for the further reply. Alex wrote: > All of Buddha's teaching is a strategy. Where have I said > that "anatta is a strategy and other things are not." ? No, you haven't said that anatta is a strategy but anicca and dukkha are not. However, I don't think any of the three are described in the texts as a 'strategy' (they are described as characteristics of all conditioned dhammas). >> If "putting anatta into action" means the same as developing the >> N8P, then where does the idea of "putting anatta into action" >> come from (is it found in the texts)? >> > > Yes. Removing 10 fetters for example is anatta in action. Removing 3 > roots (greed, anger & delusion) is another related example. > I don't think the texts make any connection between the removal of the 10 fetters or the 3 roots and "putting anatta into action". > You and others seem to assume that "a strategy" reject the truth of > the statement which is supposed to be used. > Again, I think you might be confusing this thread with your other one. I've just been trying to clarify what you (Alex) understand by anatta as a 'strategy'. I'm not saying anyone is rejecting anything. Anyway, I think we've just about exhausted this thread! Thanks for the exchange. Last word to you. Jon #80174 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta as a strategy jonoabb Hi Howard Thanks for coming in here. upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon (and Alex) - > > In a message dated 12/8/2007 8:23:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > Agreed that anatta is in the suttas and is to be realised. But this > thread started because of your support for the characterisation of > anatta as a 'tool' or 'strategy'. To say that anatta needs to be > realised doesn't seem to explain that characterisation, since the same > could be said for the rest of the teachings too. > > > ================================= > As I see it, the following are all facts: > > 1) Anatta isn't a strategy. It is the nature of all phenomena, even > including nibbana, the unconditioned (and, IMO, unconditional) reality. > > 2) There *is* what could be called an anatta "strategy", which is the > practice (or occurrence, if you prefer, Jon) of the discovery that no condition > (sankhara) we ever encounter is or has self, being impersonal, > insubstantial, not alterable by will [Hardness is hardness, and can't become softness > because we wish it to be], and dependent/contingent and thus without own being. > I think the discovery you mention here occurs because of interest in and exposure to the teachings, and coming to understand better and better the way things are as described in the teachings, rather than because of anything that might be called a "practice". I would say it is not a matter of 'looking' or 'observing', since dhammas cannot be seen by looking. > > 3) The repeated acts of observing noted above in 2) in a mind that has > been and is being cultivated in other ways as well, seeded with the teachings > and made calm and alert by right effort, mindfulness, and heightened > attention (the latter of which is what I prefer to say for 'samadhi' instead of > "concentration"), lead to eventual realization of anatta. > I agree with you on the importance of hearing the teachings, and the arising of the various mental factors you mention here. Jon #80175 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Khun Sujin's explanations. jonoabb Hi Rob A Robert wrote: > Hello Jon, > > One should learn the teachings. On this we agree, but for me, these > are the basic teachings of Buddhism - the Four Noble Truths and the > Eightfold Path, Dependent Origination and Kamma, the precepts and the > perfections, the five hindrances and the five aggregates, etc. For you, I > am sure it is much more. > Not really more than that. But as I see it the learning never stops; one can only understand them to the extent that panna (the kind that directly experiences realities) has been developed. > The other is this thing about practice. In the end, we won't agree > here. We both will happily continue to do what we do. If I say what I > practice is things like generousity and patience, trying to keep the > precepts, and other things like meditation to calm and quiet my mind, I > don't see how this is not a useful thing to do. So, this is what I do. It > all seems pretty simple to me. > Yes, all kinds of kusala are useful, so kusala of all kinds is to be developed. However, I don't see this as a matter of "things to do", since the quality of an action is determined by the quality of the mental state, rather than the other way around (if you see what I mean). But kusala can and does arise in our daily life without any specific "doing" on our part, and when it does it's characteristic can be known (and when it doesn't, and the mental state is akusala, the characteristic of that can be known too). > Yes, I did make it to Thailand back in those days, although I was there a > little earlier than you. I went there as a civilian after I got out of the > army. I loved it there. I have only been back once since then, but am > sure I will go again sometime in the future. > I hope you make it back. You'll find many changes, and not just in Bangkok! Jon #80176 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta as a strategy upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 12/16/2007 8:25:47 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > As I see it, the following are all facts: > > 1) Anatta isn't a strategy. It is the nature of all phenomena, even > including nibbana, the unconditioned (and, IMO, unconditional) reality. > > 2) There *is* what could be called an anatta "strategy", which is the > practice (or occurrence, if you prefer, Jon) of the discovery that no condition > (sankhara) we ever encounter is or has self, being impersonal, > insubstantial, not alterable by will [Hardness is hardness, and can't become softness > because we wish it to be], and dependent/contingent and thus without own being. > I think the discovery you mention here occurs because of interest in and exposure to the teachings, and coming to understand better and better the way things are as described in the teachings, rather than because of anything that might be called a "practice". --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with what you wrote there before the second comma - as a partial answer. The Buddha never taught that his path of practice consisted of only listening and considering. ---------------------------------------------------- I would say it is not a matter of 'looking' or 'observing', since dhammas cannot be seen by looking. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's completely false, Jon, IMO. We observe paramattha dhammas all the time. In fact, in a sense that is all we ever actually observe. What is missing is clarity of observation. steadiness of observation, and insight into and understanding of what is observed. ------------------------------------------------ > > 3) The repeated acts of observing noted above in 2) in a mind that has > been and is being cultivated in other ways as well, seeded with the teachings > and made calm and alert by right effort, mindfulness, and heightened > attention (the latter of which is what I prefer to say for 'samadhi' instead of > "concentration"), lead to eventual realization of anatta. > I agree with you on the importance of hearing the teachings, and the arising of the various mental factors you mention here. Jon =========================== With metta, Howard #80177 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:40 am Subject: Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, When we like an object, we may want to have it again and again, not merely once. We accumulate clinging to that particular object. That object conditions clinging by way of object strong dependence- condition, årammanúpanissaya-paccaya [1]; it has become a powerful inducement, a cogent reason for lobha. Acharn Sujin said: "You may like a special kind of fruit, and it will happen again that you like it. That object becomes your strong dependence-condition for continuing to like it; you like it not just once. You want to have it again and again, and this becomes a habit. That is why we like different things." The teaching of conditions is not theory, we can understand conditions whenever they appear. We can know what object we like in particular and what object can be a strong dependence-condition for liking it. Thus, in the case of clinging, the object predominance- condition indicates that the object is highly desirable so that it conditions lobha to have preference for it. The object that is strong dependence-condition indicates that lobha becomes strongly dependent on it, that it is a cogent reason for lobha. These conditions do not operate only in the case of defilements, but also in the case of kusala citta. There are several more conditions for the arising of lobha in daily life. We accumulate different tendencies, different likes and dislikes, because each citta that arises and falls away is immediately succeeded by the next citta without any interval. Each citta conditions the succeeding citta by way of proximity-condition, anantara-paccaya[2]. That is why all our accumulated tendencies can go on from one citta to the next citta, from life to life. Another condition that concerns the way a preceding citta conditions the succeeding citta is the proximity strong dependence-condition, anantarupanissaya-paccaya [3]. This condition is similar to the proximity-condition, but it is not identical. The proximity strong dependence-condition indicates how forcefully a preceding citta can condition the subsequent citta: the preceding citta is a cogent reason for the arising of the subsequent citta. Thus, with regard to proximity-condition and proximity strong dependence-condition there is a difference in the conditioning force that brings about the appropriate effect. When, for example, strong dosa, aversion, arises quite suddenly, we may ask ourselves how that could happen. Our accumulated dosa conditions the arising of dosa at the right time; the preceding citta is then a powerful inducement for the arising of such a degree of dosa at the succeeding moment. It has to happen, it is beyond control, because it is depending on the appropriate conditions. This is also true for lobha, and for kusala. Our accumulated tendencies are carried on from moment to moment in the series of cittas of which our life consist. This series must go on and on from this life to the next life, by way of proximity-condition and by way of proximity strong dependence-condition. Nothing can arrest this chain of life except the dying-consciousness of the arahat, which is not succeeded by rebirth-consciousness. ----------- 1.Upanissaya means support or dependence. Årammanúpanissaya-paccaya is also translated as decisive support-condition of object. 2. Anantara means without any interval. 3. This is also translated as decisive support of proximity-condition. ******** Nina. #80178 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:47 am Subject: Perfections Corner (55) nichiconn Dear All, http://www.zolag.co.uk/ - The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment by Sujin Boriharnwanaket; translated by Nina van Gorkom. Chapter 8: The Perfection of Determination. continued... We read in the Commentary to the "Basket of Conduct" about four dhammas which are firm foundations, adi.t.thaana dhammas, dhammas that are basic to all the perfections. These are: truthfulness, sacca, relinquishment, caaga, calm or peace, upasama, and pa~n~naa. The foundation dhamma of truthfulness, sacca, is steadfastness in truthfulness. We can verify for ourselves to what extent we are stable in truthfulness and sincerity. One may realize that one is not steadfast in truthfulness. We should have a refined knowledge of ourselves and see the disadvantage of action and speech that is not truthful. Even with regard to insignificant matters we should know when we deviate from the truth. At such moments we are overcome by the strength of the defilements we have accumulated. If we consider and notice our akusala, we can see the disadvantage of the akusala we have accumulated and which conditions unwholesome conduct. We can see the disadvantage of our lack of truthfulness and hence we can become more steadfast in truthfulness. A person who is without defilements will not tell a lie and his actions will be in accordance with his thoughts and