#82600 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:52 am Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes scottduncan2 Dear Tep Thanks for the reply: T: "The mentally formed concept is a derivative of a person outside. If there was no person (rupa) outside for the eyes to see, how could the mind form an image inside? A ray of sunlight passes through a prism, and a color spectrum is seen. Are there not "real" colors in the white-light input to the prism?" Scott: I'm afraid I can't agree with this. First of all, eye consciousness has visible object as object. 'Person' is not visible object. Person is concept, constructed within the mind-door by the processes of mind-door consciousnesses and mental factors. I would suggest that 'person' is a mental construct, not a 'derivative'. Second, I don't equate 'person' with ruupa. Ruupa is colour, for visible object (sound for object of ear-conciousness, and so on). Ruupa has ultimate reality while concept does not. 'Person' remains, for me, a denizen which has illusory existence within the mind-door. T: "The only thing about what you said that is true is that mind-door perception is not the same as the external reality: a person -- the carrier of the five khandhas, who exists external to the observer. Remember SN 22.22 ? "And which is the burden? 'The five clinging-aggregates,' it should be said. ... "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name: This is called the carrier of the burden.". Scott: My computer access is limited this morning and so I'll have to return to respond to this part of your post, Tep. For now, I'll suggest that it is a function of ignorance as a mental factor that prevents visible object from being known as just visible object and that allows for the misperception that visible object is 'person'. As for the sutta quote, I think it is important to note that this refers to the 'five clinging-aggregates'. I'll want to look at the paa.li when I am able. Sincerely, Scott. #82601 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. dhammanusara Hi James (Howard, Jon, ,,,) - Thank you very much for giving Howard and myself a reliable third opinion. I always value your assessment/evaluation, since you do not bend to the left and then to the right but maintain consistency to what you believe as true. (Even when "that" may irritate someone.) >James: It seems to me that Howard states that people do exist, but then proceeds to explain them in a manner which suggests that they don't exist! It is very confusing to say the least. I think that this is because Howard sees the "chariot metaphor" as a ontological description of reality, rather than a specific rebuttal to Mara that it was meant to be. > T: Yes, I agree. Our good friend Howard is a person with 'pa~n~na carita' and there is a clear imbalance between pa~n~na indriya and saddha indriya. > James: So, Tep, I approve of your perspective! (See, I am just handing out approval left and right lately!! ;-)). T: You have scored two points. But the average approval rate over the past few years is still not far from zero. ;-)) Regards, Tep === #82602 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Tep) - James, we both agree that persons exist, but you seem to want them to be something more than aggregations; i.e., an integrated aggregates of phenomena acting in concert. But what that something more you want/believe persons to be escapes me. What is it? With metta, Howard #82603 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:19 am Subject: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 4. The Present Moment Acharn Sujin brought us back to the present moment time and again by asking us: “Is there no seeing now?” I was glad because I am always inclined to think of concepts about people and things I perceive. Concepts are not objects of vipassanå, they are different from visible object, sound, and all the objects that appear through the six doorways. However, thinking itself is a citta and it can be an object of insight. We discussed seeing and visible object time and again. Visible object is a rúpa that impinges on the eyesense. It is experienced by seeing- consciousness that arises in a process of cittas. Visible object or colour is an extremely small rúpa arising in a group of rúpas, it does not arise alone. It arises together with the four Great Elements of solidity, cohesion, heat, motion, and other rupas which support it. It falls away immediately and soon afterwards it arises and falls away again. There is not one unit of visible object but countless units arising and falling away. We cannot pinpoint which visible object is experienced at the present moment. There is only an impression or mental image, nimitta, of visible object. This causes us to think that visible object does not fall away. The following sutta deals with the notion of ‘sign’ or mental image, nimitta. We read in the Kindred Sayings (IV, Ch II, § 80, Ignorance, translated by Ven. Bodhi) that a bhikkhu asked the Buddha whether there is one thing through the abandoning of which ignorance is abandoned and true knowledge arises. We read that the Buddha answered: “Ignorance, bhikkhu, is that one thing through the abandoning of which ignorance is abandoned by a bhikkhu and true knowledge arises.” Ven. Bodhi states in a note to this passage: “Though it may sound redundant to say that ignorance must be abandoned in order to abandon ignorance, this statement underscores the fact that ignorance is the most fundamental cause of bondage, which must be eliminated to eliminate all the other bonds.” We read further on: “Here, bhikkhu, a bhikkhu has heard, ‘Nothing is worth adhering to’. When a bhikkhu has heard, ‘Nothing is worth adhering to’, he directly knows everything. Having directly known everything, he fully understands everything. Having fully understood everything, he sees all signs (nimitta) differently. He sees the eye differently, he sees forms differently...whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition... that too he sees differently...” As to the term adhere, this pertains to clinging with wrong view. The Commentary explains the words, “he sees all signs differently (sabbanimittåni aññato passati)” as follows: “He sees all the signs of formations (sankhåranimittåni) in a way different from that of people who have not fully understood the adherences. For such people see all signs as self, but one who has fully understood the adherences sees them as non-self, not as self. Thus in this sutta the characteristic of non-self is discussed.” ****** Nina. #82604 From: "dhammasaro" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a relevent question dhammasaro > In a message dated 2/11/2008 7:55:57 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > reverendaggacitto@... writes: > > Hi everybody! > Recently i thought i would try the socratic method, and ask a few > relevent questions. i started out by asking wether there was something > in the Pali Canon where Ven.Gotama declares " i teach neither "self" > nor "noself". After a response i then asked that if we are > neither "self" nor "noself" then how do we exist? The Answer? > That such Questions are "irelevent"! i was told that what IS relevent > is the 4N.T the 8 fold noble path etc. > The first fold of the 8 fold noble path is ...Right understanding! > How are we to acheve liberation if we do not know the nature of what > it is that seeks liberation? > When questions become "uncomfortable" for some, they become... > "irelevent". > i was a wood finisher for many years before i became a Buddhist monk. > i had to be taught wood technology as an apprentice, which taught > me the importance of understanding the nature of the existance of > wood as someone who works with it. > > i therefore certainly do NOT concider such a question "irelevent". > > HOW ARE WE TO ACHEVE LIBERATION IF WE DO NOT KNOW THE NATURE OF WHAT > IT IS THAT SEEKS LIBERATION? > > May the Buddhas, Deva and Angels bless ALL of you! > bhikkhu / reverend aggacitto > .................................................................. Bhante Aggacitto, May this dhamma-vinaya student provide a differing opinion? In SN LVI.31 [The Simsapa Leaves] sutta, I understand the historic Buddha only taught 4 things. In the referenced sutta, he further stated: "Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'" [above from Bhante Thanissaro's translation] Imho, this teaching states what is important: the four things and contemplation (meditation). Hence, dwelling on a self or a non-self is not that important! That knowledge (wisdom?) will come about after meditation and the removal of the ten fetters. Perhaps, I err terribly. If so, please provide suttas correcting my terrible error. yours in the dhamma-vinaya, Chuck #82605 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 11-feb-2008, om 21:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Kamma can produce immediate results as well. This is very clear to me. > In any case, as I see it, thinking and willing do not occur at the > same > time. ------ N: Volition is a cetasika accompanying each citta. -------- > H: Thinking arises from a multiplicity of conditions, prominent among > which is willing. The thinking is often intentional in that it is > almost > immediately preceded by willing, but more often the thinking seems > to "come on its > own", not carrying a sense of "personal doing". The thoughts seem > to arise as > impersonal phenomena, and the states of volition are > distinguishable from > states of thinking, at least for me. > ---------------------------------------------- > N: See above. I use the word thinking for cittas arising in a mind- > door process. After the mind-door adverting citta there are javana > cittas that are either kusala or akusala. These are conditioned by > accumulated tendencies. They arise before it is even realized, and > often one does not notice that there is thinking. Many moments of > moha, delusion, indeed. All moments are impersonal. They 'come on > their own'. Seeing arises and very soon after there are already javanacittas which are either kusala or akusala. The cittas of the following mind- door process still experience visible object, and after that there are mind-door processes which define or name. These are javanacittas which are kusala or akusala. No kamma patha committed that produces result, such as strong and dangerous wrong view, denying the fact that kamma brings result, or covetousness. However, the scenario is much worse than you would ever believe: think of the countless akusala cittas with lobha after each moment of seeing or hearing. Think of the accumulation of akusala time and again, even now! > ----- > Old post on the processes: > --------------------------------------------------------- > N: After the vipaakacitta that is seeing, etc. kamma produces two > more vipaakacittas: receiving consciousness which receives the object > from seeing, etc. and investigating-consciousness, which investigates > more visible object, etc. It is all so fast that it seems that these > two cittas are still seeing. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I've got the word 'receiving', but it is just a word. To say that > receiving consciousness receives the the object from seeing etc > tells me > nothing. What does it MEAN to "receive" it? What does that state of > conscious do? > How is its knowing of the object by reciving consciousness > different from the > knowing of it by other states? If there is no answer to that, then the > notion of "receiving consciousness" isn't of any value. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > N: Give it another name if you like. There are still other > vipaakacittas experiencing visible object before the determining > citta arises followed by the javana cittas: kusala in case of wise > attention, akusala in case of unwise attention. Receiving-consciousness does not arise on the eyebase as seeing consciousness does, and it needs vitakka and vicaara in order to experience visible object. Seeing does not need these, it sees directly, arising at the eyebase. Nina. #82606 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:23 am Subject: Re: Not Self and Ego Questions. abhidhammika Dear Steven Crosby, Nina, Sarah, Alex, Phil, Jon, Mike N, Bob K How are you? Self and ego are the terms that cause most confusion to the new comers to Buddhism and seasoned Buddhists alike. In the mainstream Buddhism, popularly known as Theravada founded by Gotamo the Buddha and his Ariyan Disciples in 600 BC, self in any form does not exist. Ego, however, is a mental associate called `maano', and as such a conditionally existent phenomenon. Maano can be translated as conceit as well. The term `ego' is an almost literal translation of the Pali term `Ahamkaaro' ( I-making) that defines the term `maano'. Thus, we could place the term `self' in the field of metaphysics while placing the term `ego' in the field of psychology. Stephen asked: "Can anyone explain this to me, how are we not self or how have we no self, I cant quite grasp the term of their not being a self?" No one can explain it to you, I am afraid. The selflessness of the nature taught by Gotamo the Buddha is something to discover and realise by formal development of each and every component of the Noble Eightfold Path. Stephen, if you would like to review the components of the Noble Eightfold Path, they are right view, right thinking, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right diligence, right recollection (mindfulness) and right concentration. So, you need to be patient to comprehend the fact of selflessness. Stephen also asked: "And did buddha still have an Ego after Nibbana?" No, Stephen, the Buddha has eradicated ego as soon as he became the First Arahant, when he became the Buddha. His eradication of ego took place long before his Nibbaanam. Stephen also asked: "And is their good ego and bad ego if their is ego at all?" Ego being `maano' is an unhealthy mental associate (akusalam cetasikam), so ego cannot be regarded as being good. Ego is what the Buddha called a `pahaatabbadhammo, a phenomenon to be eradicated'. I hope that you have something to chew on from my answers. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #82607 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. buddhatrue Hi Howard (and Tep), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ================================ > James, we both agree that persons exist, James: Well, it seems that we do but when you start saying things like "there are no actors" or "there are no agents of action" in essence you are saying that people don't exist. People are actors, people are agents of action. but you seem to want them to be > something more than aggregations; i.e., an integrated aggregates of > phenomena acting in concert. But what that something more you want/believe persons to > be escapes me. What is it? James: Is a person simply the five khandas? Is a "person" just nama and rupa- like a chariot put together in parts? No. As I posted to you before, there are many links to dependent origination, and mentality/materiality is just one of them. For the purpose of this discussion, look at the link of clinging. Clinging conditions becoming. Becoming what? Becoming a person, deva, peta, ghost, consciousless body, or bodyless consciousness. A "person" is defined by clinging, not by the five aggregates. > > With metta, > Howard Metta, James ps. I hope I don't sound too bitchy. (BTW, I really dislike disagreeing with you Howard. It makes me very uncomfortable.) #82608 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Thinking. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/12/2008 9:43:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 11-feb-2008, om 21:07 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Kamma can produce immediate results as well. This is very clear to me. > In any case, as I see it, thinking and willing do not occur at the > same > time. ------ N: Volition is a cetasika accompanying each citta. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: But often cetana occurs just as an organizing/coordinating/fabricational activity that is other than willing, is that not so? Cetana as volition/intention/willing (i.e., as kamma) is special. ---------------------------------------------------- -------- > H: Thinking arises from a multiplicity of conditions, prominent among > which is willing. The thinking is often intentional in that it is > almost > immediately preceded by willing, but more often the thinking seems > to "come on its > own", not carrying a sense of "personal doing". The thoughts seem > to arise as > impersonal phenomena, and the states of volition are > distinguishable from > states of thinking, at least for me. > ---------------------------------------------- > N: See above. I use the word thinking for cittas arising in a mind- > door process. After the mind-door adverting citta there are javana > cittas that are either kusala or akusala. These are conditioned by > accumulated tendencies. They arise before it is even realized, and > often one does not notice that there is thinking. Many moments of > moha, delusion, indeed. All moments are impersonal. They 'come on > their own'. Seeing arises and very soon after there are already javanacittas which are either kusala or akusala. The cittas of the following mind- door process still experience visible object, and after that there are mind-door processes which define or name. These are javanacittas which are kusala or akusala. No kamma patha committed that produces result, such as strong and dangerous wrong view, denying the fact that kamma brings result, or covetousness. However, the scenario is much worse than you would ever believe: think of the countless akusala cittas with lobha after each moment of seeing or hearing. Think of the accumulation of akusala time and again, even now! > ----- > Old post on the processes: > --------------------------------------------------------- > N: After the vipaakacitta that is seeing, etc. kamma produces two > more vipaakacittas: receiving consciousness which receives the object > from seeing, etc. and investigating-consciousness, which investigates > more visible object, etc. It is all so fast that it seems that these > two cittas are still seeing. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, I've got the word 'receiving', but it is just a word. To say that > receiving consciousness receives the the object from seeing etc > tells me > nothing. What does it MEAN to "receive" it? What does that state of > conscious do? > How is its knowing of the object by reciving consciousness > different from the > knowing of it by other states? If there is no answer to that, then the > notion of "receiving consciousness" isn't of any value. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > N: Give it another name if you like. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I presume the name is not random. In any case, it is not the name I'm concerned with, but the operation, and I have not seen that explained. ------------------------------------------------------- There are still other > vipaakacittas experiencing visible object before the determining > citta arises followed by the javana cittas: kusala in case of wise > attention, akusala in case of unwise attention. Receiving-consciousness does not arise on the eyebase as seeing consciousness does, and it needs vitakka and vicaara in order to experience visible object. Seeing does not need these, it sees directly, arising at the eyebase. Nina. ========================= With metta, Howard #82609 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 2/12/2008 11:00:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: James: Is a person simply the five khandas? Is a "person" just nama and rupa- like a chariot put together in parts? No. As I posted to you before, there are many links to dependent origination, and mentality/materiality is just one of them. For the purpose of this discussion, look at the link of clinging. Clinging conditions becoming. Becoming what? Becoming a person, deva, peta, ghost, consciousless body, or bodyless consciousness. A "person" is defined by clinging, not by the five aggregates. =========================== Clinging and kamma are the basic "gluing operations." They are operations of the sankharakkhandha category. In Abhidhammic terminolgy, they are cetasikas. What is lacking, according to you, in the understanding of a person as an aggregation? I have already said that an aggregation is not a random, grab-bag aggregate. It is still unclear to me what you think there is to a person beyond what the Buddha pointed to. Of the links in D. O., which are other than namas and rupas? And if you can find any, what exactly are they? As for bhava, I go along with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu on that one: the movement towards (or gestation of) rebirth of sense of self. It is a mental activity. With metta, Howard #82610 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:21 am Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. dhammanusara Hello James (Howard), - Your reply to Howard (below) is very clear and I like it. James: Is a person simply the five khandas? Is a "person" just nama and rupa- like a chariot put together in parts? No. As I posted to you before, there are many links to dependent origination, and mentality/materiality is just one of them. For the purpose of this discussion, look at the link of clinging. Clinging conditions becoming. Becoming what? Becoming a person, deva, peta, ghost, consciousless body, or bodyless consciousness. A "person" is defined by clinging, not by the five aggregates. ............ T: But I think you made a mistake telling Howard the following : >James: ps. I hope I don't sound too bitchy. (BTW, I really dislike disagreeing with you Howard. It makes me very uncomfortable.) T: It complicated the Dhamma discussion! When there are a feeling and a person associated with the feeling, the discussion becomes personal. Tep === #82611 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. upasaka_howard Hi again, James - In a message dated 2/12/2008 11:41:18 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: Clinging and kamma are the basic "gluing operations." They are operations of the sankharakkhandha category. In Abhidhammic terminolgy, they are cetasikas. What is lacking, according to you, in the understanding of a person as an aggregation? I have already said that an aggregation is not a random, grab-bag aggregate. It is still unclear to me what you think there is to a person beyond what the Buddha pointed to. Of the links in D. O., which are other than namas and rupas? And if you can find any, what exactly are they? As for bhava, I go along with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu on that one: the movement towards (or gestation of) rebirth of sense of self. It is a mental activity. ============================= James, to try to zero in on matters, I'd like you to tell me what you think goes on exactly when a person is acting - for example, thinking, feeling, being angry, or meditating. (I picked activities that aren't overly complex, but you can choose other ones if you wish.) Or, if you want to approach it differently, tell me what you consider a person to be other than a dynamic collection of phenomena engendered and held together by kamma. (Of course, there is no need to say more if you are not so inclined. :-) With metta, Howard #82612 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) nilovg Dear Connie, I highlight what I find especially good as a reminder. Op 12-feb-2008, om 11:39 heeft L G SAGE het volgende geschreven: > Not only has it been attained by them, but also this is to be > obtained (adhigata.m) even today, even now, it is to be attained > (adhigamaniiya.m), it is possible to attain it (adhigantu.m > sakkaa)". By whom is it to be obtained? [By one] who rightly > applies himself (payu~njati) means: [by one] who, by an individual > who, rightly, through [proper] means, standing firm in the > instruction given by the Teacher, exerts himself (yu~njati) and > makes right endeavour (sammaa-payoga.m). That is the connection. > But (ca) it cannot [be attained] by one who does not strive means: > but (pana) by one who does not apply himself, therefore but by one > who does not strive, it cannot be attained at any time. That is the > meaning. ------ N: An exhortation not to delay being mindful of just any reality, even now when looking out of the window or reading posts. : whatever nama or rupa appears now through one of the six doorways, one at a time, is the object of right understanding. Nina. #82613 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. upasaka_howard Hi, Tep & James - In a message dated 2/12/2008 1:46:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: T: But I think you made a mistake telling Howard the following : >James: ps. I hope I don't sound too bitchy. (BTW, I really dislike disagreeing with you Howard. It makes me very uncomfortable.) T: It complicated the Dhamma discussion! When there are a feeling and a person associated with the feeling, the discussion becomes personal. ========================= LOLOL! James, I actually missed that postscript! /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) #82614 From: "m. nease" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism.XVII,238 m_nease Hi Connie, Nice--a good reminder of the danger of taking upekkha as the goal. mike L G SAGE wrote: > > > Path of Purity, pp.682-3 > > Or because: - > A man in pain doth ease desire; > The man of ease desires yet more. > It's neutralness that, being calm, > Is said to be the same as ease. > Therefore the threefold feeling is > The cause of craving. And it's said > By that great sage, that craving is > Conditioned by the feelings three. > It without bias never is, > Although it is by feeling caused, > Therefore it does not come to him, > Who as "brahman" has lived the life. > This is the detailed discourse as to the clause: "Conditioned by > feeling, craving comes to pass." #82615 From: "Sumane Rathnasuriya" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 12:47 pm Subject: Re: Discourteous Speech - to be tolerated? sumane758 Dear Sarah (& DC), > > *Mind that continuously practices "Meththaa' has deviated with deeds of > > lay > > commitments that were accessed involuntarily & seemingly harmlessly!* > .... > S: Would you care to explain this a little more? Sorry, (I thought) it was intended to summarise my episode in taking up a beneficial role for lay life (commitment), with extended benefits to community (intended commitment), I was like siding myself with govt. (unintended) & *on the verge of confronting meaningless political critcs*. It was only a re-cap like expression. (Perhaps a bit of *Udana* after I was saved from continuing *Akusala! *(merits DSG) > "I do hope you'll share more of your experiences too. " > I beg for some time as explained to DC hereunder. Hi DC, Sir, I have also followed your valuable contributions here. Sorry that I have not surfaced but selfishly benefited from relevant & some pertinent discussions. (..& Sarah, Jon & all), I have to overcome a lot of '*Pamaada'* being unable to comprehend fast/immediately, the terminology in these discussions. But (where I was to benefit) I have pursued & caught up with the purposeful discussions (copying, saving, visiting DSG website etc.etc. I am from Wadduwa, presently full-time engaged in demonstrative home-gardening, in retirement after nearly 25 yrs at Central Bank & 15 yrs at Seylan Bank. Also in consultative assignments of microfinance for a couple establishments (training, skills development & wee bit in practice) Hope to be in discussion as time permits. Meththaa! Sumane #82616 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:52 am Subject: Re: Not Self and Ego Questions. walterhorn In response to this question: "Can anyone explain this to me, how are we not self or how have we no self, I cant quite grasp the term of their not being a self?" "abhidhammika" wrote: [snip] > No one can explain it to you, I am afraid. The selflessness of the > nature taught by Gotamo the Buddha is something to discover and > realise by formal development of each and every component of the > Noble Eightfold Path. > [snip] I would just add (to that excellent response) that Western philosophical traditions have also included a "There is no self" wing. Hume, in particular, is well known for having argued that however hard we look, we will never find an "I": all we can ever discern is an ever-changing 'bundle' of perceptions, feelings, etc. It's important to note, however, that Buddha also denied that we are identical to bundles of feelings, perceptions, etc. Neither one nor the other. That's the mysterious part. Best, W #82617 From: "colette" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Trivial Pursuit ksheri3 HELLLLLLOOOOOOOOO LARRY, We're having great fun with this schtick of bantying words back & forth but actually this is a DELYING TACTIC which keeps me from my studies, my work, my "duty" as "Mr. In-Between" or as the Middle Man. I bring forth our good friend Nargarjuna: Verse from the Centre clearly states (if I can trust the translation from Sanskrit to English) "When a goer is not possible without going, how then is it possible [to say]: 'a goer stays'. 17. There is no reversal of mothion, nor also of what has gone [and] what has not [yet] gone. [Reversal of] going, engagement [to stay] and reversal [of staying] are similar to going, 18. It is inappopriate to say: 'going and a goer are the same.' It is inappropriate to say: 'going and a goer are different.' 19. If whatever is going were a goer, it would follow that the actor and the act would be the same too. 20. If going and a goer were conceived as different, there could be going without a goer and a goer without going. 21. If things are not established as the same and as different, how can they be established? 22. That very going by which a goer is made evident does not [enable a goer to] go. Because there is no [goer] before going, who would be going where?" Pretty crafty of me, no? Now for the rest of your reply to my playfullness. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Colette, > > Here's a little back and forth: > > Colette: "Good Evening Larry, > WE'VE STRUCK IT RICH! > Death is not an ending, is it?" > > Larry: Everything ends. That's impermanence. But since there is no I , > there is no I to die or continue. Just one consciousness arising after > another. > > Colette: "Process, far from it! Emptiness IS, that's it. Emptiness > doesn't grow or shrink IT IS, that's all. Of course it all depends on > the TRUTH you look at ULTIMATE or RELATIVE. > AS far as your way to view the teachings of the Buddha and the Buddha, > well, that can be debatable." > > Larry: Depends on what you mean by emptiness. This is empty of that or > empty of all this. > > Colette: "What is the RIGHT WAY to look at things?" > > Larry: Realistically. > > Larry > #82618 From: "colette" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism Ch XIX- Purification by Overcoming Doubt- Intro ksheri3 Well now, Larry, Aren't we being the INQUISITION? This line of questioning sounds similar to that which draws the prey to the assassin or executioner. Allow me to elaborate: After many years of work and commitments to your every day life you've finally run across TRUE REALITY through the Dharma, in this case it happens to be Buddhaghosa. Buddhaghosa happens to apply Tantra or Yogacara methodology, which is nothing more than exemplifying his advocation of MEDITATION and the MEDITATIVE PROCESS. Process is what you focused on, so we have a intersection or a tangent between two abstract concepts: You and Buddhaghosa. You only meet Buddhaghosa at this point and continue, as light, on your ways, divergent. For me to "conceptually" establish a point such as that which defines the soil THEN establishes my position as an extreme and takes from me my rights to the individuality which I, in my role as a mage or magician, will never sacrifice to those consumed by the slavery of possession or slavery to possessions -- back in the mid-80s when I was studying heavily at the Theosophical Societies Olcott Library in Wheaton IL I was also doing caligraphy and one of my sayings or maybe it's a "Hiku" (japanese, no) specifically stated "the possession of your possessions" I went on to make the case that the baubles and trinkets became the master and the individual that possessed the baubles and trinkets became the slave. I have abandoned my worldly possessions many times and have simply justified it to myself as saying: "they can have my baubles and trinkets but they cannot have me" basing my rationale on the theories of the master-slave/host-parasite relation. I formulated this from the disgusting repulsion I have always had toward THE CASTE SYSTEM and the division (see Divide and Conquer) or seperation of people through the doctrine of materialism. