#83200 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:42 pm Subject: Re: Discrete Moments (Re: [dsg] The Incoherence of Instantaneous Arising, Ces... TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/24/2008 7:53:24 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Wait a second. Brightness cannot coexist at the same time/place where darkness is. Same is here. Arising has to be BEFORE ceasing, thus the time difference must be >0. But this destroys the concepts of a moment of time lasting for 0 seconds, which is the only natural indivisible and smallest unit. Lots of Metta, Alex ....................... Hi Alex and Howard (Tep and Larry), This is a nice example. Let's say its dark and then we turn on a light. The darkness doesn't end by itself. But it is the light coming on that simultaneously ends the darkness. The darkness doesn't end before or after the light comes on. Both ideas are ludicrous. The darkness ends in relation to and relative to the light coming on. TG #83201 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:49 pm Subject: The Buddha, the splinter and Qus of K.MIlinda sarahprocter... Hi Robert K & all, At one of the discussions at the Foundation last week, you brought up some comments of Peter Harvey's regarding the Buddha and past kamma. I've just checked both these and the Milinda Pa~nha reference and there is indeed something curious in it. I just got this comment of Harvey's on-line, from >"Freedom of the Will" in the Light of Theravāda Buddhist Teachings 52< I think it's the one you read out. I'll give a little more for context: PH: "At S.IV.230-231, the Buddha discusses the various causes of the experiences (feelings/sensations: vedayitāni) that a person might have. They can originate: in bile...in phlegm ...in the winds (of the body) ...from a union of humors (of the body) ...born of a change of season ...born of the stress of circumstances ...due to (someone else’s) effort (opakkamikāni6)… and some things that are experienced here, Sīvaka, arise born of the maturing of karma. It is thus seen as incorrect to say that, "Whatever this person experiences, whether pleasant or painful or neither painful nor pleasant, all that is due to what was done earlier."7 This passage is discussed at Milindapañha 134-138, where king Milinda is described as wrongly thinking that "all that is experienced is rooted in karma." The monk Nāgasena points out the various causes of feelings, as above, and moreover denies that karma underlies them all. Bodily winds, for example, can arise from a number of physical causes, though some do also arise due to past karma. On feelings in general, he says "small is what is born of the maturing of karma, greater is the remainder" (135). Miln. 271 also says that, "The earth and the mountains and wind are all born of physical change (utujā)." The Milindapañha 134-138 discussion is in relation to illnesses and injuries that the Buddha suffered. King Milinda says to venerable Nāgasena that the Buddha is seen as beyond the results of past bad karma (this is not said of Arahats other than the Buddha, though: see case of Moggallāna, above), and that this contradicts his suffering illnesses and injuries. Nāgasena discusses the case of the Buddha's foot being injured by a splinter of rock from a boulder rolled down towards him by his jealous cousin Devadatta. Of the list of possible causes of the unpleasant sensations this led to, only two are seen as possible: past karma and "due to an effort." As none of the Buddha's illnesses or injuries are seen as due to his past karma (or to stress of circumstances), though, the injury must have arisen "due to an effort"—of Devadatta.[THE BUDDHA'S SINLESSNESS."< ***** S: There is a translation of Milinda's Questions on-line and the part which the above refers to is: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe35/sbe3512.htm#page_190 Here is the last part of it, of relevance. ">64. 'Now when the Blessed One's foot was torn by a splinter of rock, the pain that followed was not produced by any other of the eight causes I have mentioned, but only by external agency. For Devadatta, O king, had harboured hatred against the Tathâgata during a succession of hundreds of thousands of births 1. It was in his hatred that he seized hold of a mighty mass of rock, and pushed it over with the hope that it would fall upon his head. But two other rocks came together, and intercepted it before it had reached the Tathâgata; and by the force of their impact a splinter was torn off, and fell upon the Blessed One's foot, and made it bleed. Now this pain must have been produced in the Blessed One either as the result of his own Karma, or of some one else's act. For beyond these two there can be no other kind of pain. It is as when a seed does not germinate--that must be due either to the badness of the soil, or to a defect in the seed. Or it is as when food is not digested--that must be due either to a defect in the stomach, or to the badness of the food.' 65. 'But although the Blessed One never suffered pain which was the result of his own Karma, or brought about the avoidance of dissimilarity 2, yet he suffered pain from each of the other six causes. And by the pain he could suffer it was not possible to deprive him of life. There come to this body of ours, O king, compounded of the four elements 1, sensations desirable and the reverse, pleasant and unpleasant. Suppose, O king, a clod of earth were to be thrown into the air, and to fall again on to the ground. Would it be in consequence of any act it had previously done that it would so fall?' 'No, Sir. There is no reason in the broad earth by which it could experience the result of an act either good or evil. It would be by reason of a present cause [137] independent of Karma that the clod would fall to earth again.' 'Well, O king, the Tathâgata should be regarded as the broad earth. And as the clod would fall on it irrespective of any act done by it, so also was it irrespective of any act done by him that that splinter of rock fell upon his foot.' 66. 'Again, O king, men tear up and plough the earth. But is that a result of any act previously done?' 'Certainly not, Sir.' 'Just so with the falling of that splinter....."< ***** S: I'll look forward to reading yours and others' further comments and discussion. Metta, Sarah p.s I'll be rather busy catching up for a couple of days. ============= #83202 From: "colette" Date: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:21 pm Subject: Discrete Moments (Re: [dsg] The Incoherence of Instantaneous Arising, Ces... ksheri3 Hi TG, The humor of it all! I was a bit confused when I saw the post was made by TG, you, and I was reading a post by Alex. Needless to say I was far too wrapped up in trying to figure out how I was going to drop the bomb on him that he is the only person that thinks that darkness had or has an end to it based on his application of light. Then I finally scrolled down and found your post. Your post elludes to the fact that there's a small discrepency over what an "ending" and what a "begining" are. I'll take it further: who's to actually suggest that the darkness ended? Simply because there is light does not mean that there is no darkness. Why is it that I see the moon while the sun is up? (we won't touch upon my disgust with the person that had the nerve to call the sun the sun without consulting me for my opinion since it's all very possible that the person that named the sun the sun was actually playing a joke upon his sisters & bros. by calling the moon the sun and the sun the moon; since I'm of the opinion that I was rather drunk when I was at this conversation and have no memory of it I'll let it slide, maybe Foster Brooks remembers that conversation). Your concept of the lunacy of both concepts, Light & Dark, could use a little work. I'm of the opinion to have fun with it and make jokes through it and by it. It's such a fundamental principle in Western Mysticism, or even occultism, where they start bantying around terms like "white magic" and "black magic" then when they don't get their way they simply resort to the tired old message of DOGMA. Ooops whose that yelling that "the world is coming to and end, repent" or is it that "the sky is falling", hmmmmm? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 2/24/2008 7:53:24 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Wait a second. Brightness cannot coexist at the same time/place where > darkness is. Same is here. Arising has to be BEFORE ceasing, thus the > time difference must be >0. But this destroys the concepts of a > moment of time lasting for 0 seconds, which is the only natural > indivisible and smallest unit. > > Lots of Metta, > > Alex > > > > ....................... > > Hi Alex and Howard (Tep and Larry), > > > This is a nice example. Let's say its dark and then we turn on a light. > The darkness doesn't end by itself. But it is the light coming on that > simultaneously ends the darkness. > > > The darkness doesn't end before or after the light comes on. Both ideas are > ludicrous. The darkness ends in relation to and relative to the light > coming on. #83203 From: han tun Date: Sun Feb 24, 2008 11:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Patthaana (9) hantun1 Dear Tep (Nina), As usual, very good questions, Tep. The original author (Nina) will be in a better position to answer your question. But, if I may volunteer, I would answer as follows: There are 19 types of rebirth-consciousness (patisandhi cittas). Out of 19, 10 are related with the sensuous planes. Out of the 10, the first one is investigating consciousness accompanied by upekkhaa (upekkhaa-sahagatam santirana citta) which belongs to the group of seven [ahetuka] akusala vipaaka cittas. This citta performs as patisandhi citta of beings who are reborn in four apaaya-bhuumi. The next citta has the same name as the first one, but belongs to the group of eight ahetuka kusala vipaaka cittas. This citta performs as patisandhi citta for humans with deformities. Both these cittas are ahetuka cittas. The remaining eight cittas are eight sense-sphere resultant consciousness (kamavacara vipaaka cittas) which function as patisandhi cittas for devas and humans free from deformities. These cittas have two or three roots (alobha and adosa; or, alobha, adosa, and amoha). The first two cittas, as you thought, do not have any roots – ahetuka. So, logically, as you said, there should not be any good or bad results. However, we have to consider the functions of the “roots.” The roots of a tree support the tree and make it firm. Now, a citta without any roots, is like a tree without any roots. Therefore, it is not firm and weak, and the person who is born without any roots has deformities. [Reference: A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, page 40, page 126] Nina will correct me if I am wrong. Respectfully, Han --- Tep Sastri wrote: > T: I have learned from the Beginner's Abhidhamma > discussion with Nina > that 'hetu' means root such as alobha, adosa, amoha, > lobha, dosa, > moha. From your above quote I learn that these 6 > roots can condition > the citta at the moment of birth. So, some human > beings may be born > in a rich family, some may have good health, etc., > or the opposites > may happen, depending on the kind of hetus, i.e. > good or bad. Now, > for the case a patisandhi-citta is 'ahetuka' there > are neither good > nor bad roots, right? Then why is the new born baby > handicapped, > when there are no bad hetus? Or, is that handicap a > result of a bad > kamma? > > Thanking you in advance, > > Tep > === #83204 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Buddha, the splinter and Qus of K.MIlinda nilovg Dear Sarah, Op 25-feb-2008, om 6:49 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > "At S.IV.230-231, the Buddha discusses the various causes of the > experiences (feelings/sensations: vedayitāni) that a person might > have. They can originate: > in bile...in phlegm ...in the winds (of the body) ...from a union of > humors (of the body) ...born of a change of season ...born of the > stress > of circumstances ...due to (someone else’s) effort > (opakkamikāni6)… > and some things that are experienced here, Sīvaka, arise born > of the > maturing of karma. > It is thus seen as incorrect to say that, "Whatever this person > experiences, whether pleasant or painful or neither painful nor > pleasant, > all that is due to what was done earlier."7 This passage is > discussed at > Milindapañha 134-138, ------- N: This makes me think of: SN XXXVI.21 The Siivakasutta with the commentary and subcommentary. (extracted from the Burmese CSCD disk, vers. 1.1) I posted this before, I translated the Co and subco form the Pali. Perhaps not again? Nina. #83205 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Feb 24, 2008 7:29 pm Subject: Re: Discrete Moments (Re: [dsg] The Incoherence of Instantaneous Arising, Ces... TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/24/2008 10:51:25 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, ksheri3@... writes: who's to actually suggest that the darkness ended? Simply because there is light does not mean that there is no darkness. ......................................... Hi Colette What it means when I say that the darkness ended is -- that the "formational configurations" that configured the "experience of darkness" has ended. That previous "constellation of conditions" is now configured in a different manner. This is a type of impermanence. Impermanence is the change of conditions. When I speak of light and darkness, or any other experienced condition, I am speaking about the entire constellation of conditions, physical and mental, responsible for that state. TG #83206 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Buddha, the splinter and Qus of K.MIlinda sarahprocter... Dear Nina & Rob K, --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > N: This makes me think of: SN XXXVI.21 > > The Siivakasutta with the commentary and subcommentary. ... S: I don't think this was the point Rob was asking about. He quoted the following summary of P.Harvey's and wondered if it was correct: >"The Milindapañha 134-138 discussion is in relation to illnesses and injuries that the Buddha suffered. King Milinda says to venerable Nāgasena that the Buddha is seen as beyond the results of past bad karma (this is not said of Arahats other than the Buddha, though: see case of Moggallāna, above), and that this contradicts his suffering illnesses and injuries. Nāgasena discusses the case of the Buddha's foot being injured by a splinter of rock from a boulder rolled down towards him by his jealous cousin Devadatta. Of the list of possible causes of the unpleasant sensations this led to, only two are seen as possible: past karma and "due to an effort." As none of the Buddha's illnesses or injuries are seen as due to his past karma (or to stress of circumstances), though, the injury must have arisen "due to an effort"—of Devadatta.[THE BUDDHA'S SINLESSNESS."< ... S: Neither K.Sujin nor I thought it could be like this in Milinda Pa~nha and that indeed the Buddha's past kamma still brought results (but he could never be killed). However, the following lines are in Milinda Pa~nha, but possibly misinterpreted by Harvey? ***** S: ">64. 'Now when the Blessed One's foot was torn by a splinter of rock, the pain that followed was not produced by any other of the eight causes I have mentioned, but only by external agency. For Devadatta, O king, had harboured hatred against the Tathâgata during a succession of hundreds of thousands of births 1. It was in his hatred that he seized hold of a mighty mass of rock, and pushed it over with the hope that it would fall upon his head. But two other rocks came together, and intercepted it before it had reached the Tathâgata; and by the force of their impact a splinter was torn off, and fell upon the Blessed One's foot, and made it bleed. Now this pain must have been produced in the Blessed One either as the result of his own Karma, or of some one else's act. For beyond these two there can be no other kind of pain......."< Perhaps Rob will elaborate on the question he raised too as I'm a little 'out of it' today.... Metta, Sarah ======= #83207 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Swimming analogy jonoabb Hi Mike m. nease wrote: >> 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? > > ... > 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. > On the question of references in the texts, I think I mentioned earlier in this thread the sutta term *meritorious deeds done in the past* (Pali: pubbe-kata-punnata). See for example DN 34 "Expanding Decades" as one of the "four things that greatly help". To my understanding, these "deeds done in the past" include in particular the development of insight. Jon #83208 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > First, I certainly wouldn't expect to find "reality" included in the > list of "nonself, conditioned, mirage, tricks" etc. Let me explain why. > > Elements, khandhas and dhammas are synonyms for those "things" to > which the description or simile of "nonself, conditioned, mirage, > tricks" applies. And "realities" is a translation of "dhammas". So > it is "realities" that are being described. > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > 'Realities' is a BAD translation of 'dhammas'. It suggests > substantiality, self-exstence, and the very opposite of su~n~nata. A far better > translation would be 'phenomena'. > ---------------------------------------------------- > I think the term "realities" is especially problematic for those coming from a Mahayana/Nagaarjuna background. For those of us without that particular background, the term does not carry the same connotations. > Secondly, as regards the general question of dhammas and characteristics: > - each dhamma has a 'signature' characteristic by which it is > distinguished from all other dhammas; > - all dhammas have in common the 3 characteristics of anicca, dukkha > and anatta; > - the fact that dhammas are said to be insubstantial, being likened > to a mirage, a coreless plantain tree, etc, has to be understood in > the context of this being said about things that have the > (unalterable) characteristics described above; there is no > contradiction between being an ultimate reality/dhamma in that sense > and being insubstantial (and hence not worth grasping at) in the sense > of having only the most fleeting of presences. > --------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There is a connotational conflict. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > I'm pondering your meaning here. Does the connotational conflict arise because of the particular terminology used, or because of the underlying idea itself? As regards the latter, I don't see any conflict between something having existence and yet not being worth grasping at because that existence is extremely fleeting. If the conflict arises because of the particular terminology chosen, do you mean the Pali original or the English translation? Thanks. Jon #83209 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. .. Transformation into Sotapanna?.. jonoabb Hi Tep Tep Sastri wrote: > T: Do you know why? Whatever the reason, I think even an agreement is > like a mirage. > ................. > Very true, just a mirage. But a pleasant change from always being in disagreement ;-)) > I said earlier, "But that talking about the "moments of seeing > consciousness" implies the ariyan's ability to "see" > paramatthadhamma". It means I, a puthujjana, have not been able to > see visible ruupa that arises and falls away at all. I only can > see 'form' as the aggregate that 'comes to be', is subject to ageing > and death, and is thus impermanent. So if you can catch the "rise-and- > fall phenomena" of a visible ruupa at each and every eye- > consciousness moment, you have to be an ariyan. > First, a point of clarification. I was not talking about catching rise and fall. I was talking about, for example, visible object being experienced as just visible object, i.e., not a person or a thing, distinct from the seeing consciousness by which it is being experienced. Secondly, on the general question of talking about things that are beyond our own direct experience. In discussing the world as explained in the teachings, I see no need to limit our discussion to how we ourselves presently perceive the world to be. In fact, I think to do so would be counterproductive. I'm think you see it differently, but I'm not sure why you think as you do on this. > T: Same point as explained above in the case of the ariyan's seeing > versus a worldling's. A right view in an ariyan is very different > from a right view in a worldling, although there are several > stages/levels of transformation from low to high, to higher, and to > perfection. > ........................... > But the only question is whether a worldling may have moments of right view, that is to say, kusala consciousness accompanied by panna. Surely this is possible? > > T: But there are several holes in the above argument ! > Thanks for pointing out how "holey" my argument is ;-)). I'd just like to comment on one of your points: > 1. It does not say how such a vipaka may arise here and now. > 2. Being free from all ignorance (your own words) is absolute, there > is no falling back. Hence it indicates perfection of the ariyans. > I don't see it this way. Some moments of consciousness arise accompanied by unwholesome roots, some arise accompanied by wholesome roots (including panna), and some are rootless. At the moments when the consciousness is accompanied by wholesome roots or is rootless, it is free of all ignorance. The situation of being "absolute", as you describe it, occurs only when the akusala has been permanently eradicated, that is to say, at one of the levels or enlightenment. But it is still true to say of the worldling that not all of his moments of consciousness are infested with ignorance or wrong view. > T: With overwhelming arisings of akusala cittas and their vipakas, > it seems hopeless for any puthujjana to be "free of all ignorance and > wrong view" even for a moment; let alone accumulation of it for > stream entry. Two examplea: 1. A business has keeps on losing money > cannot expect to have a debt-free balance sheet. 2. Washing one's > body with dirty and smelly water for many years does not promise that > one day will come when that person may smell like sweet roses. ;-)) > ............... > But kusala accumulates, little by little. This is why its development was urged by the Buddha. Each moment of kusala is so important. Jon #83210 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:45 am Subject: Perseverance in Dhamma, Ch 2, no 1. nilovg Dear friends, Chapter 2. The Divine Messengers. Lodewijk and I discussed the sutta of “The Divine Messengers” when we were having dinner at the riverside. We spoke about the problems that arise on account of my aged father, and Lodewijk said that he was impressed by this sutta which we can immediately apply in our life with him. In the “Divine Messengers (Gradual Sayings, Book of the Threes, Ch IV, § 35) we read that the Buddha spoke to the monks about three divine messengers: old age, sickness and death. A person who has immoral conduct in deeds, words and thoughts is reborn in hell. The warders take him and bring him before Yama the Lord (of Death). We read that they said: “This man, O majesty, had no respect for father and mother, nor for recluses and priests, nor did he honour the elders of the family. May your majesty inflict due punishment on him.” Then, monks, King Yama questions that man, examines and addresses him concerning the first divine messemger: “Did you not see, my good man, the first messenger appearing among men?” And he replies:”No, Lord, I did not see him.” Then King Yama says to him: ”But, my good man, did you not see among people a woman or a man, aged eighty, ninety or a hundred years, frail, bent like a roof gable, crooked, leaning on a stick, shakily going along, ailing, his youth and vigour gone, with broken teeth, with grey and scanty hair or none, wrinkled, with blotched limbs?” And the man replies, “I have seen it, Lord.” Then King Yama says to him: “My good man, did it never occur to you who are intelligent and old enough, ‘I too am subject to old age and cannot escape it. Let me now do noble deeds by body, speech and mind’?” “No Lord. I could not do it, I was negligent.” We then read that King Yama said that he would experience the fruit of his evil action. King Yama then questioned him about the second divine messenger: “Did you not see, my good man, the second divine messenger appearing among men?” “No, Lord, I did not see him.” “But, my good man, have you not seen among people a woman or a man who was sick and in pain, seriously ill, lying in his own filth, who had to be lifted up by some, and put to bed by others?” “Yes, Lord, this I have seen.” “Then, my good man, did it never occur to you who are intelligent and old enough, ‘I too am subject to sickness and cannot escape it. Let me now do noble deeds by body, speech and mind”?” “No, Lord, I could not do it. I was negligent.” We read that King Yama said that he would experience the fruit of his evil action. King Yama then questioned him about the third divine messenger: “But my good man, have you not seen among people a woman or a man who had died one day ago or two, or three days ago, the corpse being swollen, discoloured and festering?” “Yes, Lord, this I have seen.” “Then, my good man, did it never occur to you who are intelligent and old enough, ‘I too am subject to death and cannot escape it. Let me now do noble deeds by body, speech and mind”?” “No, Lord, I could not do it. I was negligent.” We then read that he had to suffer as the result of his evil deeds grievous torments in hell. ****** Nina. #83211 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:22 am Subject: We Are Not! bhikkhu0 Friends Impersonal, selfless, coreless, ownerless & without ego is all constructions: There exists no unchanging, same, identical identity such as 'I, Me, My-self, My Ego, My Personality'! There exist momentary states of internal form, feeling, perception, construction, and consciousness. These five internal clusters of clinging are always changing, becoming otherwise, and never the same! There exist no unchanging, same, identical identities such as 'They, We, Them-selves, these Personalities'! There exist momentary states of external form, feeling, perception, construction, and consciousness. These five external clusters of clinging are always changing, becoming otherwise, and never the same! The notion: 'I Am' is false! There is a process of ever renewed becoming: This Am is therefore OK! However the pointing reference 'I' is without a referent! It is lacking a real object & points nowhere! Egoism is the religious belief in an unverifiable unchanging core substance residing somewhere inside all beings as a permanent entity, which is the assumed basis of the self, ego, person, I, me, U, We etc! However much one falls in love with this mere 'idea' it remains not to be seen or demonstrated to any! Though non-existent this purely mental constructs are nevertheless quite effective as conflict-starter! It is the 'king in the inner castle', which should be defended & gratified even when he is not really there! How comic! How tragic! How tricky! How difficult to see! How precious to know! How releasing of all! <...> We Are Not! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... #83212 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 5:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Patthaana (9) nilovg Dear Tep (and Han), Op 25-feb-2008, om 1:51 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > From your above quote I learn that these 6 roots can condition > the citta at the moment of birth. ------- N: Only the three sobhana roots can, not the three akusala roots, they do not arise with resultant cittas, and thus not with rebirth- consciousness. -------- > T: So, some human beings may be born > in a rich family, some may have good health, etc., or the opposites > may happen, depending on the kind of hetus, i.e. good or bad. ------ N: Depending on the kamma which produces the rebirth-consciousness. --------- > T: Now, > for the case a patisandhi-citta is 'ahetuka' there are neither good > nor bad roots, right? Then why is the new born baby handicapped, > when there are no bad hetus? Or, is that handicap a result of a bad > kamma? ------ N: Han explained already that roots make a citta strong, and when the rebirth-consciousness is rootless, it is weak. It is the result of weak kusala kamma. It is still kusala kamma, because the rebirth is in the human plane. The subject of kamma is very complex. If someone gives generously, it can bring kusala vipaaka. But if after giving stinginess arises, it can even influence the result of the previous generosity, as I read in the Visuddhimagga. We cannot pinpoint all such conditions. Nina. #83213 From: "pannabahulo" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:26 am Subject: 16th & 18th Feb Bangkok: sharing some thoughts pannabahulo My dear Dhamma friends, I have been asked to post a few comments on the two Dhamma discussions I attended last week (16th & 18th Feb). I arrived at the Dhamma Foundation early, and was very lucky to meet Ivan and Robert for the first time. Plunging straight into discussion they were able to straighten out some of my deep misunderstandings and shed light on some of the issues that had been causing me problems. Sukin then arrived and the discussion continued further. By the time Jonothan and Sarah joined us outside in the garden, my mental state had changed dramatically from one of attack and criticism to one of much more open-mindedness. I apologized to both Jonothan and Sarah for several recent letters I had sent them which – to put it bluntly – had made them the personification of all I disliked and disagreed with about DSG and the Abhidhamma bias towards the practice and understanding of the Lord Buddha's Dhamma. As I entered the discussion room I was acutely aware that my heart was open and that I was entirely motivated by a deep seated yearning to learn all that I could. I was not disappointed. Jonothan straight away handed me the microphone and I began to raise the questions that had been bothering me for weeks. I notice that Sarah has posted a very accurate list of the points raised; so it isn't necessary to go over all the details again. I merely colour in a few of the main issues. I began by raising what I saw as a big danger when paramattha and conventional language are used interchangeably. As I have said on previous postings, such talk and thinking seemed to lead to a point where nobody has to take any responsibility for whatever they do as everything happens because of conditions over which we have no control. This of course is full-blown determinism and seems to make the doctrine of kamma redundant. Ajan Sujin's response to this was that such thinking was only a `story'. The important thing was to be aware of whatever arises NOW – at this moment. Returning again and again to the experience of seeing she impressed upon me the need to understand `seeing' for what it really is. There is no self that sees. Seeing is the arising of visible object, the eye base and the seeing consciousness which arises because of them. Seeing is conditioned phenomena and no self is involved at all. One cannot help seeing – it happens by itself. By now I was clutching at straws but continued expressing further doubts. "Why were the Buddha's last words, `Work out your own salvation for yourselves; strive on with diligence.'?" Robert made a valuable remark that the Buddha was fully aware of conditions and realized – by saying that – that he was providing conditions for others to further progress towards the final goal. Ivan pointed out that striving itself was conditioned; and Sukin distinguished between right and wrong effort. I again asked Ajan Sujin how it was possible to take the `I' out of seeing. What is it that I could do to further facilitate this? Ajan simply replied that `I' couldn't do anything as there was no `I' in the first place. By this point everything seemed now to be slotting into place. The one thing that still hung over me, like a huge black cloud, was the fear of having to sit down and wade through difficult Abhidhamma texts. So I asked the question, "Ajan, if I want to get to Mor Chit bus station, or Don Muang airport, is it necessary to study a map of the world in order to do so?" Ajan Sujin replied," Yes." She said it was important to learn the characteristics of cittas and cetasikas so that we wouldn't be tempted to take them for self. By now I was finally convinced and so the other questions I raised were simply amplifications of these basic issues. After so many years of `formal meditation practice' where one is repeatedly told that wisdom/ right understanding will develop by itself simply through the various forms of so called `vipassana meditation', now I was beginning to accept that wisdom/ right understanding was a precondition for Vipassana (or Satipatthana to arise). The whole group dynamic was extremely warm, compassionate and very caring. I really felt I was amongst the best group of friends anyone could have. Thank you all. And I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible on the 14th and 15th April. May any merit I have ever made – in this or all my previous lives – be extended to you all. With metta and my deepest respect, Pannabahulo Bhikkhu #83214 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion : Dhammasangani upasaka_howard Hi, Colette (and Tep) - In a message dated 2/24/2008 10:08:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ksheri3@... writes: Hi Howard, Yes Tep, I was happy to read Howard's words, however I'd like some clarifications. So, Howard, lets take apart your little ditty here. There *is* an interesting way in which this passage could be > understood. > > When I first looked at it, I marveled at the apparent similarity to > > Nagarjuna's writing! colette: If I ever get the chance to research where the quotes come from or what piece of writing you read, then maybe maybe not I'll agree with you. Yet you opened our friend Nargarjuna. Nagarjuna begins his primary work, the > Mulamadhyamakakarikas, with the following: "Never are any existing > things found to originate from themselves, from something else, from > both, or from no cause." (In reading further in that work it becomes > clear that this is actually a denial of entity-causes and a denial of > substantial causal power, colette: okay, maybe we have some word problems. I read Nargarjuna as being completely devoted to PROPER COGNITION: he takes existance as it is and then deals with the different ways people cognize reality. This is a way to create a calm, an equilibrium, where the meditative process is at it's best. The "middle way" is just that: accepting the fact that the two extremes exist then consciously chosing to avoid them. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: As a convenience, I quoted from Verses From the Center, a translation of the Mulamadhyamakakarikas available online. I did so because of an apparent similarity to the Abhidhammic material Tep presented. But the similarity was purely coincidental, due to a slight mistranslation. So, Nagarjuna is irrelevant as regards that material. I'm not looking to further get into discussing his work here, as this is a Theravadin list, and other materials, I feel, shouldn't be dealt with more than briefly and tangentially. (For the record, though, Nagarjuna has certainly influenced my perspective on the Dhamma.) ---------------------------------------------------------------- I must say that theories by Dion Fortune after her time in the Golden Dawn before creating her Society of the Inner Light, raises questions within me since her work shows that she found CHAOS or what some may call "evil" close to the center while calm and equilibrium are on the far reaches of groups or group behaviors. THIS IS HIGHLY CONTRADICTORY TO THE MADHYAMIKA or "the middle way". Nargarjuna attacks the TOTAL IGNORANCE of society to place a value on things as if they possess SVABHAVA, self-existant nature. The Middle Way is consumed with identifying the characteristics of that which lead a person to fall victim to the clinging and dependence on things having a Svabhava when they actually do not. One person recently relented, in another group, that he could see the winter coming based on the calm after what he considered to be heated debates which gave me the chance to inform him that he's suggesting that the winter is a heated time where people go sun bathing and such, that this debate is over, is past, when it hasn't really begun. The heat is yet to come since I am certainly getting warmed up and can't wait to compare this stuff, after this meditational period, to kaballistic theory. I almost even consider Nargarjuna to be laughing if not mocking, the Caste System, since he does come from a Brahman caste. Notice I said "does come from" not "did come from". ;-) ------------------------------------- but not a denial of mere this/that > conditionality.) colette: you've found the crux of his work, then. He is resting his case on the two truths: Ultimate Truth and Relative Truth. He, from a shamanistic point of view, is completely relingquishing the Relative Truth or Relative Reality in an attempt to maintain a peace, a calm, an equilibrium, as the vehicle, the means to TRANSCEND SPACE AND TIME. ------------------------------------- If Nagarjuna was picking up on material such as this > > from the Dhammasangani, colette: thank you, now I know where to look. ------------------------------ and if indeed this material has the same > meaning as expressed in Nagarjuna's emptiness-based writing, then I > would be not only satisfied, but utterly delighted! (The 4th line here, to > the effect that all forms are associated with conditionality is fine from any > Buddhist perspective, and Nagarjuna would quite agree with it. In fact, > his second verse in that same work of his mentioned before lists four > categories of condition.) > > colette: again, thank you, I think I'll look for that very verse you speak of and meditate on it. Do you believe in this stuff called "Astral Projection"? I'll be looking forward to meeting you since I am "goal orientated" and this may just be the means with which to reach out and touch somebody. We shall see if minds actually do meet, huh? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I do believe in astral projection. As a child I had some experience with it. Also, it's clear to me that the Buddha was speaking of that when discussing a mind-made body. I don't consider it important, however. ---------------------------------------------------- I enjoyed speaking with you. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Colette. :-) Likewise. ----------------------------------------------------- toodles, colette ========================== With metta, Howard #83215 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/25/2008 4:28:44 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: > Howard: > There is a connotational conflict. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > I'm pondering your meaning here. Does the connotational conflict arise because of the particular terminology used, or because of the underlying idea itself? As regards the latter, I don't see any conflict between something having existence and yet not being worth grasping at because that existence is extremely fleeting. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: It's not just that dhammas are fleeting. It is also, even more so, that they are anatta, having no self-existence, but being utterly dependent during their brief existence on other empty phenomena. It is important, a I understand the Dhamma, not to see dhammas as realities but as evanescent, insubstantial, with only borrowed existence, and painful if clung to. It is, of course, an opposite error to view them as nonexistent fictions. --------------------------------------------------- If the conflict arises because of the particular terminology chosen, do you mean the Pali original or the English translation? Thanks. Jon =========================== With metta, Howard #83216 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 16th & 18th Feb Bangkok: sharing some thoughts nilovg Venerable Pannabahulo, Thank you very much for your lively report on the discussions. I am glad everything worked out so well. With respect, Nina. Op 25-feb-2008, om 15:26 heeft pannabahulo het volgende geschreven: > I have been asked to post a few comments on the two Dhamma > discussions I attended last week (16th & 18th Feb). #83217 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/25/2008 8:00:07 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: It's not just that dhammas are fleeting. It is also, even more so, that they are anatta, having no self-existence, but being utterly dependent during their brief existence on other empty phenomena. It is important, a I understand the Dhamma, not to see dhammas as realities but as evanescent, insubstantial, with only borrowed existence, and painful if clung to. It is, of course, an opposite error to view them as nonexistent fictions. ............................................ Hi Howard, Jon The above is certainly the way I feel. For the record, I think the term "realities" is going to affect the mind poorly whether or not someone has a Nagarjuna type background. The Suttas are the source for this conclusion, not Buddhism 600 years later. In the Suttas we see the Buddha saying that elements or khandas are -- empty, coreless, like-a-trick, alien, mirage-like, like-a-lump-of-foam, nonself, impermanent, etc. My impression, from the above descriptions, is that the types of descriptions that WOULD NOT apply to elements or khandas is -- bedrock, ultimate realities, own characteristics, and the like. These descriptions, in fact, seem like the antithesis of what the Buddha was driving at. The Buddha, not Nagarjuna. TG #83218 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:18 am Subject: What I heard. nilovg Dear friends, I heard this: audio: 2006-08- a. Khun Sujin: One lives in the ocean of concepts, in darkness, without any understanding of realities, until a moment of awareness arises. One can see the difference, and that is the beginning to understand the world, as not the world of self, of ideas and concepts. One lives blindly before there is understanding of a reality, just a reality at a time, until all realities can be penetrated as non-self. Jon: what are the conditions for the arising of awareness? Khun Sujin: Understanding. Jon: Understanding of what? Kh. S: Of reality right now. Understanding that realities are not self. There are just different realities appearing through the different doorways. Visible object is just a reality. Who can change its characteristic? But one usually takes it for something. Visible object is just a reality that can be seen, through one doorway. When there is awareness, there can be understanding, even if it is very little. If there is no awareness, one passes on to ideas all the time. One can see that understanding develops very gradually. Jon: Sometimes it is so slight that it is imperceptable. Kh S: Pa~n~naa arises very gradually, it arises instead of ignorance, and it arises without there being any expectations. Whatever arises must have the right conditions for its arising. ******* Nina: I find the reminder not to have any expectations very important. ****** Nina. #83219 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... nilovg Hi James, Op 25-feb-2008, om 1:16 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > When we say things like: my foot, my hand, my face > or your foot, your hand, your face, we are reflecting, through > language, what is present in our thinking. The mind creates the > illusion that there is somehow a permanent self which owns that foot, > hand, face, citta, etc. ------- N: Yes, this is well said. ------- > > J: I don't believe that studying the Abhidhamma removes this view of > self. With study of the Abhidhamma, we just take dhammas for being > self rather than body parts/body/or mind. ------- N: Theoretical study will not remove the self view. But it is a good foundation to lead us on to think in the right ways. That is already one step into the right direction. But it is not enough. --------- > J: Again, the only way to > remove this view of self is through meditation (samatha followed by > vipassana). ------- N: When vipassana is developed, calm also develops along with it. Samatha and vipassana go together. But that is already a higher degree of development. Nina. #83220 From: "m. nease" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 16th & 18th Feb Bangkok: sharing some thoughts m_nease Bhante, Thanks for the notes you posted about your visit to the Foundation. I'm very glad that it was a rewarding experience for you and even gladder to see you back on the list. No reply necessary--I know you have other commitments and that typing is trying for you. Best Wishes, mike #83221 From: han tun Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:32 pm Subject: Patthaana (10) hantun1 Patthaana (10) Dear All, This is the continuation of (1). Root condition (hetu-paccaya) We had taken up the first root, Lobha, in the last post. We will now take the next root, Dosa. “Dosa” The following are some excerpts from The Essence of Buddha Abhidhamma by Dr Mehm Tin Mon. Quote: [Dosa is translated as hatred, anger or aversion. It is the most destructive element in the world. It is more frightful than the atomic weapon. Normally, when one encounters with a desirable sense-object, clinging or attachment (lobha) arises, and when one encounters with an undesirable object, anger or aversion arises. The anger (dosa) destroys one first before it destroys others. Not only inflated dosa as the one present in an angry person but also depressed dosa as the one felt by a sad or depressed person are destructive. According to Abhidhamma the one who retaliates an insult is more foolish than the one who starts the insult. Dosa heads a group of four hateful cetasikas called “Dosa-catukka.” Apart from dosa, they are Issaa (envying others’ success and prosperity); Macchariya (stinginess), and Kukkucca (grieving over the evil that is done and the good that is not done). Although issaa, macchariya, and kukkucca are companions of dosa, they arise separately because their lines of reasoning are different, but when one of them arises, it is always accompanied by dosa.] End of excerpts. -------------------- An extract from A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma, with Pali inserts taken from Ashin Janakaabhivamsa’s book. Quote: [Dosa, the second unwholesome root, comprises all kinds and degrees of aversion, ill will, anger, irritation, annoyance, and animosity. Its characteristic is ferocity (ca.n.dikka-lakkhanaa). Its function is to spread, or to burn up its own support, i.e. the mind and body in which it arises (nissayadaaha-rasa). It is manifested as persecuting (dussana-paccupatthaanaa), and its proximate cause is a ground for annoyance (aaghaatavatthu-padatthaanaa).]End Quote. [ca.n.dikka = ferocity. dahana = fire, to burn. nissayadaaha = to burn its support. dussanaa = persecuting.] --------------------- There are nine grounds for annoyance (aaghaatavatthu), as mentioned in DN 33. Malice or annoyance is stirred up by the thought: (i) “he has done me an injury” (ii) “he is doing me an injury” (iii) “he will do me an injury” (iv) “he has done an injury to someone who is dear and pleasant to me” (v) “he is doing an injury to someone who is dear and pleasant to me” (vi) “he will do an injury to someone who is dear and pleasant to me” (vii) “he has done a favour to someone who is hateful and unpleasant to me” (viii) “he is doing a favour to someone who is hateful and unpleasant to me” (ix) “he will do a favour to someone who is hateful and unpleasant to me” [Han: According to Ashin Janakaabhivamsa, one more ground for annoyance can be added to make it a total of ten grounds. This tenth ground is called “atthaanakopa”, which means one gets angry without any obvious reason for anger, for example, one gets angry because weather is too hot, or it is too cold, or it is too rainy, etc. (atthaane, without any obvious reason + kopo, get angry.)] “Dosa” to be continued. Metta, Han #83222 From: han tun Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:53 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (93) hantun1 Dear All, This is the presentation in installment of The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment by Ajahn Sujin Boriharnwanaket; and translated by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.zolag.co.uk/ - Chapter 6: The Perfection of Patience (continuation) We read further on in the Sutta: “Then the venerable Pukkusaati thought: ‘Indeed it is the Teacher who has come to me; indeed it is the Well-farer who has come to me; indeed it is the Fully Self-Awakened One who has come to me,’ and rising from his seat, arranging his robe over one shoulder and bowing his head to the Lord’s feet, he spoke thus to the Lord: ‘A transgression, revered sir, has overcome me in that foolish, errant and unskilled as I was, I supposed the Lord could be addressed with the epithet: friend. Revered sir, may the Lord acknowledge my transgression as a transgression for the sake of restraint in the future.’ ‘Indeed, monk, a transgression overcame you in that... you supposed I could be addressed with the epithet: friend. But if you, monk, seeing this transgression as a transgression, confess it according to the rule, we acknowledge it for you. For this is growth, monk, in the discipline for an ariyan, that whoever, seeing a transgression as a transgression confess it according to the rule, he comes to restraint in the future.’ ‘Revered sir, may I receive ordination in the Lord’s presence?’ ‘But are you, monk, complete as to bowl and robe?’ ‘Revered sir, I am not complete as to bowl and robe.’ ‘Monk, Tathaagatas do not ordain anyone not complete as to bowl and robe.’ Then the venerable Pukkusaati, having rejoiced in what the Lord had said, having given thanks for it, rising from his seat greeted the Lord and, keeping his right side towards him, departed in order to search for bowl and robe. But while he was touring about in search of a bowl and robe a cow swerved and deprived him of life. Then a number of monks approached the Lord; having approached, having greeted the Lord, they sat down at a respectful distance. As they were sitting down at a respectful distance, these monks spoke thus to the Lord: ‘That young man of family, Pukusaati, revered sir, whom the Lord exhorted with an exhortation in brief, has died. What is his bourn, what his future state?’ ‘Clever, monks, was Pukkusaati, the young man of family; he followed after Dhamma according to the various parts of Dhamma, and he did not annoy me with questionings on Dhamma. Monks, Pukkusaati, the young man of family, by the complete destruction of the five fetters binding to this lower (shore), is of spontaneous uprising, one who attains nibbaana there, not liable to return from that world [1].’ When the Buddha had spoken this Discourse, the monks delighted in the words of the Exalted One.” Note [1] He had attained the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the non-returner, anaagaami. To be continued. Metta, Han #83223 From: "colette" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion : Dhammasangani ksheri3 Good Morning TG and Howard, I noticed in both of your replies to me that you both show a "hesitation" or "uncertainty" (DOUBT) with respect to dealing with what I'm dealing with. TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE and respected -- I tend to not worry about getting "caught up" in the stream of things, such as consciousness, since I am alone and have been alone since 1978 thus I go with the flow which is why I can quote "Here I go again on my own; Goin' down the only road I've ever known" lets examine that DOUBT you both seem to exhibit. While Howard, here you come right out and acknowledge your belief in an individual's ability to Astrally Project Itake it that you have experience with the Western religious views on such things. In line with this thought TG made it clear why he was touching upon Nargarjuna as a means of "seperateness", a lack of unity or uniting. This, alone, is a very important aspect of the mystical traditions however it the DESIRE to remain apart, to remain seperate, is a flaw in that you, as the individual, ARE INTENTIONALLY MANIFESTING OBSCURATIONS (which happens to be bad Karma, yet, given the rationale of "Plausabile Deniability" allows for "room to manuever") I thank you both for your acknowledgement of my posts and your blatant warnings to neophytes or others following my ops. through your "trivialization" of the importance of Nargarjuna BY RELYING ON THE TIRED OLD NET UNDER THE DAREDEVIL CALLED A NET or, in this case, DOGMA, which happens to be THERAVADAN. I'm sure you both can see that the Theravadan practices are there for those that actually do fear to go tread where angels themselves fear to tread. But that's nothing more than a tired old boys network saying. Thanx for connecting with me and not simply "trying to ignore me" as if I'll go away like a common cold that has been analyzed to death and is now finding that through MUTATION it, the common cold, can have a longer life span. Maybe the Asian Flu or that Bird Flu that was going around is like the behavior of tribes of monkeys that have been found to make spears as the means to obtain nurishment such as Bush Babies, AND how the individuals of tribes of monkeys that have learned this behavior have communicated this behavior to the entire group or herd or tribe, of monkeys who inturn immitate this behavior which is a transmission of knowledge. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: ... > Howard: > As a convenience, I quoted from Verses From the Center, a translation of > the Mulamadhyamakakarikas available online. I did so because of an apparent > similarity to the Abhidhammic material Tep presented. But the similarity was > purely coincidental, due to a slight mistranslation. So, Nagarjuna is > irrelevant as regards that material. I'm not looking to further get into discussing > his work here, as this is a Theravadin list, and other materials, I feel, > shouldn't be dealt with more than briefly and tangentially. (For the record, > though, Nagarjuna has certainly influenced my perspective on the Dhamma.) ... > Howard: > Yes, I do believe in astral projection. As a child I had some experience > with it. Also, it's clear to me that the Buddha was speaking of that when > discussing a mind-made body. I don't consider it important, however. #83224 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:24 pm Subject: Re: 16th & 18th Feb Bangkok: sharing some thoughts truth_aerator Dear Bhante, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "pannabahulo" wrote: > > My dear Dhamma friends, > By this point everything seemed now to be slotting into place. The > one thing that still hung over me, like a huge black cloud, was the > fear of having to sit down and wade through difficult Abhidhamma > texts. So I asked the question, "Ajan, if I want to get to Mor Chit > bus station, or Don Muang airport, is it necessary to study a map of > the world in order to do so?" > Ajan Sujin replied," Yes." >>> I hate to be negative but, her answer was INCORRECT. There is absolutely NO passage in Buddha's actual words that say that Study of AP is nessesery. Abhidhamma (as a collection of 7 books), some of its terminology didn't even exist at his time. This has been proven by scholars who aren't interested in mere tradition. >>> She said it was important to learn the > characteristics of cittas and cetasikas so that we wouldn't be > tempted to take them for self. >>>> What about the Buddha, Ananda, Sariputta, and others? None of them have learned AP to become Stream Enterers or even Arahants. And please cut out the parami (another non original concept) part. Sure they had better Kamma than us, but to attribute their success only to their wisdom they had (which btw is developed through Bhavana) is to diss their efforts. >>> > After so many years of `formal meditation practice' where one is > repeatedly told that wisdom/ right understanding will develop by > itself simply through the various forms of so called `vipassana > meditation', now I was beginning to accept that wisdom/ right > understanding was a precondition for Vipassana (or Satipatthana to > arise). >>> Satipatthana is to be developed. Instructions are found in suttas such as DN22, MN118, etc. Awakening CAN happen in 7 days or less (apparently householders could achieve anagamiship in as little as ONE DAY AN10.46) if impersonal conditions are right. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.046.than.html The trick is to do everything correctly and balance faculties (slight imbalance of which can make all the difference.) Lots of Metta, Alex #83225 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 16th & 18th Feb Bangkok: sharing some thoughts sarahprocter... Dear Bhante, I'd also like to thank you very much for sharing your helpful and very sincere reflections and experience. We were very glad you were able to join these discussions and raise your good questions and points. We look forward to your active participation in more in April. Very best wishes, Metta Sarah --- pannabahulo wrote: > My dear Dhamma friends, > > I have been asked to post a few comments on the two Dhamma > discussions I attended last week (16th & 18th Feb). #83226 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) sarahprocter... Dear Han, Thank you so much for sharing your very interesting reflections on byaadhi (sickness). I really apologise for making you strain your voice on the phone when I was so slow to pick up your points. At first I didn't recognise the word 'byaadhi', so it took me a while to understand your gist. Now you have elaborated in detail and I'd like to consider the topic further and to see if the Buddha really erred! Again, I was so impressed by your good humour and sense of fun, even whilst in hospital in extreme discomfort. May your joy in the Dhamma be an inspiration to us all at such times. Both Jon and I are delighted to hear that the infection is gone and when I spoke to you before leaving Bangkok, there was a dramatic improvement already in your voice, so I'm sure you're well on your way to recovery. Looking forward to catching up with your other threads... Metta, Sarah p.s I may come back to this useful topic later, be warned!! ====== --- han tun wrote: > Dear Sarah and All, > > When I was lying on a hospital bed, with fever and > severe headache, and with constant hiccups shaking my > body all the time, I was thinking of the sufferings > born of sickness (byaadhi). In my life-time I have > suffered pains and stress many, many times more than > those due to jaati and jaraa. And yet, is byaadhi a > dukkha sacca? #83227 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 1:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion : Dhammasangani upasaka_howard Hi, Colette (and TG) - I'm afraid I'm having difficulty in understanding much of your post. In a message dated 2/25/2008 5:56:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ksheri3@... writes: Good Morning TG and Howard, I noticed in both of your replies to me that you both show a "hesitation" or "uncertainty" (DOUBT) with respect to dealing with what I'm dealing with. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't know what you mean. --------------------------------------------------------- TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE and respected -- I tend to not worry about getting "caught up" in the stream of things, such as consciousness, since I am alone and have been alone since 1978 thus I go with the flow which is why I can quote "Here I go again on my own; Goin' down the only road I've ever known" ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: ??? -------------------------------------------------------- lets examine that DOUBT you both seem to exhibit. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What am I doubting? I recall nothing along such lines in what I wrote to you in one brief post. ---------------------------------------------------- While Howard, here you come right out and acknowledge your belief in an individual's ability to Astrally Project Itake it that you have experience with the Western religious views on such things. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I have no idea what views you are referring to. ---------------------------------------------------- In line with this thought TG made it clear why he was touching upon Nargarjuna as a means of "seperateness", a lack of unity or uniting. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: ??? ---------------------------------------------- This, alone, is a very important aspect of the mystical traditions however it the DESIRE to remain apart, to remain seperate, is a flaw in that you, as the individual, ARE INTENTIONALLY MANIFESTING OBSCURATIONS (which happens to be bad Karma, yet, given the rationale of "Plausabile Deniability" allows for "room to manuever") ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Colette, what are you talking about? ----------------------------------------------------- I thank you both for your acknowledgement of my posts and your blatant warnings to neophytes or others following my ops. through your "trivialization" of the importance of Nargarjuna BY RELYING ON THE TIRED OLD NET UNDER THE DAREDEVIL CALLED A NET or, in this case, DOGMA, which happens to be THERAVADAN. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I indicated that I am unwilling to engage in anything but brief mention of Nagarjuna on DSG because of the "rules of engagement" here - the house rules. I consider myself a guest here, and this is how I choose to act. That IS my prerogative, Colette, without being oppressed by dogma, your capitalization notwithstanding. -------------------------------------------------------- I'm sure you both can see that the Theravadan practices are there for those that actually do fear to go tread where angels themselves fear to tread. But that's nothing more than a tired old boys network saying. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You have every right to pursue whatever Buddhist (or other) practices you wish. For me, I am very pleased with the path of practice laid out by the Buddha in the Pali suttas, that are considered fundamental by all schools of Buddhism. BTW, in the west, especially the U.K. and U.S., there are plenty of of bright young boys and bright young girls involved in the Theravadin "network", including bhikkhus AND bhikkhunis. ------------------------------------------------------- Thanx for connecting with me and not simply "trying to ignore me" as if I'll go away like a common cold that has been analyzed to death and is now finding that through MUTATION it, the common cold, can have a longer life span. Maybe the Asian Flu or that Bird Flu that was going around is like the behavior of tribes of monkeys that have been found to make spears as the means to obtain nurishment such as Bush Babies, AND how the individuals of tribes of monkeys that have learned this behavior have communicated this behavior to the entire group or herd or tribe, of monkeys who inturn immitate this behavior which is a transmission of knowledge. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Again, Colette, I'm afraid my understanding just isn't up to processing your speech. Sorry. -------------------------------------------------------- toodles, colette =========================== With metta, Howard #83228 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:46 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... dhammanusara Hi James, - This reply is one day late, but I hope my writing below is not outdated. > Tep: > > Frankly, I have a mixed feeling about commentaries (for the suttas or the Abhidhamma Pitaka) -- sometimes they are very useful, especially when commentators explain the Pali terms and provide cross-references of related suttas and necessary background information. > ............ James: I was wanting to know what you specifically thought of the commentaries to the Abhidhamma. Do you believe that they change the meaning? Rob M., an Abhidhamma teacher and DSG member, posted something along the lines that the commentaries changed 'dhammas' into 'realities' thus adding an ontological bent to the Abhidhamma not originally intended. Has this been your finding or are you not sure yet? T: That interesting point is a surprise to me. I am not sure why the term 'realities', which is a translation of dhammas ("phenomena" is another), can add "an ontological bent to the Abhidhamma". Calling the dhammas realities is one thing, and 'ontology of existence' is another. How can such naming of the dhammas make the dhamma theory ontological? Tep === #83229 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:03 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... dhammanusara Dear Alex (and Scott), - This reply is one day late, and I noticed that Scott and you had continued to discuss while I was away. >Alex: Is it possible that the Buddha simply didn't provide a lot of theoretical detail because that wasn't His ultimate goal in the first place (remember the parable of being shot with an arrow)? After all, one must find out everything through one's own effort and at Arahatship or Anagamiship one can achieve "Analytical Knowledges" that WOULD clarify many points. T: I have no doubt at all that the Teachings in the Suttanata-pitaka are complete as guidance for the attainment of the four ariya-maggas (from sotapanna to arahant). Yes, the only way is through finding out by one's own direct knowledge. [The Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting all to come and see, pertinent, to be seen by the wise for themselves.] A: In DN16 the Buddha has said that HIS words take precedence over ANY ELDER OR ANY GROUP OF ELDERS (This would DEFINATELY include Ven. Buddhaghosa or ANY "yana or vada" including Theravada). Even when it comes to Sariputta, we need to make sure that what he said was approved by the Buddha himself (which in almost all cases was). T: That is true, but it doesn't follow that the Abhidhamma wasn't taught by the Buddha to the Chief Disciple Sariputta. Study the Patisambhidamagga and you'll know for yourself. ;-) Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > > > > As I see it, the Abhidhamma(excluding commentaries) expounds the theoretical principles that are very good at explaining the sutta teachings that lack some details. > > #83230 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:16 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... dhammanusara Dear Scott (and Alex), - I read your quotes from The Dispeller of Delusion (Sammohavinodanii), pp. 128-129. However, they did not get an appropriate attention from our friend Alex. Why? I think it was because you did not explain how you understood the quotes and why they were relevant to the discussion. Regards, Tep === #83231 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:28 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Patthaana (6) .. Impermanence.. dhammanusara Hi Larry, - Although your reply below misses a few other points of the discussion, it is not bad. > L: > Sorry I missed your post to me. At this point it seems like the whole > thing is hopelessly muddled. One thing I could say though is that > according to Vism. understanding dependent arising isn't quite insight > knowledge of impermanence. I haven't read ahead so I don't know what > that's about. > T: To understand the dependent arising (both forward and backward) one has to understand the first three Noble Truths, I think. When one knows with the right wisdom the origin and the cessation of dukkha, then one has gained an insight knowledge of impermanence! Tep === #83232 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:39 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, T: "...I think it was because you did not explain how you understood the quotes and why they were relevant to the discussion." Scott: I thought the text showed how one 'does it one's self', which I thought was Alex's point. I thought the text simply elaborated that point. I don't like to spell out my own ideas too much - not really worth it. I don't want to add to the Dhamma, just learn it. I like to try to understand the texts - they speak much more eloquently. Sincerely, Scott. #83233 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:46 pm Subject: Re: 16th & 18th Feb Bangkok: sharing some thoughts rjkjp1 Dear Venerable. it was an honour to meet you and consider your well thought out questions. Looking forward to meeting again in April. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "pannabahulo" wrote: > > My dear Dhamma friends, > > I have been asked to post a few comments on the two Dhamma > discussions I attended last week (16th & 18th Feb). > I arrived at the Dhamma Foundation early, and was very lucky to meet > Ivan and Robert for the first time. #83234 From: "gazita2002" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:57 pm Subject: Re: 16th & 18th Feb Bangkok: sharing some thoughts gazita2002 Ven. Pannabahulo, I think I felt much Piti for you after reading this email. I say "I think" bec. until there to Panna to kknow for sure, I can only go by the way I felt when I read this report, maybe it was Lobha, only sati and panna can really know. Looking forward to meeting you again in April Patience, courage and good cheer, azita --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "pannabahulo" wrote: > > My dear Dhamma friends, > > I have been asked to post a few comments on the two Dhamma > discussions I attended last week (16th & 18th Feb). > I arrived at the Dhamma Foundation early, and was very lucky to meet > Ivan and Robert for the first time. Plunging straight into discussion > they were able to straighten out some of my deep misunderstandings > and shed light on some of the issues that had been causing me > problems. .............. #83235 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 2:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Incoherence of Instantaneous Arising, Cessation, and their Simu... TGrand458@... Hi Howard, and all Impermanentalists, I didn't see this post initially. Before I make an attempt to start, your propositions below don't make sense to me and do not reflect the way I view change. I think I agree with some of Alex's comments on it but will have to look at that deeper too. I think you may be over-complicating a very simple thing I am saying. Let's take, I hope, a simple sample... Let's say we are molding clay. As we mold the clay through a period of time, during that sequential flow of "present time," is not the clay changing form continuously? As it changes continuously, doesn't the form of the clay simultaneously have an "ending" of previous form while a "new" form emerges? What condition is it the ceases, that causes the ceasing of the "old" form of clay? What ceases was the "status quo" of conditions that allowed the clay to linger in a nearly unaffected state. (Of course various conditions were affecting the clay even in the seemingly still state, but compared to the dynamics of active molding, small in comparison.) The "new" application of hands molding clay is the "arising of this;" and the "that arises" is the "new" form of the clay that continuously is bending in accordance to the hands.." Even this seems too complicated. I'm just talking common sense stuff here. If we have to think about things like zero durations, then its probably not following my line of thinking. Let me respond to what you wrote below... In a message dated 2/24/2008 4:24:42 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG and all - 1) If a dhamma, say an object of consciousness, ceases at an instant of time, at a single, 0-duration point of time, at that instant does the dhamma exist, not exist, neither, or both? Don't shrug this off, but contemplate it. ............................................. NEW TG: Talking about "a dhamma" as if it its own thing is something I am against. Your question on "existence" is basically the type of question the Buddha would have rejected. (Maybe that was the point of your question though?) To me, "Dhamma" means either "the Buddha's teaching," or "the natural order of events." "Phenomena" works for me too. I can not think of "a dhamma" as a discrete thing. But I'm not actually sure how you mean it above. I view consciousness as a flow, like a flow of energy, due to a complex set of conditions...all of which conditions are flowing and dynamic as well. Consciousness alters in conformity with contacts and conditions. Just exactly as my hypothesis...as new contacts hit the body/mind complex and generate "new" formations, the "old" formations are displaced and end simultaneously. Let's look at a more simple illustration... If you take a pen and draw a line on a wall, the "new" formations of "line of ink" displaces the "old" formation of "un-inked wall" simultaneously. Also, the pen's ball point and the walls paint/texture are being worn away simultaneously. They are "inter-displacing" each other. So...the drawing of the "line of ink" formation is also, simultaneously, the wearing out of the pen's ball point and wall configuration. In this way we can see the arising of one formation is simultaneously the altering of other formations. All of conditionality is working like this. ............................................................................ 2) If another dhamma, say the next object of consciousness, arises at that same very instant, at that instant does that dhamma exist, not exist, neither, or both. Is there no incoherence to this? The problems associated with this are insurmountable, it seems to me. ....................................................................... NEW TG: I don't really understand what you're saying, so, I'll take your word that the above has insurmountable problems. ;-) What we have here is failure to communicate...I think. ;-) I hope that the above examples I've described will help. TG OUT With metta, Howard #83236 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 3:07 pm Subject: Re: Discrete Moments (Re: [dsg] The Incoherence of Instantaneous Arising, Ces... TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/24/2008 6:16:33 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: If B were a condition incompatible with condition A, so that the two could never co-occur, then the arising of B "simultaneous" with the cessation of A, would come down to the discrete time sequence (A, B). Here, at the first moment A exists (and of course not B), and at the next moment, B exists but not A. The *transition* from the first moment to the second consists of the simultaneous cessation of A and arising of B. So, the scheme of successive moments, accounts for arisings and cessations not as events that occur *at* points in time, but *in transition* from one moment to the next, and both can occur at the same transition. This is an argument *in favor* of the commentarial, momentaristic perspective. And I won't say that it cannot be a correct model. It might well be. It does seem to fit in well with quantum theory. Moreover, perhaps it only *seems* that between any two points in time there are intermediate points due to the sheer number of moments, possibly billions, in a single second. But perhaps that really is only appearance, and immediate precedence is a fact. I'm certainly willing to consider this as a possibility. With metta, Howard ......................................................................... Hi Howard I think your are thinking about what I am presenting way too philosophically. I think you are so far above me in what you think I am trying to say, that you are totally missing what I am trying to say. Try to imagine someone 15 times stupider than you and then I think we might be on the same page. LOL TG #83237 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 8:27 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... buddhatrue Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > T: That interesting point is a surprise to me. I am not sure why the > term 'realities', which is a translation of dhammas ("phenomena" is > another), can add "an ontological bent to the Abhidhamma". Calling the > dhammas realities is one thing, and 'ontology of existence' is another. > How can such naming of the dhammas make the dhamma theory ontological? Well, it isn't just the naming but the thinking behind the naming. Phenomena means something observed and insubstantial, here one second and gone the next. However, realities means something which exists "out there" and will forever last "out there". There is a big difference between the two. The roots of the Abhidhamma could have gone back to the Buddha's time for monks to have a working vocabulary to describe meditation experience. However, subsequent development of the Abhidhamma turned this working vocabulary into a description of "Ultimate Reality". As I wrote to Scott, this is nothing unusual. People are not comfortable unless they have a mental construct describing their environment and their place in that environment (reinforcing self views). All of the world's religions have their own descriptions of "ultimate reality". The Buddha was quite unique in that he didn't provide any such description. But, that wasn't easy. During his lifetime, there were several people who tried to force him to describe an ontology of existence but he refused each time. After his passing, it wasn't long before the Abhidhamma was formed (by the Third Council), then competing Abhidhammas were formed. Metta, James #83238 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) sarahprocter... Dear Connie, Nina & all, On #82745 --- L G SAGE wrote: > Dear Friends, > > > Part 44 > 16. Mahaanipaato > 1. Sumedhaatheriigaathaava.n.nanaa > 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. <...> > > 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. <...