speech. He is firmly established in truthfulness. Someone who is not steadfast in truthfulness does not act in accordance with his speech, because of the strength of his defilements. Some people think that it is not important to keep one's appointments. Here we see that the accumulation of akusala leads us to not being truthful in fulfilling what we promised. When people do not see the importance of truthfulness in speech, it is a condition for not seeking the truth which also includes the truth of the noble ones, the ariyans. As regards the observance of truthfulness in speech, even small children can notice whether someone acts in accordance with his words. When they are grown up they abhor all the more eloquence that is deceptive, speech that is not truthful, that is not the speech of the noble ones. When someone maintains truthfulness in speech, speech that does not deviate from the truth, he will continue to be steadfast in every respect, even when he is in danger of life. This is steadfastness in truthfulness, saccadi.t.thaana. We should be firmly established in truthfulness so that we shall reach the further shore, nibbaana. ..to be continued, connie #80179 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:48 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (72) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 4 15. Cattaaliisanipaato 1. Isidaasiitheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 410. "Yaa mayha.m saamikassa, bhaginiyo bhaatuno parijano vaa; tamekavarakampi disvaa, ubbiggaa aasana.m demi. 411. "Annena ca paanena ca, khajjena ca ya~nca tattha sannihita.m; chaademi upanayaami ca, demi ca ya.m yassa patiruupa.m. 412. "Kaalena upa.t.thahitvaa, ghara.m samupagamaami ummaare; dhovantii hatthpaade, pa~njalikaa saamikamupemi. 413. "Koccha.m pasaada.m a~njani~nca, aadaasaka~nca ga.nhitvaa; parikammakaarikaa viya, sayameva pati.m vibhuusemi. 414. "Sayameva odana.m saadhayaami, sayameva bhaajana.m dhovantii; maataava ekaputtaka.m, tathaa bhattaara.m paricaraami. 408. Seeing my husband's sisters or his brother[s] or his retinue, even my one and only beloved, I trembled and gave them a seat. 409. I gratified them with food and drink and hard food and whatever was stored there. I brought it forth and gave what was fitting to each. 410. Arising in good time, I approached my lord's house. Having washed my hands and feet at the threshold, I approached my husband with cupped hands. 411. Taking a comb, decorations, a box for ointment, and a mirror, I myself adorned my husband like a servant girl [would]. 412. I myself prepared the boiled rice. I myself washed the bowl. I looked after my husband as a mother [would look after] her only son. RD: My husband's sisters and his brothers too, And all his kin, scarce were they entered when I rose in timid zeal and gave them place. (408) And as to food, or boiled or dried, and drink, That which was to be stored I set aside, And served it out and gave to whom 'twas due. (409) Rising betimes, I went about the house, Then with my hands and feet well cleansed I went To bring respectful greeting to my lord, (410) And taking comb and mirror, unguents, soap, I dressed and groomed him as a handmaid might. (411) I boiled the rice, I washed the pots and pans; And as a mother on her only child, So did I minister to my good man. (412) 415. "Eva.m ma.m bhattikata.m, anuratta.m kaarika.m nihatamaana.m; u.t.thaayika.m analasa.m, siilavati.m dussate bhattaa. 416. "So maatara~nca pitara~nca, bha.nati aapucchaha.m gamissaami; isidaasiyaa na saha vaccha.m, ekaagaareha.m saha vatthu.m. 417. "Maa eva.m putta avaca, isidaasii pa.n.ditaa paribyattaa; u.t.thaayikaa analasaa, ki.m tuyha.m na rocate putta. 418. "Na ca me hi.msati ki~nci, na caha.m isidaasiyaa saha vaccha.m; dessaava me ala.m me, apucchaaha.m gamissaami. 419. "Tassa vacana.m su.nitvaa, sassu sasuro ca ma.m apucchi.msu; kissa tayaa aparaddha.m, bha.na vissa.t.thaa yathaabhuuta.m. 413. My husband offended against me, who in this way had shown him devotion, an affectionate servant with humbled pride, an early riser, not lazy, virtuous. 414. He said to his mother and father, "I will take leave and go. I will not live together with Isidaasii, living together in one and the same house." 415. "Do not speak in this way, son. Isidaasi is learned, clever, an early riser, not lazy. Why does she not please you, son?" 416. "She does me no harm, but I will not live with Isidaasii. To me she is just odious. I have had enough. Having taken leave, I will go." 417. Hearing this utterance, my father-in-law and mother-in-law asked me, "What offence against him have you committed? Tell us confidently ow it really was." RD: For me, who with toil infinite thus worked, And rendered service with a humble mind, Rose early, ever diligent and good, For me he nothing felt save sore dislike. (413) Nay, to his mother and his father he Thus spake: - 'Give ye me leave and I will go, For not with Isidaasii will I live Beneath one roof, nor ever dwell with her.' (414) 'O son, speak not on this wise of thy wife, For wise is Isidaasii and discreet, An early riser and a housewife diligent. Say, doth she find no favour in thine eyes?' (415) 'In nothing doth she work me harm, and yet With Isidaasii will I never live. I cannot suffer her. Let be, let be! Give ye me leave and I will go away.' (416) And when they heard, mother and father-in-law Asked of me: 'What then hast thou done t' offend? Speak to us freely, child, and speak the truth.' (417) === to be continued, connie #80180 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 5. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/16/2007 9:40:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear friends, When we like an object, we may want to have it again and again, not merely once. We accumulate clinging to that particular object. That object conditions clinging by way of object strong dependence- condition, årammanúpanissaya-paccaya [1]; it has become a powerful inducement, a cogent reason for lobha. Acharn Sujin said: "You may like a special kind of fruit, and it will happen again that you like it. That object becomes your strong dependence-condition for continuing to like it; you like it not just once. You want to have it again and again, and this becomes a habit. That is why we like different things." ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, that is interesting. That fruit is pa~n~natti, right? Also, what's this again and again"? There isn't just "now"? What's going on here, Nina? Should Ken get worried? ;-)) --------------------------------------------------------- With metta, Howard #80181 From: "Robert" Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:55 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (54) avalo1968 Hello Connie, CP: I think that relates to the 'passati' (sees, finds, understands) of anupassati {to look at, view, contemplate, observe, consider, realise} and vipassanaa [vi + passati] {insight, intuition, vision, etc}. Guess that puts us back to the old "right view is the forerunner" saying. I don't know, but it all sounds like a bunch of mental processes to me and that would be more or less, thinking... the more rational the better, I'd guess...not being sure what rational means. Robert A: When I use the term 'rational', I am referring to a process of reasoning, and opposing that with a process that is intuitive in the sense of direct perception of the truth without reliance on reasoning - a 'knowing without knowing how you know'. This comes back to my original question as to the meaning of the word 'contemplate' in your original quote. I was trying to draw a distinction, which I think is an important one, between 'contemplate' understood to mean reasoning, and 'contemplate' which is direct observation without the intervention of a reasoning process. Is does come back to 'right view', but that is not necessarily a view we arrive at through reasoning. Thank you for your reply. Robert A. #80182 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:59 am Subject: Re: Anatta special vs. anicca and dukkha (was, Report ...) buddhatrue Hi Jon and Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > OK, I think I understand you better now. You regard the characteristic > of anatta as different from the characteristics of anicca and dukkha, in > that the latter 2 are more easily appreciated and experienced because > they are already known to us. So while anicca and dukkha can be readily > seen by even the unenlightened, anatta is fully understood only by the > arahant. Is that what you are saying here? > > I don't think you'll find any such distinction (between anatta and the > other 2 characteristics) being made in the texts. To my understanding, > these 3 characteristics are characteristics of dhammas, and an > understanding of them is developed only at moments when dhammas are the > object of insight development. They can be directly known only to the > extent that insight has been developed. So the fact that everyone knows > impermanence and suffering at a conventional level does not have any > real bearing on the matter. > > As insight is (gradually) developed then, and only then, the 3 > characteristics (gradually) become more apparent. I believe it is > explained in the texts that for different people, a different one of the > 3 characteristics will be fully penetrated just before or at the moment > of full enlightenment, and that all 3 are fully known only by the > arahant. But no special mention is made of anatta in this regard, to my > knowledge. I did some research into this subject and I must say that I agree with both of you. How? Well, read this sutta: "Monks, these seven perceptions, when developed & pursued, are of great fruit, of great benefit. They gain a footing in the Deathless, have the Deathless as their final end. Which seven? The perception of the unattractive, the perception of death, the perception of loathsomeness in food, the perception of distaste for every world, the perception of inconstancy, the perception of stress in what is inconstant, the perception of not-self in what is stressful. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.046.than.html So, contemplation of anicca and dukkha are of very high importance, but contemplation of anatta (in that which is dukkha) is also important. What I get from this teaching is that an understanding and an appreciation of all three characteristics is important for insight. (That is why the followers of KS should stop focusing solely on anatta and thinking that anatta alone will lead to nibbana). Metta, James #80183 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma nilovg Hi Howard, I understand your experience-oriented reply. But this does not render the characeteristic of dukkha, fully, in its profoundness. You only mention one aspect which sounds more as the other ways of dukkha that were mentioned, such as unhappy feeling, woe, etc. Op 15-dec-2007, om 17:38 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > But it always means > relative to experience or relative to some specific purpose. (With > regard to > purpose: Meat is no good for building a car. ;-) > In general, as regards the second of the tilakkhana, all conditioned > dhammas being dukkha pertains to the matter of satisfying sentient > beings. (N.B. > I can't keep on using quotation marks! ;-) No lasting satisfaction > can be > found in conditioned dhammas for a variety of reasons, among which > are their > impermanence, their ungraspability, the onset of boredom and the > craving for > more, and the actual unpleasantness of some of them, but, always, > this is > experience-oriented. ------ N: I like to go to the Sutta again: SIII, 86. Ven. Bodhi translates ruppati as deformed. Deformed by cold etc. We know that rupa is not etymologically derived from ruppati, ruppa here is merely a word association used for explanation purpose. Ven. Bodhi, p. 1071, in his note: He mentions that Spk glosses (I give English only): it is disturbed, stricken, oppressed, meaning 'it is broken.' I cannot add anything more. If you prefer to see it only in an experience-oriented way, it is up to you. Nina. #80184 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/16/2007 10:32:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: I cannot add anything more. If you prefer to see it only in an experience-oriented way, it is up to you. =========================== The word 'dukkha' has a specific meaning, and it pertains to unhappiness. Without reference to