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Colette, > > Larry: "Are you familiar with Buddhaghosa's metaphore "soil of > understanding"? How do you understand it?" > > Colette: "foundation" > > Larry: How so? What is it in particular? > > Larry > #82619 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:53 pm Subject: Re: Thinking nichiconn Dear Howard, Nina, Receiving or reception - call it mind-door adverting or thresh-hold consciousness if you like - 'initial mind contact' - is the passing or introduction of the object from the ceased sensory consciousness to the mental stream, assuming the impact has been great enough to carry it as far as/thru the resultant (profitable/unprofitable) mind-door. In the mango simile, it is the taking up of the fruit in the hand. Hope that helps, connie #82620 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:26 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. buddhatrue Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hello James (Howard), - > > Your reply to Howard (below) is very clear and I like it. James: Thank you. :-) > > T: It complicated the Dhamma discussion! When there are a feeling and > a person associated with the feeling, the discussion becomes > personal. James: Don't be a hypocrite. Do you think the following are not personal comments? : "That's all I can explain, James. I have tried, but statistically (through observation over the years) the chance to win your approval is perhaps no better than that of winning a grand prize of the Texas Lotto. ;-)" "I always value your assessment/evaluation, since you do not bend to the left and then to the right but maintain consistency to what you believe as true. (Even when "that" may irritate someone.)" "You have scored two points. But the average approval rate over the past few years is still not far from zero. ;-))" James: Personal comments are not always a bad thing. We are not Dhamma Robots, after all. Tep, you would understand if you had an ongoing love affair with Howard like I have. ;-)) (just kidding!!!) Metta, James #82621 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:55 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. dhammanusara Hi James (Howard), - Let's discuss persons, personal, and emotional. > > T: It complicated the Dhamma discussion! When there are a feeling and a person associated with the feeling, the discussion becomes > > personal. > > James: Don't be a hypocrite. Do you think the following are not > personal comments? : > T: It is true that those comments are personal. Since we are persons, it is impossible not to be personal. But we do not have to be emotional. > > James: Personal comments are not always a bad thing. We are not > Dhamma Robots, after all. Tep, you would understand if you had an > ongoing love affair with Howard like I have. ;-)) (just kidding!!!) > Ha, ha. Tep === #82622 From: "crosby_s" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:58 pm Subject: Re: Not Self and Ego Questions. crosby_s So we have no self as in "I am Steven", this is just a name given to me. The more self we think we have the more we suffer maybe.And the more we think of ourselves the more ego steps in, am i right in saying this? The only thing that stumps me is that we use "I" and "me" in talking to eachother. Is "I" and "me" just a descriptive term to address what i have to say or convey.Selfishness is something i feel is the downfall of the peace we could all share here on Earth as it leads to greed, hate and all sorts of unheedfullness.I am starting to find buddhism very multi layered and hard to comprehend as it covers many areas of life and phenomena, but all the same i love it, its like being in space and looking into the universe.Just a matter of entity over identity. With Metta, Steven. #82623 From: han tun Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:01 pm Subject: Patthaana (7) hantun1 Dear All, In the Abhidhamma books, before or after the description of each condition in the original order, the conditioning states and conditioned states are classified into three classes consisting of (i) mind, (ii) matter, (iii) mind-and-matter conjoined. Then these classes are grouped into six groups as follows. A. Mind for Mind B. Mind for Mind-and-Matter C. Mind for Matter D. Matter for Mind E. Mind-and-Matter for Mind F. Mind-and-Matter for Mind-and-Matter Then the 24 conditions are fitted into the six groups as follows. A. Mind for Mind - chadhaa naamam naamassapaccayo hoti. - in six ways Mind is a condition for Mind. (4) Proximity condition (anantara-paccaya) (5) Contiguity condition (samanantara-paccaya) (12) Repetition condition (aasevana-paccaya) (19) Association condition (sampayutta-paccaya) (22) Absence condition (natthi-paccaya) (23) Disappearance condition (vigata-paccaya) B. Mind for Mind-and-Matter - pa~ncadhaa naamam naamaa-ruupaanam paccyo hoti. - in five ways Mind is a condition for Mind-and-Matter. (1) Root condition (hetu-paccaya) (13) Kamma condition (kamma-paccaya) (14) Result condition (vipaaka-paccaya) (17) Jhaana condition (jhaana-paccaya) (18) Path condition (magga-paccaya) C. Mind for Matter - ekadhaa vaa naamam ruupassa paccayo hoti. - only in one way is Mind a condition for Matter. (11) Postnascence condition (pacchaajaata-paccaya) D, Matter for Mind -ekadhaa vaa ruupam naamassa paccayo hoti. - only in one way is Matter a condition for Mind. (10) Prenascence condition (purejaata-paccaya) E. Mind-and-Matter for Mind - aarammana-vasena upanissaya-vasena ti ca duvidhaa pa~n~natti naama-ruupaani eva paccayaa hoti. - in two ways concepts and Mind-and-Matter are conditions for Mind – namely, by way of object and decisive support. (2) Object condition (aarammana-paccaya) (9) Decisive Support condition (upanissaya-paccaya) F. Mind-and-Matter for Mind-and-Matter - navadhaa naama-ruupani naama-ruupam paccayo bhavanti. - Mind-and-Matter is a condition for Mind-and-Matter in nine ways. (3) Predominance condition (adhipati-paccaya) (6) Conascence condition (sahajaata-paccaya) (7) Mutuality condition (annamanna-paccaya) (8) Dependence condition (nissaya-paccaya) (15) Nutriment condition (aahaara-paccaya) (16) Faculty condition (indriya-paccaya) (20) Dissociation condition (vippayutta-paccaya) (21) Presence condition (atthi-paccaya) (24) Non-disappearance condition (avigata-paccaya) The advantage of knowing this grouping at the beginning of the study of 24 conditions is when we consider each condition we will know what we have to look for in terms of conditioning dhammas and conditioned dhammas, and we will not miss any important points and avoid confusions. For example, in Object condition (aarammana-paccaya), we find the following: Ruupaayatanam cakkhuvinnaanadhaatuyaa tamsampayuttakaananca dhammaanam aarammanapaccayena paccayo. Visible object-base is related to eye-consciousness element and its associated states by object condition. By the look of it, one would think that visible object-base (matter) relates to eye-consciousness element and its associated states (mind) by the object condition. So, is the object condition just Matter for Mind? Wrong. If you look at the above grouping you will find that the object condition belongs to Mind-and-Matter for Mind. Therefore, one must look for mind and matter as the conditioning state, and mind as the conditioned state. Sayadaw Ashin Janakaabhivamsa explained the arising of kusala cittas, akusala cittas and abyaakata cittas with regard to this condition. For this condition one should go beyond eye and eye-consciousness, and one should look for the wholesome and unwholesome cittas conditioned by eye and eye-consciousness (Matter-and-Mind). Thus we will come to know that the above statement does not reflect adequately the nature of object condition. We will consider in more detail when we come to object condition. This then will be the benefit of knowing the groupings beforehand! metta, Han #82624 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > =========================== > Clinging and kamma are the basic "gluing operations." They are > operations of the sankharakkhandha category. In Abhidhammic terminolgy, they are > cetasikas. > What is lacking, according to you, in the understanding of a person as > an aggregation? James: We keep going round and round on this issue. You keep asking me, "A person is nama and rupa held together by kammic glue. What else is there?" This question assumes that you know everything there is to know about the human being. A person is nama and rupa held together by kammic glue? You might as well say a person is a chariot which is wooden and metal parts held together by nails. Reductionism doesn't explain the nature of anything; it is just a way that the mind categorizes and deconstructs in order to simplify. As the Buddha taught, what is a human being? The answer is: Ignorance conditions formations; formations condition consciousness; consciousness conditions mentality/materiality; mentality/materiality conditions six sense bases; six sense bases condition contact; contact conditions feeling; feeling conditions craving; craving conditions clinging; clinging conditions becoming; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions old age, sickness and death. This is a human being. Now, you may think, "Wait a second, that is too complicated! I can't hold all of that in my mind at once." So, you reduce this process down to: a human being is nama and rupa held together by kammic glue. Sorry, but that reductionist approach doesn't work in this case. I have already said that an aggregation is not a random, > grab-bag aggregate. It is still unclear to me what you think there is to a person > beyond what the Buddha pointed to. James: I don't think that there is anything to a person beyond what the Buddha pointed to!! I just don't think that you are getting the full picture of what the Buddha pointed to. Of the links in D. O., which are other > than namas and rupas? And if you can find any, what exactly are they? James: Again, this reductionist approach misses the boat. As for > bhava, I go along with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu on that one: the movement towards (or > gestation of) rebirth of sense of self. It is a mental activity. James: I completely disagree. Becoming (bhava) is the desire for further life and sensation- desire to be born in the sense sphere, fine material, or immaterial worlds. I believe that "sense of self" is ignorance (avijja). Metta, James #82625 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:30 pm Subject: Re: Not Self and Ego Questions. kenhowardau Hi Steven and Suan, ------ Steven: > > Can anyone explain this to me, how are we not self or how have we no self, I cant quite grasp the term of their not being a self? > > Suan: > No one can explain it to you, I am afraid. The selflessness of the nature taught by Gotamo the Buddha is something to discover and realise by formal development of each and every component of the Noble Eightfold Path. > ------- I am sorry to say that my advice is the exact opposite of Suan's. Good friends who know the Dhamma can explain to you how there is no self. Also, you can wisely consider what you have been told, and you can see for yourself how it relates to the reality of the present moment. These are the factors that lead to enlightenment. There are no others. At no stage did the Buddha teach another way to enlightenment. When you think about it, it can only be this way can't it? If enlightenment came about, not by gradually increasing wisdom, but by some other way, what would that other way be? It would have to be some kind of rite or ritual, surely! Right understanding eliminates all belief in rite and ritual. Corrections welcome. Ken H #82626 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 5:32 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. buddhatrue Hi again, Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ============================= > James, to try to zero in on matters, I'd like you to tell me what you > think goes on exactly when a person is acting - for example, thinking, feeling, > being angry, or meditating. (I picked activities that aren't overly complex, > but you can choose other ones if you wish.) James: You think these activities aren't overly complex?? You must be kidding me! I could not possibly explain everything which occurs when a person is acting (i.e. thinking, feeling, being angry, or meditating). Or, if you want to approach it > differently, tell me what you consider a person to be other than a dynamic > collection of phenomena engendered and held together by kamma. James: Here's that question again! ;-)) As I wrote, a person is a process described by the Buddha as dependent origination. Howard, I don't think that you and I are far away from each other in our understanding of this; I just think that your approach is too simplistic and influenced by Abhidhamma theory. (Of course, there > is no need to say more if you are not so inclined. :-) James: Well, I guess I could keep plugging at this. But it does make me somewhat uncomfortable because I don't like to tell others that they are overestimating what they think they know- especially fellow meditators in a group which is already hostile to meditators. (And I don't care if others don't like me revealing my personal feelings in this regard!) Metta, James #82627 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 2/12/2008 6:54:20 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, conniebpj@... writes: Dear Howard, Nina, Receiving or reception - call it mind-door adverting or thresh-hold consciousness if you like - 'initial mind contact' - is the passing or introduction of the object from the ceased sensory consciousness to the mental stream, assuming the impact has been great enough to carry it as far as/thru the resultant (profitable/unprofitable) mind-door. In the mango simile, it is the taking up of the fruit in the hand. Hope that helps, ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Mmm, maybe. So, it is the initial mind-door consciousness of the object - the transition point or "handing off" point, right? ------------------------------------------------ connie ======================== Thanks, Connie! With metta, Howard #82628 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Tep) - In a message dated 2/12/2008 7:27:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Tep, you would understand if you had an ongoing love affair with Howard like I have. ;-)) (just kidding!!!) ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Whew! LOLOL! ======================= With metta, Howard #82629 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 2/12/2008 8:08:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > =========================== > Clinging and kamma are the basic "gluing operations." They are > operations of the sankharakkhandha category. In Abhidhammic terminolgy, they are > cetasikas. > What is lacking, according to you, in the understanding of a person as > an aggregation? James: We keep going round and round on this issue. You keep asking me, "A person is nama and rupa held together by kammic glue. What else is there?" This question assumes that you know everything there is to know about the human being. A person is nama and rupa held together by kammic glue? You might as well say a person is a chariot which is wooden and metal parts held together by nails. Reductionism doesn't explain the nature of anything; it is just a way that the mind categorizes and deconstructs in order to simplify. As the Buddha taught, what is a human being? The answer is: Ignorance conditions formations; formations condition consciousness; consciousness conditions mentality/materiality; mentality/materiality conditions six sense bases; six sense bases condition contact; contact conditions feeling; feeling conditions craving; craving conditions clinging; clinging conditions becoming; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions old age, sickness and death. This is a human being. Now, you may think, "Wait a second, that is too complicated! I can't hold all of that in my mind at once." So, you reduce this process down to: a human being is nama and rupa held together by kammic glue. Sorry, but that reductionist approach doesn't work in this case. I have already said that an aggregation is not a random, > grab-bag aggregate. It is still unclear to me what you think there is to a person > beyond what the Buddha pointed to. James: I don't think that there is anything to a person beyond what the Buddha pointed to!! I just don't think that you are getting the full picture of what the Buddha pointed to. Of the links in D. O., which are other > than namas and rupas? And if you can find any, what exactly are they? James: Again, this reductionist approach misses the boat. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I've missed the boat, then, James - but so long as I haven't missed the raft! ;-) -------------------------------------------------- As for > bhava, I go along with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu on that one: the movement towards (or > gestation of) rebirth of sense of self. It is a mental activity. James: I completely disagree. Becoming (bhava) is the desire for further life and sensation- desire to be born in the sense sphere, fine material, or immaterial worlds. I believe that "sense of self" is ignorance (avijja). Metta, James ============================== Agreeably agreeing to disagree, and with much metta, Howard #82630 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 1:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Reality in Its Own Sense.. upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 2/12/2008 8:33:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi again, Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ============================= > James, to try to zero in on matters, I'd like you to tell me what you > think goes on exactly when a person is acting - for example, thinking, feeling, > being angry, or meditating. (I picked activities that aren't overly complex, > but you can choose other ones if you wish.) James: You think these activities aren't overly complex?? You must be kidding me! I could not possibly explain everything which occurs when a person is acting (i.e. thinking, feeling, being angry, or meditating). Or, if you want to approach it > differently, tell me what you consider a person to be other than a dynamic > collection of phenomena engendered and held together by kamma. James: Here's that question again! ;-)) As I wrote, a person is a process described by the Buddha as dependent origination. Howard, I don't think that you and I are far away from each other in our understanding of this; I just think that your approach is too simplistic and influenced by Abhidhamma theory. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Maybe we're not too far apart. I just have this sneaking concern that there is atta-view motivating your perspective. (Of course, I could be in danger of being a nihilist! ;-) ------------------------------------------------- (Of course, there > is no need to say more if you are not so inclined. :-) James: Well, I guess I could keep plugging at this. But it does make me somewhat uncomfortable because I don't like to tell others that they are overestimating what they think they know- especially fellow meditators in a group which is already hostile to meditators. (And I don't care if others don't like me revealing my personal feelings in this regard!) Metta, James ============================= With metta, Howard #82631 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:59 pm Subject: Re: Thinking nichiconn Dear Howard, >>Receiving or reception - call it mind-door adverting or thresh-hold consciousness if you like - 'initial mind contact' - is the passing or introduction of the object from the ceased sensory consciousness to the mental stream, assuming the impact has been great enough to carry it as far as/thru the resultant (profitable/unprofitable) mind-door. In the mango simile, it is the taking up of the fruit in the hand. Hope that helps, ------------------------------------------------- >Howard: Mmm, maybe. So, it is the initial mind-door consciousness of the object - the transition point or "handing off" point, right? ------------------------------------------------ C: That's pretty much my understanding - to which I should start remembering to add "corrections welcome" - but I like transition point better than handing off point just because in the case of very slight objects, there is more of just a total dead end drop off with no actual reception. Hope all's well with you, connie #82632 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 2:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking upasaka_howard Hi, Connie - In a message dated 2/12/2008 10:00:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, conniebpj@... writes: Dear Howard, >>Receiving or reception - call it mind-door adverting or thresh-hold consciousness if you like - 'initial mind contact' - is the passing or introduction of the object from the ceased sensory consciousness to the mental stream, assuming the impact has been great enough to carry it as far as/thru the resultant (profitable/unprofitable) mind-door. In the mango simile, it is the taking up of the fruit in the hand. Hope that helps, ------------------------------------------------- >Howard: Mmm, maybe. So, it is the initial mind-door consciousness of the object - the transition point or "handing off" point, right? ------------------------------------------------ C: That's pretty much my understanding - to which I should start remembering to add "corrections welcome" - but I like transition point better than handing off point just because in the case of very slight objects, there is more of just a total dead end drop off with no actual reception. --------------------------------------- Howard: I see. Thanks. :-) ---------------------------------- Hope all's well with you, --------------------------------- Howard: Thanks! Yes, things are fine! :-) With you also, I hope. ------------------------------- connie =================== With metta, Howard #82633 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Trivial Pursuit lbidd2 Hi Colette, Middle way emptiness is a different kind of emptiness than the two I offered: empty of self and empty of conditioned arising. I'm not sure how to practice it. Maybe you could get married and become a couple. Larry #82634 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism Ch XIX- Purification by Overcoming Doubt- Intro lbidd2 Hi Colette, Here's the metaphor: Vism.XIV,32: How is [understanding] developed? Now the things classed as aggregates, bases, elements, faculties, truths, dependent origination, etc., are the 'soil' of this understanding, and the first two purifications, namely, purification of virtue and purification of consciousness, are its 'roots', while the five purifications, namely, purification of view, purification by overcoming doubt, purification by knowledge and vision of what is the path and what is not the path, purification by knowledge and vision of the way, and purification by knowledge and vision, are the 'trunk'. Consequently, one who is perfecting these should first fortify his knowledge by learning and questioning about those things that are the 'soil' after he has perfected the two purifications that are the 'roots', then he can develop the five purifications that are the 'trunk'. Larry: "Learning and questioning" about the basic elements of experience (the soil of understanding) is pretty much what we are doing now. From this conceptual knowledge, and with the support of the first two purifications (virtue and concentration), arises insight knowledge. The difference between conceptual understanding and insight is that insight sweeps away deep rooted afflictions and seriously wrong assumptions. Larry #82635 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 8:32 pm Subject: Re: Vism Ch XIX- Purification by Overcoming Doubt- Intro kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > This won't do at all:-0 > > Ken: "Let's not pretend to have known paramattha dhammas when we > haven't. Let's not associate the Buddha's precious teaching with that > kind of carryon, please. :-)" > > Larry: All I asked was that you describe your experience when you are > angry. I am particularly interested in the physical aspect. Can you do > that? > > Hi Larry, It seems my incessant fault-finding has caused me to lose track of the conversation. :-) I forget why you asked me this question in the first place. I'm not sure I want to describe how I feel physically when I'm angry. I've gone shy! You answer for me, and then let's see where this is heading. Ken H PS: I was going to come back to this "consciousness prompting" idea of yours. Maybe I'll leave it this time, except to say: you and Nina and I did discuss it quite recently. I thought we agreed that prompted consciousness was a kind of javana citta (a weak or hesitant kind) and, as such, a conditioned dhamma. Therefore, no amount of formal prompting will have any effect on it. KH #82636 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 10:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism Ch XIX- Purification by Overcoming Doubt- Intro lbidd2 Hi Ken, I'm trying to get you to look at your experience. I'm not interested in what you have read or how well you understand it. What color is your computer? Larry #82637 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Feb 12, 2008 11:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism Ch XIX- Purification by Overcoming Doubt- Intro kenhowardau Hi Larry, OK, I won't be a total spoilsport (mutter mutter): my computer is black and grey. Ken H > I'm trying to get you to look at your experience. I'm not interested in > what you have read or how well you understand it. > > What color is your computer? #82638 From: "Sukinder" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:54 am Subject: Re: the present moment sukinderpal Dear Nina, ============= Nina: Perhaps several people here may not know about the post on cheating dhammas. Perhaps you could elaborate? The subject is very beneficial, and it also touches on fake metta. Sukin: Frankly, the only other time that I went through the full list of these Vangcaka Dhammas was when Gayan first posted it here seven years ago. Whenever I made reference to them, it was mostly from vague memory and general impression. I have just gone through it again today, at the following links: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3543 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3544 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/3545 My impression the first time was that these were good for detecting instances when we fool ourselves mistaking akusala states for kusala ones. It seemed to me also, that I knew some of these from experience, but come to think of it now, that may have actually been one of these 38 dhammas doing the talking. ;-) Later when these `Cheating Dhammas' were referred to by others, the impression I got was that the list applied mostly to those who were attached to particular practices with the aim of gaining some results from them. I thought that as long as one knew not to be attached to getting results, these cheating dhammas should not be paid too much attention to. After all, if one was so concerned, then one of these dhammas most likely already is in effect! But going through the list this time, I got a different impression. I recognized most of these dhammas as arising even now, some of which I failed to see / acknowledge before. I realized that as long as the panna is still so very weak, these `cheating dhammas' *will* constantly arise. Therefore this time, I think it may be a good idea indeed to once in a while go through the list, not necessarily out of self concern, but from understanding the great tendency to akusala and the danger of it. Moreover some of the examples given are quite obvious; however there are subtle manifestations of the same dhamma which arises so commonly in a day. Nina, I am not in a position to elaborate on this partly because I don't have the ability to expand on ideas in any systematic way, but mostly because I lack the necessary experiential understanding. After going through the links however, someone can bring up anything to discuss, then perhaps I might be able to say more. Metta, Sukin. #82639 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:14 am Subject: Re: Wife as object of awareness .. developed body .. dhammanusara Dear Sarah (Alex, Phil), - I made a mistake by not immediately replying to this important message that was very well written. So, now I am two-day late. Sorry for the delay, Sarah. >Sarah: To recap, this came up in a thread of Phil's. He had pointed to the phrase "withdraw in body and in mind" in suttas and considered I was 'denying the importance of "withdraw in body" and what he considers the 'more typical meaning of "seclusion" in the physical sense'. I introduced the phrases above as used in MN 36, Mahaasaccaka Sutta ... ... There may be more to discuss here... > > T: Yes, I saw that commentary note before. I did not say anything > because I had thought 'development of understanding' was insight > and 'development of body' was renunciation(nekkhamma). ..................... S: Of course there is both understanding and renunciation (of different kinds) in both insight and jhaana. I *attempted* a quick look at the commentary: "... ... Uppannaapi dukkhaa vedanaa citta.m na pariyaadaaya ti.t.thati, bhaavitattaa cittassaati ***ettha kaayabhaavanaa vipassanaa, cittabhaavanaa samaadhi***." S: I think as B.Bodhi's note said, the commentary confirms that here 'development of body' refers to insight and 'development of mind' to samaadhi (i.e jhaana). .................... T: It is clear through the Pali that you highlighted, 'kaayabhaavanaa vipassanaa', that body development refers to vipassana. But how can 'vipassana' as insight knowledge (that leads to vimutti) arise without support of renunciation ('nekkhamma sankappo' of the second magga factor)? I also understand that development of mind (cittabhaavanaa) is also cittavisuddhi (as expounded in Vism) that means samadhi (jhaana). Your good research brought up a number of passages that are very good. The important points are summarized as follows : 1. Bodily and mentally withdrawal from sensual desires, such that an infatuation for sensual pleasures are "fully abandoned and suppressed internally", supports knowledge and vision and supreme enlightenment. 2. Even in the case where the exertion to abandon and suppress the infatuation does not cause "racking, piercing feelings", the recluses are also capable of achieving the same results, given that they are withdrawn both bodily and mentally (like a piece of timber, that has been secluded from water and completely dried up, can easily catch fire). ................... S: Jhaana is the (temporary) suppression and renunciation of sense objects and unprofitable states, while vipassanaa is the overcoming and abandoning of unprofitable states. I think that both 'bodily' and 'mental' seclusion refer to such mental states and this was the opposite of what Aggivasena had believed. T: But "such mental states" are not possible without being both 'quite secluded from sense desires as object' and 'secluded from sense desires as defilement or from all unprofitable things' [Vism, IV, 83 that you quoted above]. So it doesn't seem possible for householders who are involved with household things and sensual desires to be able to do vipassana and attain "such mental states". Insight and vision are supported by concentration(cittavisuddhi). MN 36 makes it clear : "When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I discerned, as it had come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' [MN 36] Regards, Tep === #82640 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:13 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 42 16. Mahaanipaato 1. Sumedhaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 516. "Eva.m bha.nati sumedhaa, sa"nkhaaragate rati.m alabhamaanaa; anunentii anikaratta.m, kese ca chama.m khipi sumedhaa. 514. So Sumedhaa spoke, not obtaining delight in the formations. And conciliating Anikaratta, Sumedhaa threw her hair on the ground. Eva.m bha.nati sumedhaati eva.m vuttappakaarena sumedhaa raajaka~n~naa sa.msaare attano sa.mvegadiipani.m kaamesu nibbedhabhaagini.m dhammakatha.m katheti. Sa"nkhaaragate rati.m alabhamaanaati a.numattepi sa"nkhaarapavatte abhirati.m avindantii. Anunentii anikarattanti anikaratta.m raajaana.m sa~n~naapentii. Kese ca chama.m khipiiti attano khaggena chinne kese ca bhuumiya.m khipi cha.d.desi. 514. So Sumedhaa spoke means: so, as has been said, Sumedhaa, the princess, explained a talk on the Doctrine that was endowed with penetration into sensual pleasures and that explained her own profound stirring with regard to continued existence. Not obtaining delight (rati.m) in the formations (sa"nkhaara-gate) means: not finding even the smallest pleasure (abhirati.m) in the existing formations. Conciliating Anikaratta means: convincing Kind Anikaratta. And [she] threw her hair on the ground (chana.m) means: and [she] threw, she threw away, on the ground (bhuuniya.m) her hair that was cut off with her own knife. 517. "U.t.thaaya anikaratto, pa~njaliko yaacatassaa pitara.m so; vissajjetha sumedha.m, pabbajitu.m vimokkhasaccadassaa. 515. Standing up, Anikaratta, with cupped hands, requested her father, "Let Sumedhaa go, in order to go forth. [She will be] one with insight into the truths of liberation." Yaacatassaa pitara.m soti so anikaratto assaa sumedhaaya pitara.m ko~ncaraajaana.m yaacati. Kinti yaacatiiti aaha "vissajjetha sumedha.m, pabbajitu.m vimokkhasaccadassaa"ti, sumedha.m raajaputti.m pabbajitu.m vissajjetha, saa ca pabbajitvaa vimokkhasaccadassaa avipariitanibbaanadassaavinii hotuuti attho. 515. [He] requested (yaacat') her father means: he, Anikaratta, requested (yaacati) her, Sumedhaa's, father, King Ko~ncara. What did he request? Let Sumedhaa go, in order to go forth. [She will be] one with insight into the truths of liberation, which means: let Princess Sumedhaa go forth. And when she has gone forth, she will become one with insight into the truths of liberation (vimokkha-sacca-dassaa), one who sees quenching correctly (avipariita-nibbaana-dassaavinii). 518. "Vissajjitaa maataapituuhi, pabbaji sokabhayabhiitaa; cha abhi~n~naa sacchikataa, aggaphala.m sikkhamaanaaya. 516. Allowed to go by her mother and father, she went forth, frightened by grief and fear. She realized the six supernormal powers [and] the highest fruition state as a trainee. Sokabhayabhiitaati ~naativiyogaadihetuto sabbasmaapi sa.msaarabhayato bhiitaa ~naa.nuttaravasena utraasitaa. Sikkhamaanaayaati sikkhamaanaaya samaanaaya cha abhi~n~naa sacchikataa, tato eva aggaphala.m arahatta.m sacchikata.m. 516. Frightened by grief and fear (soka-bhaya-bhiitaa) means: thoroughly frightened (bhiitaa) by the fear of continued existence (sa.msaarat-bhayato) that is the cause of being separated from relatives, etc. As a trainee (sikkha-maanaayaa) means: being a trainee, she realized the six supernormal powers as a result of realizing the highest fruition state of Arahatship. .. to be continued, connie #82641 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:39 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes scottduncan2 Dear Tep, I've a bit more time, so: T: "The only thing about what you said that is true is that mind-door perception is not the same as the external reality: a person -- the carrier of the five khandhas, who exists external to the observer. Remember SN 22.22 ? "And which is the burden? 'The five clinging-aggregates,' (pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhaatissa} it should be said. ... "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name: This is called the carrier of the burden.". (Katamo ca bhikkhave bhaarahaaro: puggalotissa vacaniiya.m, yo'ya.m aayasmaa evannaamo eva.mgotto, aya.m vuccati bhikkhave, bhaarahaaro.) Note 36 (Bh. Bodhi trans.): "Spk: In what sense are these 'five aggregates subject to clinging' called the burden? In the sense of having to be borne through maintenance. For their maintenance - by being lifted up, moved about, seated, layed to rest, bathed, adorned, fed and nourished, etc. - is something to be borne; thus they are called a burden in the sense of having to be borne through maintenance." PTS PED: Puggala...1. an individual, as opposed to a group (sangha or parisÄ?), person, man; in later philosophical (Abhidhamma) literature=character, soul (=attan)...individual man, being, person...2. (in general) being, creature... Upaadaana (nt)...(lit. that (material) substratum by means of which an active process is kept alive or going), fuel, supply, provision; adj. ( -- Ëš) supported by, drawing one's existence from ...sa -- upÄ?dÄ?na (adj.) provided with fuel...2. (appld.) "drawing upon", grasping, holding on, grip, attachment; adj. ( -- Ëš) finding one's support by or in, clinging to, taking up, nourished by...They are classified as 4 upaadaanaani or four Graspings viz. kaamupaadaana, di.t.thupaadaana, siilabbatupaadaana, attavaadupaadaana or the graspings arising from sense -- desires, speculation, belief in rites, belief in the soul -- theory..." Bhara (adj..."bearing" in act. & pass. meaning, i. e. supporting or being supported; only in cpd. dubbhara hard to support...and subhara easy to support... Hara (adj.)...taking, fetching... Bharati...to bear, support, feed, maintain... Scott: I'll leave this material in raw form, since again, I'm out of time, but will return to give some sort of synthesis for you to respond to, Tep. Thanks for your patience. See you later... Sincerely, Scott. #82642 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:15 am Subject: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, In this Commentary the word “sankhåra-nimitta”, the nimittas, signs or mental images, of conditioned dhammas, is used. When we were returning from the Bodhitree walking up the long stairways, a friend asked Acharn Sujin about this term. Nimitta has different meanings in different contexts. The nimitta or mental image in samatha refers to the meditation subject of samatha. We also read in some texts that one should not be taken in by the outward appearance of things (nimitta) and the details. However, the term sankhåranimitta has a different meaning as I shall explain further on. Acharn Sujin emphasized that whatever we read in the texts about nimitta should be applied to our life now. “What we read is not theory” she often explains. We read in the “Mahåvedallasutta” (Middle Length Sayings, no 43), about freedom of mind that is “signless”, and we read that there are two conditions for attaining this: ”non-attention (amanåsikåra) to all “signs” and attention to the signless element”. The Commentary states that the signs, nimittas, are the objects such as visible object, etc. and that the signless is nibbåna. The signless liberation of mind is explained in a way that clearly connects it with the fruition of arahantship: lust, hatred and delusion are declared to be "sign-makers" (nimittakarana), which the arahant has totally abandoned. When we read about object (årammana) as a sign, we should remember that this is not theory. An object is what citta experiences at this moment. When the rúpa that is the eyebase has not fallen away yet and colour or visible object impinges on it, there are conditions for the arising of seeing. If there were no citta which sees visible object could not appear. When we asked Acharn Sujin whether the impression or sign (nimitta) of a dhamma is a concept or a reality she answered: “These are only words. If we use the word concept there is something that is experienced by thinking. We should not just know words, but understand the reality that appears right now. There is not merely one moment of experiencing visible object, but many moments arising and falling away. When right understanding arises we do not have to use any term.” She repeated that there is the impression of visible object right now. She said: “It is this moment.” Visible object impinges on the eyesense and after it has fallen away, what is left is the impression or sign, nimitta of visible object. It seems that visible object lasts for a while, but in reality it arises and falls away. Acharn Sujin used the simile of a torch that is swung around. In this way, we have the impression of a whole, of a circle of light. We know that seeing arises at this moment, but we cannot pinpoint the citta which sees, it arises and falls away very rapidly and another moment of seeing arises. We only experience the “sign” of seeing. The notion of nimitta can remind us that not just one moment of seeing appears, but many moments that are arising and falling away. Also visible object is not as solid as we would think, there are many moments arising and falling away which leave the sign or impression of visible object. ***** Nina. #82643 From: DC Wijeratna Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] a relevent question dcwijeratna To Reverend Aggacitto, This is with regard to your post on the above subject. Here are my thoughts on the matter. The Paali word 'attaa' or 'attan' has two senses. Sense (1) is what in English is called 'self,' used in such compound words like myself, yourself, himself and so on. It may be thought of as a reference to psycho-physical-personality (PPP) or naama-ruupa in Buddhist terms. Some people call it ego, but that usage restricts it to something intangible. In the famous expression 'attaahi attano naatho' (Dhammapada) you get this sense. Sense (2) is what in English is called 'soul'; atman in Hinduism. It is neither the body, nor the mind nor a combination thereof; however, associated with a human being in some form. But the most important postulate about that is: it (atman or soul) is permanent and survives death. In the expression 'anattaa', which is na + attaa, attaa refers to this 'soul' and the expression says there is no permanent 'soul'. This is very clearly explained in the 'anattalakkhana sutta'--second discourse delivered by the Buddha. It starts with the famous expression 'ruupa.m bhikkhave anattaa'. The argument is simple. All five khandhas--ruupa...vi~n~naa.na, are impermanent. What is impermanent is beyond one's control or one has no control over it. Hence it is not proper to take it as I, me or mine. The reasoning is: if something is I, me or mine (belongs to me), I should have control over it. In fact, the Buddha says in many places in the canon, 'what is not yours give it up). In other words in the five khandhas, that make up a 'human being', it is not possible to find anything that may be called I, me or mine. Hence in sense (2), there is no attaa. I don't know whether I have made myself clear. The Buddhist 'I' defined in terms of conrol may be caonsidered as aatman or soul. One more word about control: According to Dhamma, everything happens according to dependent arising. There is no one, no God or Brahma who has control over that. It is a dhammataa or the nature of things. This is what is implied by 'no control'. Finally, we can't see and understand dependent-arising as worldlings (puthujjana). If you wish to understand that you have to travel the Noble-Eightfold-Path and become a stream-enterer. The corollary to this is that it is a waste of time to discuss this type of issue. You'll never be able to find answers--either by Socratic methods or any other method except travelling the Path, described as the only way. See Dhammapada, Chapter on Magga. With mettaa D.C. #82644 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:09 am Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes dhammanusara Dear Scott (Howard, James and all), - After the two messages (#82600 & #82641 ) that you posted, now it is my turn to respond. In the message #82600 you reject the idea that a 'person' "within the mind-door" of the observer is not "derived" from a real person (outside) as seen by the eye. You insist, "I would suggest that 'person' is a mental construct, not a 'derivative' ". A mental image that is derived from the information perceived by the eyes, maybe? BTW what is the difference? Further, you explain that 'person' is not a 'ruupa'. >Scott: Ruupa is colour, for visible object (sound for object of ear- conciousness, and so on). Ruupa has ultimate reality while concept does not. T: It sounds too complicated. The Suttanta-pitaka defines ruupa (form) as a body that is composed of the four great elements (mahabhuta ruupa). It is the first of the five khandhas that a 'person' is derived from (or "defined") with or without clinging. "And why is it called 'form' (rupa)? Because it is afflicted (ruppati), thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form". [SN 22.79] "And what, friends, is form as a clinging-aggregate? The four great existents and the form derived from them. And what are the four great existents? They are the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property". [MN 28] Note the word "derived from" above. I did not make it up. ;-)) "The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form". [SN 12.2] ................. >Scott: For now, I'll suggest that it is a function of ignorance as a mental factor that prevents visible object from being known as just visible object and that allows for the misperception that visible object is 'person'. As for the sutta quote, I think it is important to note that this refers to the 'five clinging-aggregates'. T: At the abhidhamma level, what you have said is technically correct. But I'll suggest that "seeing only the dhammas" (i.e. seeing khandhas as dhamma, nama-ruupa as dhamma, etc.) that are anatta, empty of a self, and there is nothing else besides the dhammas in the whole wide world, is the vision of the ariyans when they enter and dwell in the suññataa samaapatti. When they come out of that mental dwelling, they surely can see people (town people, upasika who prepare foods for the monks, etc.) and beings (dogs running around in the temple) the same way normal people do. Puggala (persons) are reality, mind you! Otherwise the TripleGem would reduce to just the dhamma theory of the Abhidhamma. The Buddha is not an imagination: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well- gone, knower of the cosmos, unexcelled trainer of those who can be tamed, teacher of devas and human beings, awakened, blessed.' The ariya savakas are not an imagination. 