> **** S: I noticed this phrase 'dhamma nijjhaanakkhantii' again which we discussed before. Here the translator gives 'delight in the teaching' and I see the footnote reference to Norman discusses this. He (Norman) prefers another translator's '(intellectual) receptivity'. Again, from the Sammohavinodani trans 2074 for ‘dhammanijjhaanakkhanti’ under ‘Classification of Knowledge’: “Anulomika.m khanti.m (‘conformable acceptance’) and so on are all synonyms for understanding……………..it conforms to the Truth of the Path and it conforms owing to conforming to the highest meaning, nibbaana. And it accepts (khamati), bears, is able to see all these reasons, thus it is acceptance (khanti). ‘It sees’ is di.t.thi (‘view’)……….and in particular, the things (dhamma) called the five aggregates on being studied (nijjjhaayamaanaa) again and again in accordance with impermanence, suffering and no self, accept (khamanti) that study (nijjhaana); thus it is dhammanijjhaanakkhanti (‘acceptance of study things’).” The Norman note also mentions: "Cty: chandi kato, chanda-jaato hoti. The verse is reminiscent of M i 480: "attha.m upaparikkhato dhammaa nijjhaana.m khamanti, dhamma-nijjhaana-khantiyaa sati chando jaayati, chando-jaato ussahati, ussahitvaa tuleti, tulayitvaa padahati, pahitatto samaano kaayena c'eva parama.m sacca.m sacchi-karoti pa~n~naaya ca na.m ativijjha passati." This is from MN 70, Kii.taagiri Sutta. The ~Naa.namoli/Bodhi transl. is: "....he examines the meaning of the teachings he has memorised; when he examines their meaning, he gains a reflective acceptance of those teachings; when he has gained a reflective acceptance of those teachings, zeal springs up in him; when zeal has sprung up, he applies his will; having applied his will, he scrutinises; having scrutinised, he strives; resolutely striving, he realises with the body the ultimate truth and sees it by penetrating it with wisdom." S: In other words, as I understand it, the careful consideration of the Dhamma, the pariyatti, leads to sacca ~naana, the firm intellectual understanding of the Truths with patience for the development of the path. This leads to more and more (wholesome) interest in the Teachings, right efort with right understanding. This is the way that nibbana is eventually realised by pa~n~naa and the accompanying mental factors. Metta, Sarah ======== #83239 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) nilovg Dear Han, I also find your cheerfulness an example when in pain or when having ailments. Op 26-feb-2008, om 1:25 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > In my life-time I have > > suffered pains and stress many, many times more than > > those due to jaati and jaraa. And yet, is byaadhi a > > dukkha sacca? ------- N: We could say that sickness is implied in ageing or decay. As soon as we are born rupas fall away and are replaced by new ones, but there is already ageing. The body is fragile, subject to disease. Nina. #83240 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (10) nilovg Dear Han, thank you very much. I like the quote from Dr. Mehm. Op 25-feb-2008, om 23:32 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Not only inflated dosa as the one present in an angry > person but also depressed dosa as the one felt by a > sad or depressed person are destructive. According to > Abhidhamma the one who retaliates an insult is more > foolish than the one who starts the insult. -------- I can add something from the Vis. Ch XIV, 171. Dosa. Text Vis.: Herein, (xlv) by its means they hate, or it itself hates, or it is just mere hating, thus it is 'hate' (dosa). ------- The Pali term dussati used here means: to become bad, corrupted, to offend, injure. The cetasika dosa hates or has aversion, and it also causes the accompanying dhammas to be corrupted or to have aversion. This is expressed by the term: by means of it (tena). This expression is often used to indicate that the dhammas that arise together condition one another. Here, all of them are affected by dosa. -------- Text Vis.: It has the characteristic of savageness, like a provoked snake. --------- N: The Tiika comments on savageness (Ca.n.dikka.m): anger or irritation (kujjhana.m). ---------- Text Vis.: Its function is to spread, like a drop of poison, -------- N: The Tiika explains first about the way of occurring of dosa in oneself. The Expositor (II, p. 342) explains: . One is affected by an undesirable sense object just as poison makes the body writhe. --------- Text Vis.: or its function is to burn up its own support, like a forest fire. _____ N: The term support, nissaya, refers to the heartbase, the physical base of all cittas other than the sense-cognitions. The Tiika explains that dosa as it were pierces the body. Sometimes dosa is compared to a dart that pierces the body. It affects also the body and can cause sickness. ------- Text Vis.: It is manifested as persecuting (duusana), like an enemy who has got his chance. Its proximate cause is the grounds for annoyance (see A.v,150). It should be regarded as like stale urine mixed with poison. ------- N: Persecuting is a translation of duusana. However, this also means: defiling. The Tiika explains that duusana, defiling, pertains to oneself and others. By dosa one harms oneself and others. One persecutes or hates someone else because of an undesirable object (for him who hates) when another person experiences an enjoyable result. Therefore it is said that dosa should be regarded like stale urine mixed with poison. As to the proximate cause of dosa, the Visuddhimagga refers to the the Gradual Sayings, Book of the Nines, Ch III, § 9, IV, 406).... (as is, in your text) Nina. #83241 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... nilovg Hi Tep, I want to thank youu for your quote from Patisambhidamagga about condiitons for wrong view. I like it. I found the Thai Co. but had no time yet to go over it. Nina. Op 26-feb-2008, om 4:03 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > Study the > Patisambhidamagga and you'll know for yourself. ;-) #83242 From: han tun Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (10) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for further elaborations on dosa. I really appreciate it. Respectfully, Han --- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > I can add something from the Vis. Ch XIV, 171. Dosa. > #83243 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:44 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 242 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 242 Intro: As we have seen, there are four kinds of upaadaana, clinging: clinging to sense-desires, to views, to wrong practice and to self doctrine. These will be further explained in brief and in detail. In the following section there is an explanation in brief of sense- desire and synonyms of sense-desire are given. ****** Text Vis. 242: But as regards the 'brief and full account of states', firstly, in brief sense-desire clinging is called 'firmness of craving' since it is said: 'Herein, what is sense-desire clinging? ------------ N: The Tiika states that while speaking in brief (sa”nkhepa), sense- desire clinging, kaamupaadaana, is craving that is strong, namely, strong grasping, whereas the other kinds of clinging are just wrong view. The Tiika then elaborates on the different synonyms mentioned in the text. --------- Text Vis. : That which in the case of sense desires is lust for sense desires, greed for sense desires, delight in sense desires, craving for sense desires, fever of sense desires, infatuation with sense desires, committal to sense desires: that is called sense-desire clinging' (Dhs. 1214). ------ N: The Tiika states that with regard to the five strands of sense desires, the term ‘ lust for sense desires’, kaama chando, is used. It states that this is not chando in the sense of wish-to-do, nor dhamma chando, desire for dhamma. Chando as wish-to-do is a cetasika accompanying kusala citta, akusala citta, vipaakacitta and kiriyacitta, though not every citta. But in this context it is akusala and it has the specific meaning of lust. As to greed for sense desires, kaamarago, this is greed referring to sensuousness and delight in it. The Tiika then mentions parilaaha, here translated as fever for sense- desires, which is actually consuming passion. As to infatuation, mucchaa, this is being possessed with sense-desire. As to committal to sense desires, kaamajjhosana, this is hanging on to sense desires. ----------- Text Vis.: 'Firmness of craving' is a name for the subsequent craving itself, which has become firm by the influence of previous craving, which acts as its decisive-support condition. But some have said: Craving is the aspiring to an object that one has not yet reached, like a thief's stretching out his hand in the dark; clinging is the grasping of an object that one has reached, like the thief's grasping his objective. ------- N: The Tiika explains that craving, tanhaa, as aspiring to an object that one has not yet reached, is like excitement or trembling (paritassana). Clinging is firm grasping. ---------- Text Vis.: These states oppose fewness of wishes and contentment and so they are the roots of the suffering due to seeking and guarding (see D.ii,58f.). The remaining three kinds of clinging are in brief simply [false] view. ------- N: According to the Tiika, tanhaa, craving, is opposed to fewness of wishes, whereas clinging is opposed to contentment, santu.t.thi. Craving is the root of suffering due to searching for what one wants, and clinging is the root of suffering since one has to protect what one has acquired. ------- Conclusion. The Vis. text refers to Diigha Nikaaya, no. 15, Mahaa- nidaana Sutta. Here the disadvantages and dangers of possession and guarding of what is obtained are described: < Thus it is, Aananda, that craving comes into being because of feeling, pursuit because of craving, gain because of pursuit, decision because of gain, desire and passion (chandaraago) because of decision, tenacity because of desire and passion, possession because of tenacity, avarice because of possession, watch and ward because of avarice, and many a bad and wicked state of things arising from keeping watch and ward over possessions:- blows and wounds, strife, contradiction and retort, quarreling, slander and lies.> Clinging and craving lead to suffering for oneself, it is the cause of mental restlessness. One is not contented with what one possesses already and one wants to have ever more. As we have seen, craving and clinging are opposed to fewness of wishes and contentment. Craving also causes suffering to one's fellowmen, it leads to blows, wounds, strife, it can lead to wars. ********* Nina. #83244 From: han tun Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) hantun1 Dear Sarah and Jon, Thank you very much for your kind words. I only hope that I will be well when you next come to Bangkok. But it all depends on the conditions. Is it not? Respectfully, Han #83245 From: han tun Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) hantun1 Dear Nina, > Nina: We could say that sickness is implied in ageing or decay. As soon as we are born rupas fall away and are replaced by new ones, but there is already ageing. The body is fragile, subject to disease. Han: Yes, Nina, sickness can be implied in ageing or decay. But it is not strong enough for me. I wish to have sickness with its own identity as a dukkha sacca, and as mother of all sufferings in a person’s life. The Buddha would not have said “aarogya paramaa laabhaa” for nothing. When I was young and healthy I have aarogya maana and I somewhat looked down upon sickly persons. Only when I get older, I realize the gravity of sickness and could feel a genuine karunaa and compassion towards the sick. That is why I wish to give byaadhi its own rightful place as dukkha sacca, which it deserves. Well, Nina, please do not pay much attention to my rambling, as I am still battling with the sickness, waiting for further investigations to know from where the occult blood in my stool comes from? Respectfully, Han #83246 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and James, and lovers of "realities" ;-) In a message dated 2/25/2008 9:47:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: T: That interesting point is a surprise to me. I am not sure why the term 'realities', which is a translation of dhammas ("phenomena" is another), can add "an ontological bent to the Abhidhamma". Calling the dhammas realities is one thing, and 'ontology of existence' is another. How can such naming of the dhammas make the dhamma theory ontological? ============================== For me, rendering 'a dhamma' as 'a reality' instead of, say, 'a phenomenonon,' and especially in the plural, rendering 'dhammas' as realities', *suggests* that a dhamma is not just an element of experience, not just a quality [as for rupas and some namas] or psychophysical (i.e., namarupic) event [as for most namas], and not just a contingent, empty, and other-dependent happening, but a (short-lived) *existent* (and that's where ontology comes in) with *own* nature, and *own* being, and, *identity*, and hence, *self*. The usage of 'realities' for 'dhammas', with the common connotations I have indicated, is probably the basis for some people to (wrongly) characterize Theravada (as opposed to some schools of thought within it) as providing a philosophy of pluralistic realism instead of one of emptiness and relinquishment. The word 'reality' as the mass noun indicating "all that is unimagined" is often harmless (unless it is reified into a "Brahman" or some such substantialist principle), and the adjective 'real' in the sense merely of "actually occurring, and not just illusion and imagination," as in, for example, "Fear of relinquishment is real," is very safe, but the use of the locutions "a reality" (singular noun) and "realities" (plural noun) is danger-ridden. That is where the trouble comes in, it is where reification comes in. Beware the nouns!! Nobody thinks that sights and sounds and tastes and smells and bodily sensations such as hardness and warmth, and mental qualities such as clarity, dread, and contentment, and mental operations such as seeing, hearing, etc, and feeling, recognizing, etc are imagined and not occurring. They are not imagined and not non-occuring, and, in that exact sense, they are real (as opposed to unicorns that are unreal), but it is a great connotational error to then refer to them with the reifying terminology 'realities'. That terminology conceptually transforms what is merely not imagined into true entities with own-being. With metta, Howard #83247 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Incoherence of Instantaneous Arising, Cessation, and their Simu... upasaka_howard Hi, TG - I am disinclined to get into the details of the following mainly because it deals with a post of mine that I agree is overly complex and that I've somewhat "gone beyond" at this point, and also because I think your examples miss the crux a bit in addressing the issue at what I would call the aggregational level. Except for a single comment inserted below, all that I will do at this point is repeat something I recently wrote that I think best expresses my current view on this matter: "... simultaneous cessation and arising can make sense with continuous time as well as discrete time. Assume a continuous time line. Suppose that A and B are incompatible phenomena (i.e., phenomena that cannot co-occur). The simultaneous arising of B and cessation of A at a time, t, would occur exactly when the following situation holds: 1) During some continuous time interval preceding time t, A exists (and B does not), and 2) At time t, B exists (and A does not). These, together, exactly constitute B arising at time t and A ceasing at time t." Note: For those who hate symbols, please replace "time t" throughout the foregoing by "the current moment." =============================== With metta, Howard In a message dated 2/25/2008 10:59:48 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard, and all Impermanentalists, I didn't see this post initially. Before I make an attempt to start, your propositions below don't make sense to me and do not reflect the way I view change. I think I agree with some of Alex's comments on it but will have to look at that deeper too. I think you may be over-complicating a very simple thing I am saying. Let's take, I hope, a simple sample... Let's say we are molding clay. As we mold the clay through a period of time, during that sequential flow of "present time," is not the clay changing form continuously? As it changes continuously, doesn't the form of the clay simultaneously have an "ending" of previous form while a "new" form emerges? What condition is it the ceases, that causes the ceasing of the "old" form of clay? What ceases was the "status quo" of conditions that allowed the clay to linger in a nearly unaffected state. (Of course various conditions were affecting the clay even in the seemingly still state, but compared to the dynamics of active molding, small in comparison.) The "new" application of hands molding clay is the "arising of this;" and the "that arises" is the "new" form of the clay that continuously is bending in accordance to the hands.." Even this seems too complicated. I'm just talking common sense stuff here. If we have to think about things like zero durations, then its probably not following my line of thinking. Let me respond to what you wrote below... In a message dated 2/24/2008 4:24:42 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Hi, TG and all - 1) If a dhamma, say an object of consciousness, ceases at an instant of time, at a single, 0-duration point of time, at that instant does the dhamma exist, not exist, neither, or both? Don't shrug this off, but contemplate it. ............................................. NEW TG: Talking about "a dhamma" as if it its own thing is something I am against. Your question on "existence" is basically the type of question the Buddha would have rejected. (Maybe that was the point of your question though?) --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes. Think of hardness, for example. When it is present, it's real, but not "a reality". But there still remains the issue of what arising and ceasing *at a point in time* means. If ceasing of hardness, say, occurs at a point in time, at that point is there hardness or not, or both, or neither? If it does not exist then, it must have already ceased. If it does exist then, what does it mean to be ceasing? The cessation doesn't exactly occur at a point in time! If hardness is ceasing now that can mean either that it was present throughout a continuous interval preceding the present moment but is not now present -in which case the ceasing occurs in transition *into* the present moment, but not literally at this moment, or it can mean that hardness is present right now, but throughout a continuous interval succeeding the present moment, it will not be present - in which case the ceasing occurs in transition *out of* the present moment. So, there are at least these two ways of understanding cessation "at a point in time," and neither of these actually involves an event at that exact time. And it is such that I refer to as a kind of incoherence. And I'm not at all sure that it is based on reification of dhammas. It is more a matter, I think, of the incoherence of thought and language, and it seems to show that the pursuing of anything by reason *far enough* leads to an implosion that forces one to abandon conceptuality entirely and to turn, instead, to wordless and thought-less knowing. If this sounds reminiscent of Nagarjuna, well, so be it. ------------------------------------------------------------- To me, "Dhamma" means either "the Buddha's teaching," or "the natural order of events." "Phenomena" works for me too. I can not think of "a dhamma" as a discrete thing. But I'm not actually sure how you mean it above. I view consciousness as a flow, like a flow of energy, due to a complex set of conditions...all of which conditions are flowing and dynamic as well. Consciousness alters in conformity with contacts and conditions. Just exactly as my hypothesis...as new contacts hit the body/mind complex and generate "new" formations, the "old" formations are displaced and end simultaneously. Let's look at a more simple illustration... If you take a pen and draw a line on a wall, the "new" formations of "line of ink" displaces the "old" formation of "un-inked wall" simultaneously. Also, the pen's ball point and the walls paint/texture are being worn away simultaneously. They are "inter-displacing" each other. So...the drawing of the "line of ink" formation is also, simultaneously, the wearing out of the pen's ball point and wall configuration. In this way we can see the arising of one formation is simultaneously the altering of other formations. All of conditionality is working like this. ............................................................................ 2) If another dhamma, say the next object of consciousness, arises at that same very instant, at that instant does that dhamma exist, not exist, neither, or both. Is there no incoherence to this? The problems associated with this are insurmountable, it seems to me. ....................................................................... NEW TG: I don't really understand what you're saying, so, I'll take your word that the above has insurmountable problems. ;-) What we have here is failure to communicate...I think. ;-) I hope that the above examples I've described will help. TG OUT ==================================== With metta, Howard #83248 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:38 pm Subject: Re: Discrete Moments (Re: [dsg] The Incoherence of Instantaneous Arising, Ces... upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 2/25/2008 11:07:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard I think your are thinking about what I am presenting way too philosophically. I think you are so far above me in what you think I am trying to say, that you are totally missing what I am trying to say. Try to imagine someone 15 times stupider than you and then I think we might be on the same page. LOL TG =============================== This post of mine is really not so important, I think, As for your being stupider, that's the only stupid thing I've seen you write! ;-) As for my excursion into incoherence and "philosophy," it hasn't been aimed at a mathematical analysis. It's been aimed much more at the goal of relinquishment of view and at seeing the limitations of reason. With metta, Howard #83249 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:41 am Subject: Heap of Good! bhikkhu0 Friends: How does one Accumulate a Heap of Advantage? The Blessed Buddha once said: Bhikkhus, if one should call anything a heap of the Disadvantage, then it is these five hindrances, that one could rightly call this. For these are verily only one heap of evil Disadvantage, these five mental hindrances... What five? 1: The Mental Hindrance of Desire for Sensing... 2: The Mental Hindrance of Aversion & Ill-Will... 3: The Mental Hindrance of Lethargy & Laziness… 4: The Mental Hindrance of Restlessness & Regret… 5: The Mental Hindrance of Doubt & Uncertainty… If one were to call anything a mass of the Disadvantage, then it is about these five hindrances, that one could rightly say this. Since indeed are these five mental hindrances an immense stockpile of damage & loss!!! However: If, Bhikkhus, one were to call anything a heap of Advantage, then it is these Four Foundations of Awareness, that one could rightly call this. For these are verily a perfect mass of sole Advantage, that is, these Four Foundations of Awareness... What four? 1: Awareness of the Body merely as a transient & compounded Form.. 2: Awareness of Feelings just as passing reactive Sensations.. 3: Awareness of Mind only as a group of habitual & temporary Moods.. 4: Awareness of Phenomena simply as momentary Mental States.. If, Bhikkhus, one were to call anything an Accumulation of Advantage, then it is these Four Foundations of Awareness, that one could rightly call this. For these are verily a pure & massive abundance of Advantage, that is, these Four Foundations of Awareness... !!! Source of reference (edited extract): The Grouped Sayings of the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya. Book [V: 146] 47 The Foundations of Awareness: 5 Heap of Good... <...> Heap of Good! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... #83250 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:57 am Subject: Perseverance in dhamma, Ch 2, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, The next day, we discussed this sutta with Acharn Sujin. She said, “Your father is a deva messenger.” Lodewijk remarked that all that is said in this sutta is litterally true with regard to our life with my father. He said that he had to lift my father from his own filth, clean him and put him to bed. King Yama’s question about whether we have seen the Divine Messengers is a pertinent reminder of the truth. We cannot deny that we see the deva messengers, and we should remember not to be neglectful. Acharn Sujin said that we cannot escape seeing such things in the circumstances of our life, but that it is most important to understand realities. We should develop understanding of seeing and visible object since these are realities that occur all the time. Seeing conditions thinking about what we see. We should know when we are lost in the ocean of concepts, the ocean of ignorance and clinging. If there is no understanding we are full of the idea of self. Lodewijk said that the sutta reminds us to perform noble deeds through body, speech and mind. He asked whether there are any limits to good deeds? Acharn Sujin said that deeds and speech depend on the citta that motivates them. When mettå, loving kindness, arises, speech and deeds will be motivated by mettå. We should not merely think about having more mettå and practising it. When we have more understanding, kusala can become purer. If we do not consider the citta that arises, we may merely think of ourselves. When we are in the company of others we may behave in an agreeable manner and speak pleasant words, but if we do not consider the citta at that moment, there is attachment to ourselves or conceit. We may have conceit and we want to be considered a good person by our fellowmen. It is a gain to know at least when we cling to an underlying notion of self, no matter what our actions are, even when we perform kusala. Acharn Sujin asked us whether it is not true that we often perform kusala for our own sake. She said, “If one understands the teachings and there is less attachment to the self you think of the others more than of yourself. You think of helping others in deed and speech at any time.” It may seem that other religions also teach this and that there is nothing special in her words. However, the Buddha taught the development of understanding of realities and this is the condition to become more detached from the idea of self. This understanding can inspire to help others, even when one formerly was always inclined to say: not now, it is not convenient now. As we read in the Sutta, we should do noble deeds by body, speech and mind and this includes mental development, bhåvana. Learning about the different cittas that arise and that motivate our deeds is mental development. Mental development is the study of the Dhamma, the explanation of it to others, the development of calm and the development of vipassanå. We discussed our problems concerning our life with my father, and we mentioned that he grumbles and finds fault with us. Acharn Sujin said that kusala can be purer when we are not engaged in thinking about what others do or say. She said, “We love him, but we should not think, does he love me? We show affection but we do not mind about the result.” Satipaììhåna can be a condition for having more mettå. When we think all the time of persons we may be partial, we may have preferences for certain persons, or we may have expectations about their attitude towards us and at such moments there is no mettå. She explained that so long as there is “I”, the cycle of birth and death will continue. ******* Nina. #83251 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) nilovg Dear Han, Op 26-feb-2008, om 12:14 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > I wish to > have sickness with its own identity as a dukkha sacca, > and as mother of all sufferings in a person’s life. > The Buddha would not have said “aarogya paramaa > laabhaa” for nothing. ------- N: Dispeller of Delusion, Classification of the Truths, 473: <"The meaning of suffering in old age should be understood". But here this is not itself suffering. But it is called suffering as being the basis for suffering. For what suffering? For both bodily suffering and for the suffering of grief. For the person of one who is aged is weak like an aged cart. Great suffering arises in one struggling to stand or walk or sit; grief arises in one grief arises in one when his wife and children are not as considerate as before....> At other places in the Tipitaka sickness is mentioned many times. As to dukkha sacca in the deepest sense: the falling away of dhammas, the fact that they are not lasting. This is more important than all the other aspects which serve as reminder for dukkha in its deepest sense. Dukkha in this sense has to be penetrated, otherwise enlightenment cannot be attained. And it has to be known in relation to our daily life. It is not theory. Nina. #83252 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:27 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... dhammanusara Hi James (Scott), - I asked: > How can such naming of the dhammas make the dhamma theory ontological? And the answer is: James: Well, it isn't just the naming but the thinking behind the naming. Phenomena means something observed and insubstantial, here one second and gone the next. However, realities means something which exists "out there" and will forever last "out there". There is a big difference between the two. T: That thinking of the 'human element' behind is indeed a wrong view of the pure dhammas that are characterized by anicca, dukkha, and anatta (i.e. absolutely free from the human factors). The thinking of the (sankhata)dhammas as forever lasting is a wrong view. The dhammas (e.g. dhatus, ayatanas, nibbana) are "the way they are", regardless of the human element and regardless of whether a Buddhas arises to discover them or not. James: The Buddha was quite unique in that he didn't provide any such description. But, that wasn't easy. During his lifetime, there were several people who tried to force him to describe an ontology of existence but he refused each time. After his passing, it wasn't long before the Abhidhamma was formed (by the Third Council), then competing Abhidhammas were formed. T: That subject is interesting for historians, detectives, and philosphers. To me digging into the past or speculating about the future is an exercise for the brain, not for the mind. ;-) Tep === #83253 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:38 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... truth_aerator Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Dear Alex (and Scott), - > > A: In DN16 the Buddha has said that HIS words take precedence over > ANY ELDER OR ANY GROUP OF ELDERS (This would DEFINATELY include Ven. > Buddhaghosa or ANY "yana or vada" including Theravada). Even when it > comes to Sariputta, we need to make sure that what he said was > approved by the Buddha himself (which in almost all cases was). > > T: That is true, but it doesn't follow that the Abhidhamma wasn't > taught by the Buddha to the Chief Disciple Sariputta. Study the > Patisambhidamagga and you'll know for yourself. ;-) > > > Tep > === > There are few points regarding the whole AP issue a) Was the 7 books taught by Buddha himself? The scholars rejected it. A number of well known (otherwise we simply wouldn't know about every Bhikkhu's stance on it) Theravadins too. There are Various versions of Abhidhammas widely different and it is premature to say whose version was the best. Remember that reading documents about this or that sectarian schism is obviously one sided. For example Sthaviras say that They've won and Mahasanghikas were defeated. The Masanghikas say that they won and Sthaviras were heretics (or something like that). The arguments over AP, seemed to have happened after 2nd council, suggesting the time when different APs started to appear. b) Even if it wasn't taught by the Buddha, is it helpful or hurtful? c) Is it required for Awakening? When it comes to Sariputta, he must have been pretty Busy studying (whic He would have to do after reaching Arahatship, btw) & teaching AP. After all he is supposed to be the author of (Sariputra- abhidharma-sastra as well, non theravada work) and who knows what else. Some say that IF Buddha didn't teach AP, Sariputta did --- this would be hard if he taught not just one Abh but two or more... Where in the Suttas did The Buddha explicitly taught AP? (Please no vague references)? Anyhow, Sariputta was awakened in 14 days through intense Bhavana practice which included Satipatthana (the direct, strait, and the ONLY way to FULL Awakening) - MN111. Hundreds (if not Thousands) of other people from not knowing anything about Buddhism became Arahants in a week or so. Surely they didn't learn ALL thousands pages of AP, maybe not a single page at all. There are many (possibly thousands) of cases where some people heard a short sermon of the Buddha for the first time and become Ariyas (obviously these monks had well developed faculties). Anyhow, as a general rule, the 4 Nikayas are the most authorizative (DN,MN,SN,MN) and only few books in KN (Minor Collection) are early. Regarding Patis..., Is there an online Eng translation of it? Thanks. -- Lots of Metta, Alex #83254 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... dhammanusara Dear Nina (Han, James, Scott, Howard), - You wrote: > > Hi Tep, > I want to thank youu for your quote from Patisambhidamagga about > condiitons for wrong view. I like it. I found the Thai Co. but had > no time yet to go over it. > Nina. > Op 26-feb-2008, om 4:03 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > > > Study the > > Patisambhidamagga and you'll know for yourself. ;-) > > T: I'll be very glad to read your wise comment on the "conditions for wrong views" (ditthithaanaa), after you have time to go over the Thai Co. Tep === #83255 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:56 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... truth_aerator Dear Tep& James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > James: The Buddha was quite unique in that he didn't provide any such description. But, that wasn't easy. During his lifetime, there were several people who tried to force him to describe an ontology of > existence but he refused each time. After his passing, it wasn't long before the Abhidhamma was formed (by the Third Council), then > competing Abhidhammas were formed. >>>> This is true. Buddha has said that views not only are expressions of craving but are also dependently originated (mn18). Too me saying things like "There are 89 cittas, 17 rupa moments, etc" is a view of a pluralistic kind - pluralism which he rejected. Furthermore, where is "wisdom" in that sort of "telephone book" approach? The Buddha was wise to neatly summarize that whatever consciousness (or other aggregates) past/present/future far or near, etc etc is anicca-dukkha-anatta. Expanding things Unnecessary is simply not wise and shows verbosity and pomposity rather than wisdom. > T: That subject is interesting for historians, detectives, and > philosphers. To me digging into the past or speculating about the > future is an exercise for the brain, not for the mind. ;-) > > Tep > === > The subject of critical historical analysis of Buddha's teaching is critical, since one's awakening is on the line. It is NOT simply for the sake of historical curiosity, but to go to the roots of what Buddha taught and didn't taught - this helps to develop Investigation of Dhamma. #83256 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:00 am Subject: Does Abhidhamma expand on sutta teaching of 4NT&DO ? Thnx truth_aerator Hello all DSG Abhidhammikas, Does Abhidhamma expands on 4NT (Four Noble Truths) and if so, how? Does it contain something not contained in the Suttas regarding 4NT? Does Abhidhamma expands on DO (Dependent Origination) and if so, how? Does it contain something not contained in the Suttas regarding DO? Can someone explain please? Thanks. Lots of Metta, Alex #83257 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:13 am Subject: 6 senses x3 feelings & AP interesting statement of neutral feeling of 4 senses. truth_aerator Hello all Abhidhammikas, AP claims that eyes, ears, nose, and tongue percieve only neutral feelings - the body and the mind can feel pleasant/unpleasant/neutral feelings. This is directly contradicted in the Suttas where the Buddha says that EACH of the 6 senses has 3 feelings. Also this AP funny fact is contradicted by worldly experience. Look at the sun, stand near a chainsaw, stand near a very smelly sewer, put some salt or sugar on your tongue - etc etc. This shows that 4 senses DO percieve more feelings than just neutral feeling. Bitter/Sweet taste, repulsive smell, or painful sight (direct gazing into the bright sun) comes even before one mentally decides "Sweet, Bitter, Painful sight/sound, etc". Why didn't in the Suttas Buddha has said that 4 senses percieve only neutral and only "the body and mind" process and interprets everything as either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral? Please help me to understand this. It is possible that I am overlooking something. Lots of Metta, Alex #83258 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:33 am Subject: Re: Does Abhidhamma expand on sutta teaching of 4NT&DO ? Thnx icarofranca Dear Alex: > Does Abhidhamma expands on DO (Dependent Origination) and if so, how? > Does it contain something not contained in the Suttas regarding DO? > > Can someone explain please? The Daathukaatha, fourth Abdhidhamma´s volume, has a chapter dealing up only with DO (Dependent Origination). This book is somewhat underestimated, beside Dhammasangani´s or Patthana´s, but it is a true jewel of sound classical buddhistic doctrine. Lots of Metta for you too! Ícaro #83259 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 6 senses x3 feelings & AP interesting statement of neutral feeling... upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 2/26/2008 10:14:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all Abhidhammikas, AP claims that eyes, ears, nose, and tongue percieve only neutral feelings - the body and the mind can feel pleasant/unpleasant/neutral feelings. This is directly contradicted in the Suttas where the Buddha says that EACH of the 6 senses has 3 feelings. Also this AP funny fact is contradicted by worldly experience. Look at the sun, stand near a chainsaw, stand near a very smelly sewer, put some salt or sugar on your tongue - etc etc. This shows that 4 senses DO percieve more feelings than just neutral feeling. Bitter/Sweet taste, repulsive smell, or painful sight (direct gazing into the bright sun) comes even before one mentally decides "Sweet, Bitter, Painful sight/sound, etc". Why didn't in the Suttas Buddha has said that 4 senses percieve only neutral and only "the body and mind" process and interprets everything as either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral? Please help me to understand this. It is possible that I am overlooking something. Lots of Metta, Alex ==================================== I have come across a sutta that seems to unambiguously support your contention! If I were an "Abhidhammika, this sutta would trouble me. The sutta is copied below. The relevant paragraphs are the following: "What are the six feelings? The feelings born of sense-impression through eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. "What are the eighteen feelings? There are the (above) six feelings by which there is an approach (to the objects) in gladness; and there are six approaches in sadness and there are six approaches in equanimity. With metta, Howard _______________________________________________ SN 36.22 Atthasatapariyaya Sutta One Hundred Eight Feelings Translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera Alternate translation: _Nyanaponika_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.022.nypo.html) _Thanissaro_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.022.than.html) PTS: S iv 231 CDB ii 1280 ____________________________________ Source: From _Contemplation of Feeling: The Discourse-grouping on the Feelings (WH 303)_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/wheel303.html) , translated from the Pali by Nyanaponika Thera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983). Copyright © 1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. ____________________________________ Copyright © 1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Access to Insight edition © 1995 For free distribution. This work may be republished, reformatted, reprinted, and redistributed in any medium. It is the author's wish, however, that any such republication and redistribution be made available to the public on a free and unrestricted basis and that translations and other derivative works be clearly marked as such. ____________________________________ "I shall show you, O monks, a way of Dhamma presentation by which there are one hundred and eight (feelings). Hence listen to me. "In one way, O monks, I have spoken of two kinds of feelings, and in other ways of three, five, six, eighteen, thirty six and one hundred and eight feelings. "What are the two feelings? Bodily and mental feelings. "What are the three feelings? Pleasant, painful and neither-painful-nor-pleasant feelings. "What are the five feelings? The faculties of pleasure, pain, gladness, sadness and equanimity. "What are the six feelings? The feelings born of sense-impression through eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. "What are the eighteen feelings? There are the (above) six feelings by which there is an approach (to the objects) in gladness; and there are six approaches in sadness and there are six approaches in equanimity. "What are the thirty six feelings? There are six feelings of gladness based on the household life and six based on renunciation; six feelings of sadness based on the household life and six based on renunciation; six feelings of equanimity based on the household life and six based on renunciation. "What are the hundred and eight feelings? There are the (above) thirty six feelings of the past; there are thirty six of the future and there are thirty six of the present. "These, O monks, are called the hundred and eight feelings; and this is the way of the Dhamma presentation by which there are one hundred and eight feelings." #83260 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:33 am Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... dhammanusara Dear friend Howard (James, Scott, Nina, Dieter), - I appreciate another opportunity to discuss the dhammas with you. The explanation you have given is superb. > >T: That interesting point is a surprise to me. I am not sure why the term 'realities', which is a translation of dhammas ("phenomena" is another), can add "an ontological bent to the Abhidhamma". Calling the dhammas realities is one thing, and 'ontology of existence' is another. > >How can such naming of the dhammas make the dhamma theory ontological? > > > ============================== > Howard: For me, rendering 'a dhamma' as 'a reality' instead of, say, 'a phenomenonon,' and especially in the plural, rendering 'dhammas' as realities', *suggests* that a dhamma is not just an element of experience, not just a quality [as for rupas and some namas] or psychophysical (i.e., namarupic) event [as for most namas], and not just a contingent, empty, and other-dependent happening, but a (short-lived) *existent* (and that's where ontology comes in) with *own* nature, and *own* being, and, *identity*, and hence, *self*. T: You have made it extremely clear! In fact, the "ontological bent" is a mental concoction of a beholder which leads him/her to the rejecion of the Abhidhamma, thinking, "it is of dubious value and must not be taught by the Buddha, the Perfect One". ................ >Howard: The usage of 'realities' for 'dhammas', with the common connotations I have indicated, is probably the basis for some people to (wrongly) characterize Theravada (as opposed to some schools of thought within it) as providing a philosophy of pluralistic realism instead of one of emptiness and relinquishment. T: That is unfortunate, isn't it? .............. > Howard: The word 'reality' as the mass noun indicating "all that is unimagined" is often harmless (unless it is reified into a "Brahman" or some such substantialist principle), and the adjective 'real' in the sense merely of "actually occurring, and not just illusion and imagination," as in, for example, "Fear of relinquishment is real," is very safe, but the use of the locutions "a reality" (singular noun) and "realities" (plural noun) is danger-ridden. That is where the trouble comes in, it is where reification comes in. Beware the nouns!! T: In other words, seeing dhammas 'as they actually are' or seeing a sankhata dhamma as 'what come to be', without upadana (clinging, reifying). Otherwise, "the trouble comes in" along with the thought 'this is mine, this is my self, this is what I am'. ........... > Howard: Nobody thinks that sights and sounds and tastes and smells and bodily sensations such as hardness and warmth, and mental qualities such as clarity, dread, and contentment, and mental operations such as seeing, hearing, etc, and feeling, recognizing, etc are imagined and not occurring. They are not imagined and not non-occuring, and, in that exact sense, they are real (as opposed to unicorns that are unreal), but it is a great connotational error to then refer to them with the reifying terminology 'realities'. That terminology conceptually transforms what is merely not imagined into true entities with own-being. > T: It is time you should consider writing a book on the dhamma theory with James as your co-author. ;-) Regards, Tep === #83261 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:42 am Subject: Re: 6 senses x3 feelings & AP interesting statement of neutral feeling of 4 sen icarofranca Dear Alex: > Why didn't in the Suttas Buddha has said that 4 senses percieve only > neutral and only "the body and mind" process and interprets > everything as either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral? Mme. Sujin, in "A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas", explained out some of these difficult passages concerning some discordance between suttanta and Abhidhammika points of view. The body senses(and their respective sense doors)perceive only one external impulse each time, registered by Citta as only unique impulse...but since the "time of exposition" of these impulses are very fast, it generates an illusion of simultaneous sensorial datum. For the sensorial organs at a whole, these impulses ( even the ones that "hurt") are of a neutral kind, raising up Citta and Cetasika only at a certain infinitesimal time inerval. Lots of Metta Ícaro #83263 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:53 am Subject: Re: Does Abhidhamma expand on sutta teaching of 4NT&DO ? Thnx icarofranca Dear Alex: > Does Abhidhamma expands on DO (Dependent Origination) and if so, how? > Does it contain something not contained in the Suttas regarding DO? > > Can someone explain please? The Daathukaatha, Thirdh Abdhidhamma´s volume, has a chapter dealing up only with DO (Dependent Origination). This book is somewhat underestimated, beside Dhammasangani´s or Patthana´s, but it is a true jewel of sound classical buddhistic doctrine. Lots of Metta for you too! Ícaro #83264 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 6 senses x3 feelings & AP interesting statement of neutral feeling... upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and all) - In a message dated 2/26/2008 10:33:38 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: I have come across a sutta that seems to unambiguously support your contention! If I were an "Abhidhammika, this sutta would trouble me. The sutta is copied below. The relevant paragraphs are the following: "What are the six feelings? The feelings born of sense-impression through eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. "What are the eighteen feelings? There are the (above) six feelings by which there is an approach (to the objects) in gladness; and there are six approaches in sadness and there are six approaches in equanimity. ================================ There IS a way around the conclusion from this sutta, SN 36.22, that the Buddha countenances all three types of feeling at each sense door, and it comes from MN 137, where is written the following: "'The eighteen explorations for the intellect should be known': thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? Seeing a form via the eye, one explores a form that can act as the basis for happiness, one explores a form that can act as the basis for unhappiness, one explores a form that can act as the basis for equanimity. Hearing a sound via the ear ... Smelling an aroma via the nose ... Tasting a flavor via the tongue ... Feeling a tactile sensation via the body ... Cognizing an idea via the intellect, one explores an idea that can act as the basis for happiness, one explores an idea that can act as the basis for unhappiness, one explores an idea that can act as the basis for equanimity. The eighteen explorations for the intellect should be known': thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said." This seems to suggest not 18 types of *feeling*, but rather, 18 types of *sankharic reaction*. So, the two suttas seem to be at odds with each other. But I think the following may be a possibility harmonization of the two suttas: In SN 36.22, the Buddha writes "There are the (above) six feelings by which *there is an approach (to the objects) in gladness*; and there are *six approaches in sadness* and there are *six approaches in equanimity*. (Emphasis mine) These 18 feelings referred to may indeed be feelings, but, in fact, all be subsequent MIND-DOOR feelings engendered by cognitive and emotive proliferation in the wake of the original 6-sense-door feeling. If that reading is correct, and I tend to think it is, then the apparent support for your contention in SN 36.22, Alex, isn't really there. With metta, Howard #83265 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 6 senses x3 feelings & AP interesting statement of neutral feeling... truth_aerator Dear Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Alex (and all) - > "What are the six feelings? The feelings born of sense-impression through > eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. > "What are the eighteen feelings? There are the (above) six feelings by which > there is an approach (to the objects) in gladness; and there are six > approaches in sadness and there are six approaches in equanimity. > ================================ > There IS a way around the conclusion from this sutta, SN 36.22, that the > Buddha countenances all three types of feeling at each sense door, and it > comes from MN 137, where is written the following: > > "'The eighteen explorations for the intellect should be known': thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? Seeing a form via the eye, one explores a form that can act as the basis for happiness, one explores a form that can act as the basis for unhappiness, one explores a form that can act as the basis for equanimity. >>> The thing is that it is TRUE that mind uses visible forms, etc for the basis of Happiness (Or sadness). Happiness or sadness IS a sort of mental functioning not present in the 5 senses themselves. But what about PAIN or Pleasant FEELINGS (don't confuse bare feeling for more advanced cognitions of Joy/Sorrow) > This seems to suggest not 18 types of *feeling*, but rather, 18 types of > *sankharic reaction*. So, the two suttas seem to be at odds with each other. Wait a second. There is difference between pain/pleasure/neutral FEELING and mental reactions (Like, Dislike, neither. Or Joy/sorrow/indifference/equinimity, etc). > But I think the following may be a possibility harmonization of the two suttas: In SN 36.22, the Buddha writes "There are the (above) six feelings by which *there is an approach (to the objects) in gladness*; and there are *six approaches in sadness* and there are *six approaches in equanimity*. (Emphasis mine) These 18 feelings referred to may indeed be feelings, but, in fact, all be subsequent MIND-DOOR feelings engendered by cognitive and emotive proliferation in the wake of the original 6-sense-door feeling. >>> Rephrasing would go like this. There are painful/pleasant/neutral feelings in ALL 6 senses and there are emotional/purely mental states like Happiness-Unhappiness-Equinimity to add onto them. >>> If that reading is correct, and I tend to think it is, then the apparent support for your > contention in SN 36.22, Alex, isn't really there. > > With metta, > Howard > I think that in original question it was about bare FEELINGS rather than emotion or purely mental reaction to them. The fact is that senses CAN feel pleasant or unpleasant or neutral feeling - but it is the MIND which bases "Like, Dislike, Joy, Happiness, Sorrow) from them. Lots of Metta, Alex #83266 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:53 am Subject: Re: Does Abhidhamma expand on sutta teaching of 4NT&DO ? Thnx truth_aerator Dear Icaro and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "icarofranca" wrote: > > Dear Alex: > > > Does Abhidhamma expands on DO (Dependent Origination) and if so, how? > > Does it contain something not contained in the Suttas regarding DO? > > > > Can someone explain please? > > The Daathukaatha, Thirdh Abdhidhamma´s volume, has a chapter dealing > up only with DO (Dependent Origination). This book is somewhat > underestimated, beside Dhammasangani´s or Patthana´s, but it is a true > jewel of sound classical buddhistic doctrine. > > Lots of Metta for you too! > > > Ícaro > Thank you very much. Is there a link to English translation of that Book or to any good Abhidhammic Excerps regarding DO and 4NT? Thanks, With Lots of Metta, Alex #83267 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 6 senses x3 feelings & AP interesting statement of neutral feeling... upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 2/26/2008 11:41:06 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Alex (and all) - > "What are the six feelings? The feelings born of sense-impression through > eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. > "What are the eighteen feelings? There are the (above) six feelings by which > there is an approach (to the objects) in gladness; and there are six > approaches in sadness and there are six approaches in equanimity. > ================================ > There IS a way around the conclusion from this sutta, SN 36.22, that the > Buddha countenances all three types of feeling at each sense door, and it > comes from MN 137, where is written the following: > > "'The eighteen explorations for the intellect should be known': thus was it said. And in reference to what was it said? Seeing a form via the eye, one explores a form that can act as the basis for happiness, one explores a form that can act as the basis for unhappiness, one explores a form that can act as the basis for equanimity. >>> The thing is that it is TRUE that mind uses visible forms, etc for the basis of Happiness (Or sadness). -------------------------------------------------- Howard: True. ------------------------------------------------ Happiness or sadness IS a sort of mental functioning not present in the 5 senses themselves. But what about PAIN or Pleasant FEELINGS (don't confuse bare feeling for more advanced cognitions of Joy/Sorrow) --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Bodily pain is unpleasant feeling of body-door objects. Mental pain (a.k.a. suffering) is unpleasant feeling of mind-door objects. ----------------------------------------------------- > This seems to suggest not 18 types of *feeling*, but rather, 18 types of > *sankharic reaction*. So, the two suttas seem to be at odds with each other. Wait a second. There is difference between pain/pleasure/neutral FEELING and mental reactions (Like, Dislike, neither. Or Joy/sorrow/indifference/equinimity, etc). -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, there is. But see my attempted "harmonization." What it seems that both suttas are talking about in this specific regard are 18 types of *mind-door* feeling: These are pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings of *mind-door* objects engendered by proliferation upon each of 6 types of sense-door objects. So, this is still dealing with vedana, not sankhara, but the vedana is all mind-door vedana. ----------------------------------------------------- > But I think the following may be a possibility harmonization of the two suttas: In SN 36.22, the Buddha writes "There are the (above) six feelings by which *there is an approach (to the objects) in gladness*; and there are *six approaches in sadness* and there are *six approaches in equanimity*. (Emphasis mine) These 18 feelings referred to may indeed be feelings, but, in fact, all be subsequent MIND-DOOR feelings engendered by cognitive and emotive proliferation in the wake of the original 6-sense-door feeling. >>> Rephrasing would go like this. There are painful/pleasant/neutral feelings in ALL 6 senses and there are emotional/purely mental states like Happiness-Unhappiness-Equinimity to add onto them. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No. It is not said that there are painful/pleasant/neutral feelings in ALL 6 senses. It is said that there are feelings via all six sense doors, which, via papa~nca, engender 18 *mind-door* feelings. Example: We see a sight, *and it is felt as neutral*. Then, in dependence on a host of conditions, follows loads of associative, cognitive processing involving layers upon layers of thinking and recognition (sa~n~na) that produce a mind-door object that may be felt as pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. So, we have the feeling of one sense-door object (one of six) leading to 3 possible mind-door feelings, pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral of a produced mind-door object. ------------------------------------------------------ >>> If that reading is correct, and I tend to think it is, then the apparent support for your > contention in SN 36.22, Alex, isn't really there. > > With metta, > Howard > I think that in original question it was about bare FEELINGS rather than emotion or purely mental reaction to them. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm *still* talking about that, and I think both suttas are. They are both talking about 18 sorts of mind-door feeling. --------------------------------------------------------- The fact is that senses CAN feel pleasant or unpleasant or neutral feeling - but it is the MIND which bases "Like, Dislike, Joy, Happiness, Sorrow) from them. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I know of no sutta that asserts that pleasant and unpleasant feeling is associated with all sense-door objects. If you can show me one, then I will know it. ;-) Otherwise, this is just a belief on your part. I'm inclined towards the opposite belief. ------------------------------------------------------- Lots of Metta, Alex ========================= With metta, Howard #83268 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:26 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... dhammanusara Dear Alex (Han, Nina, Sarah), - You asked : >Regarding Patis..., Is there an online Eng translation of it? T: I have not seen any, except the series of discussion our good friend Han and myself have been posting at the SariputtaDhamma (a Yahoo! discussion group). ........... T: You have always been skeptical about the Abhidhamma, but mainly your questions are about its historical nature, rather than its content. I believe the content of the Abhidhamma, to be seen for yourself, is a million times more important than the concern about which vesion, how many versions, who got involved in the old days, where, and when. 'The Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting all to come and see, pertinent, to be seen by the wise for themselves'. Please note that only 'the wise' can see the true Dhamma taught by the Buddha. BTW how could you know how it feels when you are on top of the Great Wall of China, unless you actually are THERE? This is the reason why I recently started to study the Abhidhamma, beginning with the first book. Alex's Questions ------------------ a) Was the 7 books taught by Buddha himself? b) Even if it wasn't taught by the Buddha, is it helpful or hurtful? c) Is it required for Awakening? d) Where in the Suttas did The Buddha explicitly taught AP? (Please no vague references)? T: Let me give you my non-expert answers as follows. a) I don't know, Alex. I can only reason after I have read all of the 7 books. So, just you wait. b) We have to trust other exceptional Buddhists (arahants, ariya savakkas, upasakkas, upasikas) who memorized the Buddha's teachings, practiced according to to the Dhamma, taught their disciples/students, on and on until the day the Dhamma was finally published in the book form. It is not possible that these wonderful Buddhists would have put hurtful materials in the seven books. So, the answer is: of course, it is helpful. c) No, it is not required; the teachings in suttas are adequate. However, it (meanining the Abhidhamma) is valuable as complimentary material for deeper understanding of the suttas. A practical engineer can build working systems (e.g. computers and telecommunication devices) without possessing theoretical knowledge of atomic physics and communication theory. d) The Buddha only taught the Abhidhamma to the Chief Disciple Sariputta. He did not teach the Abhidhamma to even a great Arahant like Moggallana. So what can you expect about His teaching the Abhidhamma in the suttas that are at the level of trainers(sekha) and below that? Tep === #83269 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 6 senses x3 feelings & AP interesting statement of neutral feeling... truth_aerator Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: What it seems that both suttas are talking about in this specific regard are 18 types of > *mind-door* feeling: These are pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings of *mind-door* objects engendered by proliferation upon each of 6 types of sense-door > objects. So, this is still dealing with vedana, not sankhara, but the vedana > is all mind-door vedana. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > But I think the following may be a possibility harmonization > of the two suttas: In SN 36.22, the Buddha writes "There are the > (above) six feelings by which *there is an approach (to the objects) > in gladness*; and there are *six approaches in sadness* and there > are *six approaches in equanimity*. (Emphasis mine) These 18 > feelings referred to may indeed be feelings, but, in fact, > all be subsequent MIND-DOOR feelings engendered by cognitive and > emotive proliferation in the wake of the original 6-sense-door > feeling. > >>> Howard. If lets say an eye looks strait at the sun. There would be a painful visual cognition, or more accurately PAIN at the eye door. Even better example is painful (or more accurately expressed, unpleasant) smell of a rotting sewer or of a dead body, or a very painful sound of loud chainsaw. These feelings while definately they require a mind, they aren't emotive proliferations of the mind (although later thoughts ARE dealing with them and emotional/ration responce are exclusive mind door process). > . > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: I know of no sutta that asserts that pleasant and unpleasant feeling is associated with all sense-door objects. If you can show me one, then I will know it. ;-) Otherwise, this is just a belief on your part. I'm inclined towards the opposite belief. > ------------------------------------------------------- >>> What about MN148: 'The six classes of feeling should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling...[repeat] Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html#feeling 6 classes of feelings not 1 or 2. "And what is feeling? These six are classes of feeling: feeling born from eye-contact, feeling born from ear-contact, feeling born from nose-contact, feeling born from tongue-contact, feeling born from body-contact, feeling born from intellect-contact. This is called feeling. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html#fee lings6 If the above aren't convincing (you could say that 4 senses feel only equinimity and only intellect/mind feels 3 sorts of feelings) "In one way of presentation I have spoken of two kinds of feelings, and in other ways of presentation I have spoken of three, of six, of eighteen, of thirty-six, and of one hundred and eight kinds of feelings.2 So the Dhamma has been shown by me in different ways of presentation." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.nypo.html#t-2 36 feelings= 6 senses x 3 (pleasant, unpleasant, neither) 108 feelings = the above x3 time periods x2 (renunciant & non...) Lots of Metta, Alex #83270 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 6 senses x3 feelings & AP interesting statement of neutral feeling... nilovg Hi howard and Alex, Op 26-feb-2008, om 16:33 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Why didn't in the Suttas Buddha has said that 4 senses percieve only > neutral and only "the body and mind" process and interprets > everything as either pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral? > > Please help me to understand this. It is possible that I am > overlooking something. > > Lots of Metta, > > Alex > > ==================================== > Howard: I have come across a sutta that seems to unambiguously > support your > contention! If I were an "Abhidhammika, this sutta would trouble > me. The sutta is > copied below. The relevant paragraphs are the following: > > > "What are the six feelings? The feelings born of sense-impression > through > eye, ear, nose, tongue, body and mind. > "What are the eighteen feelings? There are the (above) six feelings > by which > there is an approach (to the objects) in gladness; and there are six > approaches in sadness and there are six approaches in equanimity. ------ N: The suttas do not give the details of the whole process of citta. Thus, when visible object is experienced by seeing, it is said that on account of this there can arise pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or indifferent feeling. Why so? Because very soon after seeing there are kusala cittas or akusala cittas that also experience visible object (no concept yet), and these can be accompanied by pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or indifferent feeling. Nina. #83271 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 6 senses x3 feelings & AP interesting statement of neutral feeling... upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 2/26/2008 1:29:35 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: What it seems that both suttas are talking about in this specific regard are 18 types of > *mind-door* feeling: These are pleasant, unpleasant, and neutral feelings of *mind-door* objects engendered by proliferation upon each of 6 types of sense-door > objects. So, this is still dealing with vedana, not sankhara, but the vedana > is all mind-door vedana. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > But I think the following may be a possibility harmonization > of the two suttas: In SN 36.22, the Buddha writes "There are the > (above) six feelings by which *there is an approach (to the objects) > in gladness*; and there are *six approaches in sadness* and there > are *six approaches in equanimity*. (Emphasis mine) These 18 > feelings referred to may indeed be feelings, but, in fact, > all be subsequent MIND-DOOR feelings engendered by cognitive and > emotive proliferation in the wake of the original 6-sense-door > feeling. > >>> Howard. If lets say an eye looks strait at the sun. There would be a painful visual cognition, or more accurately PAIN at the eye door. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: No, that's incorrect, Alex. It is not eye-door feeling, but body-door feeling. --------------------------------------------- Even better example is painful (or more accurately expressed, unpleasant) smell of a rotting sewer or of a dead body, or a very painful sound of loud chainsaw. These feelings while definately they require a mind, they aren't emotive proliferations of the mind (although later thoughts ARE dealing with them and emotional/ration responce are exclusive mind door process). --------------------------------------------- Howard: The loud sound is the same sort of example. The bad-smell example is a better one, and, indeed, for a while I also thought that the smell itself, when smelled, is felt as unpleasant, but I now believe that the smell as an object of nose-door consciousness is neutral, and only the smell as subsequent mind-door object is felt as unpleasant. Some people are nauseated by smells that others are enchanted by. The difference lies in the other factors that condition the smell as mind-door object. -------------------------------------------------- > . > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: I know of no sutta that asserts that pleasant and unpleasant feeling is associated with all sense-door objects. If you can show me one, then I will know it. ;-) Otherwise, this is just a belief on your part. I'm inclined towards the opposite belief. > ------------------------------------------------------- >>> What about MN148: 'The six classes of feeling should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling...[repeat] Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition there is feeling. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html#feeling 6 classes of feelings not 1 or 2. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What about it? I see no mention at all of all three types of feeling at every door. It's just not there, Alex. ------------------------------------------------------ "And what is feeling? These six are classes of feeling: feeling born from eye-contact, feeling born from ear-contact, feeling born from nose-contact, feeling born from tongue-contact, feeling born from body-contact, feeling born from intellect-contact. This is called feeling. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.002.than.html#fee lings6 ----------------------------------------------------------- howard: Yes, six classes of feeling. So what? ------------------------------------------------------ If the above aren't convincing (you could say that 4 senses feel only equinimity and only intellect/mind feels 3 sorts of feelings) ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: There is nothing relevant in them, so how should they have convinced me? ------------------------------------------------------ "In one way of presentation I have spoken of two kinds of feelings, and in other ways of presentation I have spoken of three, of six, of eighteen, of thirty-six, and of one hundred and eight kinds of feelings.2 So the Dhamma has been shown by me in different ways of presentation." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.059.nypo.html#t-2 36 feelings= 6 senses x 3 (pleasant, unpleasant, neither) 108 feelings = the above x3 time periods x2 (renunciant & non...) ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I do believe we've been discussing that. Nothing new here. -------------------------------------------------- Lots of Metta, Alex ========================= With metta, Howard P.S. Just for the record, Alex, it makes no difference to me whether sights, sounds, tastes, and odors can be other than neutral in feel. It has no bearing on relinquishment and awakening. I just see no suttic evidence to the effect that they can be other than neutral in feel, and it seems to me, most especially with sense of sight, that they cannot. #83272 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:59 am Subject: What I heard. nilovg Dear friends, audio: 2006-08- 18 b. Discussion about thinking and awareness. Kh S: One should understand the difference between the moments sati accompanies thinking and direct awareness. Whenever direct awareness arises it is aware and pa~n~naa begins to see that before there was not direct awareness at all. Direct awareness has a characteristic of a reality as its object. Ivan: What about the characteristic which thinks of realities, there can be understanding of what that thinking is. Kh S: There is no self who tries to manage anything at all. Whatever arises appears so rapidly, it is just at that moment of being aware. Pa~n~naa begins to grow when awareness grows. Realities do not stay. The moment of awareness is gone but it will condition other moments of understanding other realities, on and on. One should not cling to any reality that has passed already. Each reality arises and falls away, be it seeing, thinking or any other reality. Ivan: Sometimes we worry too much about the way we think. Kh S: How deeply rooted the self is. Jon: what about this idea: when there is dosa it is time to contemplate dosa? Kh S: It is not the time to contemplate, there can be direct awareness of that characteristic as not self. Dosa has its characteristic, each reality has its own characteristic. Satipatthaana is just for a moment, this has to be remembered, otherwise there is an idea of self who tries to have more satipatthana. ****** Nina. #83273 From: "m. nease" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 242 and Tiika. m_nease Nina van Gorkom wrote: N: According to the Tiika, tanhaa, craving, is opposed to fewness of wishes, whereas clinging is opposed to contentment, santu.t.thi. Craving is the root of suffering due to searching for what one wants, and clinging is the root of suffering since one has to protect what one has acquired. Thanks, Nina, a useful detail. I 'santu.t.thi' here synonomous with the 'contentment with little' often found in the suttas? mike #83274 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:12 pm Subject: Re: Patthaana (9) dhammanusara Dear Nina (and Han), - Thank you so much for answering my questions. From your reply I can conclude the following. -- the patisandhi citta is a vipaka and only the three sobha roots (alobha, adosa, amoha) can arise with a vipaka citta; therefore, at the moment of rebirth (in the human realm) there is no akusala citta. -- the rebirth consiousness can be ahetuka, which is root-less, and this citta is a result of a weak kusala kamma. The handicap at birth is due to the patisandhi citta being conditioned by a "weak kusala", not because of akusala kamma. Is the above conclusion correct? Thanks to both you and Han. Tep === #83275 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:23 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... dhammanusara Dear Alex, _ I only have one last point to make in this thread > Tep: That subject is interesting for historians, detectives, and > philosphers. To me digging into the past or speculating about the > future is an exercise for the brain, not for the mind. ;-) > Alex: The subject of critical historical analysis of Buddha's teaching is critical, since one's awakening is on the line. It is NOT simply for the sake of historical curiosity, but to go to the roots of what Buddha taught and didn't taught - this helps to develop Investigation of Dhamma. T: There is one huge problem that is not solvable! If we COULD "go to the roots of what Buddha taught and didn't teach", then I WOULD agree with you. Sincerely, Tep === #83276 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:50 pm Subject: Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion : Dhammasangani dhammanusara Dear Colette, - I hope this indoctrination of the Nargarjuna's philosophical thoughts in me may result in a wiser and more peaceful mind. As I mentioned earlier my knowledge of Madhyamika texts is zero. But today I do have an eagerness to learn, so please allow me to ask you a few questions. 1. What is a "reality" in Nargarjuna's viewpoint? 2. How does cognition condition that reality? Sincerely, Tep === #83277 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:02 pm Subject: Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. .. Transformation into Sotapanna?.. dhammanusara Hi Jon, - I missed your posts. You might have been too busy, or not motivated enough to partcipate in most discussions like you did in the past. >Jon: First, a point of clarification. I was not talking about catching rise and fall. I was talking about, for example, visible object being experienced as just visible object, i.e., not a person or a thing, distinct from the seeing consciousness by which it is being experienced. T: Even when the "seeing consciousness' is excluded, still I have no clue how to experience a visible object not as a person or a thing. Yet I know how to contemplate 'this is not mine; this is not my self', and it works every time to reduce frustration and sadness. ............ >Jon: Secondly, on the general question of talking about things that are beyond our own direct experience. In discussing the world as explained in the teachings, I see no need to limit our discussion to how we ourselves presently perceive the world to be. In fact, I think to do so would be counterproductive. I'm think you see it differently, but I'm not sure why you think as you do on this. T: Let me try to explain why I think it is important to be aware of our capability to perceive the world of beings. It is simply for the clear communication purpose. If we fail to make it clear, we would not be able to understand what kind of "realities" the other person is referring to. ;-)) There are two different situations: what we actually perceive (through seeing, hearing, ...), while we still have clinging, versus what we think we should train the mind to perceive in order to abandon vipallasas (see Vipallasa Sutta: Perversions; AN 4.49). ....................... > >T: Same point as explained above in the case of the ariyan's seeing > versus a worldling's. A right view in an ariyan is very different > from a right view in a worldling, although there are several > stages/levels of transformation from low to high, to higher, and to > perfection. > ........................... >Jon: But the only question is whether a worldling may have moments of right view, that is to say, kusala consciousness accompanied by panna. Surely this is possible? T: It is not possible to answer whether or not it is possible to know if a worldling may have moments of "kusala consciousness accompanied by panna", since there are two questions that I have been unable to answer: 1. How fast do those moments arise and fall away? The worldlings are unable to catch those moments of realities at the paramattha level. So, how can he know whether he really have such moments? 2. Because of overwhelming arisings of akusala cittas and their vipakas, how could any puthujjana be "free of all ignorance and wrong view" even for a moment ? ....................... > > > >T: But there are several holes in the above argument ! > >Jon: Thanks for pointing out how "holey" my argument is ;-)). T: A few DSG friends would get (easily) upset by the above comment. Thank you very much for forgiving me. ;-) ................... >Jon: I'd just like to comment on one of your points: > 1. It does not say how such a vipaka may arise here and now. > 2. Being free from all ignorance (your own words) is absolute, there > is no falling back. Hence it indicates perfection of the ariyans. > >Jon: I don't see it this way. Some moments of consciousness arise accompanied by unwholesome roots, some arise accompanied by wholesome roots (including panna), and some are rootless. At the moments when the consciousness is accompanied by wholesome roots or is rootless, it is free of all ignorance. T: So, according to your book, the consciousness can be free of all ignorance, at least in principle. But can you give a few real-world examples to verify the book statements? >Jon: The situation of being "absolute", as you describe it, occurs only when the akusala has been permanently eradicated, that is to say, at one of the levels or enlightenment. But it is still true to say of the worldling that not all of his moments of consciousness are infested with ignorance or wrong view. T: How could he, a worldling like me, verify your statement, i.e. "not all of his moments of consciousness are infested with ignorance or wrong view"? Tep === > #83278 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:23 pm Subject: Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion : Dhammasangani truth_aerator Dear Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > As I mentioned earlier my knowledge of Madhyamika texts is zero. But today I do have an eagerness to learn, so please allow me to ask you a few questions. > > 1. What is a "reality" in Nargarjuna's viewpoint? > 2. How does cognition condition that reality? > > Sincerely, > > Tep > === > Few quotes from an interesting paper "Thinking in Buddhism Nagarjuna's Middle Way" (I am not sure if I am allowed to post a link to a non Theravada article on this forum) ---------- ...The result was the Abhidharma , a classificatory analysis of human experience into physical elements, sense- faculties, and the aggregates comprising the individual. In this process of analysis, two old pre-Buddhist theories crept back in: self-nature (svabhava ) and other-nature ( parabhava ) . It was in response to these insidious heresies that Nagarjuna formulated his refutation of the two. 4.1 Theories of self-nature found their host in the Realist ( Sarvastivada ) school. 