experience, nothing that I have seen makes any dhamma dukkha. There is nothing wrong with rupas interacting with each other, there is nothing wrong with arising, nothing wrong with cessation - nothing at all except as regards experience. And nothing that I have seen written anywhere persuades me in the slightest to the contrary. With metta, Howard #80185 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: contemplation, was Perfections Corner (54) nilovg Dear Robert A, You wrote to me and Connie about contemplating, etc. I can add something. Op 16-dec-2007, om 15:55 heeft Robert het volgende geschreven: > This comes back to my original question as to the meaning of the > word 'contemplate' in your original quote. I was trying to draw a > distinction, which I think is an important one, between 'contemplate' > understood to mean reasoning, and 'contemplate' which is direct > observation without the intervention of a reasoning process. ------- N: You have a very good feeling here for the difference, I think. Very well observed. This comes close to knowing the difference between thinking and direct awareness so often discussed. We read about seeing and think about it, but then there is thinking, not seeing. However, when Kh Sujin asks: is there seeing now, perhaps we are reminded to just attend to the characteristic of seeing as it appears now, without thinking. First we have to discuss and think a great deal about seeing so that we know what it is, different from seeing as we use it in conventional sense. The latter is not precise at all. We say: we see people, we see the shape and form of things. This is not seeing but defining and thinking. Seeing only sees what appears through eyesense. A person cannot impinge on the eyesense, impossible, that would hurt! So, it is by listening and discussing, and attending to the reality appearing now that the right conditions are formed for awareness that can suddenly arise without preparing it, unexpectedly. ------ > R: Is does come back to 'right view', but that is not necessarily a > view we arrive at > through reasoning. ------- N: Reasoning lays the foundation if it is correct reasoning. Gradually there can be right view instead of wrong view. Appreciating your remarks, Nina. #80186 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:52 am Subject: Re: A Reminder for Us Clingers-to-Views truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > I think you have rejected my advice, which was to learn about > momentary, paramattha, >>> If something is momentary, then it cannot be ABSOLUTE. It is merely a relative and functional link in the chain of processes. Since it is impermanent it is not to be clung to physically or mentally. >>> reality. When you do eventually learn it you > will recognise momentary phenomena throughout the suttas and the > Abhidhamma-pitaka. >>> Dear Ken. Where have I said that "anything is permanent?" . Everything is IMPERMANENT. > > ------------------- > <. . .> > A: > If the container is dirty than even the best of knowledge will be > contaminated. There are many stories of people achieving ariyahood by > listening to the discources of the Buddha. Today most of us have read > 100x as much as an illiterate Arahant could hear Buddha or his > disciples speak. Yet we aren't even close. > > Proper, Samma-Samadhi, helps to prepare the container. Scripturally, > it appears possible to achieve Arahatship through listening (if you > have very well developed mind, cleansed with fire of Jhana). > ----------------- > > In momentary reality every kusala citta is [momentarily] cleansed of defilements. However, there is no possibility of anything being > cleansed in advance. There is no thing that lasts for more than a > trillionth of a second. >> Are you saying that momentary we may get akusala cittas and be Arahants (for a split second?). What you are saying contradicts the Buddha where he has said about "cleansing the mind off defilements" etc. > > As a meditator you have the misconception of a persisting mind that > can be put into some kind of "receptive state" ready for the practice of insight. I sympathise with you because that is a difficult misconception to break. >>>> Meditation helps one to SEE FOR ONESELF the links of DO, thus getting rid of the fetters which bind to samsara. Furthermore deep meditation helps to clear the blind spots in order to fully see the inconstancy and dependency of everything. When you have defilements, they'll try to defile any sort of knowledge that you may have. > ----------------------------------- > > > > A: > For an Arahant the 4NT are not longer fully valid. In Nibbana > 4 > > NT cannot be said to exist! This disproves their Ultimate (Eternal) > > existence. > > > > 4NT's do have Highest Validity for pujjhanas and sekhas, and only > > limited AT best personal validity for Arahants. > > ------------ > > > KH: > > You may have got those definitions from some other school of > > Buddhism, or maybe from someone's homemade version of the Dhamma. > >>> > > A: > Those are implications found for giving objective permanence to > ANYTHING. > ------------------------------------ > > Sorry, I don't know what you mean. > Too bad. Dependency and "Absolute Existence" are self contradictory. Furthermore, this clinging to "Ultimate Realities" is what gives an ego a solid and "ultimate" ground to stand and rely on. > ------------------------- > KH: > > > > at DSG, we should not use "ultimate existence" to mean "eternal > > existence." We should use it to mean "absolute existence" or, > better > still "absolute reality." There can be conditioned absolute > reality (citta, cetasika and rupa) and there can be unconditioned > absolute > reality (nibbana). Both forms are absolutely real. > > > That definition cannot go with absolute reality. > > A: > If something is conditioned, how can it be absolute? > -------------------------- > > A conditioned dhamma momentarily arises, performs its functions and > falls away. During those three stages it is an absolute, existent, > reality. By contrast, a chair or a tree or a sentient being etc is > never real. It is an illusion created by thinking. > > Ken H > If the chair is "never real" then HOW CAN YOU SIT ON IT?? If the tree is "never real" then HOW CAN YOU EAT