'The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well, practiced straightforwardly, practiced methodically, practiced masterfully, i. e., the four pairs, the eight-types [of Noble Ones - ariya-puggalas]: that is the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples — worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, the unexcelled field of merit for the world.' .................................. "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty". [SN 35.85 : Suñña Sutta] The 'self' here refers to a soul or an forever-lasting identity. Thus, 'empty of self' does not imply that there are 'no persons' in the world. My reply to your #82641 is coming soon. Tep === #82645 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/13/2008 10:10:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty". [SN 35.85 : Suñña Sutta] The 'self' here refers to a soul or an forever-lasting identity. Thus, 'empty of self' does not imply that there are 'no persons' in the world. ..................................................... Hi Tep The term "self" here is deeper than that. The Buddha said -- "All things are not self." He did not just merely say -- all persons have no self. Although the latter is true as well; the term "person" adds confusion. Nonself is the fact of the mater in a world in which all things are conditionally structured. Whatever arises does so due to "something else." If everything is the product of something else then there is nothing that could be a self. Notice in your quote, the Buddha says -- "...Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty" The Buddha says "the world is empty" (of self). Insight into conditionality destroys self-view of any kind. Regarding "persons" ... "a person" is just a system of interacting phenomena. There is such a system, and in that regard, there is "a person." Just as long as we know that "a person" is not a self entity, but merely a conditional interaction. "A person" arises conascent with delusion and is propagated by that. When the delusion dies, so does the ability to propagate "a person." The remnants die out after the inertia is expended. TG #82646 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:22 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Disappearing in the Thin air !! .. dhammanusara Hi TG, - Thank you for initiating a conversation with me. >TG: The term "self" here is deeper than that. The Buddha said -- "All things are not self." He did not just merely say -- all persons have no self. T: Do you mind if I ask : what do you understand "self" to be? .............. >TG: Insight into conditionality destroys self-view of any kind. T: That's very well said, TG. Self-view (attanuditthi) of any kind lacks the right wisdom. So, when the right wisdom (sammappaññaya) arises, self-view must be destroyed. But I doubt if the person (or persons) you used to see and talk to would just disappear in the thin air after you've got that insight!! .............. >TG: "A person" arises conascent with delusion and is propagated by that. When the delusion dies, so does the ability to propagate "a person." The remnants die out after the inertia is expended. T: Are you saying that arahants do not see people (e.g. upasikas who donate foods and robes, and other monks in the temple)? If you ask an arahant a question, can he hear you? Regards, Tep === > "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a > self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty". [SN 35.85 : > Suñña Sutta] #82647 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Thinking nilovg Dear Connie and Howard, Op 13-feb-2008, om 3:34 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Receiving or reception - call it mind-door adverting or thresh-hold > consciousness if you like - 'initial mind contact' - is the passing > or introduction > of the object from the ceased sensory consciousness to the mental > stream, > assuming the impact has been great enough to carry it as far as/ > thru the > resultant (profitable/unprofitable) mind-door. In the mango simile, > it is the taking > up of the fruit in the hand. ------- N: We do need the Pali here. I was talking about sampa.ticchanacitta, translated as receiving consciousness, succeeding seeing etc. This is another vipaakacitta, just following one of the vipaakacittas that are the sense-cognitions. Connie, you speak here of the mind-door adverting-consciousness, manodvaaraavajjanacitta. This is a kiriyacitta and it is followed by javanacittas. The mind-door itself is the last bhavangacitta that precedes it and this is, as you say, vipaakacitta, resultant. Nina. #82648 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:43 am Subject: Re:Q. re: [dsg] Patthaana (7) nilovg Dear Han, Op 13-feb-2008, om 2:01 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: Sayadaw Ashin Janakaabhivamsa explained the arising of kusala cittas, akusala cittas and abyaakata cittas with regard to this condition. For this condition one should go beyond eye and eye-consciousness, and one should look for the wholesome and unwholesome cittas conditioned by eye and eye-consciousness (Matter-and-Mind). Thus we will come to know that the above statement does not reflect adequately the nature of object condition. We will consider in more detail when we come to object condition. This then will be the benefit of knowing the groupings beforehand! -------- N: I miss something in Sayadaw's statements. They have their merit but I miss life, they are not connected with daily life and very much intellect-orientated. He is very sharp, but it is all too technical for me. That is just personal, I can't help it. Also before I noticed that he spoke about the intellectual genius that the Buddha is, and several times he used the expression intellect. Another Burmese Sayadaw, U Narada, in his book 'Guide to Conditional Relations' keeps the connection with daily life . It is well written and he uses interesting similes. Whatever I learn, I find it helpful when it is about my daily life. I need all the help I can possibly get, life is too short. Nina. #82649 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the present moment nilovg Dear Sukin, Op 13-feb-2008, om 11:54 heeft Sukinder het volgende geschreven: > But going through the list this time, I got a different impression. I > recognized most of these dhammas as arising even now, some of which I > failed to see / acknowledge before. ------ N: Wonderful, can you share your experiences with us, when and if you have time? People will not so easily go to these links with posts which are long. Besides our list is so busy. It is so good to learn about these cheating dhammas one may miss time and again. Nina. #82650 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:34 pm Subject: for TGRAND458 &Dhammasaro/and everybody... reverendagga... Hi everyone! First let me say thanks to Alex who gave me the most comprehensive answer! The fact that we canot understand the nature of something by simply declaring it to be "self" or "noself" was EXACTLY my point! My disagreement with the strictly "noself" and "NOTHING BUT NOSELF" type of view is that at that level, abandoning the "conventional" and embracing nothing but "ultimate" dhamma can be used too easily to turn what we now know today as "Buddhism" into some sort of subjectively defineable philosophy. If we are NOTHING BUT phenomana arising, existing, and ceasing to exist,then certain moral questions are no longer relevent! i certainly see this as being very potentialy dangerious! In D.N.#22 the Ven.Gotama when teaching the COMPLETE METHOD discussed very well what was relevent. may the Buddhas Deva and Angels bless all of you! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto #82651 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] for TGRAND458 &Dhammasaro/and everybody... upasaka_howard Dear Bhante - In a message dated 2/13/2008 4:34:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, reverendaggacitto@... writes: Hi everyone! First let me say thanks to Alex who gave me the most comprehensive answer! The fact that we canot understand the nature of something by simply declaring it to be "self" or "noself" was EXACTLY my point! My disagreement with the strictly "noself" and "NOTHING BUT NOSELF" type of view is that at that level, abandoning the "conventional" and embracing nothing but "ultimate" dhamma can be used too easily to turn what we now know today as "Buddhism" into some sort of subjectively defineable philosophy. If we are NOTHING BUT phenomana arising, existing, and ceasing to exist,then certain moral questions are no longer relevent! --------------------------------------------- Howard: WHY? Pain and distress are real. I experience them (i.e., they occur in the aggregation of phenomena I call "me"), and I have no doubt they occur in the aggregation I call "you," and I regret distress wherever it occurs and make efforts to dispel it and certainly try not to contribute to it. That persons are nothing but aggregations of material and mental phenomena doesn't make them unworthy of moral treatment. Why would you think so? (Does the chemist think that because a bench is a collection of molecules it is any the less suitable for sitting?) ----------------------------------------------------- i certainly see this as being very potentialy dangerious! ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, drawing such an invalid conclusion as you draw is certainly dangerous! But tell me - if you believed that a person were nothing but phenomena arising, would you then cheat, steal, and inflict pain? Also, what is it that you believe a person IS or HAS beyond "the all" that the Buddha speaks of in the Sabba Sutta? A soul? The Hindu Atman? Incidentally, you speak of "noself" (a single word) as if it were some thingl There is no such thing. There is no self, and there most assuredly is no "noself". Every conditioned dhamma arises dependently, and it is exactly that which makes it anatta (i.e., lacking self, lacking a core of own being). And nibbana, being beyond all conditions, also lacks self. There is no "noself", there is just a lack of self. Anatta is a negative, not a positive. ------------------------------------------------------- In D.N.#22 the Ven.Gotama when teaching the COMPLETE METHOD discussed very well what was relevent. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, a crucially important sutta. But what is it there that you point to with regard to persons? ------------------------------------------------------ may the Buddhas Deva and Angels bless all of you! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto ========================== With metta, Howard #82652 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:38 am Subject: Essential Foundation! bhikkhu0 Friends: What is the Essential Foundation of Mental Purity ? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, there are these Four Foundations of Awareness. What four? When a Bhikkhu keenly contemplates: 1: Any Body just as a transient form... 2: Any Feeling just as a passing reaction... 3: Any Mind just as a momentary mood... 4: Any Phenomena just as a discrete mental state... while always acutely aware & clearly comprehending, he thereby removes any urge, envy, jealousy, frustration and discontent rooted in this world... These are the Four Foundations of Awareness... Source of reference (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V: 173-4] 47 The Foundations of Awareness: 24 Simple.. <....> Reference: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Crucial_Foundation.htm Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ..... #82653 From: "colette" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Trivial Pursuit ksheri3 Hmmmmmmmmm, looks tastey! Hi Larry, A thought I had: IS HATRED = SUNYA? Is hatred built from sunya? Wild, huh? toodles, colette #82654 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 3:42 pm Subject: Re:Q. re: [dsg] Patthaana (7) sarahprocter... Dear Nina & all, Just a brief note to say that Han has been taken ill, so I doubt there will be any responses or a continuation of the series from him for a few days. Metta, Sarah #82655 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:21 pm Subject: Re: Thinking nichiconn Dear Nina, Howard, N: We do need the Pali here. I was talking about sampa.ticchanacitta, translated as receiving consciousness, succeeding seeing etc. This is another vipaakacitta, just following one of the vipaakacittas that are the sense-cognitions. C: Thanks, Nina. Sorry to add to the confusion, Howard. best regards, connie #82656 From: "m. nease" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:24 pm Subject: Re: Q. re: [dsg] Patthaana (7) m_nease Get well soon, Han! mike #82657 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism Ch XIX- Purification by Overcoming Doubt- Intro lbidd2 Hi Ken, Okay, you have looked at your computer and determined that it is black and grey. This little back and forth we have been having is an example of attempts to prompt a prompted consciousness. Most of the attempts failed and one succeeded. The one that succeeded wasn't all that difficult but it is important because it prompted a consciousness that recognized experience in an impersonal and accurate way. You might say, "But I didn't experience an ultimate reality". Doesn't matter. We begin with the big stuff and if our faculties become more sensitive more subtle realities will become evident. You might think that recognizing a color is inconsequential. Maybe so, but recognizing tension in your chest when you become angry could, given the right conditions, become the beginning of differentiating nama and rupa, and it could afford a slight glimpse that that tension is not me. This insight can happen whether the tension is a micro dot of experience or something large and complicated. When insight strikes it makes an impact. That is how you tell if it is insight, not by how ultimately quintessential the object is. I agree completely that it is unlikely that anyone will prompt an insight. But it does happen. I believe it happened to Sariputta. He heard a sutta and that prompted the arising of major serious insight. But one can prompt the arising of recognition of experience and that is a step in the right direction. I am not saying that you _should_ do this, but rather that you _can_ do this. If you want to translate that sentence into ultimate realities so there is no hint of control, fine. But recognize that the idea behind no control is not to impede action, but rather to see that there is no control in any action. I have touched on many points here so why don't you gather all your objections into one point and we could discuss that. Larry #82658 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 4:57 pm Subject: Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > When we asked Acharn Sujin whether the impression or sign (nimitta) > of a dhamma is a concept or a reality she answered: "These are only > words. If we use the word concept there is something that is > experienced by thinking. We should not just know words, but > understand the reality that appears right now. There is not merely > one moment of experiencing visible object, but many moments arising > and falling away. When right understanding arises we do not have to > use any term." James: This is not an answer. Is the nimitta a concept or a reality? > She repeated that there is the impression of visible object right > now. She said: "It is this moment." Visible object impinges on the > eyesense and after it has fallen away, what is left is the impression > or sign, nimitta of visible object. James: Right. So is that nimitta a concept or a reality? Metta, James #82659 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:31 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Self is Not Person .. dhammanusara Dear Scott, - I have no problem with a delayed reply. So, take your time. The note #36 by Bhikkhu Bodhi explains that the five aggregates are burden since they have to be borne through maintenance. So I understand that to mean: the carrier of the burden, the person with such and such name, performs the maintenance duty (the burden). The meaning of puggala is clear -- an individual, a person. The person and the five aggregates are inseparable, so it seems. Yet, it is clear that the individual aggregates cannot perform the maintenance task themselves ! Thus, the reality of "person" who carries the burden is no longer a question. Nobody can say, 'there is no person', because there cannot be a burden without a carrier/maintainer. I also want to comment that 'person' is not the same as 'self'. Hence 'no self' does not imply 'no person', because there always is a person regardless of self. Agree? Sincerely, Tep === #82660 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes buddhatrue Hi TG (and Tep), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/13/2008 10:10:03 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, > tepsastri@... writes: > > "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a > self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty". [SN 35.85 : > Suñña Sutta] > > The 'self' here refers to a soul or an forever-lasting identity. > Thus, 'empty of self' does not imply that there are 'no persons' in > the world. > > My reply to your #82641 is coming soon. > > Tep > > > > ..................................................... > > Hi Tep > > > The term "self" here is deeper than that. James: No, I disagree. The term "self" is no deeper than that. Self means something which is permanent. Take for example this sutta: "Monks, an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted with this body composed of the four great elements, might grow dispassionate toward it, might gain release from it. Why is that? Because the growth & decline, the taking up & putting down of this body composed of the four great elements are apparent. Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person might grow disenchanted, might grow dispassionate, might gain release there. "But as for what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness,' the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it. Why is that? For a long time this has been relished, appropriated, and grasped by the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person as, 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' Thus the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is unable to grow disenchanted with it, unable to grow dispassionate toward it, unable to gain release from it. "It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of the four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. Just as a monkey, swinging through a forest wilderness, grabs a branch. Letting go of it, it grabs another branch. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. Letting go of that, it grabs another one. In the same way, what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html James: Here the Buddha presents a hypothetical where he reveals how he defines "self". He states that most people take the mind for self, even though it changes so rapidly, when it would be more logical for them to take the body for self since it lasts much longer. Therefore, it is very clear that the Buddha defined "self" as that which lasts. The Buddha said -- "All things > are not self." He did not just merely say -- all persons have no self. > Although the latter is true as well; the term "person" adds confusion. James: The Buddha said that all things are anatta because all things are impermanent. The mind wants to find anything permanent to identify with as self. It can identify with the the body, the mind, or the entire universe as self. The Buddha wanted to make it clear that nothing whatsoever is self because nothing whatsoever is permanent. > > > Nonself is the fact of the mater in a world in which all things are > conditionally structured. Whatever arises does so due to "something else." If > everything is the product of something else then there is nothing that could be a > self. James: I don't believe that conditionality defines non-self. It is impermanence which defines non-self. What if something was conditionally created which lasts forever? Some people believe that the soul depends on God (conditionality) and that it lasts forever. No, it is impermanence that is the rude awakening, not conditionality. Notice in your quote, the Buddha says -- "...Thus it is said, Ananda, > that the world is empty" The Buddha says "the world is empty" (of self). > Insight into conditionality destroys self-view of any kind. James: Right, but that is because the person is able to see that the body, and the mind, and the entire universe is impermanent. Let me continue from the sutta I quoted earlier: "The instructed disciple of the noble ones, [however,] attends carefully & appropriately right there at the dependent co-arising: "'When this is, that is. "'From the arising of this comes the arising of that. "'When this isn't, that isn't. "'From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html James: It is by contemplating conditionality that the disciple sees that all things are impermanent. When this is, that is; when this ends, that ends. There is nothing permanent to a person's existence. > > > Regarding "persons" ... "a person" is just a system of interacting > phenomena. There is such a system, and in that regard, there is "a person." Just as > long as we know that "a person" is not a self entity, but merely a > conditional interaction. James: True. > > > "A person" arises conascent with delusion and is propagated by that. When > the delusion dies, so does the ability to propagate "a person." The remnants > die out after the inertia is expended. James: I guess by inertia you mean kamma, so I agree here also. > > > TG Metta, James #82661 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Disappearing in the Thin air !! .. TGrand458@... Hi Tep In a message dated 2/13/2008 11:23:22 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi TG, - Thank you for initiating a conversation with me. >TG: The term "self" here is deeper than that. The Buddha said -- "All things are not self." He did not just merely say -- all persons have no self. T: Do you mind if I ask : what do you understand "self" to be? .......................................................... NEW TG: There is no such thing as a self. But the delusion of self, is in perceiving separate entities in things. This includes animate or inanimate phenomena. ....................................................... .............. >TG: Insight into conditionality destroys self-view of any kind. T: That's very well said, TG. Self-view (attanuditthi) of any kind lacks the right wisdom. So, when the right wisdom (sammappaññaya) arises, self-view must be destroyed. But I doubt if the person (or persons) you used to see and talk to would just disappear in the thin air after you've got that insight!! .............. ................................................................. NEW TG: As I said earlier...the term "person" leads to confusion. Now...an arahat, if I may be so bold, would have THE DELUSION OF A SELF disappear into thin air (as you say.) The phenomena that constitutes the "sentient system" (person) is no different then it ever was, except for aging. There never was self there in the first place. Just the delusion of self. The term "person" is meaningless. To most with delusion it means a self or self-same-entity. To others crawling out from delusion, it just means conditionality phenomena. ........................................................ >TG: "A person" arises conascent with delusion and is propagated by that. When the delusion dies, so does the ability to propagate "a person." The remnants die out after the inertia is expended. T: Are you saying that arahants do not see people (e.g. upasikas who donate foods and robes, and other monks in the temple)? If you ask an arahant a question, can he hear you? .................................................. NEW TG: This question is so far off the mark as to what I am saying or meaning, that I can only apologize to you for not being able to more clearly express my meaning. Suffice it to say that I don't mean anything at all as to what you have expressed above. TG OUT #82662 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] for TGRAND458 &Dhammasaro/and everybody... buddhatrue Hi Howard and Bhante, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Dear Bhante - > > In a message dated 2/13/2008 4:34:40 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > reverendaggacitto@... writes: > > Hi everyone! > First let me say thanks to Alex who gave me the most comprehensive > answer! > The fact that we canot understand the nature of something by simply > declaring it to be "self" or "noself" was EXACTLY my point! > > My disagreement with the strictly "noself" and "NOTHING BUT NOSELF" > type of view is that at that level, abandoning the "conventional" and > embracing nothing but "ultimate" dhamma can be used too easily to > turn what we now know today as "Buddhism" into some sort of > subjectively defineable philosophy. > If we are NOTHING BUT phenomana arising, existing, and ceasing to > exist,then certain moral questions are no longer relevent! > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > WHY? Pain and distress are real. I experience them (i.e., they occur in > the aggregation of phenomena I call "me"), and I have no doubt they occur in > the aggregation I call "you," and I regret distress wherever it occurs and > make efforts to dispel it and certainly try not to contribute to it. That > persons are nothing but aggregations of material and mental phenomena doesn't make > them unworthy of moral treatment. Why would you think so? (Does the chemist > think that because a bench is a collection of molecules it is any the less > suitable for sitting?) James: Well, this is the interesting part. If people are nothing but impersonal namas and rupas, then there should be no moral consequence for killing them. After all, if you break a rock (rupa) up into a million little pieces, there is no negative kamma from that. And if people are in a room and you turn off the lights so they can't see, thus ending visual consciousness (nama), there is no negative kamma from that. But if you kill a person, there is negative kamma from that. Why is that so? It's something to consider. Metta, James #82663 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Trivial Pursuit lbidd2 Hi Colette, Yes, hatred is empty. Hatred arises and ceases. It is just a phenomenon. It isn't me, even if I think it is me. Middle way hatred is empty of an experiencable characteristic in that it is dependent on a body. Hatred can't arise without a body. There can't be hatred without a body. Where is the heart of that body/mind complex? Where is the essence of it? Nowhere. All relationships have a great big hole in them. Empty. Larry #82664 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] for TGRAND458 &Dhammasaro/and everybody... upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Bhante) - In a message dated 2/13/2008 9:14:23 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: James: Well, this is the interesting part. If people are nothing but impersonal namas and rupas, then there should be no moral consequence for killing them. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I don't agree. ---------------------------------------- After all, if you break a rock (rupa) up into a million little pieces, there is no negative kamma from that. --------------------------------------- Howard: Quite so. In a rock, there is no sentience, and, in particular, no distress, no sorrow, no suffering. --------------------------------------- And if people are in a room and you turn off the lights so they can't see, thus ending visual consciousness (nama), there is no negative kamma from that. --------------------------------------- Howard: That depends on whether it is needed to be able to see, for their safety. ---------------------------------- But if you kill a person, there is negative kamma from that. Why is that so? It's something to consider. ---------------------------------- Howard: It's a simple matter - the matter of causing suffering. ==================== With metta, Howard #82665 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes TGrand458@... Hi James, (Tep) ...................................................................... Impermanence, conditionality, and no-self are all integrally related....affliction too for that matter. I think even the most ignorant people are usually aware the body is not permanent. But it is the taking of the body, or any other perception as a I, me, mine that is the self-view therein. For example, -- "He sees the body as self, or self as in body, or body as in self, or self as possessed of body." (I might have mixed up that last line. I'm not reading the quote but just positing from memory.) Conditionality is the "mechanics" of phenomena. Impermanence and no-self are the consequences or "factors" of those "mechanics." I don't think any one of these factors can be "insightfully" seen without the other factors being seen as well. So I'm not going to argue your point below, but I'm not going to agree with it either. TG ............................................... #82666 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] for TGRAND458 &Dhammasaro/and everybody... TGrand458@... Hi Howard, James I have to agree with Howard completely on this one. If one harms another, one does so with delusion and ignorance as the propagators. Therefore, such actions are not done insightfully. The delusion deepens, generating bad results, because delusion supports the afflicting aspects of the psyche. The argument James is making are also made in the Suttas and the Buddha rebukes such positions. For example..."if one were to take a knife and make a whole town a lump of flesh, etc." There are many other examples too. TG #82667 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 2:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] for TGRAND458 &Dhammasaro/and everybody... TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/13/2008 3:16:27 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: Well, drawing such an invalid conclusion as you draw is certainly dangerous! But tell me - if you believed that a person were nothing but phenomena arising, would you then cheat, steal, and inflict pain? Also, what is it that you believe a person IS or HAS beyond "the all" that the Buddha speaks of in the Sabba Sutta? A soul? The Hindu Atman? Incidentally, you speak of "noself" (a single word) as if it were some thingl There is no such thing. There is no self, and there most assuredly is no "noself". Every conditioned dhamma arises dependently, and it is exactly that which makes it anatta (i.e., lacking self, lacking a core of own being). And nibbana, being beyond all conditions, also lacks self. There is no "noself", there is just a lack of self. Anatta is a negative, not a positive. ....................................................... Hi Howard Very nicely said. I have yet to hear of a murder defendant getting off on the grounds that he or she was merely displacing atoms. ;-) I think this comes down largely on the common sense side of the Buddha. Had the Buddha only "philosophically" understood elements, nonself, etc., without the moral vision as well; then he may have become one of those who believed in no moral consequences. But then, he wouldn't have been the Buddha in that case. The Buddha understood the mind with delusion, and the mind without delusion. And he understood what wholesome states needed to cultivated in order to get from one to the other. And wholesome ethical/moral actions are critical for progressing away from affliction. TG #82668 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:50 pm Subject: Vism XIX, 'Overcoming Doubt' 9 (Conclusion) sarahprocter... Dear Friends, This is the final section of the series of extracts and conclusion from this chapter. 1 I. Introductory 2 II. Ways of discerning cause and condition 3 1. Mentality-materiality is neither causeless nor created by a Maker 5 2. Its occurrence is always due to conditions 7 3. General and particular conditions 11 4. Dependent cessation 12 5. Dependent origination 19 6. Kamma and kamma-result 25 Conclusion ***** 23. 'Just as eye consciousness comes next Following on mind element, Which, though it does not come from that, Yet fails not next to be produced, So too, in rebirth-linking, conscious Continuity takes place: The prior consciousness breaks up, The subsequent is born from that, They have no interval between, Nor gap [that separates the two]; While naught whatever passes over, Still rebirth-linking comes about.' 24. When all states are understood by him thus in accordance with death and rebirth-linking, his knowledge of discerning the conditions of mentality-materiality is sound in all its aspects and the sixteen kinds of doubt are more effectively abandoned. And not only that, but the eight kinds of doubt that occur in the way beginning thus 'He is doubtful about the Master' (A.ii,248; Dhs.1004) are abandoned too, and the sixty-two kinds of views are suppressed (See D.Sutta 1 and M.Sutta 102). .... S: By understanding the arising of present dhammas due to conditions, there is no more doubt about death and rebirth. It's clear that there is continuity of cittas (consciousness) like now, without any interval or self involved. Furthermore, the 62 wrong views as elaborated on in the Brahmajala Sutta 'are suppressed', but eradicated at the stage of sotapanna. The course is right and firm at this stage of 'lesser sotapanna' (cuula sotaapanna). There is no questioning or uncertainty about the understanding of dhammas as explained by the Buddha and found in the Teachings. (Note, this doesn't mean there are no questions. It means there is no doubt about the nature of namas and rupas or of their arising by conditions as taught by the Buddha. Of course there will still be doubts about aspects not yet experienced, such as nibbana) .... 