4.2 Theories of other- nature found a host in the "Sutra School" ( Sautrantika), so called because they saw themselves as being the most faithful to the original writings, the sutras. "Early Buddhist schools saw dependent arising as the mutual conditioning of interrelated elements and events. These elements and events were seen as being mutually conditioned but still real in themselves. The Madhyamika school gave a wholly new twist to dependent arising, stating that, if mutually conditioned, elements and events can not be real. Things are thus not explained by ceasing and arising, but are characterized as non-ceasing and non-arising . Seen this way, one could almost call Nagarjuna's theory "non-dependent non-arising." The fact that the normal casual order is reversed in this pair further foreshadows the subversionary method so peculiar to Madhyamika. Two more pairs flesh out Nagarjuna's interpretation of dependent arising: "non- annihilation and non-permanence" and "non-appearance and non- disappearance." As things arise dependently, they cannot have any real temporal location. They cannot be annihilated, for they were never really originated. Nor can they be permanent, for this would require that they have self- nature, an assertion that does not withstand logical analysis. The perceiving and conceptual reifying faculties of the individual are illuminated by the non-appearance and non-disappearance of things. This pair shows that the existence of things is illusory , and hence any perceptions of them are evanescent and imputations of existence to them are false. " The primary themes of Madhyamika thought as detailed in the karika are three : the refutation of self-nature (svabhava), the examination of dependent arising pratitya samutpada), and the teaching of emptiness sunyata). What the Buddha and Nagarjuna did was to show that concepts are false and distort the true nature of reality. They did not offer thoughts of their own to replace false ones, but taught that all ideas, including even the philosophy of Buddhism, must be appeased, or not grasped on to. When notions like self-nature, the soul, or permanency are "blown out" (nir - vana), the true nature of reality, emptiness, is seen. FOOTNOTE: Kohn, 245 ------------ Lots of Metta, Alex #83279 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:46 pm Subject: Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion : Dhammasangani dhammanusara Dear Alex (Colette, Sarah, Jon), - Frankly, the only sentence in the quotes from the paper "Thinking in Buddhism Nagarjuna's Middle Way" that I understand is the last one : When notions like self-nature, the soul, or permanency are "blown out" (nir - vana), the true nature of reality, emptiness, is seen. Let me ask Sarah and Jon the same question you posted plus my own: > (I am not sure if I am allowed to post a link to a non Theravada > article on this forum) I am not sure if I am allowed to discuss non-Theravada ideas here or not. But I think when a discussion helps highlight/contrast the Theravada principles with others, or improve members' understanding of the Buddha's Teachings, anything goes. Regards, Tep === #83280 From: han tun Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for letting me know what is sickness and what is suffering. I am not disagreeing with you or with your quotes. As I had written, the word “byaadhi” is missing in Mahaasatipatthaana Sutta and in Dependent Origination. So, it is not dukkha sacca. Period! So, I have actually no business to write this thread. But what I am writing is my “wish.” I wish byaadhi to be classified as dukkha sacca by its own merit – not as a basis for suffering, but as suffering. You have quoted: “For the person of one who is aged is weak like an aged cart. Great suffering arises in one struggling to stand or walk or sit.” What about the young persons who are sick, very sick? No, Nina, I am sorry, I will not change my stance. I will consider (whether it is in the books or not) that byaadhi is a dukkha sacca. And it is not a theory either. What I was suffering with sickness on a hospital bed recently was not a theory at all! Respectfully, Han #83281 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:04 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... dhammanusara Dear Scott, - > > T: "...I think it was because you did not explain how > you understood the quotes and why they were relevant to the > discussion." > > Scott: I thought the text showed how one 'does it one's self', which I > thought was Alex's point. I thought the text simply elaborated that > point. I don't like to spell out my own ideas too much - not really > worth it. I don't want to add to the Dhamma, just learn it. I like > to try to understand the texts - they speak much more eloquently. > T: The minimum information that I expect to see is always about someone's purpose for posting a given message and why it is relevant to the on-going discussion. I am a slow and unsophisticated thinker-- you know that. ;-) Sincerely, Tep === #83282 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:44 pm Subject: Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma-> nagarjuna Discussion truth_aerator Dear Tep and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > Dear Alex (Colette, Sarah, Jon), - > > Frankly, the only sentence in the quotes from the paper "Thinking in Buddhism Nagarjuna's Middle Way" that I understand is the last one :> > When notions like self-nature, the soul, or permanency are "blown > Another quick summarization: Certain Abhidhamma schools deny Atta, but insist that Aggregates, elements and such things truly exist. Nagarjuna and some later thinkers on the other hand appear say that even aggregates themselves cannot be said to exist, not, both neither. Like Moggaliputta Tissa Thera who wrote the Katthavatu refuting heretical positions, same with Nagarjuna who launched heavy weight critique of two Abhidhammic Schools (Sarvastivada- Realists and later Sautrantika). He launched attacks against Self Nature and Other Nature of those schools. Also, this is interesting quote: "Nagarjuna's position seems to be that the above two schools were led to posit a form of self-nature because they took the Abhidharma agenda of analysis too far. By so enthusiastically making lists of all the elements and factors by which the Buddha explained reality and drawing correspondences and relations between these factors they failed to realize that, though the Buddha explained his philosophy using such conceptions as psychophysical aggregates, material elements, and sense perceptions, he was not reifying these factors. Such elements and factors provided for a complete description of reality, but they were not intended to be taken as real. They are all dependently-arisen, not autonomous. Further, the doctrine of momentariness, as explained above, led the Realists to posit the existence of self-nature in all three phases of time and led the Sutra School to deny any temporal duration to the elements. But this notion of momentariness is not to be found in the Buddha's teachings, either. Nagarjuna's position is that, had these schools understood dependent arising in the right way, they would not have been led to hold such beliefs. Nagarjuna's attitude towards self-nature is wholly explained by one fact: the theory of dependent arising necessarily upholds the Buddha's doctrine of soullessness (anatman), which soullessness can never be compatible with self-nature theories. " Abhidhammicas, can you please say how Theravadin Abhidhamma is different from "FOOTNOTE: The Sautrantika philosophy of instantaneity led to another, even more heretical doctrine,... If an atom is infinitesimally short-lived, then it cannot be perceived directly. The act of perception would have to be once-removed from the object of perception. Yet perception exists. To account for this, consciousness was seen as underlying and supporting all phenomena. This consciousness creates from succession the illusion of continuity. This illusion is self-conscious, and a subtle self comes to be. " Underlying consciousness, Bhavanga? --- Lots of Metta, Alex #83283 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:11 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear friend Howard (James, Scott, Nina, Dieter), - <. . .> > The > explanation you have given is superb. Hi Tep and Howard, There seems to be a general agreement in some quarters that ontology (the study of existence) is a bad thing. Why is that? What is wrong with ontology? ---------- <. . .> > > > T:. . . I am not sure why the term 'realities', which is a translation of dhammas ("phenomena" is another), can add "an ontological bent to the Abhidhamma". Calling the dhammas realities is one thing, and 'ontology of existence' is another. > >How can such naming of the dhammas make the dhamma theory ontological? > > > Howard: For me, rendering 'a dhamma' as 'a reality' instead of, say, 'a phenomenon,' ---------- KH: When I use the terms 'mental phenomenon' and 'physical phenomenon' I am referring to nama and rupa. That used to be a tradition at DSG. Are we now going to water those terms down to include concepts? ----------------------------- > > H: and especially in the plural, rendering 'dhammas' as realities', *suggests* that a dhamma is not just an element of experience, not just a quality [as for rupas and some namas] or psychophysical (i.e., namarupic) event [as for most namas], and not just a contingent, empty, and other-dependent happening, but a (short- lived) *existent* (and that's where ontology comes in) with *own* nature, and *own* being, and, *identity*, and hence, *self*. ------------------------------ KH: Like it or not, that is the Dhamma. Conditioned namas and rupas (and nibbana) are definitely real. They are realities. ----------------------------- T: > You have made it extremely clear! In fact, the "ontological bent" is a mental concoction of a beholder which leads him/her to the rejecion of the Abhidhamma, thinking, "it is of dubious value and must not be taught by the Buddha, the Perfect One". ................ > ----------------------------- KH: Isn't that exactly what wrong-view would want us believe (figuratively speaking of course)? If conditioned namas and rupas were not ultimately real, then, ultimately, they would be no more real than self. Or, to put it another way, self would be no less real than dhammas. What an excellent opportunity that would be for belief-in-self to make its reappearance! --------------- > > Howard: The usage of 'realities' for 'dhammas', with the common connotations I have indicated, is probably the basis for some people to (wrongly) characterize Theravada (as opposed to some schools of thought within it) as providing a philosophy of pluralistic realism ---------------- By "schools within Theravada" are you referring to the ancient commentaries? I think it would be fair to say that the ancient commentaries define Theravada. So, to call them a school within it would be a bit odd. On the other hand, it seems to me, any school that repudiated the ancient commentaries would be outside Theravada, not inside. (But what's in a name?) :-) ---------------------------- > > H: instead of one of emptiness and relinquishment. ---------------------------- Emptiness (anatta: the absence of persisting self) and relinquishment (a function of panna) are, as everyone knows, central to Theravada. It would be a different matter, however, if "emptiness" were to be taken to mean no sabhava (no ultimate existence) and if relinquishment were to be taken to mean belief that dhammas were 'no more real than self.' That would definitely be outside Theravada. --------------------------- T: > That is unfortunate, isn't it? .............. -------------------------- You might need to clarify your position, Tep. Are you saying the explanations found in the ancient commentaries are unfortunate? --------------------------------- > > Howard: The word 'reality' as the mass noun indicating "all that is unimagined" is often harmless (unless it is reified into a "Brahman" or some such substantialist principle), and the adjective 'real' in the sense merely of "actually occurring, and not just illusion and imagination," as in, for example, "Fear of relinquishment is real," is very safe, but the use of the locutions "a reality" (singular noun) and "realities" (plural noun) is danger-ridden. That is where the trouble comes in, it is where reification comes in. Beware the nouns!! ------------------------------------ The nouns spell out clearly and unambiguously; dhammas exist, the self does not exist. ------------------------ T: > In other words, seeing dhammas 'as they actually are' or seeing a sankhata dhamma as 'what come to be', without upadana (clinging, reifying). ------------------------ KH: The Way is "seeing dhammas as they actually are." But seeing them other than as they actually are is definitely not the Way. So that's why we are here (at DSG): to find out what dhammas are. Is that ontology? If so, what's wrong with ontology? ------------------------------- T: > Otherwise, "the trouble comes in" along with the thought 'this is mine, this is my self, this is what I am'. ........... > ------------------------------- KH: You have not proved your point, Tep. You have not proved that seeing dhammas as ultimate realities would mean seeing them as "mine (etc)." Ken H ------------- > > Howard: Nobody thinks that sights and sounds and tastes and smells and bodily sensations such as hardness and warmth, and mental qualities such as clarity, dread, and contentment, and mental operations such as seeing, hearing, etc, and feeling, recognizing, etc are imagined and not occurring. They are not imagined and not non- occuring, and, in that exact sense, they are real (as opposed to unicorns that are unreal), but it is a great connotational error to then refer to them with the reifying terminology 'realities'. That terminology conceptually transforms what is merely not imagined into true entities with own-being. #83284 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:24 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... truth_aerator Dear James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > The roots of the Abhidhamma could have gone back to the Buddha's time >>>> The roots of Abhodhamma ARE in Buddha's time. It is just the metaphysical specifics... Do all phenomenon really exist or not? 75 Dhammas or 100? Plurality or monism? Realism or not? Do Dhammas exist only for one moment or longer? As someone has said, "The scholastic treatease were a form of manifesto declaring the position of the school". This doesn't mean that they are bad. It is just the interpretations of Pali Canon which isn't very detailed on certain metaphysical specifics. Nagarjuna uses a sutta in Pali Canon to establish Madhymika. So do Sarvastivadins and Sautrantikas. Thing is that Indians loved to argue. Debates were extraordinary important and even in the suttas this can be seen. The existence of a school often depended on its ability to defeat its opponents in debates. All of this however has a "sinister point"... Money and power (support from Kings). Read this. --- While Vasubandhu [who followed various Schools at some point] was away, his old master Buddhamitra was defeated in a debate at Ayodhya by Vindhyavasin. When Vasubandhu came to know of it, he was enraged and subsequently trounced the Samkhyas both in debate and in a treatise the Paramarthasaptatika. Candragupta II rewarded him with 300,000 gold coins for his victory over the Samkhyas. Vasubandhu made use of this money to build three monasteries, one for the Mahayanists, another one for his old colleagues the Sarvastivadins, and a third for nuns. http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/vasubandhu.htm#H4 --- While the specifics don't matter, the main point is scary... MONEY (which could have been used for various purposes). Lots of Metta, Alex #83285 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... truth_aerator Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Nobody thinks that sights and sounds and tastes and smells and bodily sensations such as hardness and warmth, and mental qualities such as clarity, dread, and contentment, and mental operations such as seeing, hearing, etc, > and feeling, recognizing, etc are imagined and not occurring. They are not > imagined and not non-occuring, >>> Even though I agree with you in that post, there are few objections. When you are dreaming you see sights which aren't really there. Sometimes auditory hallucinations can happen as well. In dreams I even have experienced "pain" not to mention taste. Recognizing of shapes can happen in the dreams as well, not to mention space-time (or the illusion of it and conditionality). my 2 cents, Lots of Metta, Alex #83286 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 6:45 pm Subject: Duration of Cittas, Cetasikas, Rupa truth_aerator Hello all, I was reading Abhidhammasangattha (CMA) today about 89 cittas. How long does each of 89 cittas last? How long does each of cetasikas last? How long does each of rupas last? Can someone reply and/or give a link to that answer? Thanks, Lots of Metta, Alex #83287 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:11 pm Subject: Re: Duration of Cittas, Cetasikas, Rupa scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: "How long does each of 89 cittas last? How long does each of cetasikas last? How long does each of rupas last?" Scott: Let's say ruupa is the object of consciousness. Citta is conascent with cetasika, so their duration is the same. Ruupa lasts seventeen times longer than citta/cetasika, that is, seventeen moments of consciousness will arise and fall away while ruupa persists and before it falls away. And citta/cetasika arise and fall away in the duration of a thought-moment. I'm pleased to see you taking a serious interest in Abhidhamma, Alex, as evidenced by this question of yours. Sincerely, Scott. #83288 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:34 pm Subject: Re: Duration of Cittas, Cetasikas, Rupa truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: >> Dear Alex, Ruupa lasts seventeen times longer than citta/cetasika, >>> Thank you for your answers. 1) Can someone please explain where the number "17" is gotten from? 2) And how long does each Citta itself last (not its 17x faster than rupa? Thank you, Lots of Metta, Alex #83289 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:42 pm Subject: Re: Duration of Cittas, Cetasikas, Rupa scottduncan2 Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "1) Can someone please explain where the number "17" is gotten from? 2) And how long does each Citta itself last (not its 17x faster than rupa?" Scott: The number 17 arises just after the number 16, and just before the number 18. In the five-door process there are 17 moments of consciousness that arise in a series after the stream of bhavanga cittas is interrupted by the arising of an object of consciousness. The number seventeen enumerates these moments of consciousness. Please see p. 155, CMA. Each citta lasts as long as it does before falling away. I'm very encouraged to see your continued interest in Abhidhamma, as evidenced by this line of questioning. Sincerely, Scott. #83290 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:44 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... dhammanusara Dear KenH (Howard, James and others), - Thank you for the concern you have made. Let me clarify some points I made earlier that have confused you. It very well might be caused by a quick reading that did not "digest" the whole parahraphs. KH: Hi Tep and Howard, There seems to be a general agreement in some quarters that ontology (the study of existence) is a bad thing. Why is that? What is wrong with ontology? T: I do not see ontology as bad, but it depends on the context. If you went back to my earlier message to James you would understand. .............................. > >James: The Abhidhamma is an ontology of existence. It speaks of "ultimate reality" and offers a definition of ultimate reality in terms of the Dhamma Theory: nama, rupa, and nibbana. However, the Buddha didn't teach an ontology, the Buddha taught an epistemology. The Four Noble Truths are an epistemology: from ignorance and craving comes suffering. When the Buddha stated that he teaches only suffering and the ending of suffering he was stating that he only teaches an epistemology- moving the mind from ignorance to knowledge. He was not trying to explain existence or the intricate workings of the universe. >T (in #83079): Very good argument! But the Buddha did more than teaching the nature and origin of the dhammas; he also taught his disciples how to practice/penetrate the FNT to realize Nibbana through vijja and vimutti. It is true that the realization of insight knowledges on the Path requires the ability to answer the question "How do we know what we know?". However, to be able to know the truths with direct knowledge(abhjanaati) and full understanding(parinnaa), I think it is critical for one to know with right view (or right understanding) about what is dhamma & what is adhamma, and what is vijja and what is avijja. As a 'systematic account of reality' of the dhamma the Abhidhamma Pitaka draws a line that separates right view from wrong views about the dhammas and makes it clear about the true meaning of the truths (knowledge, vijja) among so many other things. BTW you should join the Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion corner to give us your excellent questions/arguments. Based on the above reasoning, can we then say the Buddha taught BOTH ontology and epistemology of the dhammas? ........... >T: You have made it extremely clear! In fact, the "ontological bent" is a mental concoction of a beholder which leads him/her to the rejecion of the Abhidhamma, thinking, "it is of dubious value and must not be taught by the Buddha, the Perfect One". ................ > ----------------------------- KH: Isn't that exactly what wrong-view would want us believe (figuratively speaking of course)? If conditioned namas and rupas were not ultimately real, then, ultimately, they would be no more real than self. Or, to put it another way, self would be no less real than dhammas. What an excellent opportunity that would be for belief-in-self to make its reappearance! --------------- T: But I only talked about a person who had an 'ontological bent' to think of the Abhidhamma as the "ontology of existence", rather than as a 'systematic account of reality' of the dhammas, that draws a line to separate right view from wrong views about the dhammas and also makes it clear about the true meaning of the truths (knowledge, vijja) among so many other things. ..................................... > >Howard: The usage of 'realities' for 'dhammas', with the common connotations I have indicated, is probably the basis for some people to (wrongly) characterize Theravada (as opposed to some schools of thought within it) as providing a philosophy of pluralistic realism instead of one of emptiness and relinquishment. >T: That is unfortunate, isn't it? .............. KH: You might need to clarify your position, Tep. Are you saying the explanations found in the ancient commentaries are unfortunate? --------------------------------- T: Your reaction might possibly be caused by a misunderstanding. I only echoed Howard's words; i.e. it is unfortunate that some people wrongly characterize Theravada as providing a philosophy of plural realism instead of one of emptiness and relinquishment. ................................... >T: Otherwise, "the trouble comes in" along with the thought 'this is mine, this is my self, this is what I am'. ........... > ------------------------------- KH: You have not proved your point, Tep. You have not proved that seeing dhammas as ultimate realities would mean seeing them as "mine (etc)." T: It is easy to prove my point. Just look at the whole paragraph I wrote: >T: In other words, seeing dhammas 'as they actually are' or seeing a sankhata dhamma as 'what come to be', without upadana (clinging, reifying). Otherwise, "the trouble comes in" along with the thought 'this is mine, this is my self, this is what I am'. T: How could seeing dhammas as ultimate realities "would mean seeing them as "mine(etc)." ? It is the opposite that is stated above by me. Sincerely, Tep === #83291 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/26/2008 9:11:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Tep and Howard, There seems to be a general agreement in some quarters that ontology (the study of existence) is a bad thing. Why is that? What is wrong with ontology? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I can only speak for myself. I have no problem with ontology. --------------------------------------------------- ---------- <. . .> > > > T:. . . I am not sure why the term 'realities', which is a translation of dhammas ("phenomena" is another), can add "an ontological bent to the Abhidhamma". Calling the dhammas realities is one thing, and 'ontology of existence' is another. > >How can such naming of the dhammas make the dhamma theory ontological? > > > Howard: For me, rendering 'a dhamma' as 'a reality' instead of, say, 'a phenomenon,' ---------- KH: When I use the terms 'mental phenomenon' and 'physical phenomenon' I am referring to nama and rupa. That used to be a tradition at DSG. Are we now going to water those terms down to include concepts? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I mean namas and rupas by mental and physical phenomena. ---------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- > > H: and especially in the plural, rendering 'dhammas' as realities', *suggests* that a dhamma is not just an element of experience, not just a quality [as for rupas and some namas] or psychophysical (i.e., namarupic) event [as for most namas], and not just a contingent, empty, and other-dependent happening, but a (short- lived) *existent* (and that's where ontology comes in) with *own* nature, and *own* being, and, *identity*, and hence, *self*. ------------------------------ KH: Like it or not, that is the Dhamma. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's a cocky attitude, Ken. It is not "the Dhamma." It is the way you and some folks understand the Dhamma. ----------------------------------------------------- Conditioned namas and rupas (and nibbana) are definitely real. They are realities. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: They are real. I said that, and I continue to say it. I object to the noun form 'realities', and I explained why. It is misleading. But you are free to write and speak however you wish. -------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- T: > You have made it extremely clear! In fact, the "ontological bent" is a mental concoction of a beholder which leads him/her to the rejecion of the Abhidhamma, thinking, "it is of dubious value and must not be taught by the Buddha, the Perfect One". ................ > ----------------------------- KH: Isn't that exactly what wrong-view would want us believe (figuratively speaking of course)? If conditioned namas and rupas were not ultimately real, then, ultimately, they would be no more real than self. Or, to put it another way, self would be no less real than dhammas. What an excellent opportunity that would be for belief-in-self to make its reappearance! --------------- > > Howard: The usage of 'realities' for 'dhammas', with the common connotations I have indicated, is probably the basis for some people to (wrongly) characterize Theravada (as opposed to some schools of thought within it) as providing a philosophy of pluralistic realism ---------------- By "schools within Theravada" are you referring to the ancient commentaries? -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I have in mind the Sarvastivadins and, in the present day, Khun Sujin and her followers. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable of the commentaries by a long shot to make a judgement. -------------------------------------------------------------- I think it would be fair to say that the ancient commentaries define Theravada. So, to call them a school within it would be a bit odd. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You mentioned the commentaries, not I. BTW, I have two questions: 1) Are "the commentaries" monolithic, and 2) Are you well versed in them? ------------------------------------------------------------- On the other hand, it seems to me, any school that repudiated the ancient commentaries would be outside Theravada, not inside. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's nice, Ken. Good for you. Is that supposed to scare me? I turn to commentaries, ancient and modern, when I have access to them and when the material I'm looking at is unclear to me, and I seek other perspectives. The bottom line, is that I follow the Kalama Sutta in my approach to understanding the Dhamma, and I take the Dhamma to be what the Buddha himself taught. --------------------------------------------------------- (But what's in a name?) :-) ---------------------------- > > H: instead of one of emptiness and relinquishment. ---------------------------- Emptiness (anatta: the absence of persisting self) and relinquishment (a function of panna) are, as everyone knows, central to Theravada. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, they are. People make a mistake in taking Theravada to be a school of pluralistic realism instead of one of emptiness and relinquishment. That was my point! Karunadasa's Dhamma Theory article is very good in its explication, I think. ------------------------------------------------------- It would be a different matter, however, if "emptiness" were to be taken to mean no sabhava (no ultimate existence) and if relinquishment were to be taken to mean belief that dhammas were 'no more real than self.' That would definitely be outside Theravada. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's right. My only objection, and I've said it again and again, is to misleading terminology that belies genuine Theravadin positions. The use of 'sabhava' instead of 'lakkhana' and the use of 'realities' for 'dhammas' are seriously misleading choices - very poor choices in my opinion! (BTW, the PTSM has taken exception to 'sabhava'.) -------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- T: > That is unfortunate, isn't it? .............. -------------------------- You might need to clarify your position, Tep. Are you saying the explanations found in the ancient commentaries are unfortunate? --------------------------------- > > Howard: The word 'reality' as the mass noun indicating "all that is unimagined" is often harmless (unless it is reified into a "Brahman" or some such substantialist principle), and the adjective 'real' in the sense merely of "actually occurring, and not just illusion and imagination," as in, for example, "Fear of relinquishment is real," is very safe, but the use of the locutions "a reality" (singular noun) and "realities" (plural noun) is danger-ridden. That is where the trouble comes in, it is where reification comes in. Beware the nouns!! ------------------------------------ The nouns spell out clearly and unambiguously; dhammas exist, the self does not exist. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I strongly disagree. --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ T: > In other words, seeing dhammas 'as they actually are' or seeing a sankhata dhamma as 'what come to be', without upadana (clinging, reifying). ------------------------ KH: The Way is "seeing dhammas as they actually are." But seeing them other than as they actually are is definitely not the Way. So that's why we are here (at DSG): to find out what dhammas are. Is that ontology? If so, what's wrong with ontology? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I find nothing wrong with it! In fact, discussions of how and why dhammas arise and cease, and the assertion that there exists no self to be found anywhere in anything are ontological assertions. ----------------------------------------------- ------------------------------- T: > Otherwise, "the trouble comes in" along with the thought 'this is mine, this is my self, this is what I am'. ........... > ------------------------------- KH: You have not proved your point, Tep. You have not proved that seeing dhammas as ultimate realities would mean seeing them as "mine (etc)." Ken H ------------- > > Howard: Nobody thinks that sights and sounds and tastes and smells and bodily sensations such as hardness and warmth, and mental qualities such as clarity, dread, and contentment, and mental operations such as seeing, hearing, etc, and feeling, recognizing, etc are imagined and not occurring. They are not imagined and not non- occuring, and, in that exact sense, they are real (as opposed to unicorns that are unreal), but it is a great connotational error to then refer to them with the reifying terminology 'realities'. That terminology conceptually transforms what is merely not imagined into true entities with own-being. =========================== With metta, Howard #83292 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 2/26/2008 9:40:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: Nobody thinks that sights and sounds and tastes and smells and bodily sensations such as hardness and warmth, and mental qualities such as clarity, dread, and contentment, and mental operations such as seeing, hearing, etc, > and feeling, recognizing, etc are imagined and not occurring. They are not > imagined and not non-occuring, >>> Even though I agree with you in that post, there are few objections. When you are dreaming you see sights which aren't really there. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I do NOT see sights. It is very vivid thinking that is in progress, not seeing. --------------------------------------------------- Sometimes auditory hallucinations can happen as well. In dreams I even have experienced "pain" not to mention taste. Recognizing of shapes can happen in the dreams as well, not to mention space-time (or the illusion of it and conditionality). ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: What is your point? There is certainly experiencing going on, but it has nothing to do with the 5 senses. It is all imaginative. ----------------------------------------------------- my 2 cents, Lots of Metta, Alex ============================ With metta, Howard #83293 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:39 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Duration of Cittas, Cetasikas, Rupa upasaka_howard Hi, alex - In a message dated 2/26/2008 9:45:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all, I was reading Abhidhammasangattha (CMA) today about 89 cittas. How long does each of 89 cittas last? How long does each of cetasikas last? How long does each of rupas last? Can someone reply and/or give a link to that answer? Thanks, Lots of Metta, Alex ============================== How long as compared to what? You seem to be supposing a view from nowhere. With metta, Howard #83294 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Duration of Cittas, Cetasikas, Rupa upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Alex) - In a message dated 2/26/2008 10:43:07 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Alex, Regarding: A: "1) Can someone please explain where the number "17" is gotten from? 2) And how long does each Citta itself last (not its 17x faster than rupa?" Scott: The number 17 arises just after the number 16, and just before the number 18. In the five-door process there are 17 moments of consciousness that arise in a series after the stream of bhavanga cittas is interrupted by the arising of an object of consciousness. The number seventeen enumerates these moments of consciousness. Please see p. 155, CMA. Each citta lasts as long as it does before falling away. I'm very encouraged to see your continued interest in Abhidhamma, as evidenced by this line of questioning. Sincerely, Scott. ============================= Actually, the number 17 is best known as Howard's favorite prime! ;-) With metta, Howard #83295 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:56 pm Subject: F/W message from Saengchan sarahprocter... The following is a message to DSG from a friend (and former colleague of Jon's) in Bangkok. Sukin, when you next see her, could you kindly help her join as she's had difficulty with this. TIA. ============================================== Dear Khun Sara and ajarn Jonothan, Thank you very much for your email. I feel so much healthier today that I could climb up the stairs to the 3rd floor of my town house to check my mail. I will join the disussion group because I have some questions to ask.Well, I have followed your advice and that's why I feel so much better today that I could climb up the stairs. Well, my question is Panya ( of people in this era) can also know how each citta in the mind door arises and falls away just like we listened to the Dhamma, is that right? And the second question is that panya understands the cause of the arising of seeing and then there is also thinking after that understanding about the 24 conditions , is that the process how it normally happens......understanding and then thinking about it again ,like generalization ....is that so? Well, may I express my appreciation in advance for your reply. Loving kindness, Saengchan #83296 From: han tun Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Duration of Cittas, Cetasikas, Rupa hantun1 Dear Alex and others, “The life-span of a citta is termed, in the Abhidhamma, a mind-moment (cittakkhana). This is a temporal unit of such brief duration that, according to the commentators, in the time that it takes for lightning to flash or the eyes to blink, billions of mind-moments can elapse. Nevertheless, though seemingly infinitesimal, each mind-moment in turn consists of three sub-moments – arising (uppaada), presence (thiti), and dissolution (bhanga). Within the breadth of a mind-moment, a citta arises, performs its momentary function, and then dissolves, conditioning the next citta in immediate succession. Thus, through the sequence of mind-moments, the flow of consciousness continues uninterrupted like the waters in a stream.” [page 156 of CMA] “Material phenomena as well pass through the same three stages of arising, presence, and dissolution, but for them the time required for these three stages to elapse is equal to the time it takes for seventeen cittas to arise and perish. The stages of arising and dissolution are equal in duration for both material and mental phenomena, but in the case of material phenomena the stage of presence is equal to forty-nine sub-moments of mental phenomena,” [pp. 156-157 0f CMA] “The cetasikas are mental phenomena that occur in immediate conjunction with citta or consciousness, and assist citta by performing more specific tasks in the total act of cognition. The mental factors cannot arise without citta, nor can citta arise completely segregated from the mental factors. But though the two are functionally interdependent, citta is regarded as primary because the mental factors assist in the cognition of the object depending upon citta., which is the principal cognitive element. The relationship between citta and the cetasikas is compared to that between a king and his retinue. Although one says “the king is coming”, the king does not come alone, but he always comes accompanied by his attendants. Similarly, whenever a citta arises, it never arises alone but always accompanied by its retinue of cetatsikas.” [page 76 of CMA] The four characteristics that delineate the relationship between the citta and its concomitant cetasikas are as follows: (1) arising together with consciousness (ekuppaada), (2) ceasing together with consciousness (ekanirodha), (3) having the same object as consciousness (ekaalambana), (4) having the same base as consciousness (ekavatthuka). [page 77 of CMA] Respectfully, Han --- Alex wrote: > Hello all, > > I was reading Abhidhammasangattha (CMA) today about > 89 cittas. > > How long does each of 89 cittas last? > How long does each of cetasikas last? > How long does each of rupas last? > #83297 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: > NEW TG: This is no big deal IMO. After all, all that there is, is these > elements. What else is there to contemplate? Though you and I will probably > have a vastly different idea as the ontological standing of "said elements." > I view them as "reference points." I think you view them as "realities with > their own characteristics." > > > I think you folks err in thinking there are "two worlds" out there. An > unreal world, and a real world. Nope, there's just the one. > To my knowledge, nobody on this list has ever propounded a "two worlds" theory. You may be thinking of the expression "conventional world", which is sometimes used. However, this simply means the world viewed in the conventional sense, that is to say, a world of people and things. But it is not to be taken literally as a world separate from the world as it really is; it is actually "no-world". > Its delusion we are trying to overcome ... not a "fake world." By > considering elements as realities, the mind creates a new delusion IMO. It steps > "outside the middle way" IMO. > The development of insight is not a matter of *considering elements to be* anything; it's a matter of seeing things as they truly are. Thus, it's a matter of panna developing, since it is panna that sees things as they truly are. > The Suttas will point out that the mind only knows the truth after it is > freed by "turning away" from the elements, not by affixing to them. The > elements are merely fodder for realizing impermanence, affliction, nonself, so that > those same elements can be rejected and detached from. Over-substantializing > them with ontological importance is a big danger IMO. Elements are discussed here because without a proper understanding of elements at an intellectual level, there can not be the direct understanding of them. The perception that someone may be "over-substantializing them with ontological importance" is a subjective one on your part. I wonder if you are misreading things that have been said (if you cared to give