FRUIT FROM IT? If the sentient being is "never real" then WITH WHOM ARE YOU INTERACTING? ETC. Lots of Metta, MAY THE DHAMMA BE WITH YOU! Alex #80187 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta as a strategy truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex > > Thanks for the further reply. > > Alex wrote: > > All of Buddha's teaching is a strategy. Where have I said > > that "anatta is a strategy and other things are not." ? > > No, you haven't said that anatta is a strategy but anicca and dukkha are not. >>> Anicca & dukha are also the element which make up Anatta. By clearly comprehending anicca & dukha through DO, one realizes Anatta and doesn't cling to anything as "I, ME, MINE". >>>>>> However, I don't think any of the three are described in the texts > as a 'strategy' (they are described as characteristics of all > conditioned dhammas). >>>> No. The 3 above are taught in an EMPERIC way, always grounding in direct experience. > >> If "putting anatta into action" means the same as developing the > >> N8P, then where does the idea of "putting anatta into action" > >> come from (is it found in the texts)? > >> > > > > Yes. Removing 10 fetters for example is anatta in action. Removing 3 > > roots (greed, anger & delusion) is another related example. > > > > I don't think the texts make any connection between the removal of the > 10 fetters or the 3 roots and "putting anatta into action". > All the texts do that. 1st if you remove greed,anger and delusion (of atta & rituals) then 10 fetters are removed. Since removing the hindrances is a conscious and planned ACTION, this makes it a strategy. MAY THE DHAMMA BE WITH YOU, Lots of Metta, Alex #80188 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:13 am Subject: Re: Anatta special vs. anicca and dukkha (was, Report ...) truth_aerator Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > I did some research into this subject and I must say that I agree > with both of you. How? Well, read this sutta: > > "Monks, these seven perceptions, when developed & pursued, are of > great fruit, of great benefit. They gain a footing in the Deathless, > have the Deathless as their final end. Which seven? The perception > of the unattractive, the perception of death, the perception of > loathsomeness in food, the perception of distaste for every world, > the perception of inconstancy, the perception of stress in what is > inconstant, the perception of not-self in what is stressful. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.046.than.html > > So, contemplation of anicca and dukkha are of very high importance, > but contemplation of anatta (in that which is dukkha) is also > important. What I get from this teaching is that an understanding > and an appreciation of all three characteristics is important for > insight. (That is why the followers of KS should stop focusing > solely on anatta and thinking that anatta alone will lead to > nibbana). > > Metta, > James > Good links. However, a small comment. Anatta alone will NOT lead to Nibbana as we can plainly see. Anatta (atleast theoretically) is not a Buddhist only teaching. Modern Atheists theoretically hold the "Anatta" doctrine (atleast in part). Yet none of them are Arahants or stream enterers.. And even though they hold Anatta doctrine, they surely do NOT behave in line with the truth. Anatta MUST be put into use and IT MUST BE PERSONAL, DIRECT TRUTH. Furthermore I think that there is a reason why it is 3rd of three truths (anicca, dukha, anatta). It has to be developed and perfected in logical order, after anicca & dukha. Lots of Metta, Alex #80189 From: "Robert" Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: contemplation, was Perfections Corner (54) avalo1968 Hello Nina, Thank you for your reply. Here a section of Connie's original posting that prompted my questions about the word 'contemplate': "The Dhamma as taught by the Buddha is of immense benefit to all of us. We should contemplate the Dhamma in all details. If we wish to develop pa~n~naa and all the different ways of kusala, we should not neglect knowing and understanding our own akusala. Otherwise we cannot accumulate the perfections of determination and of truthfulness." Robert A: My conclusion to all of this discussion is that to contemplate the Dhamma is not to think about the Dhamma, but to observe, to see the Dhamma as it appears now. I appreciate your continued assistence to me in these matters which are difficult to understand. Robert A. #80190 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta special vs. anicca and dukkha (was, Report ...) moellerdieter Hi Jon (James, Alex , Howard and.. ), you wrote: (D: Whereas anicca and dukkha may be clearly seen far below the Arahat state , anatta is finally unveiled /completed only at this level.. so, not the same , is it?) OK, I think I understand you better now. You regard the characteristic of anatta as different from the characteristics of anicca and dukkha, in that the latter 2 are more easily appreciated and experienced because they are already known to us. So while anicca and dukkha can be readily seen by even the unenlightened, anatta is fully understood only by the arahant. Is that what you are saying here? D: appreciating that you try to get my point.. ;-) I regard all 3 characteristics of existence different but of course interrelated , as the individual suffering human is addressed. The point of anicca and dukkha can be more easily seen ... There is a beautiful US movie 'Oh God! ' , where God (presented by George Burns ) talks in physical appearance to a little girl named Tracy in a special scene which fits here: "I know it sounds like a cop-out but there's nothing I can really do about pain and suffering. My problem was that I could never figure out how to make anything with just one side to it. Ever see a front without a back, a top without a bottom, an up without a down? O.K. There can't be good without bad, life without death, pleasure without pain. That's how it is. If I take sad away, happy has to go with it. If anyone knows another way, I wish they'd put it in the suggestion box." I don't know what the Pope would say about it , but believe it is generally believed ( in the western world). In a Buddhist way one may think