25. The knowledge that has been established by the overcoming of doubt about the three periods of time by discerning the conditions of mentality-materiality according to the various methods should be understood as 'Purification by Overcoming Doubt'. Other terms for it are 'Knowledge of the Relations of States' and 'Correct Knowledge' and 'Right Vision'. 26. For this is said: 'Understanding of discernment of conditions thus "Ignorance is a condition, formations are conditionally arisen, and both these states are conditionally arisen" is knowledge of the causal relationship of states' (Ps.i,50) and: 'When he brings to mind as impermanent, what states does he correctly know and see? How is there right seeing? How, by inference from that, are all formations clearly seen as impermanent? Wherein is doubt abandoned? When he brings to mind as painful, ... When he brings to mind as not-self, what states does he correctly know and see? ... Wherein is doubt abandoned? 'When he brings to mind as impermanent, he correctly knows and sees the sign. Hence "right seeing" is said. Thus, by inference from that, all formations are clearly seen as impermanent. Herein doubt is abandoned. When he brings to mind as painful, he correctly knows and sees occurrence. Hence ... When he brings to mind as not-self, he correctly knows and sees the sign and occurrence. Hence "right seeing" is said. Thus by inference from that, all states are clearly seen as not self. Herein doubt is abandoned. .... S: [The Pali for the last paragraph above is: < Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (39) sarahprocter... Dear Connie (& Han), I meant to ask you a question before now... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" wrote: > > Dear Han, > I've read that all the precepts are based on non harming, so when we also read truth is most important, i think about truth being the safeguard or refuge. .... S: Yes, I understand both of these in the same way. Can you give me a reference for the precepts based on non-harming? In particular, do you (or anyone) have a reference for killing and other precepts including all kinds of non-harming? This topic came up briefly in India. I have a cold and we're travelling tomorrow, so apologies for not replying to anything new. I'd like to just catch up with some of my back-log now. Metta, Sarah ====== #82671 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:17 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes buddhatrue Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > Hi James, (Tep) > > ...................................................................... > > > > Impermanence, conditionality, and no-self are all integrally > related....affliction too for that matter. James: Impermanence is a condition for non-self and suffering. Impermanence is the factor listed first and the forerunner. Conditionality relates to all three, of course. > > > I think even the most ignorant people are usually aware the body is not > permanent. James: I don't think so. Usually it isn't until one reaches old age that he/she finally begins to accept that the body isn't permanent. Or maybe if one suffers chronic illness at a younger age. But a young, healthy person usually has the illusion that the body is permanent. But it is the taking of the body, or any other perception as a I, me, > mine that is the self-view therein. James: Right, but that goes along with the believe that they are permanent. One doesn't take for "self" what they really know is impermanent (and I don't mean theoretically know, but REALLY know). That is what the Buddha said in that sutta. Did you read the sutta? > > > For example, -- "He sees the body as self, or self as in body, or body as in > self, or self as possessed of body." (I might have mixed up that last line. > I'm not reading the quote but just positing from memory.) > > > Conditionality is the "mechanics" of phenomena. Impermanence and no-self > are the consequences or "factors" of those "mechanics." I don't think any one > of these factors can be "insightfully" seen without the other factors being > seen as well. James: Actually, according to the texts, one can use impermanence as a vehicle, non-self as a vehicle, or dukkha as a vehicle. When one penetrates to the truth of one, then all three are seen. I haven't read anywhere about using all three as a vehicle at once (but it may be somewhere??). So I'm not going to argue your point below, but I'm not going > to agree with it either. James: Huh? Not sure what that means. > > TG Metta, James #82672 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:18 pm Subject: Re: Anatta as a strategy sarahprocter... Dear Scott, Another oldie...(#80906) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > Just to clarify, regarding Atthasaalinii (p.p.222-223): > > "Jhaana is twofold: that which (views or) examines closely the object > and that which examines closely the characteristic marks > [aaramma.nupanijjhaana~n ca lakkha.nupanijjhaana.m]. Of these > two, 'object-scrutinising' jhaana examines closely those devices [for > self-hypnosis] as mental objects. Insight, the Path and Fruition are > called 'characteristics-examining jhaana.' Of these three, insight is > so called from its examining closely the characteristics of > impermanence, etc. Because the work to be done by insight is > accomplished through the Path, the Path is so called. And because > Fruition examines closely the Truth of cessation, and possesses the > characteristic of truth, it also is called 'characteristic-examining > jhaana.' Of these two kinds of jhaana, the 'object-examining' mode is > here intended. Hence, from the examining the object and extinguishing > the opposing Hindrances, jhaana is to be thus understood." > > Scott: I'm pursuing the meaning of the above noted Pali terms. See > the PTS PED entries below: > > "Upanijjhaana (nt.) [upa + nijjhaana1] meditation, reflection, > consideration only in two phrases: aaramma.nupanijjhaana & > lakkha.naupanijjhaana, with ref. to jhaana...Cp. nijjhaayana." > > "Nijjhaana1 (nt)...understanding, insight, perception, comprehension; > favour, indulgence (=nijjhaapana), pleasure, delight..." > > Scott: Here this seems to suggest that a certain kind of thinking is > related to jhaana, and likely not thinking that is like what I'm doing > right now. .... S: No, not what you're doing right now! it has nothing to do with daily thinking. At moments of either mundane or surpramundane jhana, the citta and cetasikas experience the object with 'absorption'. ... >I think (ha ha) that I'd like to turn to a look at Right > Thinking in the next few days, and so, will do so. It does 'follow' > on from Right View, which I looked at a few months ago. Vitakka and > vicaara are thinking which accompany the early stages of jhaana. ... S: Again, whether it is these mundane jhanas or supramundane cittas, the samma ditthi (right understanding) is accompanied by vitakka which supports and assists them 'touch' the object. It is right 'touching'. The higher jhanas don't need this assistance. So, if the higher jhanas are succeeded by enlightenment, there is no samma sankappa ('right' vitakka). ..... > I'm > interested in learning of the conditions which 'perpetuate' the > arising of these dhammas. It seems one 'thinks' constantly. There > must be kusala, akusala (and probably 'neutral') thinking. .... S: There is vitakka (and vicara) arising with almost every citta. What we take for 'thinking' involves many cittas, cetasikas and mind-door processes. There is none of this conventional thinking at moments of jhana cittas. The condition for the growth of samma sankappa is the growth of right understanding. This all looks a bit unclear, but I'm going to move on with other replies and let you sort it out:-). Metta, Sarah ========= #82673 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (39) buddhatrue Hi Sarah and Han, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > I have a cold and we're travelling tomorrow, so apologies for not > replying to anything new. I'd like to just catch up with some of my > back-log now. Sorry to hear that you are both sick. Hope you get well soon! Sarah, when I read that you and Jon were swimming in the freezing waters off Hong Kong during Chinese New Year I thought you might get sick! Goodness, please, stay out of the cold waters! Here in Taiwan, I am freezing to death! It wasn't nearly this cold last winter! Brrrrrrr..... :-) Metta, James #82674 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg]To Sarah: Report on the Meeting at the Foundation (7) sarahprocter... Hi Tep, (Alex & all) Back to #79192 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > T: If "the substantial part of the Patisambhidamagga was elaborated > in the 3rd century B.C." , then how could "the last main stage of > composition of the Patisambhidamagga" take place in the early or mid- > > 2nd century B.C.? > ... > S: The way I read it was that there were several main stages (the > most substantial being the 3rd century one). > ........... > > T: But, how much confidence do you have on the dates of historical > events when the author used lots of words like "maybe", "this would > mean", "this appears", "took place in ... or ..." ? .... S: Whether the Psm was elaborated/composed/finalised in the 2nd or 3rd century BC makes no difference to me at all. I have confidence that the Buddha's knowledge was expounded or elaborated on by a disciple like Sariputta. I believe the text has been checked and recited at the early councils by other great arahants, so that even those parts which are beyond my ability to comprehend are in conformity with the Buddha's word and are thereby Buddha-vacana. Unlike some friends here, such as Alex, what I read in this text, the Abhidhamma and ancient commentaries, seems to support and elaborate on the suttas in a way I find extremely helpful. I think you find the same. Metta, Sarah ======= #82675 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (39) sarahprocter... Hi James & all, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Sorry to hear that you are both sick. Hope you get well soon! > > Sarah, when I read that you and Jon were swimming in the freezing > waters off Hong Kong during Chinese New Year I thought you might get > sick! Goodness, please, stay out of the cold waters! Here in Taiwan, > I am freezing to death! It wasn't nearly this cold last winter! > Brrrrrrr..... :-) .... S: thanks for your good wishes, James. Yes, it's been very, very cold for Hong Kong for the last few weeks. None of us are properly equipped for cold weather. Yes, my swim on Sunday may have almost killed me off:-). Anyway, it's just a cold and I'm sure I'll be fine when I get warm in Bangkok! Han is actually in hospital for a few days with an infection. I got a note from his grand-daughter and a phone number, so I called him in hospital yesterday. He seems confident it'll soon be cleared up. I hope he doesn't mind me mentioning it, but I can see there is some general concern. Metta, Sarah ========= #82676 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] for TGRAND458 &Dhammasaro/and everybody... buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > But if you kill a person, there is negative kamma from > that. Why is that so? It's something to consider. > ---------------------------------- > Howard: > It's a simple matter - the matter of causing suffering. James: Right! So, it is a being who suffers, not impersonal namas/rupas (which I think is the point the Venerable was making). Additionally, the kamma comes from intention. One intends to kill a being, not just end impersonal namas and rupas. When one views anatta as no-being, it is perversion of the Dhamma and can lead to immoral actions. Metta, James #82677 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism Ch XIX- Purification by Overcoming Doubt- Intro kenhowardau Hi Larry, OK, so I looked at my computer and it was black and grey. Now let's see what you had in mind. ------------------ <. . .> L: > You might say, "But I didn't experience an ultimate reality". ------------------ According to the Dhamma I am experiencing ultimate realities all the time. So why did you want me to perform that particular "looking" exercise? ------------------------------- L: > Doesn't matter. We begin with the big stuff and if our faculties become more sensitive more subtle realities will become evident. ------------------------------- No, our faculties (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, thinking) are perfectly sensitive now, thanks all the same. If they weren't we would be bumping into things, not knowing what were eating, and that sort of thing. Seeing-consciousness (e.g.) is contacting visible object now while I am typing at the computer, and mind door consciousness is thinking "computer screen, keyboard, words, Larry, DSG, . . ." All the relevant dhammas are arising, performing their functions and disappearing in strict accordance with the laws of the universe. There is no need to sharpen them. The only thing that is needed is right understanding. At best, we uninstructed worldlings have no understanding at all and, at worst, we have wrong understanding. We need right understanding! ----------------- L: > You might think that recognizing a color is inconsequential. Maybe so, but recognizing tension in your chest when you become angry could, given the right conditions, become the beginning of differentiating nama and rupa, and it could afford a slight glimpse that that tension is not me. ----------------- I wonder why you see the latter exercise (aka formal practice) as being more relevant than the former. When I am seeing there is nama and rupa (seeing-consciousness and visible object) isn't there? Also when walking, talking, eating, . . . . In fact, in every moment of daily life there are namas and rupas arising and falling away. (Or am I missing your point?) ------------------------- L: > This insight can happen whether the tension is a micro dot of experience or something large and complicated. When insight strikes it makes an impact. That is how you tell if it is insight, not by how ultimately quintessential the object is. ------------------------- The insight that knows nama as distinct from rupa and rupa as distinct from nama can arise at any time. It depends on how much Dhamma we know, not on any idea of "looking" or "trying to have insight." ---------------------------------- L: > I agree completely that it is unlikely that anyone will prompt an insight. ---------------------------------- Ah! This makes me think that I am missing your point. Never mind, press on: ------------------- L: > But it does happen. I believe it happened to Sariputta. ------------------- Do you think so? Sariputta became enlightened as soon as he heard a few words of Dhamma, which doesn't sound like "weak or hesitant" citta to me. But maybe you don't accept that definition of prompted. (?) --------------------- L: > He heard a sutta and that prompted the arising of major serious insight. --------------------- I would say hearing the Dhamma was a condition for Sariputta's enlightenment, but I don't think we should especially regard it as a prompt. If that was the meaning of "prompted" I think we would read a lot more about prompted-citta in the texts than we do now. ----------------- L: > But one can prompt the arising of recognition of experience and that is a step in the right direction. ----------------- I hate to disagree (as you know) but whenever someone is saying "look" or "listen" or "follow these instructions and you will become enlightened" there is wrong view. Enlightenment is for dhammas, not for sentient beings. --------------------------------- L: > I am not saying that you _should_ do this, but rather that you _can_ do this. --------------------------------- Hmmm! Conditioned dhammas can do it when the conditions for them to do it are in place. Are you saying anything more than that? If so, I would be highly suspicious. :-) ----------------- L: > If you want to translate that sentence into ultimate realities so there is no hint of control, fine. But recognize that the idea behind no control is not to impede action, but rather to see that there is no control in any action. ----------------- You are in dangerous territory, Larry. This reminds of many opinions we see here at DSG to the effect that anatta makes no practical difference. Some people think there is a conventional path up until the stage of enlightenment, at which point anatta suddenly becomes relevant. Enough said about that sort of nonsense! ----------------------- L: > I have touched on many points here so why don't you gather all your objections into one point and we could discuss that. ----------------------- Too late, I've answered them one at a time! :-) I suppose, to sum up: the idea of looking at my computer in order to have insight contradicts the understanding that insight can (provided the conditions are in place) be conditioned to arise at any time. That is what the Satipatthana Sutta tells us isn't it? And who would want to contradict the Satipatthana Sutta? :-) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > Okay, you have looked at your computer and determined that it is black > and grey. This little back and forth we have been having is an example > of attempts to prompt a prompted consciousness. Most of the attempts > failed and one succeeded. The one that succeeded wasn't all that > difficult but it is important because it prompted a consciousness that > recognized experience in an impersonal and accurate way. > > #82678 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:39 pm Subject: Re: the present moment. sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > S: As I have the Atthasalini open, for those who would like to hear > more > > detail again ( > >>> > > That is the problem, Sarah. The AA is a commentary written by someone > living AFTER the Buddha - thus has NO AUTHORITY IF IT DOESN'T AGREE > WITH THE SUTTAS. .... S: Agreed - it has no authority if it doesn't agree with the suttas (and Buddha-vacana). As far as I'm concerned (and as far as the Great Councils of Theravada elders were concerned), it does conform with the Buddha's word, with the Dhamma-Vinaya. We'll just have to agree to differ on all these aspects, Alex. Rather than going round and round in circles, I think it might be more profitable to test which of the realities can be proved at this moment. For example, is there seeing now? Is there visible object now? Is there attachment to what is seen? Is there any self involved? Is there any computer involved? Metta, Sarah ======== #82679 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:43 pm Subject: Re: Buddha refutes no self-agency, no other-agency, no initiative! sarahprocter... Hi Alex, (re #81855) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > --- The Gradual Sayings Vol.3 Book of 6s page 237 > text iii, 355, VI, IV, 38 > viii (38). Self-acting. > > > "This Master Gotama, is my avowal, this my view: There is no self- > agency; no other-agency' > > Never, brahmin, have I seen or heard of such an avowal, such a view, <....> > WOW!!!!!!! Here the Buddha refuted a certain viewpoint, quite > strongly... .... S: If you have time, please take a look at these past messages on this sutta: From U.P.: Attakaaa sutta, (Self Acting),AN 6s, viii (38) 48434, 48443, 49677, 66317, 72573, 81926 ***** Metta, Sarah ======== #82680 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 10:54 pm Subject: Re: Seeing present moment. 11 surefire things for Liberation sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Back to #82182 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > I've read a wonderful sutta MN52. There Ananda says of 11 ways of > achieving ultimate freedom. > > --- > There is the case, householder, 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 reflects on this and > discerns, 'This first jhana is fabricated & intended. Now whatever is > fabricated & intended is inconstant & subject to cessation.' Staying > right there, he reaches the ending of the mental fermentations. <...> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.052.than.html <...> > Furthermore in MN64, mn111, AN9.36 it shows the sort of "seeing of > present realities" that happens in Jhana ... S: The object of jhana is not the 'seeing of present realities'. The object of jhana is one of the 40 objects of samatha, such as a kasina. The wise understanding and reflection on jhana states occurs subsequently during the reviewing process and by subsequent moments of insight. As Scott wrote to you before (#80492) "Scott: In MN111 (~Naa.namoli/Bodhi trs.): "And the states in the first jhaana - the applied thought, the sustained thought, the rapture, the pleasure, and the unification of mind; the contact, feeling, perception, volition, and mind; the zeal, decision, energy, mindfulness, equanimity, and attention - these states were defined by him one by one as they occurred; known to him those states arose, known the were present, known they disappeared. He understood thus: 'So indeed, these states, not having been, come into being; having been, they vanish.' Regarding those states, he abided unattracted, unrepelled, independent, detached, free, dissociated, with a mind rid of barriers. He understood: 'There is an escape beyond,' and with the cultivation of that [attainment], he confirmed that there is." .... S: These states were known after they had fallen away. With the development of insight, there has to be the development of detachment towards any dhammas which arise since all conditioned dhammas fall away. None are worth clinging to or desiring/seeking. Metta, Sarah ========= #82681 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:07 pm Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... sarahprocter... Hi James (& Howard), Back to #81216. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Howard and Sarah, > > I want to revisit a very complicated thread from last month. We three > were discussing the meaning of sankhara and dhamma in the Buddha's > teaching of: > > Sabbe sankhara anicca (All Formations are impermanent) > Sabbe sankhara dukkha (All Formations are suffering) > Sabbe dhamma anatta (All phenomenon are non-self) > > Both of you seemed to be in agreement with each other as to the > meaning of sankhara and dhammas but in disagreement with me. .... S: Thank you for your extra comments and the quote from Nanavira. Just a couple of brief comments. > James: Sankharas are fabrications and therefore can be sub- divided. Dhammas are phenomenon and therefore cannot be sub-divided. ... S: Whether we are looking at sankharas as referring to all conditioned dhammas (as in 'all formations are anicca' above), or whether (as in D.O.) they are just referring to kamma (cetana cetasika leading to results) or to sankhara khandha (all cetasikas except sanna and vedana), they refer to dhammas, realities, formations. I think the term 'fabrications' can be mis-leading as it suggests something thought up or conceptual. The realities, the sankharas cannot be sub-divided. Cetana cetasika cannot be divided, for example. The same applies to all other dhammas (realities). .... >J: However, today, I checked out a link which Rahula provided to the > writings of Ven. Nanavira and, through detailed analysis, he defines > these two terms used in this phrase in basically the same way I do > (although you may not agree with him, I feel good that at least I am > not completely out of my depth on this subject ;-)): > > REGARDING SANKHARA: > > "Sankhárá are first, volitions; secondly, what form the formed; and > thirdly, the five aggregates, the living being. Volitions, thus, are > what form the formed; and what is formed is the living being. .... S: This is where we differ already. Nanavira thinks a living being is formed and that somehow this is sankhara. I'd say, the 5 khandhas are formed up, conditioned and there is no living being anywhere. .... > Combining these, we get a single phrase, 'volitions form the living > being', which covers all three meanings. This we shall take as > expressing the general sense of sankhárá. .... S: I'm sure you're not out of your depth on the subject, James, but I'm afraid I can't agree with your company:-). Thank you for the trouble you went to in going over the thread and sharing the extract with us. Apologies for the delay. Metta, Sarah ====== #82682 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:22 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Absorption 'Concentration' Vs Buddha's wise Jhanic Ecstasy sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > S: In that case let's talk absolute dhammas for a change. In > absolute terms, what do you mean when you say 'do Jhana'? Who or > what 'does Jhana'? .... >A: Who does Jhana and what temporarily happens in Jhana: > > The Blessed One said, "And which is the burden? 'The five clinging- > aggregates,' it should be said. Which five? Form as a clinging- > aggregate, feeling as a clinging-aggregate, perception as a clinging- > aggregate, fabrications as a clinging-aggregate, consciousness as a > clinging-aggregate. This, monks, is called the burden. > > "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be > said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is > called the carrier of the burden. <...> S: See B.Bodhi's note from the commentary and this extract I wrote before (in #46426): "Spk: Thus, by the expression 'the carrier of the burden,' he shows the person to be a mere convention. For the person is called the carrier of the burden because it 'picks up' the burden of the aggregates at the moment of rebirth, maintains the burden by bathing, feeding, seating, and laying them down during the course of life, and then discards them at the moment of death, only to take up another burden of aggregates at the moment of rebirth." .... S: I think we should read suttas like this in the context of all the other suttas in Khandhasa.myutta which stress again and again that the only conditioned dhammas which exist at this very moment are the 5 khandhas, no separate person. SN22:94 Flowers: "And what is it, bhikkhus, that the wise in the world agree upon as existing, of which I too say that it exists? Form that is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists. Feeling ...Perception...Volitional formations...Consciousness that is is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change: this the wise in the world agree upon as existing, and I too say that it exists." .... >A: Regarding the "Absolute" terms. I have suspicions that > this "philosophizing" was not meant to be done by the Buddha. > Remember, thoughts such as "Do I exist? Do I not exist, Am I? Am I > not?" (mn2) are not profitable. Rather, thoughts dealing with 4NT > ARE. .... S: Yes, so while you insist on including a Self that attains Jhana, develops the path and so on, (which you can only do by insisting that the commentaries have it all wrong), you are failing to understand what the 1st Noble Truth is pointing to, i.e the unsatisfactoriness of impermanent dhammas, not any suffering of a person carrying a burden. Metta, Sarah ======== #82683 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:49 pm Subject: Re: My Understanding of Ajahn Sujin's Interpretation of the Dhamma/... buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahprocterabbott" wrote: > S: This is where we differ already. Nanavira thinks a living being is > formed and that somehow this is sankhara. I'd say, the 5 khandhas are > formed up, conditioned and there is no living being anywhere. > .... Yes, I know that you believe that. I believe that if you define sankhara as dhamma, you miss the point. Hope you get well in Thailand! Metta, James #82684 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] mindfulness and concentration sarahprocter... Hi Robert A (& Tep), Robert, I hope you're still checking in. You were discussing the passage in MN 44 under 'Concentration'. I joined in and you asked me to elaborate. I apologise for only now taking out the sutta: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" wrote: > > S: The passage is talking about satipatthana and samadhi in the context > of > > the 8fold Path. So, as I understand, satipatthana leads to the > > understanding of what samaadhinimitta is. .... > Robert A: > Actually, the paragraph says "the development of concentration", which > seems pretty clear. How do you get from the development of > concentration to the understanding of what samaadhinimitta is? What is > wrong with just reading it as developing concentration? .... S: The previous paragraph was about the 8fold Path, so firstly, I read this one to be about concentration in that context. Also, it is referring to satipatthana, the 4 right efforts and so on. In the development of satipatthana and the 8fold Path, it is the development of understanding of various dhammas, including the other path factors which have to be known. Through this understanding, the right concentration develops too. This is how I see it, but it is a difficult passage. I'd like to read the full commentary. ***** On a completely different topic, you asked in #80974 whether A.Sujin emphasized "joy and peaced in Dhamma as well as the cold shower"? I think there's joy and peace in Dhamma when we appreciate there's nothing to worry or be upset about because there are only elements that we take so very seriously. Usually we're lost in our worries and concerns or else in our fantasies. On the contrary, understanding visible object and other dhammas for what they are is very joyful and liberating. So, I think the Dhamma as we read it (and as elaborated on by A.Sujin) is joyful and uplifting. Sometimes our deep-rooted clinging to Self doesn't always let go, however. Metta, Sarah ====== #82685 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:05 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Lessons in Detachment, Ch 5, no 2. sarahprocter... Hi Alex, Back to #81835 and silabbataparamasa ... > > S: ....as Alex says a sotapanna cannot have even the most subtle > of > > silabbataparamasa, such as a subtle trying to have more sati. ... >A: What is silabbataparamasa? Trying to have more Sati? .... S: I take it to mean any idea of a special action or way of thinking to bring about certain states with an underlying idea of self, however subtle. Now the tendency is there for all who are not sotapannas. When the wrong view of self has been eradicated, there cannot be any more idea of trying to do something to have sati arise because there is no doubt at all that it arises by conditions anytime and not by a self's efforts. ... > > Anyhow a sotapanna STILL has conceit, restlessness, lust , anger, > subtle Avijja, desire for Rupa/Arupa worlds or Jhanas. ... S: Yes. However, there is no doubt that rupa and arupa jhanas are conditioned dhammas as well. ... > > Even ANAGAMIN has feeling of "I AM", nothing to say of a Sotapanna. .. S: There is conceit, there is attachment, but no idea of self or person at all in any ultimate sense. ... > > Sarakani failed in training and was given to drink (either before he > became a Sotapanna or even WHEN he was a Sotapanna). ... S: Just prior to becoming a sotapanna. Impossible for a sotapanna to deliberately take to drink. ... > > A sotapanna simply doesn't recognize on an intellectual level > anything as a Self or Belonging to self. ... S: Through insight, not intellect. ... > > A sotapanna on the contrary, will soon enough, (<7 lives) STRIVE VERY > HARD to reach Nibbana. Strive very hard and DEVELOP the Noble 8 fold > path along with 7 factors of Awakening. ... S: Conditioned dhammas, Alex. Conditions for the 4 right efforts to develop with insight. In truth, no being, no sotapanna to do anything. ... >Only an Arahant or certain > misled Pujjanas do not believe in results of actions (kamma). .... S: An arahant has the greatest confidence in kamma and its results. However, he also knows that for those who have fully eradicated all defilements, there is no new kamma. ... > > Those who teach no actions, no efforts, no beings, are following a > heretical teaching and that wrong view will make 'em suffer for a > long time. The worst criminals can use that as an excuse. Never an > Ariya. ... S: See above. Metta, Sarah ======= #82686 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Asoka, Ch 6, no 6. sarahprocter... Hi Dieter, Back to #81178. You'll have seen that it's not only your messages that I'm very slow to respond to:). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Hi Sarah ( Jon and Nina), > > thanks for your nice new year wishes which I like to return to you heartedly. > The way you are managing the list is an example for kindness and patience with freedom of expression when different views are clashing. .... S: :-). Thx Dieter. Lots of praise and blame, I assure you...We try to keep any 'managing' as inconspicuous as possible and let everyone help in sorting out any clashes through team-work. Thx for your assistance in such help. ... <...> > D: as I am concerned the sutta quotations I refered too , was mainly for the purpose to show the necessity of the N.P. training , i.e. sila, samadhi, panna, each sequence providing the support for the other (the latter for release) . > Whereas we certainly don't disagree about the sila part (path element 3,4,5), the aspects > of samadhi , i.e. right effort, right míndfulness and right concentration) have been - so my impression- always been a dispute of DSG. > Whether that is due to a view generally shared by 'Abhidhammikas' or to A.S.'s interpretation I am not sure yet , likewise how difficult it is for example for you to have a break of thinking , ie. to be quite on will.. (?) .... S: Yes, there are always different understandings about samma- samadhi. I don't quite understand your last phrase above. ... > > Cruicial seems to me the point of anatta and the use of ultimate truth of Non Self being an argument for non action towards panna ( as there is no I/self , how can there be any useful action e.g. for meditation ). (?) .... S: Yes, I agree that the point of anatta is crucial here. As for 'non- action towards panna', it depends what we mean here. Yes, I understand bhavana (meditation) always has to be at this moment. When there is any idea of doing anything for understanding at another moment, we forget about anatta. ... > Besides that the canonical guidelines for the training are questioned , the gradual progress of detachment ( from self identification) is neglected. .... S: You'd have to elaborate on this Dieter. ... > That we may not believe anymore in a Self ( e.g. by beginning to understand the conditioning or the dependent oigination ) does not mean that we are liberated from the I delusion, our clinging since such long time. .... S: Well said. ... > We need to work with what is available to us..with the described strategy towards the ultimate truth.. ... S: Again, you'd have to elaborate on this and what you mean here by 'we' and 'strategy'. Metta, Sarah ============ #82687 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] thoughts on practice sarahprocter... Hi Larry (& Nina), > >L: Didn't you give a series on the insight knowledges or the various > > stages of purification > > sometime in the past year? I looked but couldn't find it. If you > > have a date that would be > > helpful. Which post to Tep are you referring to? > ------- > N: Do you mean my Letters on Vipassana? See Zolag. .... S: Also see 'Stages of Insight' in 'Useful Posts' (in the files). Metta, Sarah ======= #82688 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:32 am Subject: Re: thoughts on practice sarahprocter... Hi Larry, Back to #81130. (the last one was back to #81180) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Larry: I think concentration cetasika limits the flow of objects from moment to moment to > just one object whether concept or reality. With a jhana type concentration or mindfulness > practice there is a deliberate attempt to stay with that one object or one type of object > such as breath for some time, but there also seems to be a clarity factor that may not > entail staying with one object. .... S: By conditions, there is the 'focussing' or concentrating on a particular object, repeatedly in the case of jhanas. It's always by conditions, not self making a deliberate attempt. .... >I don't know exactly how to account for this clarity factor in > abhidhamma terms. What it refers to is 'being in the moment' rather than clinging to > projections of past or future. I think it can arise with either kusala or akusala cittas, but > maybe not. .... S: Yes, there can be kusala or akusala deep concentration and focus. In the case of akusala cittas, no calm, no right understanding of course. The jhana factors, such as vitakka and vicara, arise with both. ... >If it arises only with kusala cittas it might be an aspect of panna or sati. It is > definitely necessary for insight. .... S: When there is insight, the concentration is momentary, but of course there is 'clarity' with the understanding and other factors, such as concentration. This would be true even if conventionally speaking there appeared to be no clarity, such as while looking for lost keys. ... <...> > Larry: I agree. My point was mostly a translation issue with reference to conventional > usage of the word "mindfulness". It seems to me that what we usually mean by "being > mindful" is more about concentration than remembering the dhamma. ... S: Good. ... <...> > Larry: Not exactly insight knowledge. In tender insight there is a good deal of > remembering what we learned in abhidhamma class. We can discuss this further in Htoo's > thread. It would be good to understand why tender insight isn't insight knowledge. .... S: First of all, tender insight (the first 3 vipassana nanas) are insight knowledge. When you refer to 'remembering.....abhidhamma class', it makes it sound like some rote learning or at best pariyatti. Insight is direct understanding of namas and rupas, nothing to do with book knowledge. (I'm sure this has been clarified by now). <...