a specific reference, we could discuss). > NEW TG: This is why I asked for a Sutta quote and not just inference or > personal or commentarial interpretation. The term "realities" is loaded with > all sorts of substantiation that I don't think the Buddha would have approved > of. So your conclusion above is just personal opinion and speculation. I'm > sure you believe it to be correct. I believe it a major blunder. > > > But the Suttas show the Buddha saying that -- the elements, khandas, etc > should be see as they really are as impermanent, afflicting, nonself. He DID > NOT say that -- they should be seen as they really are as "realities." Yet it > is that later claim that gets extreme highlighting by many in this > group...even to the extent as to call it "the aim" of the Buddha's teaching. I think you are missing something here, namely, the significance of the fact that dhammas (phenomena) are classified variously as khandhas, elements, ayatanas, 4 foundations of mindfulness, etc. These different classifications allude to different aspects of dhammas. Seeing dhammas as they truly are involves seeing some or all of these aspects of dhammas: dhammas as khandhas, dhammas as elements, etc. > I don't really follow the contorted "simile and synonym" explanation above. > I don't know how an -- empty, coreless, mirage-like, alien, "like a trick"; > khanda or element, is so "reality-ish" as well. > I take it you have been referring to the Phena Sutta SN22.95 (and possibly to other suttas also). In that sutta the khandhas are likened to a lump of foam (rupa), a water bubble (vedana), a mirage (sanna), a plantain trunk (sankhara) and an illusion (vinnana) (BB translation). These terms are descriptive of the khandhas, but are not definitions of the khandhas. So when you ask how something that is so described can ever be a dhamma/"reality" I think you miss the point. The question to ask, it seems to me, is what it means for a dhamma/khandha to be likened to a lump of foam, to a water bubble, etc. In this regard, note that each of these descriptions applies to a particular khandha only. Only rupa khandha is likened to a lump of foam, only vedana khandha to a water bubble, etc. So these similes describe an aspect of each of the khandhas. They do not define what each khandha is. > Granted these are very subtle issues. And although I have great respect for > the Abhidhamma Pitaka, I find it has the tendency to inculcate an > over-substantialistic outlook on some who deal extensively with it. In that way it > falls subject to propagating a subtle self-view outlook as these "realities" > become seen as "little flickering entities." This is not the Abhidhamma > Pitaka's fault per se, but it has less restraining (of self view) sensibilities than > the Suttas do. Some folks, in thinking they are overcoming it (self view), > are actually embracing it, though subtly. > As you say, a tendency in some people to wrong view as regards the meaning of the Abhidhamma could not be regarded as a fault of the Abhidhamma itself. As to the extent that such wrong view is evident on this list, again I wonder if you have been misinterpreting what has been said. Without a specific reference from you I really can't comment. > NEW TG: Wow, this section really proved the point I made in the previous > section about substantialism. > > Just the phrase "unalterable characteristics" is about as un-Buddhist a > sentiment as I can image. I wouldn't even want that sentiment as a passing > thought. > Well one of the meanings of "characteristic" is an unalterable quality, something that inheres in the thing to which the characteristic pertains. And I think that description fits the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta, since they are the unalterable characteristics of all dhammas (unalterable, but lasting only for an infinitesimally short moment of time). Jon #83298 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] F/W message from Saengchan sarahprocter... Dear Saengchan, (We're rather informal here, so I hope you don't mind if I just address you by your name, rather than by 'Khun' or 'Ajahn') I'm so glad to hear you're feeling better and delighted to read your questions which you encouraged me to share on DSG with us. let me see if I can answer. .... Qu 1. > Well, my question is Panya ( of people in this era) can also > know > how each citta in the mind door arises and falls away just like we > listened to the Dhamma, is that right? .... Ans: It's a very highly developed panna (pa~n~naa) that directly understands the arising and falling away of cittas. Before the 3rd stage of insight (vipassanaa ~naana) this is not possible at all. The same applies to any era. This is why it's always stressed that in the first place there needs to be clear understanding of what namas are and what rupas are, otherwise higher understanding can never develop. Of course, it's easy to think about the impermanence of dhammas, but this is not direct understanding. .... Qu 2. >And the second question is that > panya understands the cause of the arising of seeing and then there is > also thinking after that understanding about the 24 conditions , is > that > the process how it normally happens......understanding and then thinking > about it again ,like generalization ....is that so? .... Ans: We can think now and understand conceptually that the conditions for seeing are the 'coming together' of visible object, eye-base and contact or that seeing arises now due to past kamma and that it's vipaka citta. However, this is just thinking now, not the direct understanding of the conditioned nature or arising of seeing when it appears. When it is the 'deeper' panna which understands its conditioned nature (at the 2nd stage of insight), there is no more doubt about it. As you suggest, there is bound to be wise reflection and thinking in between moments of direct understanding. The developed panna has to also directly understand all kinds of other namas and rupas as conditioned dhammas too after the vipassana nanas have fallen away. These are difficult questions, Saengchan! Others may also have ideas. I think you were also asking about understanding 'processes' in Bangkok. Could you kindly elaborate on your interest in these points as it would help us to understand your questions better. Also, friends here would be very glad if you'd care to share a short introduction about yourself/your interest in Dhamma. Thank you so much for joining us. Metta, Sarah p.s Jonothan sends his regards and a warm welcome too! ======= #83299 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:48 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... kenhowardau Hi Tep, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > <. . .> > T: I do not see ontology as bad, but it depends on the context. If > you went back to my earlier message to James you would understand. > .............................. > > >James: The Abhidhamma is an ontology of existence. It speaks of > "ultimate reality" and offers a definition of ultimate reality in > terms of the Dhamma Theory: nama, rupa, and nibbana. However, the > Buddha didn't teach an ontology, the Buddha taught an epistemology. > > Based on the above reasoning, can we then say the Buddha taught BOTH > ontology and epistemology of the dhammas? I am sorry, but you have lost me. But never mind; the main question still remains, are there such things as absolute realities? Howard maintains that, while namas and rupas are real, they are - somehow - not realities. I am sure there must be a logical theory behind that extraordinary statement, but I doubt I could ever agree with it. To my mind, if something is real then it is a reality. If something is real in the absolute sense then it is an absolute reality. What is your opinion on that, Tep? I ask because I am genuinely not sure where you stand on the matter: you seemed very impressed with Howard's "superb explanation" and so assumed you are in the "dhammas are not realities" camp. (?) This is not just a petty dispute over terminology. Howard sees grave issues involved, and so do I. As with every major disagreement at DSG it all comes down to whether or not anatta means no-control. In other words: to whether or not anatta means the inefficacy of formal meditation. You see, the explanation of dhammas as 'performers of functions' - and as ultimately the *only* performers of functions - leaves formal vipassana practice without a leg to stand on. Therefore, someone who is determined to defend formal practices must, somehow, refute this particular explanation of dhammas. If there were no dispute over "no-control" and "no formal practice" then there would be no inclination to refute the term "absolute reality." But there is a dispute. Howard tells us that anatta means "dhammas are not realities" but I say that is not what anatta means at all! And the arguments continue. :-) Ken H #83300 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:13 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... buddhatrue Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > Thing is that Indians loved to argue. Debates were extraordinary > important and even in the suttas this can be seen. The existence of a > school often depended on its ability to defeat its opponents in debates. > > All of this however has a "sinister point"... Money and power (support > from Kings). > > > Read this. > > --- > While Vasubandhu [who followed various Schools at some point] was away, > his old master Buddhamitra was defeated in a debate at Ayodhya by > Vindhyavasin. When Vasubandhu came to know of it, he was enraged and > subsequently trounced the Samkhyas both in debate and in a treatise the > Paramarthasaptatika. Candragupta II rewarded him with 300,000 gold > coins for his victory over the Samkhyas. Vasubandhu made use of this > money to build three monasteries, one for the Mahayanists, another one > for his old colleagues the Sarvastivadins, and a third for nuns. > http://www.iep.utm.edu/v/vasubandhu.htm#H4 > --- > > While the specifics don't matter, the main point is scary... MONEY > (which could have been used for various purposes). Very interesting. I wasn't aware of this. Thanks for sharing. Metta, James #83301 From: han tun Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:21 am Subject: Patthaana (11) hantun1 Dear All, This is the continuation of (1). Root condition (hetu-paccaya), and the continuation of the root, Dosa. In my last post I have mentioned the grounds for annoyance (aaghaatavatthu). After knowing the grounds for annoyance, it will be useful to know how to remove the annoyance or grudges. For this purpose, there are two suttas by which we can remove the annoyance or grudges. AN 5.161: Aghatavinaya Sutta — Subduing Hatred (1) [Thanissaro | Ñanamoli]. Five skillful ways of dealing with people who annoy you. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.161.than.html AN 5.162: Aghatavinaya Sutta — Subduing Hatred (2) [Thanissaro]. Sariputta describes five skillful ways of dealing with feelings of hatred toward others. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.162.than.html --------------------- In the first sutta, the Buddha taught us the following five ways to remove grudges. (1) "When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should develop good will (mettaa) for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual should be subdued. (2) "When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should develop compassion (karunaa) for that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual should be subdued. (3) "When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should develop equanimity (upekkhaa) toward that individual. Thus the hatred for that individual should be subdued. (4) "When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should pay him no mind & pay him no attention (asati amanasikaaro). Thus the hatred for that individual should be subdued. (5) "When you give birth to hatred for an individual, you should direct your thoughts to the fact of his being the product of his actions: 'This venerable one is the doer of his actions (kammassako), heir to his actions (kammadaayaado), born of his actions (kammayoni), related by his actions (kammabandhu), and has his actions as his arbitrator (kammappa.tisara.no). Whatever action he does, for good or for evil, to that will he fall heir. (yam kammam karissati, kalyaa.nam vaa paapakam vaa, tassa daayaado bhavissatii’ti)' Thus the hatred for that individual should be subdued. We will consider the second sutta in my next post. Metta, Han #83302 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) sarahprocter... Dear Han & all, --- han tun wrote: > In SN 56.11 Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, translated by > Ñanamoli Thera > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.nymo.html > > > "Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: Birth is > suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, > death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, > grief and despair are suffering; association with the > loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is > suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering — in > short, suffering is the five categories of clinging > objects.” > > Han: In this translation, sickness (byaadhi) is a > dukkha sacca, but in Ven Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s > translation of the same sutta, byaadhi is not > mentioned. .... S: I see it is mentioned in the Pali on the Metta site (vyaadhipi dukkho), but there may be manuscript differences. As you say, in the Mahaasatipa.t.thaana Sutta in DN, it is not included (I checked the Pali on Metta site for this too). I think the important point is that in summary, it is the 5 khandhas of clinging that are dukkha. Which khandha is sickness? Which doorway does it appear through? What is the real problem when we are sick or any other time? I'm sure you know the answers! I heard K.Sujin saying the following in a discussion in Kaeng Krajan. She was speaking to a friend called Knowing who had mentioned earlier he was feeling unwell and had uncomfortable sensations in his body. Sujin: "Do you have bones? There is no you means there is nothing except that which appears; no you, no one, no self, no bones, no heart, no limb - just a reality which is experienced by a citta. Otherwise, we think we have the whole body from head to toe and [it's] all experienced, but actually[ it's] just at that very moment, because at the moment of seeing, there is no story, no thinking anything at all. And when there is thinking, it's not seeing or hearing at all, because it experiences concept only - an idea. So nothing can be taken for self in reality. Just one moment...it should be the world of paramattha dhammas, right? Seeing and hearing, that is the world of 'I' instead of the world of dhammas when there is no understanding. So we can understand the very blessed and absolute calm, nibbana - nothing appears, nothing arises, nothing can be object for clinging...." ***** >H: In MN 22 Alagaddupama Sutta > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html#dukkha > > > The Buddha said "Both formerly and now, monks, I > declare only stress and the cessation of stress.” > > Han: I must know exactly what is dukkha sacca so that > I can look for the cessation of dukkha. To administer > a proper treatment the doctor needs to have a correct > diagnosis. So, for me the complete picture of dukkha > sacca is very important. ... S: In SN 22:16 'What is Suffering' (Bodhi transl.) "At Saavatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' "Feeling.....Perception...Volitional formations....Consciousness is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' "Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form.....consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion [his mind] is liberated. When it is leberated there comes the knowledge: 'It's liberated.' He understands: 'Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.'" " Metta, Sarah p.s Greatly appreciating your Patthana series. ============================== #83303 From: han tun Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:49 am Subject: Perfections Corner (94) hantun1 Dear All, This is the presentation in installment of The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment by Ajahn Sujin Boriharnwanaket; and translated by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.zolag.co.uk/ - Chapter 6: The Perfection of Patience (continuation) We read further on in the Commentary to the “Analysis of the Elements”: “It has been asked: why did the almsbowl and robes which can be made to appear by supranatural powers not come to Pukkusaati? Answer: Because the son of a prominent family did not offer the eight requisites [1] in the past. However, the son of a prominent family Pukkusaati had made offerings and he had made aspirations, and thus, one should not say that the reason (for not obtaining the requisites) was his lack of generosity in the past... Robes and bowl which can be made to appear by supranatural power can only come to disciples who are in their last life, thus, who have attained arahatship. For this son of a prominent family there would still be rebirth, because he had attained the state of non-returner, anaagaamí, not arahatship. Moreover, the lifespan of this son of a prominent family was about to expire. With regard to Pukkusaati, (it can be said that it was as if) the Mahaa-brahma (of the brahma plane), the anaagaamí of the ‘Pure Abodes’ (suddhavaasa [2]) came to the potter’s workshop and sat down there.” Afterwards he was reborn as a brahma in the heavenly plane of Avihå, thus, in (the first of) the “Pure Abodes”. Only those who have attained the stage of the non-returner and have developed the fifth stage of jhåna can be reborn in the “Pure Abodes”. Pukkusaati, before his lifespan had come to an end, was close to becoming a ruupa-brahma in the “Pure Abodes”, and therefore, the Commentary stated: “the Mahaa-brahma (of the brahma plane), the anaagaamí of the ‘Pure Abodes’ (suddhavaasa) came to the potter’s workshop and sat down there.” Very soon his life as Pukkusaati would be changed into the life of a ruupa-brahma of the “Pure Abodes”. Note [1} The eight parikkhaara, requisites are: three robes, a bowl, a razor, a needle, a girdle and a water-strainer. Note [2] There are five Pure Abodes, Suddhaavaasa planes for non-returners, which are the results of the fourth jhaana (or the fifth of the fivefold system), and Pukkusaati was born in the first of them, the Aviha plane. To be continued. Metta, Han #83304 From: han tun Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your kind post. > Sarah: I see it is mentioned in the Pali on the Metta site (vyaadhipi dukkho), but there may be manuscript differences. As you say, in the Mahaasatipa. t.thaana Sutta in DN, it is not included (I checked the Pali on Metta site for this too). Han: In the Burmese text also byaadhi is included in Dhammacakkappavattana sutta. I did not mention it because I did not want to take advantage to strengthen my point by referring to a Burmese book. ------------------------------ > Sarah: I think the important point is that in summary, it is the 5 khandhas of clinging that are dukkha. Which khandha is sickness? Which doorway does it appear through? What is the real problem when we are sick or any other time? I'm sure you know the answers! Han: I do not think you get my point. My point is very simple. Is byaadhi dukkha sacca or not? Yes or no? ------------------------------ Han: (1) Khun Sujin’s teachings are above me. Some I understand, some I don’t. (2) SN 22.16 Yam Dukkha sutta describes what is suffering. But it does not answer my specific question. Is byaadhi dukkha sacca or not? (3) Why I want this answer, I had mentioned in my very first post. Dear Sarah, I thank you very much for giving me your time to explain to me. But for me, I have decided. I will consider (whether it is mentioned in the books or not) that byaadhi is indeed a dukkha sacca. Respectfully, Han P.S. I am grateful that you appreciate my Patthaana series. #83305 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Patthaana (9) nilovg Hi Tep, Op 26-feb-2008, om 23:12 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > therefore, at > the moment of rebirth (in the human realm) there is no akusala citta. > ------- N: There is no akusala vipaakacitta, we have to add: vipaakacitta. ------- > T: -- the rebirth consiousness can be ahetuka, which is root-less, and > this citta is a result of a weak kusala kamma. The handicap at birth > is due to the patisandhi citta being conditioned by a "weak kusala", > not because of akusala kamma. ------- N:Yes, correct. It is still kusala vipaakacitta, because he is reborn as a human. But his capacities are limited. Nina. #83306 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) sarahprocter... Dear Han,(Howard*) --- han tun wrote: > > Sarah: I see it is mentioned in the Pali on the > Metta site (vyaadhipi dukkho), but there may be > manuscript differences. As you say, in the > Mahaasatipa. t.thaana Sutta in DN, it is not included > (I checked the Pali on Metta site for this too). > > Han: In the Burmese text also byaadhi is included in > Dhammacakkappavattana sutta. I did not mention it > because I did not want to take advantage to strengthen > my point by referring to a Burmese book. ... S:It's helpful for us all if you refer to your Burmese books and texts anytime. .... > > ------------------------------ > > > Sarah: I think the important point is that in > summary, it is the 5 khandhas of clinging that are > dukkha. Which khandha is sickness? Which doorway does > it appear through? What is the real problem when we > are sick or any other time? I'm sure you know the > answers! > > Han: I do not think you get my point. My point is very > simple. Is byaadhi dukkha sacca or not? Yes or no? .... S: As I understand, byaadhi is a concept used for convenience to represent a number of dhammas which are dukkha. In the ultimate sense, rupas (including those experienced through the body-sense) are dukkha, feelings (including painful bodily feeling) are dukkha, perceptions (including perceptions/memories of such rupas and feelings) are dukkha, mental formations (the other 50 mental factors) are dukkha and consciousnessess (including bodily experience) are dukkha. ... > Han: > (1) Khun Sujin’s teachings are above me. Some I > understand, some I don’t. .... S: I think she was stressing how so many of the aspects we take for our sickness or illness are based on atta-belief. Does it help? For me, it helps a lot to appreciate that now at moments of seeing or hearing, there is no sickness or discomfort of any kind. Cittas which experience rupas through the body-sense are so very brief. When we don't think about difficulties and problems in life, where are they? None of this is to suggest that we don't take all necessary action when sick as you've had to do recently. ... > (2) SN 22.16 Yam Dukkha sutta describes what is > suffering. But it does not answer my specific > question. Is byaadhi dukkha sacca or not? ... S: I think it clarifies (as is also included in the Alaggaduupama Sutta) that it is the dukkha of the 5 khandhas is dukkha sacca in the highest sense. ... > Dear Sarah, I thank you very much for giving me your > time to explain to me. But for me, I have decided. I > will consider (whether it is mentioned in the books or > not) that byaadhi is indeed a dukkha sacca. .... S: It is dukkha sacca as long as we understand what it is in a paramattha sense - impermanent dhammas that don't belong to anyone:). Dear Han, I know you didn't wish to discuss this issue and your original message was sent in good humour (at my request). I was just interested to consider the topic further for my own reflection, so I hope you'll not be disturbed by anything I say. Metta, Sarah * Howard, sorry to see that you and Rita are still poorly with flu. Do hope you both recover soon. ======= #83307 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:16 am Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamma?... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for the reply: T: "The minimum information that I expect to see is always about someone's purpose for posting a given message and why it is relevant to the on-going discussion..." Scott: Sometimes I will do this, sometimes not. It depends, I guess. Sincerely, Scott. #83308 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Tep) - In a message dated 2/27/2008 2:49:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: I am sorry, but you have lost me. But never mind; the main question still remains, are there such things as absolute realities? Howard maintains that, while namas and rupas are real, they are - somehow - not realities. I am sure there must be a logical theory behind that extraordinary statement, but I doubt I could ever agree with it. To my mind, if something is real then it is a reality. If something is real in the absolute sense then it is an absolute reality. What is your opinion on that, Tep? I ask because I am genuinely not sure where you stand on the matter: you seemed very impressed with Howard's "superb explanation" and so assumed you are in the "dhammas are not realities" camp. (?) This is not just a petty dispute over terminology. Howard sees grave issues involved, and so do I. ================================ Ken, you MAY be missing my point. My concern is not with things existing or not. We probably are very close in what we take to exist. My concern is twofold: the mode of existence of things, dhammas and aggregations of dhammas, and, as regards current conversations, the effect that our choice of language has on our mind set. I believe that some choices are more conducive to relinquishment than others, and that is what is of concern to me. My point of writing this now is not to continue the conversation, on which I've said pretty much all I have to say, but just to clarify my purpose in these recent posts. With metta, Howard #83309 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... upasaka_howard Hi again, Ken - In a message dated 2/27/2008 2:49:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: If there were no dispute over "no-control" and "no formal practice" then there would be no inclination to refute the term "absolute reality." But there is a dispute. Howard tells us that anatta means "dhammas are not realities" ============================== No, I do not tell you folks that. I tell you that dhammas are real, not imaginary, and also that it is harmful to use the term 'realities'. If you will not accept what I say that I'm telling you and want to turn it into something else, then we are not communicating, and there is little point in trying. With metta, Howard #83310 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:36 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 2/27/2008 6:46:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Howard, sorry to see that you and Rita are still poorly with flu. Do hope you both recover soon. ================================ Thanks! :-) It's been rather much of an ordeal that's not yet over for either of us, but it may just now be getting a tiny bit better. I hope things are well for you and Jon. With metta, Howard #83311 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) sarahprocter... Dear Han & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > When I was young and healthy I > have aarogya maana and I somewhat looked down upon > sickly persons. Only when I get older, I realize the > gravity of sickness and could feel a genuine karunaa > and compassion towards the sick. <...> ... S: For others, I'd like to further quote from the Sammohavinodanii, (PTS transl), Class. of the Minor Bases, under the various kinds of conceit (maana): "2321. And as regards vanity of health (aarogyamada) and so on, the conceit that arises as intoxication thus: 'I am healthy; the rest are unhealthy; there is no sickness in me even for as long as it takes to milk a cow' is called "vanity of health". The conceit that arises as intoxication thus: 'I am young; the person of other beings is like a tree growing on a cliff. But I am in the first stage [of life]' is called "vanity of youth" (yobbanamada). The conceit that arises as intoxication thus: 'I have lived long, I am living long, I shall live long, I have lived happily, I shall live happily' is called "vanity of life" (jiivitamada)......" So many other examples and good reminders for daily life - there can be conceit on account of almost anything. Who said the Abhidhamma was dry, uninteresting or not relevant to our needs? Metta, Sarah ======= #83312 From: han tun Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for continuing the discussion. > Sarah: Dear Han, I know you didn't wish to discuss this issue and your original message was sent in good humour (at my request). I was just interested to consider the topic further for my own reflection, so I hope you'll not be disturbed by anything I say. Han: You and Jon are my Dhamma sister and brother. Whatever you say will not disturb me in anyway. Please be assured on this point. ------------------------------ > > Han: I do not think you get my point. My point is very simple. Is byaadhi dukkha sacca or not? Yes or no? > Sarah: As I understand, byaadhi is a concept used for convenience to represent a number of dhammas which are dukkha. In the ultimate sense, rupas (including those experienced through the body-sense) are dukkha, feelings (including painful bodily feeling) are dukkha, perceptions (including perceptions/ memories of such rupas and feelings) are dukkha, mental formations (the other 50 mental factors) are dukkha and consciousnessess (including bodily experience) are dukkha. Han: Let us go back to Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. Idam kho pana bhikkhave dukkham ariya saccam: Jaatipi dukkhaa Jaraapi dukkhaa Byaadhipi dukkho Maranampi dukkham Appiyehi sampayogo dukkho Piyehi vippayogo dukkho Yam piccham na labhati tampi dukkham Sankhittena pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhaa dukkhaa. You said byaadhi is a concept used for convenience to represent a number of dhammas which are dukkha. Is jaati, or jaraa, or marana also concepts used for convenience to represent a number of dhammas which are dukkha? If so, no more questions on this point. In the ultimate sense the five aggregates are dukkha. There is no question about this, because the Buddha has said that “sankhittena pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhaa dukkhaa.’ What I am saying is before we reach that ultimate sense, is byaadhi different from jaati or jaraa or marana in denoting as dukkha? ----------------------------- > > Han: (2) SN 22.16 Yam Dukkha sutta describes what is suffering. But it does not answer my specific question. Is byaadhi dukkha sacca or not? > Sarah: I think it clarifies (as is also included in the Alaggaduupama Sutta) that it is the dukkha of the 5 khandhas is dukkha sacca in the highest sense. Han: In the ultimate sense the five aggregates are dukkha. There is no question about this, as I have noted above. ------------------------------ > > Han: Dear Sarah, I thank you very much for giving me your time to explain to me. But for me, I have decided. I will consider (whether it is mentioned in the books or not) that byaadhi is indeed a dukkha sacca. > Sarah: It is dukkha sacca as long as we understand what it is in a paramattha sense - impermanent dhammas that don't belong to anyone:). Han: I have nothing more to say if you take everything in a paramattha sense. I will just reiterate what I had written in my very first post. Quote:[For those who are advanced, and seeing the arising and passing away of naama and ruupa at the present moment, who understands the realities with right understanding, it will not make any difference whether byaadhi is included in dukkha sacca or not. However, for a person like me who cannot yet see the realities with right understanding, and who is still under the influence of concepts and labeling, it is important.] End Quote. So, there you are! You are more advanced in understanding that everything in a paramattha sense is impermanent dhamma that don’t belong to anyone. For me, as long as I am a puthujjana, I will consider it as my sickness, and it was I who was suffering on a hospital bed a few days ago. Respectfully, Han #83313 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:23 am Subject: Karunadasa's "Dhamma Theory" Introduction to Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi all - I copy below a portion of the introduction to Karunadasa's (IMO-)excellent article. With metta, Howard =/Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream/ (From the Diamond Sutra) _________________________________________ The definition and classification of these dhammas and the explanation of their inter-connections form the main subject matter of the canonical Abhidhamma. The Abhidhammikas presuppose that to understand any given item properly is to know it in all its relations, under all aspects recognized in the doctrinal and practical discipline of Buddhism. Therefore, in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, they have classified the same material in different ways and from different points of view. This explains why, in the Dhammasangani and other Abhidhamma treatises, one encounters innumerable lists of classifications. Although such lists may appear repetitive, even monotonous, they serve a useful purpose, bringing into relief, not only the individual characteristic of each dhamma, but also its relations to other dhammas. With this same aim in view, in bringing out the nature of the dhammas, the Abhidhamma resorts to two complementary methods: that of analysis (bheda) and that of synthesis (sangaha). The analytical method dominates in the Dhammasangani, which according to tradition is the first book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka; for here we find a complete catalogue of the dhammas, each with a laconic definition. The synthetical method is more characteristic of the Patthana, the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka; for here we find an exhaustive catalogue of the conditional relations of the dhammas. The combined use of these two methods shows that, according to the methodological apparatus employed in the Abhidhamma, "a complete description of a thing requires, besides its analysis, also a statement of its relations to certain other things." Thus if analysis plays an important role in the Abhidhamma's methodology, no less important a role is played by synthesis. Analysis shows that the world of experience is resolvable into a plurality of factors; synthesis shows that these factors are not discrete entities existing in themselves but inter-connected and inter-dependent nodes in a complex web of relationships. It is only for the purpose of definition and description that things are artificially dissected. In actuality the world given to experience is a vast network of tightly interwoven relations. This fact needs emphasis because the Abhidhammic doctrine of dhammas has sometimes been represented as a radical pluralism. Such an interpretation is certainly not admissible. It is mostly Stcherbatsky's writings, mainly based on the Sarvastivada sources, that has given currency to this incorrect interpretation. "Up to the present time," observes Nyanaponika Thera, "it has been a regular occurrence in the history of physics, metaphysics, and psychology that when a whole has been successfully dissolved by analysis, the resultant parts come again to be regarded as little Wholes." This is the kind of process that culminates in radical pluralism. As we shall soon see, about a hundred years after the formulation of the dhamma-theory, such a trend surfaced within certain schools of Buddhist thought and culminated in the view that the dhammas exist in all three periods of time. But the Pali Abhidhamma Pitaka did not succumb to this error of conceiving the dhammas as ultimate unities or discrete entities. In the Pali tradition it is only for the sake of definition and description that each dhamma is postulated as if it were a separate entity; but in reality it is by no means a solitary phenomenon having an existence of its own. This is precisely why the mental and material dhammas are often presented in inter-connected groups. In presenting them thus the danger inherent in narrowly analytical methods has been avoided -- the danger, namely, of elevating the factors resulting from analysis to the status of genuinely separate entities. Thus if analysis shows that composite things cannot be considered as ultimate unities, synthesis shows that the factors into which the apparently composite things are analysed (ghana-vinibbhoga) are not discrete entities. If this Abhidhammic view of existence, as seen from its doctrine of dhammas, cannot be interpreted as a radical pluralism, neither can it be interpreted as an out-and-out monism. For what are called dhammas -- the component factors of the universe, both within us and outside us -- are not fractions of an absolute unity but a multiplicity of co-ordinate factors. They are not reducible to, nor do they emerge from, a single reality, the fundamental postulate of monistic metaphysics. If they are to be interpreted as phenomena, this should be done with the proviso that they are phenomena with no corresponding noumena, no hidden underlying ground. For they are not manifestations of some mysterious metaphysical substratum, but processes taking place due to the interplay of a multitude of conditions. In thus evolving a view of existence which cannot be interpreted in either monistic or pluralistic terms, the Abhidhamma accords with the "middle doctrine" of early Buddhism. This doctrine avoids both the eternalist view of existence which maintains that everything exists absolutely (sabbat atthi) and the opposite nihilistic view which maintains that absolutely nothing exists (sabbat natthi). It also avoids, on the one hand, the monistic view that everything is reducible to a common ground, some sort of self-substance (sabbat ekattat) and, on the other, the opposite pluralistic view that the whole of existence is resolvable into a concatenation of discrete entities (sabbat puthuttat). Transcending these two pairs of extremist views, the middle doctrine explains that phenomena arise in dependence on other phenomena without a self-subsisting noumenon which serves as the ground of their being. The inter-connection and inter-dependence of these dhammas are not explained on the basis of the dichotomy between substance and quality. Consequently, a given dhamma does not inhere in another as its quality, nor does it serve another as its substance. The so-called substance is only a product of our imagination. The distinction between substance and quality is denied because such a distinction leaves the door open for the intrusion of the doctrine of a substantial self (attavada) with all that it entails. Hence it is with reference to causes and conditions that the inter-connection of the dhammas should be understood. The conditions are not different from the dhammas, for it is the dhammas themselves that constitute the conditions. How each dhamma serves as a condition (paccaya) for the origination of another (paccayuppanna) is explained on the basis of the system of conditioned genesis (paccayakara-naya). This system, which consists of twenty-four conditions, aims at demonstrating the inter-dependence and dependent co-origination (paticca-samuppada) of all dhammas in respect of both their temporal sequence and their spatial concomitance. #83314 From: han tun Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Byaadhi (sickness) hantun1 Dear Sarah, Thank you very much for your good reminder. You can find a similar reminder in AN 5.57 Upajjhatthana Sutta, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.057.than.html "Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging'? There are beings who are intoxicated with a [typical] youth's intoxication with youth (yobbanamado). Because of that intoxication with youth, they conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that youth's intoxication with youth will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker... "Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness'? There are beings who are intoxicated with a [typical] healthy person's intoxication with health (aarogyamado). Because of that intoxication with health, they conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that healthy person's intoxication with health will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker... "Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death'? There are beings who are intoxicated with a [typical] living person's intoxication with life (jiivitamado). Because of that intoxication with life, they conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that living person's intoxication with life will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker... "Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I will grow different, separate from all that is dear and appealing to me'? There are beings who feel desire and passion for the things they find dear and appealing. Because of that passion, they conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that desire and passion for the things they find dear and appealing will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker... "Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker... Han: Suttas and Abhidhamma can go hand-in-hand. Respectfully, Han #83315 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. jonoabb Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > I'm pondering your meaning here. Does the connotational conflict arise > because of the particular terminology used, or because of the underlying > idea itself? > > As regards the latter, I don't see any conflict between something having > existence and yet not being worth grasping at because that existence is > extremely fleeting. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It's not just that dhammas are fleeting. It is also, even more so, that > they are anatta, having no self-existence, but being utterly dependent during > their brief existence on other empty phenomena. It is important, a I > understand the Dhamma, not to see dhammas as realities but as evanescent, > insubstantial, with only borrowed existence, and painful if clung to. It is, of course, > an opposite error to view them as nonexistent fictions. > --------------------------------------------------- > I think you are saying the perceived "connotational conflict" arises from the choice of the English "realities" as a translation of the Pali term "dhammaa". It seems to me there is no necessary inconsistency between something being "real" and it's being not-self, evanescent, insubstantial and painful if clung to. Sure, we do not normally associate those attributes with reality, but the whole point is to demonstrate that whatever in the ultimate sense *is* is nonetheless not worth living for. This discussion is really about whatever has a characteristic that can be directly experienced (in fact, an individual 'signature' characteristic plus the 3 universal characteristics). These phenomena are not apparent except to understanding. But given that everything else that constitutes the world as we know it is in fact mind-created, the term "realities" seems quite appropriate. The first thing one learns about these "realities" is that they arise and fall away with extreme rapidity, and are not-self. So I don't see where the room for wrong view comes in merely by virtue of the name "realities". Jon #83316 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:11 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Duration of Cittas, Cetasikas, Rupa scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Actually, the number 17 is best known as Howard's favorite prime! ;-)" Scott: This is good to know! Sincerely, Scott. #83317 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 2/27/2008 9:02:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard upasaka@... wrote: > I'm pondering your meaning here. Does the connotational conflict arise > because of the particular terminology used, or because of the underlying > idea itself? > > As regards the latter, I don't see any conflict between something having > existence and yet not being worth grasping at because that existence is > extremely fleeting. > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > It's not just that dhammas are fleeting. It is also, even more so, that > they are anatta, having no self-existence, but being utterly dependent during > their brief existence on other empty phenomena. It is important, a I > understand the Dhamma, not to see dhammas as realities but as evanescent, > insubstantial, with only borrowed existence, and painful if clung to. It is, of course, > an opposite error to view them as nonexistent fictions. > --------------------------------------------------- > I think you are saying the perceived "connotational conflict" arises from the choice of the English "realities" as a translation of the Pali term "dhammaa". --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, of course. I'm concerned with the connotations words have for typical native speakers of English. ------------------------------------------------------- It seems to me there is no necessary inconsistency between something being "real" and it's being not-self, evanescent, insubstantial and painful if clung to. Sure, we do not normally associate those attributes with reality, but the whole point is to demonstrate that whatever in the ultimate sense *is* is nonetheless not worth living for. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think many people can be mislead by the term 'realities', and that is my concern. Whethyer it *should* be so (by some criterion or other) is irrelevant. ---------------------------------------------------------- This discussion is really about whatever has a characteristic that can be directly experienced (in fact, an individual 'signature' characteristic plus the 3 universal characteristics). These phenomena are not apparent except to understanding. But given that everything else that constitutes the world as we know it is in fact mind-created, the term "realities" seems quite appropriate. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I know. I see the expressions 'realities' as connoting separate, self-existence, and I am far from unusual in that. ---------------------------------------------------------- The first thing one learns about these "realities" is that they arise and fall away with extreme rapidity, and are not-self. So I don't see where the room for wrong view comes in merely by virtue of the name "realities". ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, I believe you don't see where there is room for that. But far too many people think that Theravada presents a radical pluralism of alleged separate, self-existent entities, as pointed out by Karunadasa, and I believe that language use plays a big role in that. ------------------------------------------------------------ Jon ============================= With metta, Howard #83318 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. .. Transformation into Sotapanna?.. nilovg Hi Tep, Op 27-feb-2008, om 1:02 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > T: With overwhelming arisings of akusala cittas and their > vipakas, it seems hopeless for any puthujjana to be "free of all > ignorance and wrong view" even for a moment; let alone accumulation > of it for stream entry. Two examplea: 1. A business that keeps on > losing money cannot expect to have a debt-free balance sheet. 2. > Washing one's body with dirty and smelly water for many years does > not promise that one day will come when that person may smell like > sweet roses. ;-)) > > >Jon: But kusala accumulates, little by little. This is why its > development was urged by the Buddha. Each moment of kusala is so > important. > -------- N: I can understand, Tep, that you feel despair at times. Then I saw Jon's answer which is so encouraging. At the very moment of kusala citta there cannot be ignorance and wrong view. Nina. #83319 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Duration of Cittas, Cetasikas, Rupa upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 2/27/2008 9:12:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Actually, the number 17 is best known as Howard's favorite prime! ;-)" Scott: This is good to know! -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Scott. Yes, I anticipated great excitement on the part of one and all resulting from this information! -------------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. ========================= With metta, Howard #83320 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:50 am Subject: Perseverance in Dhamma, Ch 2, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, One of our friends remarked that her father was always annoyed with her and often uttered harsh speech. She said that she tried to understand his accumulated tendencies, which causes him to be in that way. She thought of him as a giver, as a teacher. She said that a father who always grumbles can be our teacher since he reminds us to investigate more our own cittas. Patience is one of the perfections that should be accumulated so that enlightenment can be attained. Acharn Sujin said that at each moment there is an opportunity for patience, and she asked how it could otherwise be accumulated. Lodewijk asked Acharn Sujin how we can know the latent tendencies that are accumulated in each citta from moment to moment. She answered that when they condition akusala citta we know that there are latent tendencies. Each time akusala citta arises and falls away akusala is added to the latent tendencies. Through the development of satipatthåna they are gradually weakened, but they can only be eradicated by lokuttara citta. We have heard many times that there are three levels of understanding: understanding stemming from listening and reading, pariyatti, understanding that is developed through awareness of nåma and rúpa, patipatti or practice, understanding of the level of the direct realization of the truth, pativedha. Sarah said that while we are reading texts we may become absorbed in them without any awareness of nåma and rúpa. Realities, nåma and rúpa, appear all the time, but mostly we are only thinking about them. We were reminded time and again by Acharn Sujin that we should know that there is dhamma at this moment, a reality with its own characteristic. If we have merely theoretical knowledge, we know only the names of realities. One of our friends asked how we should study Dhamma. Acharn Sujin said that listening and considering are conditions for the understanding of the Dhamma. He wondered whether there are other conditions for the development of right understanding apart from listening. Can one do something else about it? Acharn Sujin explained that each moment is conditioned and that wishing to do something specific in order to have more moments of satipatthåna is only thinking, a nåma that is conditioned. Listening helps to understand conditions for each moment that arises. ****** Nina. #83321 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/27/2008 7:29:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: The first thing one learns about these "realities" is that they arise and fall away with extreme rapidity, and are not-self. So I don't see where the room for wrong view comes in merely by virtue of the name "realities". ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, I believe you don't see where there is room for that. But far too many people think that Theravada presents a radical pluralism of alleged separate, self-existent entities, as pointed out by Karunadasa, and I believe that language use plays a big role in that. ............................................................ Hi Howard and Jon In my view it works both ways. Not only does the term "realities" mislead some minds into perceiving things as separate, self-existent-entities; but, and more importantly: it is in the perceiving of a pluralism of separate self-existent-entities, whether learned as short lived or not, that generates the acceptance and comfort with the term "realities." Just to say that one believes in nonself is not enough. From my understanding of nonself ... I find that it would be near impossible to "point to any particular formation" and to say "that is a reality with its own characteristic." Only provisionally, from a conventional knowledge point of view, would the labeling of things as "realities" make sense. But the very use of such a lofty term as "reality" or "ultimate reality" indicates that the attempt is to point out "ultimate truths," not conventional ones. Since pointing out "separates" as "ultimate realities" isn't accurate in a world of "conditionality," the process is flawed and the terminology gives false connotations. Its a tangled-jumble that does not accurate fit with the Buddha's teaching, or nature facts. TG #83322 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 2/26/2008 11:41:31 P.M. Mountain Standard Time, jonabbott@... writes: The development of insight is not a matter of *considering elements to be* anything; it's a matter of seeing things as they truly are. Thus, it's a matter of panna developing, since it is panna that sees things as they truly are. ................................................... NEWER TG: No Jon. I'm told over and over and over again that seeing elements, khandas, etc. correctly is "seeing them as realities with their own characteristics." Now, this may not be your view. But it is the view of many in this group that seem to be arguing from the general perspective you seem to hold. ......................................................... > The Suttas will point out that the mind only knows the truth after it is > freed by "turning away" from the elements, not by affixing to them. The > elements are merely fodder for realizing impermanence, affliction, nonself, so that > those same elements can be rejected and detached from. Over-substantializi th > them with ontological importance is a big danger IMO. Elements are discussed here because without a proper understanding of elements at an intellectual level, there can not be the direct understanding of them. The perception that someone may be "over-substantializ"over-substantializing them with ontological impo one on your part. I wonder if you are misreading things that have been said (if you cared to give a specific reference, we could discuss). ..................................................... NEWER TG: After discussing these issue for several years, seems like "starting from scratch" at this point is redundant. This group seems divided two groups. Those who see "realities" and associated views as a problem, and those who don't. Since there are many arguing the same thing I am, I don't view it as merely "my" subjective "overreading." Have you considered the possibility that you are "not aware" of the ontological substantiation that you are imparting into these so-called "dhamams"? ................................................. > NEW TG: This is why I asked for a Sutta quote and not just inference or > personal or commentarial interpretation. The term "realities" is loaded with > all sorts of substantiation that I don't think the Buddha would have approved > of. So your conclusion above is just personal opinion and speculation. I'm > sure you believe it to be correct. I believe it a major blunder. > > > But the Suttas show the Buddha saying that -- the elements, khandas, etc > should be see as they really are as impermanent, afflicting, nonself. He DID > NOT say that -- they should be seen as they really are as "realities." Yet it > is that later claim that gets extreme highlighting by many in this > group...even to the extent as to call it "the aim" of the Buddha's teaching. I think you are missing something here, namely, the significance of the fact that dhammas (phenomena) are classified variously as khandhas, elements, ayatanas, 4 foundations of mindfulness, etc. These different classifications allude to different aspects of dhammas. Seeing dhammas as they truly are involves seeing some or all of these aspects of dhammas: dhammas as khandhas, dhammas as elements, etc. ...................................................... NEWER TG: What you are trying to get at seems somewhat cloaked. These are different formations, different groupings, that's all. The Buddha laid them down as tools, reference points, to overcome suffering. He did not call them realities with their own characteristics. However, I grant you that seeing them as they truly are is critical. What I think we dispute is what it is they truly are. We do agree on impermanent, afflicting, nonself. So that much is good. ......................................................... > I don't really follow the contorted "simile and synonym" explanation above. > I don't know how an -- empty, coreless, mirage-like, alien, "like a trick"; > khanda or element, is so "reality-ish" as well. > I take it you have been referring to the Phena Sutta SN22.95 (and possibly to other suttas also). In that sutta the khandhas are likened to a lump of foam (rupa), a water bubble (vedana), a mirage (sanna), a plantain trunk (sankhara) and an illusion (vinnana) (BB translation)pl ............................................. NEWER TG: I am referring to a variety or compilation of Suttas yes. .................................................. These terms are descriptive of the khandhas, but are not definitions of the khandhas. So when you ask how something that is so described can ever be a dhamma/"reality" I think you miss the point. The question to ask, it seems to me, is what it means for a dhamma/khandha to be likened to a lump of foam, to a water bubble, etc. ....................................................... NEWER TG: These descriptions are to a large extent the way the Buddha told us that the elements/khandas SHOULD BE SEEN. That point is critical. ................................................................. In this regard, note that each of these descriptions applies to a particular khandha only. Only rupa khandha is likened to a lump of foam, only vedana khandha to a water bubble, etc. So these similes describe an aspect of each of the khandhas. They do not define what each khandha is. ................................................ NEWER TG: That makes sense. But doesn't really take us anywhere. ............................................ > Granted these are very subtle issues. And although I have great respect for > the Abhidhamma Pitaka, I find it has the tendency to inculcate an > over-substantialist over-substantialistic outlook on some who deal extensively > falls subject to propagating a subtle self-view outlook as these "realities" > become seen as "little flickering entities." This is not the Abhidhamma > Pitaka's fault per se, but it has less restraining (of self view) sensibilities than > the Suttas do. Some folks, in thinking they are overcoming it (self view), > are actually embracing it, though subtly. > As you say, a tendency in some people to wrong view as regards the meaning of the Abhidhamma could not be regarded as a fault of the Abhidhamma itself As to the extent that such wrong view is evident on this list, again I wonder if you have been misinterpreting what has been said. Without a specific reference from you I really can't comment. > NEW TG: Wow, this section really proved the point I made in the previous > section about substantialism. > > Just the phrase "unalterable characteristics" is about as un-Buddhist a > sentiment as I can image. I wouldn't even want that sentiment as a passing > thought. > Well one of the meanings of "characteristic" is an unalterable quality, something that inheres in the thing to which the characteristic pertains. And I think that description fits the characteristics of anicca, dukkha and anatta, since they are the unalterable characteristics of all dhammas (unalterable, but lasting only for an infinitesimally short moment of time). ............................................................. NEWER TG: #1) When folks are separating 89 consciousness, 52 mental formations, I forget how many rupas? 21? etc. At any rate, when "own characteristics" is being talked about in regard to these things, it is not impermanence, affliction, and nonself that is being described. #2) I fail to see how each dhamma can have "its own characteristic" when all the characteristics are THE SAME for each dhamma as you have indicated above. Doesn't make sense. So therefore, I have to reject the statement you made above unless you have a totally and radically different view than say Nina or Sarah. #3) As for this take -- (unalterable, but lasting only for an infinitesimally short moment of time). Please supply a Sutta reference for this view of impermanence. But I'm quite sure there isn't one. BTW, this view of impermanence also falls into line with substantialism theory. I.E., you unwittingly see these "dhammas" as "existent selves" for brief moments. I know you won't think so...but I think so. You're always a challenge to talk to but that's good fun. TG OUT #83323 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/27/2008 7:29:17 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: The first thing one learns about these "realities" is that they arise and fall away with extreme rapidity, and are not-self. So I don't see where the room for wrong view comes in merely by virtue of the name "realities". ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay, I believe you don't see where there is room for that. But far too many people think that Theravada presents a radical pluralism of alleged separate, self-existent entities, as pointed out by Karunadasa, and I believe that language use plays a big role in that. ............................................................ Hi Howard and Jon In my view it works both ways. Not only does the term "realities" mislead some minds into perceiving things as separate, self-existent-entities; but, and more importantly: it is in the perceiving of a pluralism of separate self-existent-entities, whether learned as short lived or not, that generates the acceptance and comfort with the term "realities." Just to say that one believes in nonself is not enough. From my understanding of nonself ... I find that it would be near impossible to "point to any particular formation" and to say "that is a reality with its own characteristic." Only provisionally, from a conventional knowledge point of view, would the labeling of things as "realities" make sense. But the very use of such a lofty term as "reality" or "ultimate reality" indicates that the attempt is to point out "ultimate truths," not conventional ones. Since pointing out "separates" as "ultimate realities" isn't accurate in a world of "conditionality," the process is flawed and the terminology gives false connotations. Its a tangled-jumble that does not accurate fit with the Buddha's teaching, or nature facts. TG #83324 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... upasaka_howard Hi again, Ken - In a message dated 2/26/2008 11:33:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: (Quoting you, Ken) It would be a different matter, however, if "emptiness" were to be taken to mean no sabhava (no ultimate existence) and if relinquishment were to be taken to mean belief that dhammas were 'no more real than self.' That would definitely be outside Theravada. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's right. My only objection, and I've said it again and again, is to misleading terminology that belies genuine Theravadin positions. The use of 'sabhava' instead of 'lakkhana' and the use of 'realities' for 'dhammas' are seriously misleading choices - very poor choices in my opinion! (BTW, the PTSM has taken exception to 'sabhava'.) -------------------------------------------------------- =================================== I responded a drop too quickly, Ken. I don't know what you mean by *ultimate* existence, but if it means inherent existence, independent existence, and own-being, then, yes, "my" emptiness rejects that, for that is self-view. With metta, Howard #83325 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Jon) - In a message dated 2/27/2008 1:12:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard and Jon In my view it works both ways. Not only does the term "realities" mislead some minds into perceiving things as separate, self-existent-entities; but, and more importantly: it is in the perceiving of a pluralism of separate self-existent-entities, whether learned as short lived or not, that generates the acceptance and comfort with the term "realities." --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I fear you are correct, TG. And less a matter of explicit *belief* in separate, self-existent entities, belief that I *do* think is there along with a contradictory belief in interdependence, than a matter of a subtle, subliminal sensing and adhering to such imagined entities, which is insidious and dangerous in that it flies below the radar. --------------------------------------------------- Just to say that one believes in nonself is not enough. From my understanding of nonself ... I find that it would be near impossible to "point to any particular formation" and to say "that is a reality with its own characteristic." ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: As soon as we say "own" and MEAN it, not-self goes out the window. ------------------------------------------------------ Only provisionally, from a conventional knowledge point of view, would the labeling of things as "realities" make sense. But the very use of such a lofty term as "reality" or "ultimate reality" indicates that the attempt is to point out "ultimate truths," not conventional ones. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Yes. -------------------------------------------------------- Since pointing out "separates" as "ultimate realities" isn't accurate in a world of "conditionality," the process is flawed and the terminology gives false connotations. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Exactly! -------------------------------------------------------- Its a tangled-jumble that does not accurate fit with the Buddha's teaching, or nature facts. TG =========================== With metta, Howard #83326 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:43 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Patthaana (9) dhammanusara Hi Nina, - We were discussing the ahetuka citta at patisandhi moment. I thought : therefore, at the moment of rebirth (in the human realm) there is no akusala citta. And you replied: > N: There is no akusala vipaakacitta, we have to add: vipaakacitta. > ------- T: Thank you for making it clear. ............ > > > T: -- the rebirth consiousness can be ahetuka, which is root- less, and this citta is a result of a weak kusala kamma. The handicap at birth is due to the patisandhi citta being conditioned by a "weak kusala", not because of akusala kamma. > ------- > N:Yes, correct. It is still kusala vipaakacitta, because he is > reborn as a human. But his capacities are limited. Well, it is good that I could hit the right answer at the end. Tep === #83327 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 242 and Tiika. nilovg Dear Mike, Op 26-feb-2008, om 22:39 heeft m. nease het volgende geschreven: > N: According to the Tiika, tanhaa, craving, is opposed to fewness of > wishes, whereas clinging is opposed to contentment, santu.t.thi. > Craving is the root of suffering due to searching for what one wants, > and clinging is the root of suffering since one has to protect what > one has acquired. > > Thanks, Nina, a useful detail. I 'santu.t.thi' here synonomous with > the > 'contentment with little' often found in the suttas? ------ N: Yes. It is said with regard to bhikkhus, but we can also apply it in our situation. If by circumstances, the hot water does not work, or there is no electricity, we can learn to have adhivasana khanti. If we do not have some confortable things we are used to, it is O.K., it depends on kamma that produces vipaaka. Nina. #83328 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:00 am Subject: The Real (Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views ...) upasaka_howard Hi again, Ken & all - In a message dated 2/26/2008 11:33:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Conditioned namas and rupas (and nibbana) are definitely real. They are realities. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: They are real. I said that, and I continue to say it. I object to the noun form 'realities', and I explained why. It is misleading. But you are free to write and speak however you wish. -------------------------------------------------------------- ===================================== I do maintain that dhammas are real, but only in the meager, everyday sense of actually experienced and not just imagined. (Sights are real - they are seen, not imagined.) If, however, 'real' means to be an entity with own being and own nature, then I reject that 'real'. (Try to grasp a sight as an independent entity! What is utterly dependent has no "own anything"!) And the Buddha rejected 'real' usage as well, as may be seen in the following lines from the Uraga Sutta: "He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: 'This is all unreal,' — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. He who neither goes too far nor lags behind, greedless 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. He who neither goes too far nor lags behind, lust-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. He who neither goes too far nor lags behind, hate-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. 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." In the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, the Buddha said "this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence," and he denied both these extremes. The extreme of "existence" isn't that of "mere existence", but that of self-existence, inherent existence as an ultimate and independent entity. In the Phena Sutta, the Buddha said the following of the conditioned paramattha dhammas: "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." One might well ask: Are such things "real" in any sturdy sense? From SN 3.12, one translator, Andrew Olendzky, quotes the Buddha as teaching the following: "Forms and sounds and flavors and smells And touches and all mental states, Are wished for, cherished and pleasing, As long as it's said that 'They're real.'" And I sure think think that makes my point about the danger in calling things "realities" or sometimes even just calling them "real." And John Ireland quotes the Buddha teaching the following in that same sutta: "See how the world together with the devas has self-conceit for what is not-self. Enclosed by mind-and-body it imagines, 'This is real.' Whatever they imagine it to be, it is quite different from that. It is unreal, of a false nature and perishable. Nibbana, not false in nature, that the Noble Ones know as true. Indeed, by the penetration of the true, they are completely stilled and realize final deliverance." So, according to this teaching, it is only *nibbana* that is real! With homage to the Buddha who taught nibbana - the Real, and with metta, Howard #83329 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:15 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... dhammanusara Dear KenH (Howard), - I joined DSG in 2003. Since then how many times you have discussed with Howard the issues of reality and existency of the dhammas? Of course, many -- so many times that you don't remember how many it is. And yet two of you have not been able to reach a common conclusion. >Howard (#83308) : Ken, you MAY be missing my point. My concern is not with things existing or not. ... ... My point of writing this now is not to continue the conversation, on which I've said pretty much all I have to say, ... T: Well, the failure to reach a common conlusion on these issues confirms the reason why the Buddha, our Greatest Teacher, never talked about reality(ies) or existence in the Suttas. If you disagree, then please show me a sutta or two that the Perfect One defined/explained/discussed these two issues. And if you could, then I'd be very happy to reply to the following questions: >KH: I am sorry, but you have lost me. But never mind; the main question still remains, are there such things as absolute realities? ... To my mind, if something is real then it is a reality. If something is real in the absolute sense then it is an absolute reality. What is your opinion on that, Tep? I ask because I am genuinely not sure where you stand on the matter: you seemed very impressed with Howard's "superb explanation" and so assumed you are in the "dhammas are not realities" camp. (?) .................... T: The reason I asked you to produce an evidence that shows the Buddha's words about reality(ies) and existence of the dhammas is because only then we will have a strong basis to base our argument upon. Without such a concrete support we might end up in the same gridlock situation that you have had with Howard. ;-) Warm regards, Tep === #83330 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... upasaka_howard Hi, Tep (and Ken) - In a message dated 2/27/2008 3:15:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Dear KenH (Howard), - I joined DSG in 2003. Since then how many times you have discussed with Howard the issues of reality and existency of the dhammas? Of course, many -- so many times that you don't remember how many it is. And yet two of you have not been able to reach a common conclusion. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: You're right, Tep! And this must prove that Ken and I are insane, for one definition of insanity is to keep on doing the same thing but expect different results! LOLOL! ---------------------------------------------------- >Howard (#83308) : Ken, you MAY be missing my point. My concern is not with things existing or not. ... ... My point of writing this now is not to continue the conversation, on which I've said pretty much all I have to say, ... T: Well, the failure to reach a common conlusion on these issues confirms the reason why the Buddha, our Greatest Teacher, never talked about reality(ies) or existence in the Suttas. If you disagree, then please show me a sutta or two that the Perfect One defined/explained/discussed these two issues. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Much of what the buddha taught pertained to existence and nonexistence and to what is real and what is unreal, and in that regard I refer you to the post entitled "The Real" that I recently sent. -------------------------------------------------------- And if you could, then I'd be very happy to reply to the following questions: >KH: I am sorry, but you have lost me. But never mind; the main question still remains, are there such things as absolute realities? ... To my mind, if something is real then it is a reality. If something is real in the absolute sense then it is an absolute reality. What is your opinion on that, Tep? I ask because I am genuinely not sure where you stand on the matter: you seemed very impressed with Howard's "superb explanation" and so assumed you are in the "dhammas are not realities" camp. (?) .................... T: The reason I asked you to produce an evidence that shows the Buddha's words about reality(ies) and existence of the dhammas is because only then we will have a strong basis to base our argument upon. Without such a concrete support we might end up in the same gridlock situation that you have had with Howard. ;-) Warm regards, Tep ================================= With metta, Howard #83331 From: "colette" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:53 pm Subject: Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion : Dhammasangani ksheri3 Hi Tep, I only found out a few minutes ago that I can resume my normal Library routine and only have a few seconds left on this computer today. I am overwhelmed by Howards reply top me and haven't even read some other replies to me so I've gotta make this quick. REALITY? You question Reality when confronting Nargarjuna? Reality is Shunyata IT IS EMPTINESS! WITHOUT VALUE SINCE IT IS RELATIVE and therefore not ULITMATE. i'LL GET BACK WHEN i CAN BEGIN WITH A NORMAL DAY. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Dear Colette, - > > I hope this indoctrination of the Nargarjuna's philosophical thoughts > in me may result in a wiser and more peaceful mind. > > As I mentioned earlier my knowledge of Madhyamika texts is zero. But > today I do have an eagerness to learn, so please allow me to ask you > a few questions. > > 1. What is a "reality" in Nargarjuna's viewpoint? > 2. How does cognition condition that reality? <....> #83332 From: "R. K. Wijayaratne" Date: Tue Feb 26, 2008 3:16 pm Subject: Commentary -> We Are Not! rwijayaratne Hello everyone, <....> There is no permanent person / being that we can say is I, Me, My Ego, My Personality that is fixed ever-lasting according to the Dhamma (reality). The fact that we do think this is because we do not UNDERSTAND the reality about ourselves as well as others (moha in Pali, also known as delusion). The reality is that we are constantly changing, becoming something else, other than what we were, at all moments, but this process is not easily discernable to us, so we mistakenly think that "I am CONSTANT / this is my NEVER-CHANGING self / I am PERMANENT / this is ME..." But the reality, or the truth of the matter, is actually the opposite, that is; we are INCONSTANT, EVER-CHANGING, IMPERMANENT so there is nothing there to call ME, MYSELF or I - it is all just an illusion! What we thought we were, will not be a moment later :) What we are actually composed of are momentary, ever-changing, five clusters (aggregates) of clinging. The five clusters of clinging are what all beings are compose of, namely: 1. Rupa - form - composed of the four great elements of earth (solidity), wind (gaseousness), water (liquidity) and fire (warmth). 2. Vedana - feeling - there are three kinds, pleasant, unpleasant and neither pleasant nor unpleasant (neutral) 3. Sanna - perception - identification of objects 4. Sankhara - mental formations - thought formations 5. Vinnana - cosnsciousness - awareness These five groups, which is what we really are, are constantly changing, inconstant, without self, is just an ever-changing PROCESS, there is nothing there to identity as ME, MYSELF OR I, even though everyone INCORRECTLY does. This incorrect identification is called the "illusion of self" or "self-identity view", see below: --------------------------------------------------- the monk... asked him (The Lord Buddha) a further question: "Lord, how does self-identity view come about?" "There is the case, monk, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form. "He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling. He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception. He assumes fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications. He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. "This, monk, is how self-identity view comes about." --------------------------------------------------- MN 109, Maha-punnama Sutta, The Great Full-moon Night Discourse, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.109.than.html#selfview ----- Original Message ---- From: Bhikkhu Samahita bhikkhu0@... Friends Impersonal, selfless, coreless, ownerless & without ego is all constructions: <.....> #83333 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Duration of Cittas, Cetasikas, Rupa truth_aerator Dear Han Tun, Thank you very much for page numbers. I'll look them up and try to digest. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, han tun wrote: > > Dear Alex and others, > > "The life-span of a citta is termed, in the > Abhidhamma, a mind-moment (cittakkhana). This is a > temporal unit of such brief duration that, according > to the commentators, in the time that it takes for > lightning to flash or the eyes to blink, billions of > mind-moments can elapse. >>>> Does this mean that, lets say, greed happens lasting only 1/58 billion of a second (I found the exact number by googling)? How then does one experience greed lasting for many seconds or even longer? >> a citta arises, performs its > momentary function, and then dissolves, conditioning > the next citta in immediate succession. Thus, through > the sequence of mind-moments, the flow of > consciousness continues uninterrupted like the waters > in a stream." [page 156 of CMA] >>> From where does Citta arise and to where does it go? > "Material phenomena as well pass through the same > three stages of arising, presence, and dissolution, > but for them the time required for these three stages > to elapse is equal to the time it takes for seventeen > cittas to arise and perish. The stages of arising and > dissolution are equal in duration for both material > and mental phenomena, but in the case of material > phenomena the stage of presence is equal to forty-nine > sub-moments of mental phenomena," [pp. 156-157 0f CMA] > Is arising and dissolution conditioned or unconditioned? Thank you, Lots of Metta, Alex #83334 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. .. Transformation into Sotapanna?.. dhammanusara Hi Nina (Jon), - Welcome to the discussion. > T: With overwhelming arisings of akusala cittas and their vipakas, it seems hopeless for any puthujjana to be "free of all ignorance and wrong view" even for a moment; let alone accumulation of it for stream entry. Two examplea: 1. A business that keeps on losing money cannot expect to have a debt- free balance sheet. 