about God Brahma who ask the Buddha to put the 'another way'- in the suggestion box respectively proclaim the Dhamma. What is different is pointing to the origin of suffering ,i.e. greed , hate and delusion , the latter connected to the attachment/view of self. So the issue of Non-Self- anatta- is crucial for the way out But as we are used to for a very long time to be attached (5 khanda attachment: this I am , that is mine..) , the process of detachment is not only the acceptance of the metaphysical/ultimate truth of anatta but a step- by- step strategy to realise it by practise ( the path training) . It is what is between fetter no 1: personality belief and fetter no 8: conceit , which makes the difference between metaphysical truth and strategy. Jon:I don't think you'll find any such distinction (between anatta and the other 2 characteristics) being made in the texts. D: there is a need to develop one's own understanding , Jon.. the texts are only guidelines from which you are supposed to construct your raft for the other shore Jon:To my understanding, these 3 characteristics are characteristics of dhammas, and an understanding of them is developed only at moments when dhammas are the object of insight development. They can be directly known only to the extent that insight has been developed. D: When you say (in another message) '..rather than because of anything that might be called practise , I would say, it is not a matter of looking or observing, such dhammas cannot be seen by looking ' isn't there a contradiction? Jon : So the fact that everyone knows impermanence and suffering at a conventional level does not have any real bearing on the matter. D: if the point of anatta is missing ..see above Jon : As insight is (gradually) developed then, and only then, the 3 characteristics (gradually) become more apparent. I believe it is explained in the texts that for different people, a different one of the 3 characteristics will be fully penetrated just before or at the moment of full enlightenment, and that all 3 are fully known only by the arahant. But no special mention is made of anatta in this regard, to my knowledge. D: yes all three charcteristics of existence fully penetrated by the arahant only .. Do you see a difference between detachment and anatta ?. with Metta Dieter #80191 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:09 am Subject: Dukkha: From the PTS Pali-English Dictionary upasaka_howard Hi, all - The following is the lead-in to the Pali Text Society's dictionary entry, a reasonably reliable source, I'd say. It sure sounds experiential to me! With metta, Howard Dukkha (adj. -- n.) [Sk. duḥkha fr. duḥ -- ka, an adj. forma- tion fr. prefix duḥ (see du). According to others an analogy formation after sukha, q. v.; Bdhgh (at Vism 494) explD dukkha as du+kha, where du=du and kha=Ä?kÄ?sa. See also def. at Vism 461.] A. (adj.) unpleasant, painful, causing misery (opp. sukha pleasant) Vin (34; Dh 117. Lit. of vedanÄ? (sensation) M (59 (˚ŋ vedana Å‹ vediyamÄ?na, see also below 59 (1 e); A 1 e116=M. 1110 (sarÄ«rikÄ?hi vedanÄ? hi dukkhÄ?hi). <-> Fig. (fraught with pain, entailing sorrow or trouble) of kÄ? mÄ? D D36 (=paṫḷan -- aá¹¹ DA 36121); Dh 186 (=bahudukkha DhA 121)240); of jÄ?ti M M185 (cp. ariyasacca, below B I.); in comb1 dukkhÄ? paá¹? dandhÄ?bhiññÄ? D duk106; Dhs 176; Nett 7, 112 sq., cp. A 106149 sq. ekantaËš very painful, giving much pain S ve173; 173;69. dukkhaÅ‹ (adv.) with difficulty, hardly J (215. B. (nt.; but pl. also dukkhÄ?, e. g. S (23; Sn 728; Dh 202, 203, 221. Spelling dukha (after sukha) at Dh 83, 203). There is no word in English covering the same ground as Dukkha does in Pali. Our modern words are too specialised, too limited, and usually too strong. Sukha & dukkha are ease and dis-ease (but we use disease in another sense); or wealth and ilth from well & ill (but we have now lost ilth); or wellbeing and ill-ness (but illness means something else in English). We are forced, therefore, in translation to use half synonyms, no one of which is exact. Dukkha is equally mental & physical. Pain is too predominantly physical, sorrow too exclusively mental, but in some connections they have to be used in default of any more exact rendering. Discomfort, suffering, ill, and trouble can occasionally be used in certain connections. Misery, distress, agony, affliction and woe are never right. They are all much too strong & are only mental (see Mrs. Rh. D. Bud. Psy. 83 -- 86, quoting Ledi Sadaw). I. Main Points in the Use of the Word. -- The recognition of the fact of Dukkha stands out as essential in early Buddhism. In the very first discourse the four socalled Truths or Facts (see saccÄ?ni) deal chiefly with dukkha. The first of the four gives certain universally recognised cases of it, & then sums them up in short. The five groups (of physical & mental qualities which make an individual) are accompanied by ill so far as those groups are fraught with Ä?savas and grasping. (Pañc' upÄ?dÄ?nakkhandhÄ? pi dukkhÄ?; cp. S men47). The second Sacca gives the cause of this dukkha (see TaṇhÄ?). The third enjoins the removal of this taṇhÄ?. And the fourth shows the way, or method, of doing so (see Magga). These ariyasaccÄ?ni are found in two places in the older books Vin a10=S 10421 (with addition of soka -- parideva . . . etc. [see below] in some MSS). Comments on this passage, or part of it, occur S 421 158, 159; with expl1 of each term P. S. Addressing the minor item of 'ill', included in the dictionary entry for it is "something that disturbs or afflicts" - also experiential. And, in any case, all uses of 'ill', for example, in the adverbial phrase 'for good or ill', pertain ultimately to sentient beings. #80192 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 2. moellerdieter Dear Nina, please do not misunderstand my previous message.. Recognising to become a bit too personal, I thought it may be better to use another opportunity talking about the issue again.. with Metta Dieter Dear Dieter, I do not mind. I also have too much work on hand at the moment. Thank you for telling me. Nina. #80193 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Thanks for your reply: A: "The paragraph does not seem to adress the issue." Visuddhimagga XI 95-96: "As to