> > I've enjoyed discussing this too but I have to say, thinking about concentration is a bit of a > hindrance ;-) ... S: Why? For insight, only wrong view is a hindrance:-). Even thinking can be known as a conditioned dhamma when it arises. Btw, I apologise if I went a little quickly through the Vism chapter. I thought it would be difficult for me to continue after our trip, so wished to finish it first and let you handle all the questions while I was away:-)). Thanks anyway for your encouragement and I'll look forward to reading the last chapters with you and those you persuade to assist. Metta, Sarah ===== #82689 From: "colette" Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 11:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Trivial Pursuit ksheri3 Hi Larry, YES, I agree that hatred is dependent, however, I've found that in my roomates behaviortheir clinging to hatred is their own choice of actions. One roomate chooses to ALWAYS SPEAK TO ME OF HATRED: it is mostly her hatred of me then changes toward her hatred of everything and everybody, mostly it stays to her hatred of me. It has to be a learned behavior. The constitiuent factors involved in manifesting this hatred are what matters since they are EXTERNAL and she sees them as INTERNAL. Her addiction to "novelas" or soap operas is a great example of the force she believes are beneficial: she sees the behavior in a scripted text book called the television where everything comes out perfectly to make the example the text is trying to teach; she however internalises this external example and attempts to get the same results based on the scripted material she saw on the television by actors playing their parts, their roles. Right now she's under the impression that hatred is a vehicle that can be used to gain my trust, gain my favorable opinion, gain something or anything from me. <...> Hatred is not so simple as you put it. I wish it could be! but it isn't and I'm simply observing that situation as we speak. I have made tremendous leaps in getting my life in order if I ever get the income to move out and get my own place. I have gotten soooooooo many drawers in a filing cabinet generally sorted and I'm working on the two drawer unit I have strickly for buddhism. It requires MANY FILES DEVOTED TO DZOGCHEN, MAHAMUDRA, MADHYAMIKA, NYINGMA, the list goes on and on. Tonight I found a four page article on DEPENDENT ORIGINATION which I plan to read as I lay down to begin sleeping and "flying about the cosmos" or the astral. Any ideas of this strange characteristic of HATE and HATRED that I've noticed and began diasecting? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Colette, > > Yes, hatred is empty. Hatred arises and ceases. It is just a phenomenon. > It isn't me, even if I think it is me. > > Middle way hatred is empty of an experiencable characteristic in that it > is dependent on a body. Hatred can't arise without a body. There can't > be hatred without a body. Where is the heart of that body/mind complex? > Where is the essence of it? Nowhere. All relationships have a great big > hole in them. Empty. > > Larry > #82690 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] the present moment sarahprocter... Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > S: Isn't there always just the direct NOW experiencing, regardless of > whether there is currently conceptualizing of any kind, sense- experiencing > or any direct awareness? ... >TG: Sure. I don't understand what that's got to do with anything particularly > Buddhist or otherwise though. > > I was under the impression that when folks in this group were talking about > direct "now" experiencing vs conceptualization that it was in relation to > developing or advancing in the Buddha's teaching. I thought mindfulness was the > issue at hand. .... S: OK, you're using 'experiencing' in the sense of driect awareness with understanding. In any case, there are only ever conditioned experiences now and awareness can only ever be aware of namas or rupas now. ... > > For example, If I reflect on a decomposed corpse, and realize that this (my) > body too will become like that; my mind is liable to engage in various > states. Besides conceptualizing and rationalization of the corpse and comparison > to my body, I might also be mindful of present feelings, bodily postures, etc > and realize that it is this conglomeration of elements, etc. that will die > and decompose. Therefore, the mind is using, consecutively, inferential > activities and direct mindful monitoring of current states. .... S: That's all fine. There are many different kinds of sense door experiences, conceptualizing and possibly direct awareness of realities in between. Satipatthana is the direct understanding and awareness of the realities, no matter whether there is concpetualizing about a corpse or any other set of 'occurrences' taking place. .... >This is one example > of what I mean by BOTH mindfulness and deductive thought as being important > and indeed, necessary to advancing in developing insight. One doesn't just > only conceptualize themselves to enlightenment. Nor does one just only apply > bare awareness as a path to enlightenment. .... S: There can be direct awarenss, no matter what the occasion. I thought Jon wrote very clearly on this in #82331 ... > Its so obvious that the Abhidhamma is this huge conceptual framework of > things to learn/conceptualize as part of the learning process. ... S: I don't really see it like that at all. I think it's just pointing to the dhammas (yes, the dhammas!) which are part of life now as we speak, knowable by the wise. As we read in MN 64, the baby doesn't have any notion of personality or dhammas or rites and rituals, so no sakkaya-ditthi or doubt or silabbataparamasa arises, but the tendency is still there. .... >But it seems like > you guys are afraid to admit that conceptualization plays an important role > in developing insight. Its actually one of the backbones of insight IMO. ... S: We often talk about the importance of pariyatta and how there can be no patipatti without it. This is conceptualisation, but it's right conceptualisation about dhammas appearing now, about the Truths now or the impermanence of namas and rupas as you suggest (I think). Even this consideration now is conceptual and pariyatti if it's accompanied by right understanding. Thanks for your persistence and assistance in helping us all to consider further, TG. Metta, Sarah ======= #82691 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thoughts on practice upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Larry) - In a message dated 2/14/2008 3:32:37 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Larry, Back to #81130. (the last one was back to #81180) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Larry" wrote: > Larry: I think concentration cetasika limits the flow of objects from moment to moment to > just one object whether concept or reality. With a jhana type concentration or mindfulness > practice there is a deliberate attempt to stay with that one object or one type of object > such as breath for some time, but there also seems to be a clarity factor that may not > entail staying with one object. .... S: By conditions, there is the 'focussing' or concentrating on a particular object, repeatedly in the case of jhanas. It's always by conditions, not self making a deliberate attempt. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Sarah, how do jhanas come about? After how many years or lifetimes of studying the Tipitaka will jhanas spontaneously arise? Do people typically enter the jhanas as Road-to-Damascus events, with no preparation but study? How often is it spoken of someone spontaneously "concentrating on a particular object, repeatedly in the case of jhanas"? Are jhanas entered spontaneously and not by intentional meditation in seclusion as taught by such as Ven Gunaratana, Ayya Khema, and the Buddha himself? "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice _jhana_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html\ ) , monks. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you." — _SN 35.145_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.145.than.html) ======================== With metta, Howard #82692 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. nilovg Hi James, Op 14-feb-2008, om 1:57 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > This is not an answer. Is the nimitta a concept or a reality? > > > She repeated that there is the impression of visible object right > > now. She said: "It is this moment." Visible object impinges on the > > eyesense and after it has fallen away, what is left is the > impression > > or sign, nimitta of visible object. > > James: Right. So is that nimitta a concept or a reality? ------- N: I quote from another discussion:< I asked whether this means that one is aware of a concept of that reality. She said yes. But here we have to be carefull with the word concept. It is not in the sense of mind-construct such as a table or a person. It is of a different order, more subtle. We could use the word shadow of a reality. So, we can continue being aware of characteristitcs of dhammas, but now it is clearer that they fall away so fast. It helps to understand their anattaness. We cannot hold them for a moment. She often said: what appears has arisen. And this also means that what has arisen is gone already before we realize it.> Her answering not directly has a m eaning. Not pinpointing with words: concept or reality. She likes us to consider for ourselves the truth. Here is more: < She said: visible object arises and falls away very quickly and the object that just arises vanishes so quickly that we do not know which one is the one that is appearing now. Only a nimitta of it remains. It seems that it lasts for a while. She used the simile of a stick of fire you turn around in a circle and it seems to be a circle of fire. (Ledi Sayadaw mentioned this also). Or it seems that there is one moment that hardness appears. In reality this is not so, there are many moments of hardness arising and falling away. We do not know which one is the present one. There is ruupa-nimitta, vedanaa-nimitta, sa~n~naa-nimitta, sa.nkhaara-nimitta and vi~n~naa.na-nimitta. Only nibbaana is without nimitta, it is animitta.> Nina. #82693 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thoughts on practice nilovg Hi Howard, Op 14-feb-2008, om 10:06 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. > Practice > _jhana_ ------- N: Jhayati: in the Co. is explained here the two kinds of jhaana as recently mentioned : not only jhana of the meditation subjects of samatha, but also contemplating the characteristics of dhammas. 'Practice_jhana_' is a onesided translation and misleading. Nina. #82694 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 13, 2008 8:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thoughts on practice upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/14/2008 4:34:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 14-feb-2008, om 10:06 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. > Practice > _jhana_ ------- N: Jhayati: in the Co. is explained here the two kinds of jhaana as recently mentioned : not only jhana of the meditation subjects of samatha, but also contemplating the characteristics of dhammas. 'Practice_jhana_' is a onesided translation and misleading. Nina. ============================= It's not clear to me what you are saying *should* be the translation. but in any case, what is the point of the Buddha's saying "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings."? I doubt that he is providing a description of local sites! In any case, Nina, do you claim that the Buddha did not urge intentional sitting in meditation to enter the jhanas? Are you claiming that they typically arose without meditation? With metta, Howard #82695 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:48 am Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > > T: In my humble opinion contemplation as used in the suttas is > much > > > more than just 'thinking about'; it is anupassana of the dhammas. > >S: Yes, it is true. .... > T: For example, in the Satipatthana Sutta [MN 10; also, DN 22] the Pali > for contemplation of the body in the body is 'kayanupassana'. > > .... > > S: I agree with your comments. Anupassana refers to direct 'seeing'. > > Thank you for sharing the extract with Pali. .... >Alex: The below extract describes quite well the purpose and what happens > in Buddhist meditation (Jhana. see mn111, mn64, an9.36 for example) > > If you think that meditation is simply blanking out unconsciousness, > then I too agree with you that that "meditation" is non Buddhist and > not insightful. .... S: I've never suggested anything along the 'simply blanking out unconsciousness' lines. ... >A:The "proper" meditation DOES involve insight quite > heavily into "realities" as they happen. ... S: Yes, vipassana bhavana is insight into realities 'as they happen'. It is not a method or strategy as performed or attempted in a particular position on a retreat. Metta, Sarah ===== #82696 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] noble truth sarahprocter... Hi Leo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Leo" wrote: > thanks for reply. i found that it can be translated as: there is > suffering. > also, buddha said that dhamma is at the right time. in some cases > buddha was talking about different happiness. so i see suffering as > one subject and happiness as other. ... S: I see happiness as dukkha too. It also arises and falls away and is thereby unsatisfactory. Metta, Sarah ======= #82697 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:56 am Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes sarahprocter... Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > Scott: No, all of the usual rhetoric aside, this gets me thinking. Ha > ha. At any rate, concepts are dhammaarammanaa, and perhaps this is > the way in which they have their 'reality' - as objects of consciousness. .... S: You're cracking, Scott! (just joking). Yes concepts are objects of consciousness, but they don't have any reality. Also, as suggested by Howard, the fact that they are only experienced in mind-door processes does not in itself make them concepts. Any dhammas other than the 7 rupas experienced through the sense doors can also only be experienced in mind-door processes. Concepts are object condition just because cittas (and cetasikas) experience (or conceptualise) them. It doesn't mean they have any reality of any kind. I know you know all this.... Metta, Sarah ======= #82698 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:13 am Subject: More on series of cittas (citta- viithi) sarahprocter... Dear Howard & Nina, Whilst Quoting from Vism. Ch IV the other day on bodily and mental seclusion, I came across the following which I thought might also be helpful to your discussion of citta-viithi (series of cittas), comparing what is found in Suttanta, Abhidhamma and Vinaya. The text (~Naanamoli translation) had this in Ch IV: "33. the two kinds of concentration is this. The factors are not strong in access. It is because they are not strong that when access has arisen, the mind now makes the sign its object and now re-enters the life-continuum, {13} ...." .... This is the note to {13} "{13}. Bhava'nga (life-continuum lit. constituent of becoming) and javana (impulsion) are first mentioned in this work at Ch.I,§57 (see n.16); this is the second mention. "The 'cognitive series (citta-viithi)' so extensively used here is unknown as such in the Pi.takas. Perhaps the seed from which it sprang may exist in, say, such passages as 'Due to eye and to visible data eye consciousness arises. The coincidence of the three is contact. With contact as condition there is feeling. What he feels he perceives. What he perceives he thinks about. What he thinks about he diversifies [by means of craving, pride and false view] ... Due to mind and to mental data ...' (M.i,111), and 'Is the eye permanent or impermanent'? ... Are visible objects permanent or impermanent? ... Is the mind permanent or impermanent? Are mental data ... Is mind consciousness ... Is mind contact ... Is any feeling, any perception, any formation, any consciousness, ... that arises with mind contact as condition permanent or impermanent ...' (M.iii,279) and 'These five faculties [of eye, etc.,] each with its separate objective field and no one of them experiencing as its objective field the province of any other, have mind as their refuge, and mind experiences their provinces as its objective field' (M.i,295). >This treatment of consciousness implies, as it were, more than even a 'double thickness' of consciousness. An already-formed nucleus of the cognitive series, based on such Sutta-Pitaka material, appears in the Abhidhamma Pitaka. The following two quotations show how the commentary (bracketed italics) expands the Abhidhamma-Pitaka treatment." .... S: The italics won't show up, but the commentary is the bracketed parts: " (1) 'Herein, what is eye-consciousness element? Due to eye and to visible data (as support condition, and to functional mind element (= 5-door adverting), as disappearance condition, and to the remaining three immaterial aggregates as conascence condition) there arises consciousness ... which is eye-consciousness element. [Similarly with the other four sense elements.] Herein, what is mind element? Eye consciousness having arisen and ceased, next to that there arises consciousness, ... which is appropriate (profitable or unprofitable) mind element (in the mode of receiving). [Similarly with the other four sense elements.] "Or else it is the first reaction to any mental datum (to be taken as functional mind element in the mode of mind-door adverting). Herein, what is mind-consciousness element? Eye consciousness having arisen and ceased, next to that there arises mind element. (Resultant) mind element having arisen and ceased, also (next to that there arises resultant mind-consciousness element in the mode of investigating; and that having arisen and ceased, next to that there arises functional mind-consciousness element in the mode of determining; and that having arisen and ceased,) next to that there arises consciousness, ... which is appropriate mind-consciousness element (in the mode of impulsion). [Similarly with the other four sense elements.] "Due to (life continuum) mind and to mental data there arises consciousness, ... which is appropriate (impulsion) mind-consciousness element (following on the above-mentioned mind-door adverting)' (Vbh.87-90 and VbhA.81f.). "(2) Eye consciousness and its associated states are a condition as proximity condition, for (resultant) mind element and for its associated states. Mind element and its associated states are a condition, as proximity condition, for (root-causeless resultant) mind-consciousness element (in the mode of investigating) and for its associated states. (Next to that, the mind consciousness elements severally in the modes of determining, impulsion, registration, and life-continuum should be mentioned, though they are not since the teaching is abbreviated). [Similarly for the other four senses and mind-consciousness element.] Preceding profitable (impulsion) states are a condition, as proximity condition, for subsequent indeterminate (registration, life-continuum) states ... [etc.]' (Ptn2, and (Comy.) 33-4). "The form that the two kinds (5-door and mind-door) of the cognitive series take is shown in Table V. The following are some Pitaka refs. for the individual modes: bhava'nga (life-continuum) Ptn1.159, 160, 169, 324. Aavajjana (adverting) Ptn1.159, 160, 169, 324. Sampa.ticchana (receiving), santiira.na (investigating), vo.t.thapana (determining), and tadaaramma.na (registration) appear only in the commentaries. Javana (impulsion) Ps.ii,73, 76. "The following references may also be noted here: anuloma (conformity) Ptn1.325. Cuti-citta (death consciousness) Ptn1.324. Pa.tisandhi (rebirth-linking) Ptn1.320, etc.; Ps.ii.72, etc." ***** S: I think it at least shows that the commentary elaborations are not unfounded, but very much relate to what we read in the Suttas with an understanding of cittas, cetasikas and rupas from the Abhidhamma. Metta, Sarah ======= #82704 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:28 am Subject: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, Visible object that was experienced by cittas of a sense-door process has fallen away; sense-door processes and mind-door processes of cittas alternate very rapidly. Visible object impinges again and again and seeing arises again and again. When their characteristics appear we cannot count the different units of rúpa or the cittas that see, they arise and fall away; the impression of what is seen and of the seeing appears. Acharn Sujin said: “No matter whether we call it nimitta or not, it is appearing now. Whatever appears is the sign or nimitta of the dhamma that arises and falls away.” We cling to what appears for a very short moment, but is does not remain. It is the same with saññå, there is not one moment of saññå that marks and remembers, but countless moments, arising and falling away. Thus, we can speak of the nimitta of each of the five khandhas: of rúpa, of feeling, of saññå, of sankhårakkhandha, of consciousness. There are nimittas of all conditioned dhammas that appear at this moment, arising and falling away extremely rapidly. Seeing arising at this moment sees visible object. We notice visible object and while we notice it, we have a vivid impression of it, but it has just fallen away. Seeing falls away but extremely shortly after it has fallen away another moment of seeing arises that experiences visible object. It arises again and again and in between one notices that there is seeing, or, if there are the right conditions a citta with sati can arise that is mindful of its characteristic. However, mindfulness of seeing arises after seeing has fallen away, not at the same time as seeing. People are wondering how one can be mindful of anger, dosa. Mindfulness that accompanies kusala citta cannot arise at the same time as anger that accompanies akusala citta. Anger, dosa, arises and falls away and other processes of citta with dosa arise again. In between, sati can be aware of its characteristic, just as in the case of seeing that has fallen away. Awareness of dosa is different from thinking of: “I have dosa, there is dosa.” But also such thinking can arise in between. Understanding can develop in considering the characteristics of the dhammas that appear and there is no need to think: “It has fallen away”, or, “This is remembrance”. We have to face akusala with courage and sincerity, otherwise we shall always cling to an idea of “my dosa”, or “my lobha”. Wrong view has to be eradicated first, before lobha and dosa can be eradicated. I quote what Acharn Sujin said at an earlier occasion: ”When akusala arises it can remind us of the truth about our accumulations and this is the way to develop paññå. Ignorance conditions more akusala and paññå conditions kusala.” People may be distressed when they notice akusala, but at the moment of understanding the citta is kusala, it is free of disturbance. ****** Nina. #82705 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thoughts on practice nilovg Hi Howard, Op 14-feb-2008, om 10:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > It's not clear to me what you are saying *should* be the translation. > but in any case, what is the point of the Buddha's saying "Over > there are the > roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings."? I doubt that he is > providing a > description of local sites! > In any case, Nina, do you claim that the Buddha did not urge > intentional > sitting in meditation to enter the jhanas? Are you claiming that they > typically arose without meditation? ---------- N: The monks went into seclusion not to merely enter jhana. Also before the Buddha's time they could do that, this was not something new. What was new: seeing jhanacitta as non-self. Thus, those who could develop jhana and insight went into seclusion to do so. The development of insight, satipatthana/vipassana was exclusively the Buddha's teaching. Nina. #82706 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:02 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 238 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 238. Intro: In the previous section it was explained that resultant pleasant feeling is a condition for craving by way of decisive support- condition. In this section it is explained that the three feelings which are vipaaka condition craving by way of decisive support- condition. It is mentioned that so long as there are latent tendencies the cycle of birth and death continues, and thus craving conditions feeling. ------------- Text Vis. 238: Or alternatively: A man in pain for pleasure longs, And finding pleasure, longs for more; The peace of equanimity Is counted pleasure too; -------- N: The Tiika states that the three feelings (pleasure, pain, indifferent feeling) which are vipaaka condition craving by decisive support-condition. Unhappy feeling conditions craving since one desires to be rid of it. Happy feeling conditions craving by decisive support-condition, since one longs for more, as the Tiika emphasizes. As to the expression ‘the peace of equanimity is counted pleasure too’, the Tiika explains that because one longs for more as in the case of pleasant feeling, it is a decisive support-condition for craving. The Tiika explains that indifferent feeling that is akusala vipaaka is undesirable and is to be removed, whereas indifferent feeling that is kusala vipaaka is desirable and causes happiness. It can be said that they are decisive support-condition for craving just as in the case of pain and pleasure. Seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting are vipaakacittas which are kusala vipaaka or akusala vipaaka, accompanied by indifferent feeling that is also kusala vipaaka or akusala vipaaka. ---------- Text Vis.: therefore The Greatest Sage announced the law 'With feeling as condition, craving', Since all three feelings thus can be Conditions for all kinds of craving. Though feeling is condition, still Without inherent tendency No craving can arise, and so From this the perfect saint is free. [40] This is the detailed explanation of the clause 'With feeling as condition, craving'. ---------------------- Note 40, from the Tiika. ' "Though feeling is condition" is said in order to prevent generalization from the preceding words "With feeling as condition" to the effect that craving arises in the presence of every condition accompanied by feeling.--BUT is it not impossible to prevent over-generalization in the absence of any such statements as "Feeling accompanied by inherent tendency is a condition for craving"?--No; for we are dealing with an exposition of the round of rebirths. Since there is no round of rebirths without inherent tendencies, so far as the meaning is concerned it may be taken for granted that the condition is accompanied by inherent tendency. Or alternatively, it may be recognized that this condition is accompanied by inherent tendency because it follows upon the words "With ignorance as condition". And with the words "With feeling as condition, craving" the ruling needed is this: "There is craving only with feeling as condition", and not "With feeling as condition there is only craving" ' (Pm.). --------- N: The translator states: "There is craving only with feeling as condition". The Pali text has: there is craving not without feeling (na vedanaaya vinaati). As the texts states, we have to remember the context of the exposition of the Dependent Origination. Ignorance is the first link, and ignorance and the other latent tendencies operate so long as one is in the cycle of birth and death. For the person who is freed from the cycle, there is feeling, but it does not condition craving. As to the expression ‘the perfect saint’, vusiimato, the Tiika elaborates: perfected, he will dwell having fulfilled the brahman life. He is worthy of the description “excellent”. He is called perfect having completed the highest fruition. ----------- Conclusion: So long as we are in the cycle there are conditions for craving. No matter whether feeling is happy, indifferent or unhappy, it can condition craving. The latent tendencies condition the arising of all kinds of defilements, they are the condition for the continuation of the cycle. Since each citta that arises and falls away is immediately succeeded by the next citta, unwholesome and wholesome behaviour and inclinations are accumulated from moment to moment and from life to life. The latent tendencies are unwholesome inclinations that are accumulated. They are the following: sense-desire (kåma-råga), aversion (paìigha), conceit (måna), wrong view (diììhi), doubt (vicikicchå), desire for becoming (continued existence, bhavaråga), and ignorance (avijjå). It is essential to have more understanding of the latent tendencies and their power. They are called subtle defilements because they do not arise with the akusala citta, but they are powerful. Since they have not been eradicated they can strongly condition and influence our behaviour. They lie dormant in the citta like microbes infesting the body. They can condition the arising of akusala citta even to the degree of transgression of síla at any time, and thus, more defilements are accumulated again and added to the latent tendencies. The teaching of the latent tendencies helps us to see why the defilements in our life are so tenacious, arising again and again, and why their arising is unforeseeable and uncontrollable. When we study the enumeration of the latent tendencies, we should remember that these latent tendencies are not abstract notions. They condition the arising of akusala citta, even at this moment. They can only be eradicated by pa~n~naa that understands realities as they are. They are eradicated subsequently at the stages of enlightenment. The arahat who has no more latent tendencies is freed from the cycle. ******* Nina. #82707 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thoughts on practice upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/14/2008 9:43:04 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 14-feb-2008, om 10:45 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > It's not clear to me what you are saying *should* be the translation. > but in any case, what is the point of the Buddha's saying "Over > there are the > roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings."? I doubt that he is > providing a > description of local sites! > In any case, Nina, do you claim that the Buddha did not urge > intentional > sitting in meditation to enter the jhanas? Are you claiming that they > typically arose without meditation? ---------- N: The monks went into seclusion not to merely enter jhana. Also before the Buddha's time they could do that, this was not something new. What was new: seeing jhanacitta as non-self. Thus, those who could develop jhana and insight went into seclusion to do so. The development of insight, satipatthana/vipassana was exclusively the Buddha's teaching. Nina. ============================= I take no exception to what you wrote, Nina, except somewhat to the idea that the development of insight is exclusively Buddhist. In any case, you didn't reply to my question. Your answer is tangential to it, actually skirting what I inquired about. What I asked was: 1) How *should* that material be translated, 2) What was the Buddha asserting when he said "Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings.", and 3) Do you claim that the Buddha did not urge intentional sitting in meditation to enter the jhanas? Are you claiming that they typically arose without meditation? With metta, Howard #82708 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:36 am Subject: Re: Perfections Corner (39) nichiconn Dear Sarah, > I've read that all the precepts are based on non harming, so when we also read truth is most important, i think about truth being the safeguard or refuge. ... S: Yes, I understand both of these in the same way. Can you give me a reference for the precepts based on non-harming? In particular, do you (or anyone) have a reference for killing and other precepts including all kinds of non-harming? This topic came up briefly in India. C: Sorry, no reference! Hope your cold doesn't last long. peace, connie #82709 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > Op 14-feb-2008, om 1:57 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > > This is not an answer. Is the nimitta a concept or a reality? > > > > > She repeated that there is the impression of visible object right > > > now. She said: "It is this moment." Visible object impinges on the > > > eyesense and after it has fallen away, what is left is the > > impression > > > or sign, nimitta of visible object. > > > > James: Right. So is that nimitta a concept or a reality? > ------- > N: I quote from another discussion:< I asked whether this means that > one is aware of a concept of that reality. She said yes. James: Thank you for your answer. So it a concept. > But here we have to be carefull with the word concept. It is not in > the sense of mind-construct such as a table or a person. It is of a > different order, more subtle. James: I don't think so. A concept is a concept is a concept. We could use the word shadow of a > reality. James: That is just word play to me. The bottom line is that dhammas arise and fall so fast that awareness of them is predominately conceptual also. If awareness of dhammas is conceptual, and that doesn't present a problem; then awareness of sankhara as conceptual shouldn't present a problem either. Of course, Nina, you should know exactly what I am driving at. ;-)) Metta, James #82710 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: thoughts on practice buddhatrue Hi Howard (and Nina), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: what is the point of the Buddha's saying "Over there are the > roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings."? I doubt that he is providing a > description of local sites! ;-)) Oh yes, that's all the Buddha did! He didn't perscribe intentional actions, he just described everything he saw. You know, like a sportscaster. :-) Metta, James #82711 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:04 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... dhammanusara Dear Scott (James, Howard), - In your last email you did a good job summarizing your rigid opinion on puggala (person). You simply locked yourself in the coffin, so to speak, with your belief on this subject. I just put a flower on your coffin, Scott. Sincerely, Tep ==== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Thanks for the reply: > > T: "In the message #82600 you reject the idea that a 'person' "within > the mind-door" of the observer is not "derived" from a real person > (outside) as seen by the eye. You insist, "I would suggest > that 'person' is a mental construct, not a 'derivative' ". A mental > image that is derived from the information perceived by the eyes, > maybe? BTW what is the difference?" > (snipped) > With the eighty-nine sorts of consciousness and the fifty-two sorts of mental factors, all having distinct and separate characteristics and all arising and falling away with complexity and rapidity, one needn't construe a person to account for the rich experience that appears to occur. I think that it is thinking about naama and thinking rooted in ignorance that perpetuates the idea that there are people 'out there'. > > Sincerely, > > Scott. > #82712 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 3:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Scott & James) - In a message dated 2/14/2008 11:05:22 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Dear Scott (James, Howard), - In your last email you did a good job summarizing your rigid opinion on puggala (person). You simply locked yourself in the coffin, so to speak, with your belief on this subject. I just put a flower on your coffin, Scott. Sincerely, Tep =============================== It's an opinion. You, James, and I have opinions too, and not all the same. We, all of us four, each think we are correct. Are any of us absolutely certain? Opinion is just a seeming, not knowing. I can't get into Scott's head to measure how rigidly he holds his opinions. I doubt you can either. I do know that Scott exhibited some independence and flexibility of thought recently that really impressed me. And if any of us is holding onto our opinions rigidly at the moment, it needn't remain so. Anicca IS an actual feature of all conditions, including thinking. Of the two extremes: 1) There is nothing objective corresponding to the concept "person," and 2) A person is a real, individual thing, and not just an aggregation of phenomena, I suspect the first is more conducive to realization of emptiness. With metta, Howard #82713 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 9:28 am Subject: Re: Asoka, Ch 6, no 6. moellerdieter Hi Sarah, you wrote: 'Back to #81178. You'll have seen that it's not only your messages that I'm very slow to respond to:). ' D: Yes, I recognised that you quite busy ..slow responding is a good sign that you try to keep the pressure under control 'in duty' of answering piles of messages ... I don't envy you , Sarah .. ;-) Sarah: (D ...how difficult it is for example for you to have a break of thinking , ie. to be quite on will.. (?) ) Yes, there are always different understandings about samma-samadhi. I don't quite understand your last phrase above. D: I mean being aware , the inner dialogue/monologue silenced. Doing nothing but listening without intention. That is not an unsual experience , but the point to let 'the break' happen at will. I have met people who are not even aware of the inner voice, not to mention inner silence which for some seemingly comes to 'thinking about nothing'. just for your contemplation Sarah: ....Yes, I understand bhavana (meditation) always has to be at this moment. When there is any idea of doing anything for understanding at another moment, we forget about anatta. D: not so clear to me .. I stumbled recently upon following statement: ' Man is not responsible for the process of to unchangeable determination of all process and development there is no way to modify the world by acting but for the state of consciousness.' Do you agree with it? Sarah : (D: Besides that the canonical guidelines for the training are questioned , the gradual progress of detachment ( from self identification) is neglected. You'd have to elaborate on this Dieter. D: I would have to quote .. ... Sarah: (D: We need to work with what is available to us..with the described strategy towards the ultimate truth..) Again, you'd have to elaborate on this and what you mean here by 'we' and 'strategy'. D: we, the Dhamma students and strategy refering to the best possible translation of the Noble Path ( mundane and supermundane) in our daily life. with Metta Dieter #82714 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:38 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... dhammanusara Hi Howard (Scott, James), - You wrote : "It's an opinion. You, James, and I have opinions too, and not all the same. We, all of us four, each think we are correct. Are any of us absolutely certain? Opinion is just a seeming, not knowing. I can't get into Scott's head to measure how rigidly he holds his opinions. I doubt you can either. I do know that Scott exhibited some independence and flexibility of thought recently that really impressed me". T: There you go again! Maybe you think of yourself as the "Preacher of Justice and Moral Value" for DSG. Think again. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Tep (and Scott & James) - > ... (snipped) And if any of us is holding onto our opinions rigidly at the moment, it needn't remain so. Anicca IS an actual feature of all > conditions, including thinking. > Of the two extremes: 1) There is nothing objective corresponding to the concept "person," and 2) A person is a real, individual thing, and not just an aggregation of phenomena, I suspect the first is more conducive to realization of emptiness. > > With metta, > Howard #82715 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 10:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thoughts on practice nilovg Hi Howard, Op 14-feb-2008, om 16:26 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What I asked was: > 1) How *should* that material be translated, ------ N: Instead of: practise jhaana, the translation can be: contemplate, or meditate. That leaves room to insight. Practising jhana without insight is not the Buddha's teaching. --------. > H: 2) What was the Buddha asserting when he said "Over there are > the roots > of trees; over there, empty dwellings.", ------ N: Go into seclusion. This is very suitable for monks after they have done their chores, such as sweeping, washing robes, etc. They should not enjoy each other's company and talk about what is non-dhamma. -------- > and > H:3) Do you claim that the Buddha did not urge intentional sitting in > meditation to enter the jhanas? Are you claiming that they > typically arose > without meditation? ------- N: Did I ever say this? There has to be the proper preparation for jhana, see Visuddhimagga. And noise is a thorn to jhana. Nina. #82716 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:55 am Subject: Love them "dhammas" TGrand458@... Hi Sarah, All, To keep saying..."there are only 'Dhammas' existing right now" is like me saying, "there is only present phenomena appearing right now." It may be true enough, but what's that got to do with insight at all? All it says when you boil it down is -- "all there is now is all there is now." It seems like total nonsense to me. The implication is that there is something other that exists but doesn't actually exist, other than these bastions of "present-ness exist-ers -- 'Dhammas.'" Kind of like a dual reality? So you want to think in a manner that isn't deluded...great. But I think your just replacing one delusion with another...but that's just (me) dhammas thinking. Oh, how about just saying "thinking" without prefacing it with the term "dhammas"? I'm sorry, I've seen the way this "dhammas" term is used and it just comes off as being an "entification" (entity) or substance of its own accord. Seems to me the "dhammas" is HELD onto as strongly or more strongly than any self view I've encountered. There's an incredible resistance to just discuss elements without bringing out the majestic "dhammas." Are we so enamored with the term"dhammas" or "namas" and "rupas" that we think by their mere usage, we know something? ... or are communicating something? Got to run, I've got to give some "dhammas" a nap. TG #82717 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. nilovg Hi James, Op 14-feb-2008, om 17:00 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > James: Thank you for your answer. So it a concept. > > > But here we have to be carefull with the word concept. It is not > in > > the sense of mind-construct such as a table or a person. It is of > a > > different order, more subtle. > > James: I don't think so. A concept is a concept is a concept. > > We could use the word shadow of a > > reality. > > James: That is just word play to me. ------ Nina: No. We have to make fine distinctions, the Dhamma is very subtle and profound. ------- > J: The bottom line is that > dhammas arise and fall so fast that awareness of them is > predominately conceptual also. If awareness of dhammas is > conceptual, and that doesn't present a problem; then awareness of > sankhara as conceptual shouldn't present a problem either. > > Of course, Nina, you should know exactly what I am driving at. ;-)) ------- N: No, I don't, I have not been following all the threads. I just would like to be precise as to sankhaara, and I think Sarah explained this. Different meanings in different contexts. Awareness of the characteristics that present themselves now, that is important. And that is from the beginning to the end of the long road of the purifications you read about in the Visuddhimagga. Otherwise you will never know the truth. But I wish you will. Nina. #82718 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... nilovg Hi Howard, Tep, James, Scott, Op 14-feb-2008, om 17:49 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > I can't get into Scott's head > to measure how rigidly he holds his opinions. I doubt you can > either. I do > know that Scott exhibited some independence and flexibility of thought > recently that really impressed me. And if any of us is holding onto > our opinions > rigidly at the moment, it needn't remain so. Anicca IS an actual > feature of all > conditions, including thinking. > Of the two extremes: 1) There is nothing objective corresponding to > the > concept "person," and 2) A person is a real, individual thing, and > not just > an aggregation of phenomena, I suspect the first is more conducive to > realization of emptiness. -------- N: Howard, you and Scott have written some really good and helpful posts about ultimate reality and person. Helpful for Lodewijk too. I saved a post by Scott, and Tep can see whether he is so rigid. It also solves the query about metta for a person. Scott: < I don't think consciously, while I'm trying to get a stubborn girl out of the store or reading to a sleepy girl, 'no-Rebecca, no-Scott'. I'm just in the moment and take it as it seems. There seems to really be a store or a book and a girl and a father. I'm in the human realm and act like a human. It is natural and can't be helped. This doesn't seem to change if one knows (theoretically or otherwise) that things are not how they seem. It would be totally unnatural to pretend to act with others as if they are not there. This would be insane. This would really confuse others and would only be unpleasant. I think, though, that this wouldn't be because the ultimate truth is not true. This would be because certain dhammas would condition the kind of speech and action that would be conducive to the well-being of 'others'. Mettaa, for example, would not lead to such a false way of interacting. Mettaa would have the object's well-being 'in mind' (not a 'little-self' - just a manner of speech). The concept of a person, which has this other 'person' one 'sees' and thinks about as support, is the object of mettaa and mettaa leads to actions that accord with the as-if nature of the existence of this 'person'. Mettaa could have no object and no development otherwise. This having concept as object would be natural, and accord with the actualities inherent in the current human realm in which we find ourselves. > (end quote). Nina. #82719 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Love them "dhammas" nilovg Hi TG, Op 14-feb-2008, om 19:55 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > There's an incredible resistance to just discuss > elements without bringing out the majestic "dhammas." ------ N: Elements, dhaatus is the same as dhammas. Same meaning: beyond control, devoid of self. No owner. ------- > > TG: Are we so enamored with the term"dhammas" or "namas" and > "rupas" that we > think by their mere usage, we know something? ... or are communicating > something? ------- N: No, learning, learning, that is all. We are beginners! Nina. #82720 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 11:23 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... buddhatrue Hi Tep, Scott, Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi Howard (Scott, James), - > > You wrote : "It's an opinion. You, James, and I have opinions too, > and not all the same. We, all of us four, each think we are correct. > Are any of us absolutely certain? Opinion is just a seeming, not > knowing. I can't get into Scott's head to measure how rigidly he > holds his opinions. I doubt you can either. I do know that Scott > exhibited some independence and flexibility of thought recently that > really impressed me". > > T: There you go again! Maybe you think of yourself as the "Preacher > of Justice and Moral Value" for DSG. Think again. Well, I don't know about coffins and preachers, but I can give you my impression. It seemed like Scott was opening to the possibility of a reality of sankhara which correspond to mental perception, and then Sarah set him straight! Sarah wrote a post (#82697) to Scott where she said, "You're cracking, Scott!" (more like "I'm cracking the whip") and then Scott promptly moved back into the Abhidhamma line like a circus poodle. So we have coffins, preachers, and circus poodles- just another lovely day at DSG! ;-)) Seriously, Scott wrote: Your contention seems to be that a 'real' or 'actual' person exists outside and hence, when this external 'person' is perceived by the eye, this perception is what is then replicated within the mind. This, in my opinion, is not Dhamma, but is a basic version of rudimentary and conventional psychology of perception. James: Ordinary perception is not against the Dhamma. Take, for example, this quote from Vism: "However, it [understanding] is not always to be found where perception and consciousness are. But when it is, it is not disconnected from those states. And because it cannot be taken as disconnected thus "This is perception, this is consciousness, this is understanding', its difference is consequently subtle and hard to see." Vism. XIV, 6 So, perception isn't removed from understanding (panna). There is a difference but where you find one you find the other. Of course, Buddhaghosa later denies common perception and denies the existence of people, but, hey, he had bosses in India cracking the whip over him also! ;-)) Metta, James #82721 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 2/14/2008 1:38:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi Howard (Scott, James), - You wrote : "It's an opinion. You, James, and I have opinions too, and not all the same. We, all of us four, each think we are correct. Are any of us absolutely certain? Opinion is just a seeming, not knowing. I can't get into Scott's head to measure how rigidly he holds his opinions. I doubt you can either. I do know that Scott exhibited some independence and flexibility of thought recently that really impressed me". T: There you go again! Maybe you think of yourself as the "Preacher of Justice and Moral Value" for DSG. Think again. Tep ============================== Tep, you had written to Scott "In your last email you did a good job summarizing your rigid opinion on puggala (person). You simply locked yourself in the coffin, so to speak, with your belief on this subject. I just put a flower on your coffin, Scott." You expressed yourself as you wished. Now so have I. With metta, Howard #82722 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thoughts on practice upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - Thank you for the reply. In a message dated 2/14/2008 1:53:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 14-feb-2008, om 16:26 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > What I asked was: > 1) How *should* that material be translated, ------ N: Instead of: practise jhaana, the translation can be: contemplate, or meditate. That leaves room to insight. Practising jhana without insight is not the Buddha's teaching. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I agree. IMO, Buddhist jhanas are not absorptive states in which investigation of dhammas is impossible. ------------------------------------------------------ --------. > H: 2) What was the Buddha asserting when he said "Over there are > the roots > of trees; over there, empty dwellings.", ------ N: Go into seclusion. This is very suitable for monks after they have done their chores, such as sweeping, washing robes, etc. They should not enjoy each other's company and talk about what is non-dhamma. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes, go into seclusion ... and contemplate the Dhamma and meditate and be ongoingly mindful, as opposed to, for example, sleep, layabout, and fantasize. ----------------------------------------------------- -------- > and > H:3) Do you claim that the Buddha did not urge intentional sitting in > meditation to enter the jhanas? Are you claiming that they > typically arose > without meditation? ------- N: Did I ever say this? There has to be the proper preparation for jhana, see Visuddhimagga. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Good! :-) ------------------------------------------------- And noise is a thorn to jhana. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, indeed it is, though silence and seclusion are not enough. ------------------------------------------------- Nina. ======================= With metta, Howard #82723 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:15 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... dhammanusara Hi Howard (James), - The last sentence you wrote was : Howard: You expressed yourself as you wished. Now so have I. T: So it was fair. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Tep - #82724 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 2/14/2008 3:15:53 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi Howard (James), - The last sentence you wrote was : Howard: You expressed yourself as you wished. Now so have I. T: So it was fair. ----------------------------------------- Howard: Yep. ----------------------------------------- Tep ====================== With metta, Howard, a.k.a. renowned "Preacher of Justice and Moral Value" #82725 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 12:31 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... dhammanusara Hi James (Nina), - I could guess that you would enjoy a day like this when "coffins, preachers, and circus poodles" all appear at the same time. > > James: Ordinary perception is not against the Dhamma. Take, for > example, this quote from Vism: > > "However, it [understanding] is not always to be found where > perception and consciousness are. But when it is, it is not > disconnected from those states. And because it cannot be taken as > disconnected thus "This is perception, this is consciousness, this > is understanding', its difference is consequently subtle and hard > to see." Vism. XIV, 6 T: Can you give one example where understanding is not found "where perception and consciousness are"? I can't. > James: > So, perception isn't removed from understanding (panna). > There is a > difference but where you find one you find the other. Of course, > Buddhaghosa later denies common perception and denies the existence > of people, but, hey, he had bosses in India cracking the whip over > him also! ;-)) > T: I only can recall his denial of the existence of people (maybe he did not think of people the way ordinary people do). Regards, Tep === #82726 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:11 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes ... Attanudi.t.thi & Mana... dhammanusara Hi TG (James, Howard, Scott), - You were trying to explain self-view (attanudi.t.thi) that involves rationalization. But there is also the I-sense (conceit, mana) that is beyond the self-view, and should be discussed as well. > > TG: > Impermanence, conditionality, and no-self are all integrally > related....affliction too for that matter. > > I think even the most ignorant people are usually aware the body is not permanent. But it is the taking of the body, or any other perception as a I, me, mine that is the self-view therein. > > > For example, -- "He sees the body as self, or self as in body, or body as in self, or self as possessed of body." (I might have mixed up that last line. > I'm not reading the quote but just positing from memory.) > ..................... T: Essentially, two questions need to be answered: 1. What is a rationalized self -- a "subtle metaphysical entity"-- that's not the self in the colloquial sense (Your self is your own refuge: 'attaa hi atatno naatho')? 2. What are the self-view (attanudi.t.thi) and the I-sense (conceit, 'I am') ? I find answer to the above questions in an article by Nanamoli Bhikkhu. I think you may find it useful too. Answer 1. --------- Many suttas classify the conflicting notions of the nature of self held by opponents of the Buddha. It could be, and apparently was, for instance, claimed that it had materiality, or was immaterial; or both, or neither; was percipient of oneness, or of plurality, or of the limited or of the measureless; was eternal, or uneternal, or both, or neither; had only pleasure, or only pain, or both or neither; each of these theories being maintained by its propounder as "the only truth and all else wrong" (M. 102, etc.). Or else it could be described as having materiality either limited or infinite, or as immaterial and either limited or infinite. And then whichever of these four is adopted, it may be seen as such now, or due to be such (upon rebirth), or in this way "Though it is not yet real, still I shall contrive for its reality" (D. 15/vol. ii. 64). Answer 2. --------- All these rationalized views (di.t.thi) stem from uncritical acceptance or overlooking of an underlying tendency (anusaya), or fetter (sa"myo jana) — a natural predisposition — to regard, to identify, some aspect or other, in the situation of perceiving a percept, as "this is mine" or "this is what I am" or "this is my self" (e.g. M. 22). These two levels — the self-view and the I-sense — are respectively what are called the "(lower or immediate) fetter of views" (di.t.thi-sa"myo jana) and the "(higher or remoter) fetter of conceit" (maana-sa"myo jana). The first is abandoned with the attainment of the first stage of realization (the path of stream- entry) while the second is abandoned only with the fourth and final stage (the path of arahantship: see D. 33). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel202.html#thera vada Sincerely, Tep === #82727 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:38 am Subject: Pure Descent into Voidness... bhikkhu0 Friends: Voidness is Absolute Absence of Agitation: The Blesses Buddha once said: Not attending to the experience of People or City, the monk focuses on the single, even & same experience of Forest...! His mind is absorbed into that experience of Forest and he acquires assured confidence, fixed imperturbability & determination. There & then he understands: Whatever agitation there always was in the experience of city & people, all that is absent here...!!! Here only remains a minor distraction rooted in this silent, sweet, same, single & even experience of endless Forest! Thus he understands: This field of experience is indeed Void of experience of the buzz of people & city. There is present only this stilled sameness condensed on the experience of Forest. Thus he regards the present state as void of what actually is absent, while what now still remains in presence, that he notes as still present! This, Ananda is the very first step in the gradual, genuine, undistorted, ancient & pure descent into Voidness... Again & then, Ananda, by now not attending to the experience of forest, the monk shifts and focuses until he reaches one-pointed absorption on the single, even & same unified Experience of the extensive solidity of Earth... Experience of the cohesive fluidity of Water... Experience of the vibrating radiation of Heat... Experience of the energetic mobility of Motion... Experience of the infinitude of Space... Experience of the infinitude of Consciousness... Experience of the empty void of Nothingness... Experience of neither perception nor non-perception... Experience of the signless & objectless mental absorption... In this void state, he understands that all other phenomena are now quite absent! Only the non-voidness due to the subtle signless mental absorption is still present... This too, Ananda, is the gradual, genuine, undistorted & pure descent into voidness... Source: The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha. Majjhima Nikaya 121 [iii 106] The minor speech on Voidness. Pure Descent into Voidness! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ..... #82728 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. buddhatrue Hi Nina, I will reply to this post but I hope I am not engaging you too much. Here is a worldly reminder (as opposed to Dhamma reminder): your doctor told you to take it easy :-) Don't reply if it is too much. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------ > Nina: No. We have to make fine distinctions, the Dhamma is very > subtle and profound. > ------- James: Well, this is fine but I have never read you make any type of distinctions before. I have read K. Sujin state that a picture of an apple and an actual apple are both unreal because they are both concepts. No fine distinctions or subtlety there! All I hear is concepts are bad, concepts are harmful- I have never once read that concepts can point to truth. And now you are saying that they can. I would hope that you could see how this is truly ironic (and why KS was so hesitant to answer the question in the first place!) > > J: The bottom line is that > > dhammas arise and fall so fast that awareness of them is > > predominately conceptual also. If awareness of dhammas is > > conceptual, and that doesn't present a problem; then awareness of > > sankhara as conceptual shouldn't present a problem either. > > > > Of course, Nina, you should know exactly what I am driving at. ;-)) > ------- > N: No, I don't, I have not been following all the threads. I just > would like to be precise as to sankhaara, and I think Sarah explained > this. Different meanings in different contexts. James: I have posted to Sarah about this and you didn't participate in that thread so I have no idea what you mean. > Awareness of the characteristics that present themselves now, that is > important. And that is from the beginning to the end of the long road > of the purifications you read about in the Visuddhimagga. Otherwise > you will never know the truth. But I wish you will. James: Oh good lord, save me the preaching! Leave that to Howard (just kidding, Howie!!! ;-)) > Nina. Metta, James #82729 From: "m. nease" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Swimming analogy m_nease Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Mike (with apologies for the delay) Hi Jon (with matching apologies), > m. nease wrote: > > "...in the case of the kusala mental factors the most important of these > > is the level to which that mental factor had been accumulated prior to > > our birth in this present lifetime." > > > > This seems new to me--can you please refer me to a source text? > > I know of no quote in as many words. I was really surmising from "first > principles", namely, that the development of panna occurs only when > previously developed panna (re-)arises, Only? Must there not have been a first arising for there to be a re-arising? > and so the stronger the present > accumulated tendency of panna, the better the chance of such (re-)arising. Sure-- > However, the general idea is mentioned in the commentary to the verse > from SN that is the text on which the Visuddhimagga is based. As you'll > recall, that verse reads: > > ‘When a wise man, established well in Virtue, > ‘Develops Consciousness and Understanding, > ‘Then as a bhikkhu ardent and sagacious > ‘He succeeds in disentangling this tangle’. > > I quote some of the commentary given in Ch. I of The Path of > Purification at paras 7 and 8 (the bits within square brackets are added > by me]: > > ********************************************* > 1. For understanding is mentioned three times [i.e., "wise man", > "Understanding" and "sagacious"]. [Nice--] > 2. Herein, the first [wisdom] is native understanding, the second > [understanding] is understanding consisting in insight, while the third > [sagacity] is the protective understanding that guides all affairs. > > 3. "Wise": possessing the kind of understanding that is born of kamma > by means of a rebirth-linking with triple root-cause. > "Develops Consciousness and Understanding": develops both concentration > and insight. For it is concentration that is described here under the > heading of ‘consciousness’, and insight under that of ‘understanding’. > "Sagacious": it is understanding that is called ‘sagacity’; possessing > that, is the meaning. This word shows protective understanding. > > 4. Just as a man standing on the ground and taking up a well-sharpened > knife might disentangle a great tangle of bamboos, so too, he—this > bhikkhu who possesses the six things, namely, this virtue, and this > concentration described under the heading of consciousness, and this > threefold understanding, and this ardour--, standing on the ground of > virtue and taking up with the hand of protective-understanding > well-sharpened on the stone of concentration, might disentangle, cut > away and demolish all the tangle of craving that had overgrown his own > life’s continuity. > > 5. Herein there is nothing for him to do about the [native] > understanding on account of which he is called wise; for that has been > established in him simply by the influence of previous kamma. That does seem to be the nut of it. > 6. But the words ardent and sagacious mean that by persevering with > energy of the kind here described and by acting in full awareness with > understanding he should, acting in full awareness with understanding he > should, having become well established in virtue, develop the serenity > and insight that are described as Concentration and Understanding. Thanks, Jon--I really have no cause to dispute your original comment. It just seemed rather categorical for something I hadn't encountered before in the texts. I can certainly (though tentatively) accept the commentarial text above as authoritative. Thanks for going to the trouble. mike #82730 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:01 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... buddhatrue Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Hi James (Nina), - > > I could guess that you would enjoy a day like this when "coffins, > preachers, and > circus poodles" all appear at the same time. James: Sure. As I wrote before, I don't like fake metta. > > T: Can you give one example where understanding is not found "where > perception and consciousness are"? I can't. James: There is a footnote to that but I don't have my copy of the Vism. with me right now (I am at work). It is something about consciousness rooted in delusion. I will post this for you later. Metta, James #82731 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:02 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... scottduncan2 Dear James, Tep, Howard, Thanks for the replies. Regarding: J: "Seriously, Scott wrote: 'Your contention seems to be that a 'real' or 'actual' person exists outside and hence, when this external 'person' is perceived by the eye, this perception is what is then replicated within the mind. This, in my opinion, is not Dhamma, but is a basic version of rudimentary and conventional psychology of perception.' James: "Ordinary perception is not against the Dhamma..." Scott: If you'll read the above carefully, I'm suggesting that Tep's view that a person is external and can be seen by the eye is nothing more than ordinary psychology of perception and not Dhamma. I'm suggesting that Tep is merely expressing views taught in every Psych 101 class in every university. For example, eye-consciousness is not the same as physical eye/optic nerve/visual cortex. And visible object is not a whole. J: "Take, for example, this quote from Vism: "However, it [understanding] is not always to be found where perception and consciousness are. But when it is, it is not disconnected from those states. And because it cannot be taken as disconnected thus "This is perception, this is consciousness, this is understanding', its difference is consequently subtle and hard to see." Vism. XIV, 6 So, perception isn't removed from understanding (panna). There is a difference but where you find one you find the other..." Scott: To me this reads 1) pa~n~naa does not arise with every moment of consciousness, and 2)*when it does* 'it is not disconnected from those states'. So only sometimes 'where you find one you find the other', but not always. When you find pa~n~naa arising with consciousness, it isn't removed from 'perception' since a mental factor arising with citta has the same object as the citta with which it is conascent. Sincerely, Scott. #82732 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Nina) - James: Oh good lord, save me the preaching! Leave that to Howard (just kidding, Howie!!! ;-)) -------------------------------------------- Howard: LOLOL! (I know! ;-) ====================== With metta, Howard #82733 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism Ch XIX- Purification by Overcoming Doubt- Intro lbidd2 Hi Ken, Ken: "I suppose, to sum up: the idea of looking at my computer in order to have insight ..." Larry: That's not quite it. It is more a matter of being prompted, either by oneself or another, to identify experience. Is there a problem with that? Larry #82734 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:30 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Trivial Pursuit lbidd2 Hi Colette, Colette: "Any ideas of this strange characteristic of HATE and HATRED that I've noticed and began dissecting? Larry: I would say forget the case history and try to coax your room mate into recognizing the immediate experience. Keep it simple, don't over analyze, don't be side-tracked. Let it go. Good luck. Larry #82735 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 238 and Tiika. lbidd2 Hi Nina, I have a doubt about this: Nina: "No matter whether feeling is happy, indifferent or unhappy, it can condition craving." Larry: My doubt is with the power of kamma result. Happy and unhappy feeling are kamma, not kamma result. The only pleasant or unpleasant resultant feeling we experience is bodily feeling. All the other pleasant and unpleasant feelings we experience arise with kamma. I agree completely that craving craves only pleasant feeling, but I'm not entirely satisfied that kamma result conditions kamma. Larry #82736 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 14, 2008 8:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vism XIX, 'Overcoming Doubt' 9 (Conclusion) lbidd2 Hi Sarah, Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. I liked it so much I feel like reading the whole thing again right now. Doubts may not be overcome any time soon, but this wisdom is excellent sustenance for the long journey ahead. Larry #82737 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:32 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: >> James: Well, this is fine but I have never read you make any type of > distinctions before. I have read K. Sujin state that a picture of an > apple and an actual apple are both unreal because they are both > concepts. No fine distinctions or subtlety there! All I hear is > concepts are bad, concepts are harmful- I have never once read that > concepts can point to truth. And now you are saying that they can. I > would hope that you could see how this is truly ironic (and why KS was > so hesitant to answer the question in the first place!) > > > > ++++++++++ Dear James From Realities and Concepts by Sujin Boriharnwanaket(translated by Nina van Gorkom) http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm """"""" 1. Vijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is real, for example the words rupa, nama, vedana (feeling), or sanna (perception) """""""""" end quote from Sujin Boriharnwanaket Robert #82738 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:26 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... dhammanusara Dear Scott (James, Howard, ..) - I'd like to discuss the following further, if you are interested. >Scott: ... I'm suggesting that Tep's view that a person is external and can be seen by the eye is nothing more than ordinary psychology of perception and not Dhamma. I'm suggesting that Tep is merely expressing views taught in every Psych101 class in every university. For example, eye-consciousness is not the same as physical eye/optic nerve/visual cortex. And visible object is not a whole. T: I never took any courses in Psychology. What I have expressed is a worldly fact about seeing of visible objects-- by the eye and the connected nerve system-- in human beings. I haven't yet included the brain that processes the visual information received from the optic nerves. In short, the person(puggala) outside is visible to the observer through his sense medium. If there is no person as the object of seeing, then there is no seeing by the eye. And this mundane view is compatible with 'seeing a form' in the suttas. Of course, the suttas also deal with the dhammas (such as the 'All') as experienced(abhijaanaati) by the ariyans. In a puthujjana the reality pertaining to the pure (i.e. not fabricated) dhammas is not realized; so s/he only formulates or rationalizes a view based on the Abhidhamma principle. And that is far from the reality. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear James, Tep, Howard, > > Thanks for the replies. Regarding: > > J: "Seriously, Scott wrote: > 'Your contention seems to be that a 'real' or 'actual' person exists > outside and hence, when this external 'person' is perceived by the > eye, this perception is what is then replicated within the mind. > This, in my opinion, is not Dhamma, but is a basic version of > rudimentary and conventional psychology of perception.' > #82739 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 238 and Tiika. nilovg Hi Larry, Op 15-feb-2008, om 5:08 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > My doubt is with the power of kamma result. Happy and unhappy > feeling are kamma, not kamma result. The only pleasant or unpleasant > resultant feeling we experience is bodily feeling. All the other > pleasant and unpleasant feelings we experience arise with kamma. -------- N: In Pali the words sukha and dukkha are used and here they refer to pleasant or unpleasant resultant bodily feeling. -------- > L: I agree > completely that craving craves only pleasant feeling, but I'm not > entirely satisfied that kamma result conditions kamma. ------- N: thus, vipaaka feeling conditions craving. I would not say that craving is kamma. **** Nina. #82740 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: thoughts on practice nilovg Hi Howard, Op 14-feb-2008, om 21:03 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: IMO, Buddhist jhanas are not absorptive states in which investigation of dhammas is impossible. ------- N: Nay, investigation of dhammas is indispensable, they are jhanas included in satipatthana, the Buddha's teaching par excellence. -------- > N: And noise is a thorn to jhana. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, indeed it is, though silence and seclusion are not enough. -------- N: Right understanding of different levels is necessary: knowing when the citta is akusala and when kusala, and for insight: knowing the jhanafactors and any reality that is appearing as impermanent, dukkha, anattaa. Nina. #82741 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. nilovg Hi James, Op 15-feb-2008, om 1:15 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > I have read K. Sujin state that a picture of an > apple and an actual apple are both unreal because they are both > concepts. No fine distinctions or subtlety there! ------- N: Rob K answered with a quote. ------- > J: All I hear is > concepts are bad, concepts are harmful- I have never once read that > concepts can point to truth. And now you are saying that they can. I > would hope that you could see how this is truly ironic (and why KS was > so hesitant to answer the question in the first place!) ------- N: Concepts are not harmful, they are very useful. So is thinking of concepts, no need to fear thinking of concepts. It is weird to avoid that. See Scott's post I quoted yesterday. Scott: ------- > > > > J: The bottom line is that > > > dhammas arise and fall so fast that awareness of them is > > > predominately conceptual also. If awareness of dhammas is > > > conceptual, and that doesn't present a problem; then awareness of > > > sankhara as conceptual shouldn't present a problem either. --------- N: There can be awareness of any characteristic of dhamma that appears, such as hardness, sound, etc. --------- > > > > > > Of course, Nina, you should know exactly what I am driving > at. ;-)) > > ------- > > N: No, I don't, I have not been following all the threads. So, I like to leave it at that. That makes things more simple. Nina. #82742 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 4:54 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. buddhatrue Hi Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > ++++++++++ > Dear James > From Realities and Concepts by Sujin Boriharnwanaket(translated by > Nina van Gorkom) > http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm > > """"""" > 1. Vijjamana pannattis, concepts which make known what is > real, for example the words rupa, nama, vedana (feeling), or sanna > (perception) """""""""" > end quote from Sujin Boriharnwanaket This has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing. This quote is talking about the WORDS used to describe realities and is not related to nimittas. Metta, James #82743 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > Op 15-feb-2008, om 1:15 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > > I have read K. Sujin state that a picture of an > > apple and an actual apple are both unreal because they are both > > concepts. No fine distinctions or subtlety there! > ------- > N: Rob K answered with a quote. James: No he didn't. That quote had nothing to do with what we are discussing. > ------- > > > J: All I hear is > > concepts are bad, concepts are harmful- I have never once read that > > concepts can point to truth. And now you are saying that they can. I > > would hope that you could see how this is truly ironic (and why KS was > > so hesitant to answer the question in the first place!) > ------- > N: Concepts are not harmful, they are very useful. So is thinking of > concepts, no need to fear thinking of concepts. It is weird to avoid > that. See Scott's post I quoted yesterday. James: I read that quote but I didn't comment because I didn't want to be rude. But, since you bring it up again, I will comment. It sounds like someone who is insane. It sounds like someone who says, "I know that people aren't real but I am going to act as if they were." That is an example of someone who is delusional and can't tell the difference between reality and unreality. I don't think you can establish metta or insight on such delusional mind games. Metta, James #82744 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:07 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... buddhatrue Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > T: Can you give one example where understanding is not found "where > > perception and consciousness are"? I can't. > > James: There is a footnote to that but I don't have my copy of the > Vism. with me right now (I am at work). It is something about > consciousness rooted in delusion. I will post this for you later. Here is the exact footnote: 'In arisings of consciousness with two root-causes [i.e with non-greed and non-hate but without non-delusion], or without root cause, understanding does not occur' (Pm 432). Metta, James #82745 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:10 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 44 16. Mahaanipaato 1. Sumedhaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 522. "Devesu mahiddhikaa ahumha, maanusakamhi ko pana vaado; sattaratanassa mahesii, itthiratana.m aha.m aasi.m. 520. "We were of great power among the devas. But what to say [of our power] among men! I was the woman jewel, the chief queen [of a king possessing] seven jewels. Devesu mahiddhikaa ahumhaati devesu upapannakaale tasmi.m tasmi.m devanikaaye mahiddhikaa mahaanubhaavaa ahumha. Maanusakamhi ko pana vaadoti manussattalaabhe mahiddhikataaya kathaava natthi. Idaani tameva manussattabhaave ukka.msata.m mahiddhikata.m dassentii "sattaratanassa mahesii, itthiratana.m aha.m aasin"ti aaha. Tattha cakkaratanaadiini satta ratanaani etassa santiiti sattaratano, cakkavattii, tassa sattaratanassa. Chadosarahitaa pa~ncakalyaa.naa atikkantamanussava.n.naa apattadibbava.n.naati evamaadigu.nasamannaagamena itthiisu ratanabhuutaa aha.m ahosi.m. 520. We were of great power (mah'-iddhikaa) among the devas (devesu) means: we were of great power, of great might (mahaanu-bhaavaa) in various groups of devas (deva-nikaaye) at the time of being born among the devas. But what to say [of our power] among men! means: there is no telling the great power [we possessed] in our attainment of human existence. Now, showing the great power and excellence of that state of human existence, she says, I was the woman jewel, the chief queen [of a king possessing] seven jewels. There, someone who has the seven jewels, namely the jewel of the wheel, etc,* he is a wheel-turning monarch [possessing] the seven jewels (satta-ratano), the one [possessing] seven jewels (satta-ratanassa). I was without the six faults.** I possess the five auspicious qualities,*** surpassing human beauty without attaining celestial beauty. And through being possessed of such virtues, etc, I was his woman jewel. *The wheel (cakka), elephant (hatthi), horse (assa), the gem (ma.ni), the woman (itthi), the householder (gahapati), thecounsellor (pari.naayaka). They are described in detail in D II 172-7 (LDB 280-3). These are not to be confused with the seven jewels mentioned in Thii v.487 that are precious metals and gems (see p.350, n.1). **See Ja I 394: too long (naatidiighaa), too short (naatirassaa), too thin (naatikisaa), too fat (naatihuulaa), too black (naatikaa.li), or too pale (naaccodaataa). *** See J I 394; Dhp-a I 387: beauty of hair (kesa-), flesh (ma.msa-), teeth (a.t.thi-), skin (chavi-), youth (vaya-kalyaa.na.m). 523. "So hetu so pabhavo, ta.m muula.m saava saasane khantii; ta.m pa.thamasamodhaana.m, ta.m dhammarataaya nibbaana.m. 521. "Thas was the cause, that was the origin, that was the root, that very delight in the teaching, that first meeting, that was quenching for one delighting in the Doctrine." So hetuuti ya.m ta.m ko.naagamanassa bhagavato kaale sa"nghassa vihaaradaana.m kata.m, so yathaavuttaaya dibbasampattiyaa ca hetu. So pabhavo ta.m muulanti tasseva pariyaayavacana.m. Saava saasane khantiiti saa eva idha satthusaasane dhamme nijjhaanakkhantii. Ta.m pa.thamasamodhaananti tadeva satthusaasanadhammena pa.thama.m samodhaana.m pa.thamo samaagamo, tadeva satthusaasanadhamme abhirataaya pariyosaane nibbaananti phaluupacaarena kaara.na.m vadati. Imaa pana catasso gaathaa theriyaa apadaanassa vibhaavanavasena pavattattaa apadaanapaa.liyampi sa"ngaha.m aaropitaa. 521. That was the cause means: making that gift of a residence for the Order at the time of the Blessed One Ko.naagamana, that was the cause of what was already mentioned and of divine attainments. That was the origin, that was the root means: that is a figurative way of speech.* That very (va) delight (khantii)** in the teaching means: that very (eva) delight in understanding (nijjhaana-kkhantii) the Doctrine, the teaching of the Teacher here. That first meeting (pa.thama.m samodhaana.m), first encounter (pa.thamo samaagamo), with the Doctrine and teaching of the Teacher. She says that was the cause because of her access to the fruition state, for quenching was at the conclusion of her greatly delighting in the Doctrine and teaching of the Teacher. These four verses of the therii were included in the collection of the Apadaana text because their existence make clear the Apadaana [account]. *Pariyaaya-vacana.m, i.e., these two expressions are synonyms for "that was the cause." On the translation of this term, see EV II, p.179. **See EV I, p.265 ad v.1029 for a discussion of khanti. ..to be continued, connie #82746 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:14 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "...What I have expressed is a worldly fact about seeing of visible objects-- by the eye and the connected nerve system-- in human beings. I haven't yet included the brain that processes the visual information received from the optic nerves." Scott: Yes, that was what I was suggesting: that the thesis regarding seeing a person is nothing more than worldly psychological theory - just a version of science. T: "In short, the person(puggala) outside is visible to the observer through his sense medium. If there is no person as the object of seeing, then there is no seeing by the eye. And this mundane view is compatible with 'seeing a form' in the suttas. Of course, the suttas also deal with the dhammas (such as the 'All') as experienced(abhijaanaati) by the ariyans. In a puthujjana the reality pertaining to the pure (i.e. not fabricated) dhammas is not realized; so s/he only formulates or rationalizes a view based on the Abhidhamma principle. Scott: I can't be with you in the above, Tep. If person is merely designation (which obviously I consider it to be), then 'person' can't be seen - just thought about. Visible form is considered to be derived matter. That which is visible object in the three-way conjunction along with eye-base and eye-consciousness, is ruupa (form). I think you are taking visible form (that which I considere to be construed in the mind-door) to mean something that is not meant: a-person-with-a-body-and-limbs-and-a-face and all that. Again, in my opinion, conventional speech is taken literally in this case. I've also disagreed many times with the notion that the simple fact of lack of realisation somehow makes two levels of reality. This simply doesn't hold up. If it did, realisation would not be naama, but would have to include some sort of massive alteration of physical reality - the material world - to account for the change in 'perception'. This is not possible. I'm not sure on this, but I think that consciousness rooted in craving and ignorance contributes to the arising of the view that what is seen and conceived of post-hoc as 'person' actually exists. This is delusion in the Dhamma sense. Sincerely, Scott. #82747 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:22 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... buddhatrue Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear James, Tep, Howard, > > Thanks for the replies. Regarding: > > J: "Seriously, Scott wrote: > 'Your contention seems to be that a 'real' or 'actual' person exists > outside and hence, when this external 'person' is perceived by the > eye, this perception is what is then replicated within the mind. > This, in my opinion, is not Dhamma, but is a basic version of > rudimentary and conventional psychology of perception.' > > James: "Ordinary perception is not against the Dhamma..." > > Scott: If you'll read the above carefully, I'm suggesting that Tep's > view that a person is external and can be seen by the eye is nothing > more than ordinary psychology of perception and not Dhamma. Dhamma means "the way of things", so of course ordinary perception is a part of Dhamma. What isn't a part of Dhamma is "Ultimate Reality". There is no such thing as "Ultimate Reality" and you won't find the Buddha talking about such a thing in the suttas. It was invented by later monks. Scott, there is nothing special about the concept of "Ultimate Reality" and it isn't the Dhamma- all schools of thought have their own version of ultimate reality. We could discuss many different versions: Theravada (Dhamma Theory), Mahayana (Compassion), Zen (Emptiness), Taoism (The Tao), Judaism/Christianity (God), Kaballah (Light), New Age (Cosmic Consciousness), Hindu (Brahma), etc., etc. etc. The Buddha didn't teaching anything along the lines of these unprovable theories. The Buddha taught suffering and the end to suffering, not an "Ultimate Reality" separate from this goal. Metta, James #82748 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:25 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Sorry, this came out wrong: Me: "...I think you are taking visible form (that which I consider to be construed in the mind-door) to mean something that is not meant: a-person-with-a-body-and-limbs-and-a-face and all that..," Scott: I mean that what you consider to exist out there ('person'), I consider to be a function of post-'seeing' mental process, that is, to be construed after seeing occurs. Sincerely, Scott. #82749 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:28 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... scottduncan2 Dear James, Thanks for the reply: J: "Dhamma means "the way of things", so of course ordinary perception is a part of Dhamma...The Buddha taught suffering and the end to suffering, not an "Ultimate Reality" separate from this goal." Scott: We don't see eye to eye. Sincerely, Scott. #82750 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:33 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, James, Howard, Here's a cool song related to recent discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dAPsTGbZQ Sincerely, Scott. #82751 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:28 am Subject: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, Some people may believe that they have to apply energy and perform specific actions so that they have less akusala cittas and more moments of mindfulness. Listening and considering are conditions for the arising of insight. But there are other conditions stemming from the past: kusala in the past conditions our interest at this moment to consider and investigate realities. This process has been set in motion already, there is not a person who could regulate this. Nobody can create conditions for the arising of sati. Acharn Sujin asked several times: “Can you create hardness now?” Nobody can create anything, because dhammas arise because of their own conditions. Hardness is the rúpa that is solidity or the Element of Earth. This rúpa arises and falls away all the time in splitseconds. If someone says: create hardness now, it is impossible, it has already arisen and fallen away and then there is a new hardness in another group of rúpas.It is present with every group of rúpas, it supports other rúpas in that group. It arises with sound, with visible object, with any other type of rúpa. All of them arise because there are the right conditions. It may seem that one can create sound, but without the right conditions it is impossible. It is the same with sati and paññå, which are sobhana cetasikas. Nobody can create them. We are not a creator, master or owner of any dhamma. When we were in India, we were sometimes sick, we had a fever or violent pains due to water, food or climate. Acharn Sujin reminded us then to know the characteristic of the present reality, for when there is thinking about tonight or tomorrow or worrying about it obviously there is too much interest in ‘self’. She also felt sick, mostly from a severe cold, and exhausted at times but she did not show it. She never thinks of herself. When we read the many suttas about dhammas appearing through the six doors we can be reminded of the truth. The Buddha taught all the time about the dhammas appearing through the six doors. There is only the dhamma of this moment, nothing else, this is the truth. Nobody can cause the arising of specific dhammas. When feeling sick, that is the dhamma at this moment. There are only dhammas, not me who feels sick. We cling to our feeling, we are commiserating with ourselves, and also that is a dhamma. We cannot escape nåma and rúpa, so long as we are living in this world. Acharn Sujin said that there can be understanding of the dhamma that has already arisen because of conditions. If we understand dhamma as dhamma we know that nobody can interfere with what arises because of the appropriate conditions. We may have intellectual understanding of anattå, but we should come to understand the reality that is anattå. She said: “There is always an idea of I who is reflecting, but actually, citta and cetasikas are performing their functions and then they fall away immediately.” ******* Nina. #82752 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... nilovg O Scott, so loud!! Nina. Op 15-feb-2008, om 14:33 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > Here's a cool song related to recent discussion: #82753 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. upasaka_howard Hi, James (and Nina & Scott) - In a message dated 2/15/2008 8:03:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > N: Concepts are not harmful, they are very useful. So is thinking of > concepts, no need to fear thinking of concepts. It is weird to avoid > that. See Scott's post I quoted yesterday. James: I read that quote but I didn't comment because I didn't want to be rude. But, since you bring it up again, I will comment. It sounds like someone who is insane. It sounds like someone who says, "I know that people aren't real but I am going to act as if they were." That is an example of someone who is delusional and can't tell the difference between reality and unreality. I don't think you can establish metta or insight on such delusional mind games. ================================ Scott had written "I don't have a problem thinking conventionally about the Buddha while at the same time maintaining the intellectual understanding that the person of the Buddha is a mere designation and only conceptual. I don't have a problem thinking conventionally about replying to Tep while at the same time knowing that, for me in my experience, Tep is a designation and conceptual. This in no way gives rise to thoughts of wanting to be mean to you, for example, because you 'really don't exist' or some nonsense such as that. You and all beings are the concepts I have which become the objects of wholesome or unwholesome cittas and cetasikas." I don't see this as insane at all but as just reflecting a technical point of view that differs from mine, and I think that I can pinpoint the difference explicitly: Scott recognizes as "real" the various instances of material form and of mental conditions and operations. He also is aware of relations holding among these, and he recognizes, I believe, that these paramattha dhammas act in concert. However, his ontology does not include what I call "aggregations". For Scott, integrated collections of intricately interrelated namas and rupas are nothing but mental constructs superimposed upon the observed paramattha dhammas; i.e., the collecting that produces "the aggregation" is purely a mental collecting. For me, the relations holding among the paramattha dhammas involved (for example in a person) are very real, making the aggregation not just something mentally concocted, but something having a basis in reality. It is a reality of a different order than the paramattha dhammas that are its basis, to be sure, yet is far from something concocted from whole cloth. For Scott, to speak at all of a person is to speak only metaphorically, there really being, in his opinion, no such thing. For me, however, it is to speak of a person as an *individual* as opposed to an aggregation that is to speak only metaphorically. For me, to speak of a person engaging in an activity is to point to the underlying paramattha dhammas acting/occurring in concert, which is exactly what happens when "a person is acting." But for me to speak of a person as an aggregation is quite literal, not metaphorical. Scott's position and mine are not the same, but they differ more on a technical ontological basis than a deeply substantive one, it seems to me. Where Scott and I are in strong agreement is that what I call aggregations are known to us only via the mind door. (Of course, I could be "insane" as well! Certainly, many have thought that my radical phenomenalism is screwy! LOLOL!) With metta, Howard #82754 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... dhammanusara Hi Nina & Scott, - Thanks to Scott for the music file. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > O Scott, so loud!! > Nina. > Op 15-feb-2008, om 14:33 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > > > Here's a cool song related to recent discussion: > T: The title is interesting, though. Tep === #82755 From: TGrand458@... Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "dhammas" TGrand458@... Send Email Hi Nina Well, I agree with your comments so we best leave it at that for now. :-) TG #82756 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. nilovg Hi James and Howard, Op 15-feb-2008, om 14:02 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > It sounds like someone who > says, "I know that people aren't real but I am going to act as if > they were." That is an example of someone who is delusional and > can't tell the difference between reality and unreality. I don't > think you can establish metta or insight on such delusional mind > games. ------- N: Howard answered, and it is well thought out, but I find it not easy to grasp it. I mean, the ontological aspect. That is entirely my fault, I am not trained for this. There were discussions on metta, and I do not want to continue long with this thread. Tomorrow I go out. I find it very realistic to see a person as cittas and cetasikas, and as rupas. These cittas are dependent on former accumulations and react accordingly to what others say or do. I have no problem here to mix ultimates and persons. Knowing about citta and cetasikas can make me more patient (not always) as to what others say or do, it is all conditioned. I see the benefit of metta, what use is it to get angry. Then I am the loser, I harm myself and add even more to the latent tendencies. There are already enough of them. James, you may find this answer too simple, but this is the way I think. Nina. #82757 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:53 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. sunnata samaapatti .. dhammanusara Dear Scott, - I always have to do a hard work whenever we have a dhamma discussion! You asked: >Scott: Are you referring to the 'attainment of ceasing' (sa~n~naa-vedayita-nirodha), the so-called ninth level after the eight jhaanas? Can you please clarify 'su~n~nataa samaapatti'. T: No, 'su~n~nataa samaapatti' is not sa~n~naa-vedayita- nirodha. 'Samaapatti' is a name for the 8 absorptions of the fine- material and immaterial spheres. There is a 'sunnata-samadhi', but there is no such thing as 'su~n~nataa samaapatti'. I made a mistake. According to Bodhipakkhiya Dipani, the eight sammapatti are associated with samatha and citta-visuddhi, while sunnata-samadhi is associated with panna-visuddhi. Both are under the umbrella 'samadhi- sambojjhanga'. "The samadhi-dhamma called sammadhindriya, sammadhi-bala, and samadhi- magganga, is called samadhi-sambojjhanga. Alternatively, the parikamma-samadhi, upacara-samadhi, appana-samadhi, or the eight sammapatti, associated with the work of samatha and citta-visuddhi, and sunnata-samadhi, animitta-samadhi, appanihita-samadhi, associated with panna-visuddhi, are called samadhi-sambojjhanga. The samadhi that accompanies vipassana-nana, or magga-nana and phala-nana, are called by such names as sunnata-samadhi, animitta-samadhi and appanihita-samadhi". http://www.ubakhin.com/ledi/manual6e.htm Tep === -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Thanks for the reply: > > T: "In the message #82600 you reject the idea that a 'person' "within > the mind-door" of the observer is not "derived" from a real person > (outside) as seen by the eye. You insist, "I would suggest > that 'person' is a mental construct, not a 'derivative' ". A mental > image that is derived from the information perceived by the eyes, > maybe? BTW what is the difference?" > #82758 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and James, and Scott) - In a message dated 2/15/2008 2:41:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi James and Howard, Op 15-feb-2008, om 14:02 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > It sounds like someone who > says, "I know that people aren't real but I am going to act as if > they were." That is an example of someone who is delusional and > can't tell the difference between reality and unreality. I don't > think you can establish metta or insight on such delusional mind > games. ------- N: Howard answered, and it is well thought out, but I find it not easy to grasp it. I mean, the ontological aspect. That is entirely my fault, I am not trained for this. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: It's not your fault, Nina. It is mine for making the matter too technical and philosophical. ----------------------------------------------- There were discussions on metta, and I do not want to continue long with this thread. Tomorrow I go out. I find it very realistic to see a person as cittas and cetasikas, and as rupas. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: So do I -- as an ever-changing, collection of interrelated namas and rupas acting in concert; a dynamic collection of material and mental phenomena. I can't imagine what else a person would be. ---------------------------------------------- These cittas are dependent on former accumulations and react accordingly to what others say or do. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. --------------------------------------------- I have no problem here to mix ultimates and persons. Knowing about citta and cetasikas can make me more patient (not always) as to what others say or do, it is all conditioned. I see the benefit of metta, what use is it to get angry. --------------------------------------------- Howard: We are aware of both suffering and joy in ourselves, we see the signs of it on others, and our heart goes out to them. There need not be any self in a person, any personal core of own-being, to justify that. ------------------------------------------ Then I am the loser, I harm myself and add even more to the latent tendencies. There are already enough of them. James, you may find this answer too simple, but this is the way I think. Nina. ====================== With metta, Howard #82759 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:59 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... dhammanusara Hi James (and Scott), - Thank you for taking time to find the answer for me. > >T: Can you give one example where understanding is not found "where perception and consciousness are"? I can't. > > >James: Here is the exact footnote: > > 'In arisings of consciousness with two root-causes [i.e with non- greed and non-hate but without non-delusion], or without root cause, understanding does not occur' (Pm 432). ................ What do you understand the footnote means? I think it says: understanding does not occur with a citta that does not have non- delusion as a root cause, even when there are non-greed and non-hate as root causes. But I don't know what it says about the case "without root cause". Tep === #82761 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:33 am Subject: Full Faith Frees! bhikkhu0 Friends: Any Noble disciple possesses unwavering Faith in the Buddha thus: The Blessed One is Worthy, Fully & Perfectly Self-Enlightened, completed in knowledge and behaviour, Happily Transcended, Sublime, Expert in all dimensions, Knower of a worlds, unsurpassable Trainer of those beings who can be tamed, Teacher & Guide of both gods and men, an Enlightened, Exalted & Blessed One! He possesses unwavering faith in the Dhamma thus: Perfectly formulated by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, obviously seen right here & now, instantly effective, timeless, inviting anyone to come & see, investigate & verify for themselves, leading through gradual progress to perfected freedom, directly observable, experiencable & realizable by each intelligence! He possesses unwavering faith in the Blessed Buddha’s Sangha Community of Disciples thus: Perfectly training is the Blessed One’s Order of Disciples, the right way, the good way, the true way, the direct way. The Blessed One’s Sangha of Disciples i.e. the four Noble pairs, the eight sorts of individuals is therefore worthy of gifts, of hospitality, of self-sacrifice, worthy of respectful salutation with joined palms since they embody the supreme field for gaining merit in this world! Such unwavering Faith in the three Jewels is the very Key that opens the doors to the Deathless NibbÄ?na… More on Faith: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Faith_Summary.htm Full Faith Frees! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ..... #82762 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:59 pm Subject: For TGRAND458/Dhammasaro /Buddatrue&everybody... reverendagga... HI Everybody! Buddatrue/James responds... Right! So its a real being who is suffering not just impersonal namas/rupas.I think that is the point that the Venerable is making. Right you are James! We can say that i am now drinking a cup of green tea that does not "own" the character of "green" but then it would not be green tea without the "green" now would it? The point being that both the conventional and ultimate perspective have their proper place. Neither one are "false view" if we keep mindfulness of the validity of both. i myself as well have never heard of a murder defendant getting off because they were merely displacing atoms! Perhaps he could convince the jury...it was only a phantom and a dream,why a bubble and a flash thats all it is really! May the Buddhas, Deva and Angels Bless ALL of you! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto #82763 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] For TGRAND458/Dhammasaro /Buddatrue&everybody... upasaka_howard Hi, Bhante - In a message dated 2/15/2008 6:59:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, reverendaggacitto@... writes: Perhaps he could convince the jury...it was only a phantom and a dream,why a bubble and a flash thats all it is really! ============================= Cute stuff, Bhante! Did you know, BTW, that the source of that material from the Diamond Sutra lies in the Pali Sutta Pitaka? From The Phena Sutta there is the following: ______________________ Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately. ------------------------------------- and from the Arakenanusasani Sutta, there is the following: ______________________ 'Just as a dewdrop on the tip of a blade of grass quickly vanishes with the rising of the sun and does not stay long, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a dewdrop — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death. 'Just as when the rain-devas send rain in fat drops, and a bubble on the water quickly vanishes and does not stay long, in the same way, brahmans, the life of human beings is like a water bubble — limited, trifling, of much stress & many despairs. One should touch this [truth] like a sage, do what is skillful, follow the holy life. For one who is born there is no freedom from death. ------------------------------------------ Moreover, the primary characteristic pointed to by my signature quote that you are making fun of is impermanence, which is rather much a fundamental feature of the Buddhadhamma. With metta, Howard #82764 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] For TGRAND458/Dhammasaro /Buddatrue&everybody... upasaka_howard Hi again, Bhante - I add, for your edification, to my prior quoted material the following from the Uraga sutta: He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none, — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. and He who neither goes too far nor lags behind, delusion-free he knows: "This is all unreal," — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. Does this teaching of the Buddha's make him a nihilist, Bhante? Sometimes it's not the best thing to rush to make fun of things, don't you suppose, Sir? With metta, Howard #82765 From: LBIDD@... Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 7:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 238 and Tiika. lbidd2 Hi Nina, Could you elaborate on why craving isn't kamma? Larry --------------------- L: "I agree completely that craving craves only pleasant feeling, but I'm not entirely satisfied that kamma result conditions kamma." N: "thus, vipaaka feeling conditions craving. I would not say that craving is kamma." #82766 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 8:07 pm Subject: Re: Vism XIX, 'Overcoming Doubt' 9 (Conclusion) kenhowardau Hi Sarah, Thanks for your elucidation of P.B.O.Doubt. The only question I have is probably not an important one, so don't interrupt your busy schedule answering it. We occasionally see references to 'no gap' or 'no interval' (in between cittas), but I don't see the significance of it. Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough, but I can't imagine how the world would be any different if there were gaps. Ken H > S: By understanding the arising of present dhammas due to conditions, > there is no more doubt about death and rebirth. It's clear that there is > continuity of cittas (consciousness) like now, without any interval or > self involved. #82767 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:02 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. buddhatrue Hi Howard and Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > There were discussions on metta, and I do not want to continue long > with this thread. Tomorrow I go out. > I find it very realistic to see a person as cittas and cetasikas, and > as rupas. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So do I -- as an ever-changing, collection of interrelated namas and > rupas acting in concert; a dynamic collection of material and mental phenomena. > I can't imagine what else a person would be. As I wrote before, "person" cannot be defined as simply the five khandas (nama and rupa) but as a process detailed in dependent origination. I also wrote that when you get right down to the basics, "person" should be defined by "clinging" not by the five khandas. Howard replied that clinging is a part of the five khandas, it is nama. That is not correct. Here is what the Buddha said in that regard: "Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk delighted & approved of the Blessed One's words and then asked him a further question: "But in what, lord, are these five clinging-aggregates rooted?" "Monk, these five clinging-aggregates are rooted in desire." Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, or is clinging separate from the five clinging-aggregates?" "Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html James: So, clinging is not the same as the five khandas (including nama) and it is not something that is separate from the five khandas, it is part of the process of dependent origination. This is hard to grasp, and subtle, but that's just the way it is. This is why I say that I do not fully comprehend the nature of the person- because I do not fully comprehend the nature of dependent origination. Nina and Howard, you can easily comprehend nama and rupa, but that isn't the full picture. Additionally, it is craving which defines the person, not nama and rupa, because where there is no craving there is no person. Technically, the Buddha and other arahants cannot be defined as "person" (even though they appear as a person). Even though the five khandas are still present, dependent origination has stopped so an arahant is untraceable and unfathomable, and technically not a "person". Metta, James #82768 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:05 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... buddhatrue Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > What do you understand the footnote means? I think it says: > understanding does not occur with a citta that does not have non- > delusion as a root cause, even when there are non-greed and non-hate > as root causes. James: Agreed. But I don't know what it says about the case "without > root cause". James: I don't know what that means either. I think that has to do with the 24 conditions which I don't fully understand. > > Tep > === > Metta, James #82769 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:19 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... buddhatrue Hi Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep, James, Howard, > > Here's a cool song related to recent discussion: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3dAPsTGbZQ I couldn't understand the singer so I looked up the lyrics: You were laying on the carpet like you're satin in a coffin. You said, "Do you believe what you're sayin'?" Yeah right now, but not that often. Are you dead or are you sleepin'? Are you dead or are you sleepin'? Are you dead or are you sleepin'? God I sure hope you are dead. Well you disappeared so often like you dissolved into coffee. Are you here right now or are there probably fossils under your meat? http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/modestmouse/satininacoffin.html Yes, it does relate: What is real? What is unreal? These are the questions which existentialism ponder. However, again Scott, this isn't what the Buddha taught. He only taught suffering and how to end suffering. Views about "ultimate reality" don't really help in that direction. Metta, James #82770 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:29 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I find it very realistic to see a person as cittas and cetasikas, and > as rupas. These cittas are dependent on former accumulations and > react accordingly to what others say or do. I have no problem here to > mix ultimates and persons. James: I have no problem mixing "persons" and "dhammas" either ("ultimates" I have a problem with, however). Knowing about citta and cetasikas can make > me more patient (not always) as to what others say or do, it is all > conditioned. James: This is fine to me also. I see the benefit of metta, what use is it to get angry. > Then I am the loser, I harm myself and add even more to the latent > tendencies. There are already enough of them. James: This is a great perspective! Metta, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity are the proper antidotes to anger. (However, telling yourself that "there is no reason to be angry because there are no people" is just fooling yourself). > James, you may find this answer too simple, James: On the contrary, I find it to be a fantastic answer!! but this is the way I think. James: Great. > Nina. > Metta, James #82771 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism Ch XIX- Purification by Overcoming Doubt- Intro kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > Ken: "I suppose, to sum up: the idea of looking at my computer in order > to have insight ..." > > Larry: That's not quite it. It is more a matter of being prompted, > either by oneself or another, to identify experience. Is there a problem > with that? > Hi Larry, I have been writing great screeds on the subject, but you haven't given me much feedback. So I don't know which parts you agree or disagree with. But, yes, there is a problem with doing something - anything - in order to increase understanding of paramattha dhammas. You wouldn't ask a meteorology student to perform a rain dance, would you? It wouldn't conform with his understanding of weather systems. By the same token, in my opinion, you wouldn't ask a Dhamma student to "do" something (glance over at the computer e.g.) in order to increase right understanding of seeing. That sort of activity just doesn't fit with his understanding of absolute reality. Ken H #82772 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 238 and Tiika. upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Nina) - In a message dated 2/15/2008 10:58:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi Nina, Could you elaborate on why craving isn't kamma? Larry --------------------- L: "I agree completely that craving craves only pleasant feeling, but I'm not entirely satisfied that kamma result conditions kamma." N: "thus, vipaaka feeling conditions craving. I would not say that craving is kamma." ============================== This is a difficult one. Craving (for presence or absence) of something is intimately associated with willing. Yet I can think of wanting, a neutral chanda, I guess, that lacks the impulsive "push" of cetana, and I can think of cetana, kiriya, I suppose, that is free of self-oriented desire. Actually, neutral states aside, I suspect that tanha and kamma, both polluted by sense of self, are nonetheless distinguishable activities that occur very close in time, and they seem to be mutually conditioning to me. In the 12-link chain of dependent origination thought of as an ongoing, rapid emotive-cognitive cycle, each is exactly 6 steps before the other. With metta, Howard #82773 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:45 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 2/16/2008 12:03:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard and Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > There were discussions on metta, and I do not want to continue long > with this thread. Tomorrow I go out. > I find it very realistic to see a person as cittas and cetasikas, and > as rupas. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So do I -- as an ever-changing, collection of interrelated namas and > rupas acting in concert; a dynamic collection of material and mental phenomena. > I can't imagine what else a person would be. As I wrote before, "person" cannot be defined as simply the five khandas (nama and rupa) but as a process detailed in dependent origination. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: James, what do you think I mean when I write "dynamic"? Of course a person is a process, and the dependent origination scheme is a description of it. I don't disagree with what you are saying! I'm saying the same thing! ------------------------------------------------- I also wrote that when you get right down to the basics, "person" should be defined by "clinging" not by the five khandas. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, to be technical, it was a *being* that was so-defined by the Buddha. As far as I'm concerned, the living Buddha was a person. I don't think we should turn this discussion into one of when to use 'person' and when to use 'being'. When the Buddha was asked, shortly after his complete awakening, what he was - a human, or a demon (yakka). or whatever, he replied by saying that he is awake. ---------------------------------------------- Howard replied that clinging is a part of the five khandas, it is nama. That is not correct. Here is what the Buddha said in that regard: "Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk delighted & approved of the Blessed One's words and then asked him a further question: "But in what, lord, are these five clinging-aggregates rooted?" "Monk, these five clinging-aggregates are rooted in desire." Saying, "Very good, lord," the monk... asked him a further question: "Is clinging the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, or is clinging separate from the five clinging-aggregates?" "Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Would you care to explain that to me, James? He said "Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there." Are you telling me that clinging is not a mental operation? What is it, then? I don't know for sure what the Buddha meant in saying "clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates." Possibly he meant that the clinging is not the five heaps (and of course it is not), and it also isn't separate from them, because it is included in sankharakkhandha. It is part of that aggregate, is it not? That may be exactly what the Buddha meant in saying "Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there." ------------------------------------------------ James: So, clinging is not the same as the five khandas (including nama) and it is not something that is separate from the five khandas, it is part of the process of dependent origination. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: It seems to me that your interpretation is making clinging something outside the all. I think that's false.----------------------------------------------------- This is hard to grasp, and subtle, but that's just the way it is. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think so. Only one thing is not part of the all, and that's the seamless reality of nibbana. ------------------------------------------------ This is why I say that I do not fully comprehend the nature of the person- because I do not fully comprehend the nature of dependent origination. Nina and Howard, you can easily comprehend nama and rupa, but that isn't the full picture. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think you're painting legs on a snake, James. I think you're reading th ings into statements of the Buddha that are contrary to the preponderance of his teaching. ------------------------------------------------ Additionally, it is craving which defines the person, not nama and rupa, because where there is no craving there is no person. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Being, not person. And, again, it is substance that counts, not word definition. --------------------------------------------- Technically, the Buddha and other arahants cannot be defined as "person" (even though they appear as a person). Even though the five khandas are still present, dependent origination has stopped so an arahant is untraceable and unfathomable, and technically not a "person". Metta, James ========================== With metta, Howard #82774 From: "L G SAGE" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:05 am Subject: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) nichiconn Dear Friends, Part 45 16. Mahaanipaato 1. Sumedhaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa 524. "Eva.m karonti ye saddahanti, vacana.m anomapa~n~nassa; nibbindanti bhavagate, nibbinditvaa virajjantii"ti.- Imaa gaathaa abhaasi. 522. They act in this way, those who have faith in the utterance of the One Who Has Perfect Wisdom. They are disgusted with existence. Being disgusted with it, they are disinterested [in it]. Osaanagaathaaya eva.m karontiiti yathaa mayaa purimattabhaave etarahi ca kata.m pa.tipanna.m, eva.m a~n~nepi karonti pa.tipajjanti. Ke eva.m karontiiti aaha- "ye saddahanti vacana.m anomapa~n~nassaa"ti, ~neyyapariyantika~naa.nataaya paripu.n.napa~n~nassa sammaasambuddhassa vacana.m ye puggalaa saddahanti "evametan"ti okappanti, te eva.m karonti pa.tipajjanti. Idaani taaya ukka.msagataaya pa.tipattiyaa ta.m dassetu.m "nibbindanti bhavagate, nibbinditvaa virajjantii"ti vutta.m. Tassattho- ye bhagavato vacana.m yaathaavato saddahanti, te visuddhipa.tipada.m pa.tipajjantaa sabbasmi.m bhavagate tebhuumake sa"nkhaare vipassanaapa~n~naaya nibbindanti, nibbinditvaa ca pana ariyamaggena sabbaso virajjanti, sabbasmaapi bhavagataa vimuccantiiti attho. Viraage ariyamagge adhigate vimuttaayeva hontiiti. 522. In the final verse, they act in this way means: just as what has been done in previous existence and in the present by me by practising, others also act in this way, they are intent on [action]. Who acts in this way? Those who have faith in the utterance of the One Who Has Perfect Wisdom, which means: those individuals who have faith in the utterance of the Fully and Perfectly Awakened One who possesses the fulfilled wisdom that is the knowledge reaching the limits of what can be known - [those] who believe, "This is so" - they act in this way, they are intent on [action]. Now, to show that greatest of achievements of hers, she says: They are disgusted with existence. Being disgusted with it, they are disinterested [in it]. The meaning of that is: those who have sufficient faith in the utterance of the Blessed One, through the knowledge of insight, they are intent on the parctice of purity and disgusted with all formations in the three planes of existence. And being disgusted, through the noble path, they are thoroughly disinterested, they are freed from existence. That is the meaning. They are completely free when the noble path is reached through dispassion. [Conclusion] Evametaa therikaadayo sumedhaapariyosaanaa gaathaasabhaagena idha ekajjha.m sa"ngaha.m aaruu.lhaa "tisattatiparimaa.naa"ti. Bhaa.navaarato pana dvaadhikaa chasatamattaa theriyo gaathaa ca. So this group of verses, beginning with Therikaa and ending with Sumedhaa, 73 [theriis] altogether, were put together in the collection here. But as recital sections, there are 602 in all [adding together] the verses and [the number of] theriis. .. to be continued, connie #82775 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:27 am Subject: Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. dhammanusara Hi James (Howard, Nina, Jon), - You told Nina and Howard : >James: As I wrote before, "person" cannot be defined as simply the five khandas (nama and rupa) but as a process detailed in dependent origination. I also wrote that when you get right down to the basics, "person" should be defined by "clinging" not by the five khandas. T: The aggregates of clinging is dukkha. With birth there is a "person", and birth is "the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering". Through Dependent Origination we learn that "from clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming", and "from becoming as a requisite condition comes birth". So it is true that to completely define "person" one needs to get the clue from Dependent Origination. The right discernment ('This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.') abandons three things: craving, attanuditthi (self views, identity views) in the aggregates, and mana (I-am conceit). I think the whole ignorance about person, personality and identity is eradicated by such right discernment. Tep === Thanks. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Nina and Howard, you can easily comprehend nama and rupa, but that > isn't the full picture. > > Additionally, it is craving which defines the person, not nama and > rupa, because where there is no craving there is no person. > Technically, the Buddha and other arahants cannot be defined as > "person" (even though they appear as a person). Even though the five > khandas are still present, dependent origination has stopped so an > arahant is untraceable and unfathomable, and technically not a "person". > > Metta, > James > #82776 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:49 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... dhammanusara Hi James (and Scott), - There is Dhamma everywhere, even in a song like this one ! > James: > I couldn't understand the singer so I looked up the lyrics: > > You were laying on the carpet > like you're satin in a coffin. > You said, "Do you believe what you're sayin'?" > Yeah right now, but not that often. > > Are you dead or are you sleepin'? > Are you dead or are you sleepin'? > Are you dead or are you sleepin'? > God I sure hope you are dead. > > Well you disappeared so often > like you dissolved into coffee. > Are you here right now > or are there probably fossils under your meat? > http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/modestmouse/satininacoffin.html > > Yes, it does relate: What is real? What is unreal? These are the > questions which existentialism ponder. However, again Scott, this > isn't what the Buddha taught. He only taught suffering and how to > end suffering. Views about "ultimate reality" don't really help > in that direction. > T: Why do views about "ultimate reality" fail to help us understand the noble truths, James? Tep === #82777 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. upasaka_howard Hi again, James - In a message dated 2/16/2008 7:45:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: Howard: James, what do you think I mean when I write "dynamic"? Of course a person is a process, and the dependent origination scheme is a description of it. I don't disagree with what you are saying! I'm saying the same thing! =========================== I'd like to add to this that what I've said again and again is that relations are critical and central to the Dhamma and to reality. Eight days ago I wrote to you the following: _________________________ You know how some business people say "Location, location, location!"? Well, I say "Relation, relation, relation!" ;-) For me, dependent origination and conditionality in general are the heart of the Dhamma. ------------------------------------------- That accurately expresses my view. With metta, Howard #82778 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 12:58 am Subject: Dependent Origination/Brief, to James upasaka_howard Hi yet again, James - The whole of Dhammic wisdom, and the basis for Dhamma practice, lie in dependent origination. Based in dependent origination is impermanence, conditionality & emptiness/not-self, and suffering - it's origination and its termination. Dependent origination is the central teaching of the Buddha, and its direct realization is tantamount to the realization of nibbana. This is recognized in all Dhammic traditions, Theravada, Mahyana, and Vajrayana. With metta, Howard #82779 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:29 am Subject: Re: Dependent Origination/Brief, to James dhammanusara Ho Howard and James: I have a question. > Howard: The whole of Dhammic wisdom, and the basis for Dhamma practice, lie in dependent origination. Based in dependent origination is impermanence, conditionality & emptiness/not-self, and suffering - it's origination and its termination. Dependent origination is the central teaching of the Buddha, and its direct realization is tantamount to the realization of nibbana. This is recognized in all Dhammic traditions, Theravada, Mahyana, and Vajrayana. > T: Do you, Howard, agree or do not agree with James that Dependent Origination gives the true meaning of "person" (or "being" as you wish) that nama & rupa cannot? Thanks. Tep === #82780 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 15-feb-2008, om 21:47 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > We are aware of both suffering and joy in ourselves, we see the > signs of > it on others, and our heart goes out to them. There need not be any > self in > a person, any personal core of own-being, to justify that. ------ N: I like the way you express this, Nina. #82781 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dependent Origination/Brief, to James upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and James) - In a message dated 2/16/2008 9:29:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Ho Howard and James: I have a question. > Howard: The whole of Dhammic wisdom, and the basis for Dhamma practice, lie in dependent origination. Based in dependent origination is impermanence, conditionality & emptiness/not-self, and suffering - it's origination and its termination. Dependent origination is the central teaching of the Buddha, and its direct realization is tantamount to the realization of nibbana. This is recognized in all Dhammic traditions, Theravada, Mahyana, and Vajrayana. > T: Do you, Howard, agree or do not agree with James that Dependent Origination gives the true meaning of "person" (or "being" as you wish) that nama & rupa cannot? ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I've already made it quite clear how I understand the matter, and I find no need to rephrase my formulation in the agree/disagree format that you are demanding. A person is not just an aggregate, but an aggregation (as I have defined it). I've stated what I mean by that several times and in several ways, emphasizing interrelationships, conditionality, impermanence, kamma, clinging, and dependent origination, and that will just have to suffice. ------------------------------------------------------ Thanks. Tep ============================ With metta, Howard #82782 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. nilovg Hi James, Op 16-feb-2008, om 6:02 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > Additionally, it is craving which defines the person, not nama and > rupa, because where there is no craving there is no person. ------- N: Instead of defining, would you like to replace this with: originating or condiitoning? So long as there are ignorance and craving there is rebirth of an individual again and again. Nina. #82783 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 238 and Tiika. nilovg Hi Larry, Op 16-feb-2008, om 4:58 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > > --------------------- > L: "I agree completely that craving craves only pleasant feeling, but > I'm not entirely satisfied that kamma result conditions kamma." > > N: "thus, vipaaka feeling conditions craving. I would not say that > craving is kamma." ------ > L: Could you elaborate on why craving isn't kamma? ------- N: Craving is lobha cetasika. It does not always have the strength of lobha motivating an evil deed through body, speech or mind. It may just be akusala citta. It is certainly not kamma result, it is akusala, not vipaaka. In the following section of the Vis. you will see that upadaana is stronger than tanhaa. It is even said that the first of the seven javanacittas is tanhaa, whereas the following ones are upadaana, they are stronger. But now looking at it from the point of view of the D.O., craving conditions clinging and it is clinging that conditions becoming, as explained in sections 250, 251, etc. But now I would not like to say more, since we have not come to these sections. ***** Nina. #82784 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:16 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism Ch XIX- Purification by Overcoming Doubt- Intro lbidd2 Hi Ken and Nina, Maybe Nina can help. Nina, can you give us two examples of prompted insight, one example of insight prompted by oneself and one example of insight prompted by another? Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@ wrote: > > > > Hi Ken, > > > > Ken: "I suppose, to sum up: the idea of looking at my computer in > order > > to have insight ..." > > > > Larry: That's not quite it. It is more a matter of being prompted, > > either by oneself or another, to identify experience. Is there a > problem > > with that? > > > > > Hi Larry, > > I have been writing great screeds on the subject, but you haven't > given me much feedback. So I don't know which parts you agree or > disagree with. But, yes, there is a problem with doing something > - anything - in order to increase understanding of paramattha > dhammas. > > You wouldn't ask a meteorology student to perform a rain dance, would > you? It wouldn't conform with his understanding of weather systems. > By the same token, in my opinion, you wouldn't ask a Dhamma student > to "do" something (glance over at the computer e.g.) in order to > increase right understanding of seeing. That sort of activity just > doesn't fit with his understanding of absolute reality. > > Ken H > #82785 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XIX, 'Overcoming Doubt' 9 (Conclusion) nilovg Dear Ken H, Op 16-feb-2008, om 5:07 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > We occasionally see references to 'no gap' or 'no > interval' (in between cittas), but I don't see the significance of it. > Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough, but I can't imagine how the world > would be any different if there were gaps. ------ N: Anantara paccaya, proximity condition is very important. If there were gaps former accumulations of kusala and akusala could not be carried on, kamma could not produce vipaaka later on. The dying-consciousness falls away and is immediately followed by the rebirth-consciousness and thus all former accumulations continue to the next life. The cycle of birth and death continues on so long as ignorance has not been eradicated. Do insist if you have further questions, it is an important subject. Nina. #82786 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XIX, 'Overcoming Doubt' 9 (Conclusion) upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Ken) - In a message dated 2/16/2008 10:21:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Ken H, Op 16-feb-2008, om 5:07 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > We occasionally see references to 'no gap' or 'no > interval' (in between cittas), but I don't see the significance of it. > Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough, but I can't imagine how the world > would be any different if there were gaps. ------ N: Anantara paccaya, proximity condition is very important. If there were gaps former accumulations of kusala and akusala could not be carried on, kamma could not produce vipaaka later on. The dying-consciousness falls away and is immediately followed by the rebirth-consciousness and thus all former accumulations continue to the next life. The cycle of birth and death continues on so long as ignorance has not been eradicated. Do insist if you have further questions, it is an important subject. Nina. ================================ I think that gaps in consciousness within a mind stream itself are actually impossible. If from the perspective of a telepathic outsider, there were a "gap" in the observed mind stream that is another person, there would be no gap from the perspective of that person. While there might be perceived a "spike" or discontinuity in consciousness (i.e., a radical jump in content), that would be about it - for, after all, for the person him/herself, there is no intervening consciousness to observe any "gap." When consciousness arises again, it is the very next moment in consciousness for that mindstream. With metta, Howard #82787 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 238 and Tiika. lbidd2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: ? > N: Craving is lobha cetasika. It does not always have the strength of > lobha motivating an evil deed through body, speech or mind. It may > just be akusala citta. It is certainly not kamma result, it is > akusala, not vipaaka. In the following section of the Vis. you will > see that upadaana is stronger than tanhaa. > It is even said that the first of the seven javanacittas is tanhaa, > whereas the following ones are upadaana, they are stronger. > But now looking at it from the point of view of the D.O., craving > conditions clinging and it is clinging that conditions becoming, as > explained in sections 250, 251, etc. But now I would not like to say > more, since we have not come to these sections. > ***** > Nina. Hi Nina and Howard, Then let's call it kamma process. I still have a problem with kamma result being the principle condition for kamma process. It seems to give an enormous power to bodily feeling, that being the only source of pleasant and unpleasant resultant feeling. I suspect the Buddha was not being so precisely discriminating between kamma and kamma resultant feeling. When we hear a desirable sound, a piece of music for example, pleasant feeling arises. No matter that that pleasant feeling accompanies a javana citta and not hearing consciousness. That is too fine a distinction to be useful, imo. Larry #82788 From: "Larry" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:06 am Subject: Re: Vism XIX, 'Overcoming Doubt' 9 (Conclusion) lbidd2 Hi Ken, Nina, Howard, and Sarah, An interesting aspect of this question is that according to abhidhamma the work of continuity of consciousness is carried on by bhavanga cittas which aren't experienced. Perhaps they can be detected in dreamless sleep by some sort of sleep monitor, but they could be said to be a gap in experience. Some people make a big deal out of gaps, seeing them as a manifestation of emptiness. Larry --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for your elucidation of P.B.O.Doubt. The only question I have is > probably not an important one, so don't interrupt your busy schedule > answering it. We occasionally see references to 'no gap' or 'no > interval' (in between cittas), but I don't see the significance of it. > Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough, but I can't imagine how the world > would be any different if there were gaps. > > Ken H > > > > S: By understanding the arising of present dhammas due to conditions, > > there is no more doubt about death and rebirth. It's clear that there > is > > continuity of cittas (consciousness) like now, without any interval or > > self involved. > #82789 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XIX, 'Overcoming Doubt' 9 (Conclusion) upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Nina & Sarah) - In a message dated 2/16/2008 11:07:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi Ken, Nina, Howard, and Sarah, An interesting aspect of this question is that according to abhidhamma the work of continuity of consciousness is carried on by bhavanga cittas which aren't experienced. Perhaps they can be detected in dreamless sleep by some sort of sleep monitor, but they could be said to be a gap in experience. Some people make a big deal out of gaps, seeing them as a manifestation of emptiness. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Yeah, I know, mainly the western "insight meditation" folks, like Joseph Goldstein. I suspect that the perceived gaps are actually due to blanking out (or dozing off) while meditating! LOL! -------------------------------------------- Larry ====================== With metta, Howard #82790 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:26 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. sunnata samaapatti .. scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for your excellent clarifications. I'm happy to learn these things: "The samadhi-dhamma called sammadhindriya, sammadhi-bala, and samadhi- magganga, is called samadhi-sambojjhanga. Alternatively, the parikamma-samadhi, upacara-samadhi, appana-samadhi, or the eight sammapatti, associated with the work of samatha and citta-visuddhi, and sunnata-samadhi, animitta-samadhi, appanihita-samadhi, associated with panna-visuddhi, are called samadhi-sambojjhanga. The samadhi that accompanies vipassana-nana, or magga-nana and phala-nana, are called by such names as sunnata-samadhi, animitta-samadhi and appanihita-samadhi". Sincerely, Scott. #82791 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 10:39 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... scottduncan2 Dear James, Thanks for the reply: You were laying on the carpet like you're satin in a coffin. You said, "Do you believe what you're sayin'?" Yeah right now, but not that often. Are you dead or are you sleepin'? Are you dead or are you sleepin'? Are you dead or are you sleepin'? God I sure hope you are dead. Well you disappeared so often like you dissolved into coffee. Are you here right now or are there probably fossils under your meat? Scott: Yeah, I was actually reminded of the song after Tep playfully fantasised about me being dead and the flower on my coffin (I should have thought of the Rolling Stones) and so I playfully provided the link. Apart from the obviously angry 'God I sure hope you are dead' part, doesn't this read like some sort of mindfulness of death or the body sort of thing? I saw these guys in November - a great gig. J: "Yes, it does relate: What is real? What is unreal? These are the questions which existentialism ponder..." Scott: Yeah, we ponder this all the time here, eh? Sincerely, Scott. #82792 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 11:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XIX, 'Overcoming Doubt' 9 (Conclusion) nilovg Hi Larry, Op 16-feb-2008, om 17:06 heeft Larry het volgende geschreven: > An interesting aspect of this question is that according to > abhidhamma the work of > continuity of consciousness is carried on by bhavanga cittas which > aren't experienced. ------ N: You are right, bhavangacittas are sometimes called a gap, namely in between processes of cittas. Their object cannot be experienced, it is the same as the first citta in life. However, I understand that through insight the characteristic of bhavangacitta can be experienced, that is in between processes, when there is no object impinging on a doorway. It is different from the moment that a sense object impinges on one of the doorways. Nina. #82793 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:11 pm Subject: Re: Dependent Origination/Brief, to James buddhatrue Hi Tep (and Howard), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > > T: Do you, Howard, agree or do not agree with James that Dependent > Origination gives the true meaning of "person" (or "being" as you > wish) that nama & rupa cannot? Thank you so much for zeroing in on what I am trying to say! I thought that maybe I wasn't making myself clear enough. Unfortunately I see that Howard doesn't want to answer this question. He is being very stubborn. Pity. Metta, James #82794 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:15 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: Instead of defining, would you like to replace this with: > originating or condiitoning? So long as there are ignorance and > craving there is rebirth of an individual again and again. > Nina. I don't understand what you mean. Metta, James #82795 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 1:30 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. A Flower on Your Coffin ... buddhatrue Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > T: Why do views about "ultimate reality" fail to help us understand > the noble truths, James? Good question! Because they amount to speculative views. The Buddha explained in the sutta about the poisoned dart: "So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me. "And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me. "And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html#poison Additionally, the label "ultimate reality" is a misnomer. There is only one reality. How we understand that reality is what makes the difference. Metta, James #82796 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dependent Origination/Brief, to James TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/16/2008 2:11:41 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, buddhatrue@... writes: > T: Do you, Howard, agree or do not agree with James that Dependent > Origination gives the true meaning of "person" (or "being" as you > wish) that nama & rupa cannot? Thank you so much for zeroing in on what I am trying to say! I thought that maybe I wasn't making myself clear enough. Unfortunately I see that Howard doesn't want to answer this question. He is being very stubborn. Pity. ............................................ Hi Howard, James, Tep Since the question seems to be trying to trap Howard into responding or dealing with a deluded premise, I think he is wise not to deal with it. He has already answered in detail about Dependent Arising. Nama and Rupa can in no way be properly understood outside the context of Dependent Arising and vice versa. So to try to separate them as approaches to understanding ... is non-sense. TG #82797 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:45 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. sunnata samaapatti .. dhammanusara Dear Scott, - You wrote: > Dear Tep, > > Thanks for your excellent clarifications. I'm happy to learn these > things: > > "The samadhi-dhamma called sammadhindriya, sammadhi-bala, and samadhi- > magganga, is called samadhi-sambojjhanga. Alternatively, the > parikamma-samadhi, upacara-samadhi, appana-samadhi, or the eight > sammapatti, associated with the work of samatha and citta-visuddhi, > and sunnata-samadhi, animitta-samadhi, appanihita-samadhi, associated > with panna-visuddhi, are called samadhi-sambojjhanga. The samadhi > that accompanies vipassana-nana, or magga-nana and phala-nana, are > called by such names as sunnata-samadhi, animitta-samadhi and > appanihita-samadhi". > T: You are welcome! Tep === #82798 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:10 pm Subject: Re: Dependent Origination/Brief, to James dhammanusara Hi James (and Howard), - I asked Howard this question because I thought he had not answered it yet : > > >T: Do you, Howard, agree or do not agree with James that Dependent > >Origination gives the true meaning of "person" (or "being" as you > >wish) that nama & rupa cannot? T: And he wrote back (Boy! He was mean, wasn't he?): >Howard (#82781): >I've already made it quite clear how I understand the matter, and I find no need to rephrase my formulation in the agree/disagree format that you are demanding. A person is not just an aggregate, but an aggregation (as I have defined it). I've stated what I mean by that several times and in several ways, emphasizing interrelationships, conditionality, impermanence, kamma, clinging, and dependent origination, and that will just have to suffice. ------------------------------------------------------ T: So I felt bad, thinking : "Tep, you are an idiot! You offended your good friend Howard because you were confused and unable to penetrate his deep and highly intelligent thesis on the 'aggregation', even though he had repeatedly and clearly expressed what he meant". James, I am so glad you let me know that you are in the same boat. James (#82793): Thank you so much for zeroing in on what I am trying to say! I thought that maybe I wasn't making myself clear enough. Unfortunately I see that Howard doesn't want to answer this question. He is being very stubborn. Pity. T: Thank you very much, James, for admitting that you also see that he has not yet answered that question. Now I don't feel so stupid anymore. ;-)) Regards, Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Tep (and Howard), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > > > > T: Do you, Howard, agree or do not agree with James that Dependent > > Origination gives the true meaning of "person" (or "being" as you > > wish) that nama & rupa cannot? > #82799 From: "Bill Saint-Onge" Date: Sat Feb 16, 2008 9:33 am Subject: Re: Vism XIX, 'Overcoming Doubt' 9 (Conclusion) armyponcho_d... KenH, It's hard to see how "gaps" are possible in a multi-lifetime continuous process like this. At the same time, it's probably safe to say that the entire point of practice is to create one. Bill --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for your elucidation of P.B.O.Doubt. The only question I have is > probably not an important one, so don't interrupt your busy schedule > answering it. We occasionally see references to 'no gap' or 'no > interval' (in between cittas), but I don't see the significance of it. > Perhaps I'm not trying hard enough, but I can't imagine how the world > would be any different if there were gaps. > > Ken H > > > > S: By understanding the arising of present dhammas due to conditions, > > there is no more doubt about death and rebirth. It's clear that there > is > > continuity of cittas (consciousness) like now, without any interval or > > self involved. >