variety and unity: there is variety in the specific characteristics etc., of all the elements; for the characteristic, function, and manifestation of the earth element is one, and those of the water element, etc., are different. But there is unity in them as materiality, great primary, element, state (dhamma), impermanence, etc., notwithstanding the fact that they are various according to [specific] characteristic, etc., and according to origination by kamma and so on." Scott: Depends on how you see 'the issue'. I consider that you are missing the point. Above the clarification is made that, while each element has its specific characteristic, all elements share the same characteristic of 'ruppana'. Don't get caught up in the English word used ('molested'). This simply means that all elements have the characteristic of being subjected to the various vicissitudes inherent in existence. "All these elements are 'instances of materiality' (ruupaani) because they do not exceed the characteristic of 'being molested' (ruppana)..." A: "How can something "that does not experience anything" 'be molested'? It doesn't experience anything !" Scott: This is not difficult. The 'molested' is not given to experience. Are you simply being argumentative? My bike (yes, a Concept, I know - we've both conceded the point of Conventional Speech) wears out, rusts, falls apart over the years - is 'molested'. My bike does not experience this 'molestation' in any way. Sincerely, Scott. #80194 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Alex) - In a message dated 12/16/2007 2:24:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Scott: This is not difficult. The 'molested' is not given to experience. Are you simply being argumentative? My bike (yes, a Concept, I know - we've both conceded the point of Conventional Speech) wears out, rusts, falls apart over the years - is 'molested'. My bike does not experience this 'molestation' in any way. ================================ That's *right*! YOU experience it, which is what makes the decay dukkha. The decay is no problem in and of itself, but only with respect to your desires, happiness, and suffering. Dukkha is experience-oriented. With metta, Howard #80195 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma nilovg Dear Scott, Alex, Howard, That is a good example Scott. I like it. Op 16-dec-2007, om 20:35 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Scott: This is not difficult. The 'molested' is not given to > experience. Are you simply being argumentative? My bike (yes, a > Concept, I know - we've both conceded the point of Conventional > Speech) wears out, rusts, falls apart over the years - is 'molested'. > My bike does not experience this 'molestation' in any way. > > ================================ > That's *right*! YOU experience it, which is what makes the decay > dukkha. > The decay is no problem in and of itself, but only with respect to > your > desires, happiness, and suffering. Dukkha is experience-oriented. ------- N: No you, no experiencer, Howard, we both agree. We do not speak about a problem, that is not the way to understand the truth of dukkha. But I will not repeat too much. Nina. #80196 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Preserving the Buddha's Teachings, Ch 6, no 2. nilovg Dear Dieter, you are very kind. I really do not misunderstand anything, no problem. Machen Sie sich keine Gedanken! Just now I became a bit too busy with a question outside our list, so I had lack of time and still have. Any time we can take up a sutta. Originally I thought you made a deal with Sarah: sutta and Abhidhamma. You suggested the Life of the Recluse. I took it out but had no time yet. I did not know exactly the deal but just butted in with the other suttas. I thought: a deal about Abhidhamma is always good ;-)) Nina. Op 16-dec-2007, om 20:18 heeft Dieter Möller het volgende geschreven: > please do not misunderstand my previous message.. > Recognising to become a bit too personal, I thought it may be > better to use another opportunity talking about the issue again.. #80197 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: contemplation, was Perfections Corner (54) nilovg Dear Robert A, Op 16-dec-2007, om 18:02 heeft Robert het volgende geschreven: > My conclusion to all of this discussion is that to contemplate the > Dhamma is not to think about the Dhamma, but to observe, to see the > Dhamma as it appears now. > > I appreciate your continued assistence to me in these matters which > are > difficult to understand. ------ N: difficult for all of us. It takes a long time. You said Dhamma as it appears now. We can also say: reality or dhamma as it appears now: seeing, feeling, aversion, generosity, etc. And still, we can say: who sees dhamma (not with capital) sees the Buddha. We can begin to understand the meaning of his enlightenment, who the Buddha is, by being aware of this moment, as Kh Sujin explained to us in India. Nina. #80198 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Scott: Depends on how you see 'the issue'. >>> Since rupa is ultimately not controllable, anicca, dukkha, anatta - IT IS EXPERIENCED AS SUFFERING (molested, etc.. Jeez, sounds like a Catholic discussion.) But this experience requires consciousness to be present. > > A: "How can something "that does not experience anything" 'be > molested'? It doesn't experience anything !" > > Scott: This is not difficult. The 'molested' is not given to > experience. >>>> What? Molested is an action and it IS an experience! >>> My bike (yes, a Concept, I know - we've both conceded the point of Conventional Speech) wears out, rusts, falls apart over the years - is 'molested'. My bike does not experience this 'molestation' in any way. >>>> Only a sentient being can be molested. A bike doesn't feel molestation in ANY since it doesn't feel anything at all. It is YOU who are making this statement about the bike. Lots of Metta, Alex #80199 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sutta vs Abhidhamma nilovg Hi Howard, but I have no wish to convince you of the contrary! Nina. Op 16-dec-2007, om 16:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > And nothing that I have seen written anywhere > persuades me in the slightest to the contrary.