2. Washing one's body with dirty and smelly water for many years does not promise that one day will come when that person may smell like sweet roses. ;-)) Jon: But kusala accumulates, little by little. This is why its development was urged by the Buddha. Each moment of kusala is so important. > -------- N: I can understand, Tep, that you feel despair at times. Then I saw Jon's answer which is so encouraging. At the very moment of kusala citta there cannot be ignorance and wrong view. T: Are you encouraged by Jon's words that are verifiable by your own experience, or are you encouraged because his words reminded you of a dhamma theory you had previously rejoiced in a reading? Tep === #83335 From: han tun Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Duration of Cittas, Cetasikas, Rupa hantun1 Dear Alex, Alex: Does this mean that, lets say, greed happens lasting only 1/58 billion of a second (I found the exact number by googling)? How then does one experience greed lasting for many seconds or even longer? Han: Because the same type of cittas (greed in this case) arise and dissolve in succession billions of times. If the object for greed is strong these successive billions of cittas accompanied by lobha cetasika will continue for longer time. -------------------- Alex: From where does Citta arise and to where does it go? Han: For example, when the visual object strikes the eye-base, eye-consciousness (which is a citta) will arise. It does not come from anywhere. The eye-consciousness arises when the visual object and eye-base come into contact. This eye-consciousness will fall away and another eye-consciousness will arise again and again in succession, for as long as there is the visual object, and for as long as there is the manasikaara (intention) to look at it. At that moment, if a loud noise bangs nearby, when the noise comes in contact with the ear base, ear-consciousness will arise, and the previous eye-consciousness will fall away. The ear-consciousness will fall and arise in succession in the same way as eye-consciousness. Then the noise stops and the visual object comes into contact with the eye-base again, and the succession of eye-consciousness will continue, until it is disturbed by some other object. That is how a person thinks he can see and hear a TV at the same time. But actually, when he sees the image on the screen he does not hear the sound. When he hears the sound he does not see the image. But as these cittas are very, very fast, he thinks that he sees and hears at the same time. --------------------- Alex: Is arising and dissolution conditioned or unconditioned? Han: They are conditioned. As mentioned above, coming into contact of the visual object and the eye-base conditions the arising of eye-consciousness. When there is no more manasikaara (intention) to look at it, or if there is a stronger object, that will condition the falling away of the eye-consciousness. Respectfully, Han #83336 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:36 pm Subject: The Real (Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views ...) dhammanusara Hi Howard (Kenh, Jon, James, Scott, Alex), - The long discussion of this post is a consequence of the following Howard's comment to Ken H. > >Howard (#83308) : Ken, you MAY be missing my point. My concern is not with things existing or not. ... ... My point of writing this now is not to continue the conversation, on which I've said pretty much all I have to say, ... And I butted in : >T: Well, the failure to reach a common conlusion on these issues confirms the reason why the Buddha, our Greatest Teacher, never talked about reality(ies) or existence in the Suttas. If you disagree, then please show me a sutta or two that the Perfect One defined/explained/discussed these two issues. ---------------------------------------------------- T: In the message 83330 you told me that the Buddha really talked about reality(ies) and existence in the Suttas. Howard (# 83330): Much of what the buddha taught pertained to existence and nonexistence and to what is real and what is unreal, and in that regard I refer you to the post entitled "The Real" that I recently sent. -------------------------------------------------------- T: I appreciate your taking time to search the Suttanta-pitaka and came up with Uraga Sutta, Kaccayanagotta Sutta, Phena Sutta, and SN 3.12, in which we see the words real, unreal, existence, and nonexistence. ..................... Howard: I do maintain that dhammas are real, but only in the meager, everyday sense of actually experienced and not just imagined. (Sights are real - they are seen, not imagined.) ... If, however, 'real' means to be an entity with own being and own nature, then I reject that 'real'. ... And the Buddha rejected 'real' usage as well, as may be seen in the following lines from the Uraga Sutta: He who neither goes too far nor lags behind, greedless he knows: 'This is all unreal,' â€" such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. [Uraga Sutta] T: I assume that in the sentence 'This is all unreal' the Buddha was referring to the "All" (the six sense-media and sensed objects). Such a monk, who is "greedless" and has the right view like that , is at least an anagami. So the rejection of reality in the "All" is the pa~n~naa of an ariya who transcends the world of beings; he no longer grasps all things like a puthujjana does. Seeing reality in sense media or in sensed objects is conditioned by clinging to "things", it does not mean that the things are unreal. The simile 'a serpent sheds its worn-out skin' means one who has the right discernment just drops the old clinging in the khandhas. Therefore, I do not think the Buddha rejected 'real' the same way you do. BTW what is the Pali for the word 'real' in Uraga Sutta? .............................. "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle .... "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. [SN 12.15 : Kaccayanagotta Sutta] Howard: In the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, the Buddha said "this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence," and he denied both these extremes. The extreme of "existence" isn't that of "mere existence", but that of self- existence, inherent existence as an ultimate and independent entity. T: I think the Buddha was talking about the middle way, the right view of the Path, or the right discernment, that avoids both extreme views of the eternalists and the annihilationists in this world. He denied neither existence nor non-existence. He didn't even discuss existence or non-existence. Why did he not care about the two extreme views? Since they disappear anyway when right discernment arises, so why waste time making a big deal of them. ............................... Howard: In the Phena Sutta, the Buddha said the following of the conditioned paramattha dhammas: "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick â€" 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." [Phena Sutta] Howard: One might well ask: Are such things "real" in any sturdy sense? T: Again, the key Teaching is "they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately", and this is referring to the right discernment of an ariyan -- the right view that is free from clinging (attavadupadana) in the khandhas. The Buddha was not concerned with the usage of the word "real". BTW what is the Pali for the word 'real' in this Phena Sutta? :-) ............................ Howard: From SN 3.12, one translator, Andrew Olendzky, quotes the Buddha as teaching the following: "Forms and sounds and flavors and smells And touches and all mental states, Are wished for, cherished and pleasing, As long as it's said that 'They're real.'" Howard: And I sure think think that makes my point about the danger in calling things "realities" or sometimes even just calling them "real." T: No, Howard. The danger is due to tanha and nandi-raga in the sensed objects. Again, it is clear from SN 3.12 above that the "All" becomes real to anyone who clings to the sensed objects with infatuations: reality viewing is a domain of worldings, it is conditioned by tanha & ditthi. The Teaching has nothing to do with existence/non-existence or the usage of the word reality. That is my two cents. Tep === --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi again, Ken & all - > > In a message dated 2/26/2008 11:33:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, > upasaka@... writes: > > Conditioned namas and rupas > (and nibbana) are definitely real. They are realities. > -------------------------------------------------------- #83337 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:41 pm Subject: Re: Karunadasa's "Dhamma Theory" Introduction to Abhidhamma kenhowardau Hi Howard, I can see from the article you have posted that you are not alone with your theory. Karunadasa does seem to share your view of paramattha dhammas. I don't know if he goes so far as to say (as you do) that anatta means no ultimate existence. That seems totally wrong in every respect. (I notice, by the way, that you acknowledge the ultimate existence of nibbana. But nibbana is anatta too, isn't it? So how can it have ultimate existence?) Karunadasa writes: "In actuality the world given to experience is a vast network of tightly interwoven relations." This is something you have said yourself many times at DSG. As I understand you, you are saying that a person (or a tree for that matter) is a vast network of tightly interwoven relations. So (if I understand you correctly), it is not just the presently arisen dhammas that are described as vast network of tightly interwoven relations, it is also a category of concepts that are "based in reality." In other words, you and I and trees are vast networks but unicorns are not. Have I got that right? It is for this reason, no doubt, that you do cannot subscribe to the Abhidhamma's theory of momentariness. According to the Abhidhamma the actual "world given to experience" is whichever of the six worlds - of fleeting namas and rupas - that has arisen in the present moment. There is no vast network here. There is just a very specific network linking a solitary citta with a few cetasikas and rupas. The vast network that you refer to is, essentially, the conventionally known world, isn't it? If, in absolute reality, there were such a thing (which there isn't) then conventionally known courses of action would be efficacious. And isn't this exactly how you believe them to be? You have said quite categorically that the Buddha taught conventional courses of action. What can I say? What would change your mind? :-) Ken H #83338 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:38 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > > Dear KenH (Howard), - > > I joined DSG in 2003. Since then how many times you have discussed > with Howard the issues of reality and existency of the dhammas? Of > course, many -- so many times that you don't remember how many it is. > And yet two of you have not been able to reach a common conclusion. > > >Howard (#83308) : Ken, you MAY be missing my point. My concern is > not with things existing or not. ... ... My point of writing this now > is not to continue the conversation, on which I've said pretty much > all I have to say, ... > > T: Well, the failure to reach a common conlusion on these issues > confirms the reason why the Buddha, our Greatest Teacher, never > talked about reality(ies) or existence in the Suttas. If you > disagree, then please show me a sutta or two that the Perfect One > defined/explained/discussed these two issues. And if you could, then > I'd be very happy to reply to the following questions: Hi Tep, Why should I have to prove that the Buddha did *not* teach the non- existence of dhammas? Shouldn't the onus be on anyone who maintained that he did? It would be like asking me to prove the Buddha didn't teach the art of flower arrangement. The whole idea of no ultimate-existence is almost ludicrous. What sense could be made of the world if nothing was ultimately real? What world would there be to make sense of? No, the only sensible question is, "Which things did the Buddha say were ultimately real (the rest being mere pannatti)?" I said the idea was 'almost' ludicrous, but we have to acknowledge that 'no ultimate existence' is at least a theory don't we? It probably deserves to be recognised and [quickly] dealt with somewhere in the suttas. One sutta that is often quoted at DSG for this purpose is 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." But you must have seen that sutta many times since 2003, Tep, and you are still not convinced. :-) I think you will be convinced only when you finally agree that the whole purpose of the Buddha's teaching was that we should understand the presently arisen paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities). Ken H #83339 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 2:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion : Dhammasangani upasaka_howard Hi, Colette - In a message dated 2/27/2008 6:35:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, ksheri3@... writes: I am overwhelmed by Howards reply to me and haven't even read some other replies to me so I've gotta make this quick. ================================= I'm sorry for that - very, and I apologize. I really was largely unable to understand you - that's not what I'm apologizing for. But there was one part of my reply, the part with regard to your statements about Theravada that involved lots of capitalization, that came on way too strong and that I truly regret. I was not being gentle, and I'm very sorry for that. With metta, Howard #83340 From: han tun Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:10 pm Subject: Patthaana (12) hantun1 Dear All, This is the continuation of (1). Root condition (hetu-paccaya), and the continuation of the root, Dosa. In my last post, we have seen how we can remove grudges as per the Buddha’s advice, as mentioned in AN 5.161: Aghatavinaya Sutta — Subduing Hatred (1). Today, we will study another sutta AN 5.162: Aghatavinaya Sutta — Subduing Hatred (2) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.162.than.html where Venerable Saariputta gave the following advice. (1) If a person who makes you angry is not good in bodily behavior but good in verbal behavior, what would you do? Answer: Just as when a monk who makes use of things that are thrown away sees a rag in the road: Taking hold of it with his left foot and spreading it out with his right, he would tear off the sound part and go off with it. In the same way, when the individual is impure in his bodily behavior but pure in his verbal behavior, one should at that time pay no attention to the impurity of his bodily behavior, and instead pay attention to the purity of his verbal behavior. Thus the hatred for him should be subdued. Han: I often use this approach. I would pay no attention to the impurity of a person’s bodily behavior (like the soiled part of the cloth), and instead pay attention to the purity of his verbal behavior (like the sound part of the cloth). I find this approach very useful. ------------------------ (2) If a person who makes you angry is not good in verbal behavior but good in bodily behavior, what would you do? Answer: Just as when there is a pool overgrown with slime & water plants, and a person comes along, burning with heat, covered with sweat, exhausted, trembling, & thirsty. He would jump into the pool, part the slime & water plants with both hands, and then, cupping his hands, drink the water and go on his way. In the same way, when the individual is impure in his verbal behavior but pure in his bodily behavior, one should at that time pay no attention to the impurity of his verbal behavior, and instead pay attention to the purity of his bodily behavior. Thus the hatred for him should be subdued. Han: The second approach is similar to the first approach; only the simile is different. ----------------------- (3) If a person who makes you angry is not good in bodily behavior and not good in verbal behavior, but good (albeit periodically) in mental disposition, what would you do? Answer: Just as when there is a little puddle in a cow's footprint, and a person comes along, burning with heat, covered with sweat, exhausted, trembling, & thirsty. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this little puddle in a cow's footprint. If I tried to drink the water using my hand or cup, I would disturb it, stir it up, & make it unfit to drink. What if I were to get down on all fours and slurp it up like a cow, and then go on my way?' So he would get down on all fours, slurp up the water like a cow, and then go on his way. In the same way, when an individual is impure in his bodily behavior & verbal behavior, but periodically experiences mental clarity & calm, one should at that time pay no attention to the impurity of his bodily behavior...the impurity of his verbal behavior, and instead pay attention to the fact that he periodically experiences mental clarity & calm. Thus the hatred for him should be subdued. ------------------------ (4) If a person who makes you angry is not good in bodily behavior, not good in verbal behavior, and not good in mental disposition (i.e. everything is bad), what would you do? Answer: Just as when there is a sick man — in pain, seriously ill — traveling along a road, far from the next village & far from the last, unable to get the food he needs, unable to get the medicine he needs, unable to get a suitable assistant, unable to get anyone to take him to human habitation. Now suppose another person were to see him coming along the road. He would do what he could out of compassion, pity, & sympathy for the man, thinking, 'O that this man should get the food he needs, the medicine he needs, a suitable assistant, someone to take him to human habitation. Why is that? So that he won't fall into ruin right here.' In the same way, when a person is impure in his bodily behavior & verbal behavior, and who does not periodically experience mental clarity & calm, one should do what one can out of compassion, pity, & sympathy for him, thinking, 'O that this man should abandon wrong bodily conduct and develop right bodily conduct, abandon wrong verbal conduct and develop right verbal conduct, abandon wrong mental conduct and develop right mental conduct. Why is that? So that, on the break-up of the body, after death, he won't fall into the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, purgatory.' Thus the hatred for him should be subdued. Han: Here, the person is so bad that even without one’s intervention in any way, he is most likely to fall into ruin in this very life, and/or to be reborn in lower miserable realms in the next life. Therefore, instead of anger, one should develop compassion, pity, and sympathy for him. Here, three-word-combination in Pali is used – kaaru~n~na, anudayaa, anukampaa – which have more or less the same meaning of compassion, pity, and sympathy, to give more weight in emphasizing the desirability of developing compassion towards him instead of getting angry with him. I often used this approach, and I find it useful. But I must be very careful to be sincere with my compassion, pity and sympathy. If I said I wished the person who harmed me would not meet the same fate as me, but if in my heart I wished him meet the same fate, then I would just be a hypocrite!. --------------------- (5) If a person who makes you angry is good in bodily behavior, good in verbal behavior, and good in mental disposition (i.e. everything is good), what would you do? Answer: Just as when there is a pool of clear water — sweet, cool, & limpid, with gently sloping banks, & shaded on all sides by trees of many kinds — and a person comes along, burning with heat, covered with sweat, exhausted, trembling, & thirsty. Having plunged into the pool, having bathed & drunk & come back out, he would sit down or lie down right there in the shade of the trees. In the same way, when an individual is pure in his bodily behavior & verbal behavior, and periodically experiences mental clarity & calm, one should at that time pay attention to the purity of his bodily behavior...the purity of his verbal behavior, and to the fact that he periodically experiences mental clarity & calm. Thus the hatred for him should be subdued. An entirely inspiring individual can make the mind grow serene. Han: To me, it is a bit tricky. Why should a person who is pure in his bodily behavior & verbal behavior, and who periodically experiences mental clarity & calm, make another person angry? I have no answer! We will take up the next root in the next post. With metta, Han #83341 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. TGrand458@... In a message dated 2/27/2008 11:30:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: I fear you are correct, TG. And less a matter of explicit *belief* in separate, self-existent entities, belief that I *do* think is there along with a contradictory belief in interdependence, than a matter of a subtle, subliminal sensing and adhering to such imagined entities, which is insidious and dangerous in that it flies below the radar. .................................. Hi Howard Exactly. This is your second great paragraph today. I like this approach where you do all the complex difficult paragraphs and I just elaborate with analogies like -- lines on walls, etc. LOL TG #83342 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:21 pm Subject: Re: The Real (Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views ...) upasaka_howard Hi, Tep - In a message dated 2/27/2008 9:36:50 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, tepsastri@... writes: Hi Howard (Kenh, Jon, James, Scott, Alex), - The long discussion of this post is a consequence of the following Howard's comment to Ken H. > >Howard (#83308) : Ken, you MAY be missing my point. My concern is not with things existing or not. ... ... My point of writing this now is not to continue the conversation, on which I've said pretty much all I have to say, ... And I butted in : >T: Well, the failure to reach a common conlusion on these issues confirms the reason why the Buddha, our Greatest Teacher, never talked about reality(ies) or existence in the Suttas. If you disagree, then please show me a sutta or two that the Perfect One defined/explained/discussed these two issues. ---------------------------------------------------- T: In the message 83330 you told me that the Buddha really talked about reality(ies) and existence in the Suttas. Howard (# 83330): Much of what the buddha taught pertained to existence and nonexistence and to what is real and what is unreal, and in that regard I refer you to the post entitled "The Real" that I recently sent. -------------------------------------------------------- T: I appreciate your taking time to search the Suttanta-pitaka and came up with Uraga Sutta, Kaccayanagotta Sutta, Phena Sutta, and SN 3.12, in which we see the words real, unreal, existence, and nonexistence. ..................... Howard: I do maintain that dhammas are real, but only in the meager, everyday sense of actually experienced and not just imagined. (Sights are real - they are seen, not imagined.) ... If, however, 'real' means to be an entity with own being and own nature, then I reject that 'real'. ... And the Buddha rejected 'real' usage as well, as may be seen in the following lines from the Uraga Sutta: He who neither goes too far nor lags behind, greedless he knows: 'This is all unreal,' â€" such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. [Uraga Sutta] T: I assume that in the sentence 'This is all unreal' the Buddha was referring to the "All" (the six sense-media and sensed objects). ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, me too. ----------------------------------------------------- Such a monk, who is "greedless" and has the right view like that , is at least an anagami. So the rejection of reality in the "All" is the pa~n~naa of an ariya who transcends the world of beings; he no longer grasps all things like a puthujjana does. --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, the pa~n~na that sees things as they are. ------------------------------------------------------- Seeing reality in sense media or in sensed objects is conditioned by clinging to "things", it does not mean that the things are unreal. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course it does. --------------------------------------------------------- The simile 'a serpent sheds its worn-out skin' means one who has the right discernment just drops the old clinging in the khandhas. Therefore, I do not think the Buddha rejected 'real' the same way you do. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: One who has the right discernment knows, it says, that "This is all unreal." That IS how I view that matter. -------------------------------------------------------- BTW what is the Pali for the word 'real' in Uraga Sutta? ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You tell me! ------------------------------------------------------ .............................. "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle .... "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. [SN 12.15 : Kaccayanagotta Sutta] Howard: In the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, the Buddha said "this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence," and he denied both these extremes. The extreme of "existence" isn't that of "mere existence", but that of self- existence, inherent existence as an ultimate and independent entity. T: I think the Buddha was talking about the middle way, the right view of the Path, or the right discernment, that avoids both extreme views of the eternalists and the annihilationists in this world. He denied neither existence nor non-existence. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sure he did. He said that neither would even occur to one who has right discernment. Right discernment reveals the unreality of both inherent existence and nihilistic nonexistence with regard to all dhammas. Phenomena exist only contingently, as things-in-relation and "dependent arisings." ------------------------------------------------------ He didn't even discuss existence or non-existence. Why did he not care about the two extreme views? Since they disappear anyway when right discernment arises, so why waste time making a big deal of them. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: He discussed them only to deny them. -------------------------------------------------- ............................... Howard: In the Phena Sutta, the Buddha said the following of the conditioned paramattha dhammas: "Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick â€" 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." [Phena Sutta] Howard: One might well ask: Are such things "real" in any sturdy sense? T: Again, the key Teaching is "they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately", and this is referring to the right discernment of an ariyan -- the right view that is free from clinging (attavadupadana) in the khandhas. The Buddha was not concerned with the usage of the word "real". -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I really don't know why you keep on talking about how ariyans see things as though that were something other than as they are. Seeing with right discernment is seeing things as they actually are. ---------------------------------------------------- BTW what is the Pali for the word 'real' in this Phena Sutta? :-) ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well! That sort of question sure has its appeal for you. Why ask a question that you can answer yourself? In any case, the word 'real' doesn't occur in that sutta, though it does in the Uraga Sutta that you asked about above. But words that describe its meaning do occur in this sutta, and it is denied. ---------------------------------------------------- ............................ Howard: From SN 3.12, one translator, Andrew Olendzky, quotes the Buddha as teaching the following: "Forms and sounds and flavors and smells And touches and all mental states, Are wished for, cherished and pleasing, As long as it's said that 'They're real.'" Howard: And I sure think think that makes my point about the danger in calling things "realities" or sometimes even just calling them "real." T: No, Howard. The danger is due to tanha and nandi-raga in the sensed objects. Again, it is clear from SN 3.12 above that the "All" becomes real to anyone who clings to the sensed objects with infatuations: reality viewing is a domain of worldings, it is conditioned by tanha & ditthi. The Teaching has nothing to do with existence/non-existence or the usage of the word reality. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: The sutta says they "are wished for, cherished and pleasing AS LONG AS IT'S SAID THAT "THEY'RE REAL." (Emphasis mine.) That quite obviously shows the effect of language. In any case, be my guest, Tep. Go ahead and use 'real' in every other sentence from now to Kingdom Come! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------- That is my two cents Tep =========================== With metta, Howard #83343 From: han tun Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:30 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (95) hantun1 Dear All, This is the presentation in installment of The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment by Ajahn Sujin Boriharnwanaket; and translated by Nina van Gorkom. http://www.zolag.co.uk/ - Chapter 6: The Perfection of Patience (continuation) The Paramatthadiipanii, the Commentary to the Khuddaka Nikaaya, Commentary to the “Theragaathaa”, Nidaana Kathaa, states: “The perfection of pa~n~naa which supports and fulfils all the perfections, the perfection of generosity and the others, of all Bodhisattas, brings gradually to maturity and complete fulfilment the awakening wisdom of the Buddha by which he attained Buddhahood. Also respectively, in the case of the Silent Buddhas and the disciples: it brings gradually to maturity and complete fulfillment the awakening wisdom of the Silent Buddhas and the disciples... The highest patience in the development of kusala, daana etc., for the awakening wisdom of the Silent Buddhas and of the disciples is considered as effort or energy (viriya). The endurance when refraining from anger is considered as patience. The performing of generosity (daana), the undertaking of síla etc., and the abstaining from speech which deviates from the truth is considered as truthfulness (sacca). Decisiveness which is unshakable, firm, and which accomplishes what is beneficial in all respects is considered as determination (aditthaana). Intentness on the benefit of other beings which is the foundation for performing daana, síla etc., is considered as loving-kindness (mettaa). Evenmindedness towards improper deeds done by other beings is considered as equanimity (upekkhaa). Therefore, when daana, síla and bhaavanaa (mental development), or síla, samaadhi and pa~n~naa are present, the perfections, viriya etc., can be regarded as completed.” The Commentary to the “Basket of Conduct” (Miscellaneous Sayings) reminds us to consider our own patience : “Again, only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the wrongs of others, not the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the wrongs of others only provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his patience into play and make it grow even stronger.” There is a difference between a person with pa~n~naa and without it. As to the person with pa~n~naa, no matter what wrong someone else has done to him, this makes his patience grow firmer and more accomplished. As to the person who lacks pa~n~naa, the wrongs of someone else provoke an increase in impatience, the opposite of patience. Patience is needed with regard to our environment, in the different situations of daily life. Daily life can be a test for our patience and endurance. To be continued. Metta, Han #83344 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Karunadasa's "Dhamma Theory" Introduction to Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/27/2008 9:41:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, I can see from the article you have posted that you are not alone with your theory. Karunadasa does seem to share your view of paramattha dhammas. I don't know if he goes so far as to say (as you do) that anatta means no ultimate existence. That seems totally wrong in every respect. (I notice, by the way, that you acknowledge the ultimate existence of nibbana. But nibbana is anatta too, isn't it? So how can it have ultimate existence?) --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not sure what the sense of 'anatta' is as regards nibbana. Certainly nibbana is impersonal, uncontrollable, and a host of other negatives. I also understand that it has been called "the real", but I would not be happy saying that it "exists". I consider it beyond both existence and nonexistence. ------------------------------------------------------ Karunadasa writes: "In actuality the world given to experience is a vast network of tightly interwoven relations." This is something you have said yourself many times at DSG. As I understand you, you are saying that a person (or a tree for that matter) is a vast network of tightly interwoven relations. So (if I understand you correctly), it is not just the presently arisen dhammas that are described as vast network of tightly interwoven relations, it is also a category of concepts that are "based in reality." In other words, you and I and trees are vast networks but unicorns are not. Have I got that right? -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There are no unicorns. There *are* trees. Trees are aggregations of dhammas. Unicorns are fictions. But I didn't have aggregations or concepts in mind. As far as I'm concerned, namas and rupas are what make up the world. ------------------------------------------------------- It is for this reason, no doubt, that you do cannot subscribe to the Abhidhamma's theory of momentariness. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Huh? Sounds like a nonsequitur to me! ------------------------------------------------------- According to the Abhidhamma the actual "world given to experience" is whichever of the six worlds - of fleeting namas and rupas - that has arisen in the present moment. There is no vast network here. There is just a very specific network linking a solitary citta with a few cetasikas and rupas. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: If you deny relations except within a single mind state, you are living in a static dream world. If all you countenance is a single mind state, then you have abandoned dependent origination, rebirth, vipaka arising lifetimes after the conditioning kamma, and a host of other basic elements of the Dhamma. But, hey, whatever turns you on, Ken! ------------------------------------------------------ The vast network that you refer to is, essentially, the conventionally known world, isn't it? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is misperceived as that. --------------------------------------------------- If, in absolute reality, there were such a thing (which there isn't) then conventionally known courses of action would be efficacious. And isn't this exactly how you believe them to be? You have said quite categorically that the Buddha taught conventional courses of action. What can I say? What would change your mind? :-) -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Nothing I've seen so far! Ken, I'm starting to feel like a masochist. Don't you find this tiresome yet? I do. BTW, as regards Karunadasa's Dhamma Theory article, why not ask RobK what he thinks of it?. You'll find it on his site Abhidhamma.org. ----------------------------------------------- Ken H =========================== With metta, Howard #83345 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 9:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: mettaa. the present moment ... Are We Real ? .. jonoabb Hi TG TGrand458@... wrote: > For the record, I think the term "realities" is going to affect the mind > poorly whether or not someone has a Nagarjuna type background. The Suttas are > the source for this conclusion, not Buddhism 600 years later. > In the Suttas we see the Buddha saying that elements or khandas are -- > empty, coreless, like-a-trick, alien, mirage-like, like-a-lump-of-foam, nonself, > impermanent, etc. When discussing dhammas, we need I think to keep in mind the difference between (a) their inherent characteristics (of anicca, dukkha and anatta) and (b) similes intended to explain different aspects of the dhammas (such as are found in the Phena Sutta). The latter are given for illustrative purposes, and are not qualities that inhere. > My impression, from the above descriptions, is that the types of > descriptions that WOULD NOT apply to elements or khandas is -- bedrock, ultimate > realities, own characteristics, and the like. These descriptions, in fact, seem > like the antithesis of what the Buddha was driving at. The Buddha, not > Nagarjuna. First of all, I don't see any inconsistency between (a) "real in the ultimate sense" and "having own characteristic", on the one hand, and (b) "impermanent" or "not-self", on the other hand. Do you? And if something thus defined is then likened to a lump of foam or a water-bubble, in order to convey the fleeting nature of its momentary existence, as compared to how we take things in the world to be, then again I don't see any inconsistency or necessary conflict. A problem arises, however, when you start form the other end, as it were, that is to say, when you take "lump of foam" or "water-bubble" as your conceptual starting point, and try to work back from there. Obviously, it won't lead you to "reality with its own characteristic" ;-)) Jon #83346 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Karunadasa's "Dhamma Theory" Introduction to Abhidhamma kenhowardau Hi Howard, > What can I say? What would change your mind? :-) > -------------- > Howard: > Nothing I've seen so far! Ken, I'm starting to feel like a masochist. > Don't you find this tiresome yet? I do. ---------------- No, not really. On the internet I find it much easier to discuss Dhamma with people I disagree with than with people I agree with. In real-life discussions it is the other way around. Strange, I know! Obviously, it is different with you. Most of our chats end with you telling me how boring or tiresome (or worse) I am. But that's OK by me. While you continue to express what IMHO are wrong views I will continue to say so. Ken H #83347 From: "Leo" Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] noble truth leoaive hi i think it is like that. i have seen also in abhidhamma that states are: good, bad, neutal it does not say anywhere that good states are dukkha. it is more like bad states are dukkha. leo --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Leo, > Op 21-feb-2008, om 10:54 heeft Leo het volgende geschreven: > > > i know that if you eat soup, which taste good, does not bring > > unsatisfactory. spoon is not the case. > > i do not want to be negative, so i see good things too. > ------ > N: It may seem negative to you that conditioned dhammas are > unsatisfactory. But the deeper meaning of dukkha concerns the arising > and falling away of realities. The tasting and the flavour arise and > fall away, they cannot last. > Understanding dukkha cannot be negative. The truth can be understood > with calm and even with joy. > Nina. #83348 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Karunadasa's "Dhamma Theory" Introduction to Abhidhamma nilovg Hi Howard, Karunadasa has his merits as he explained the difference between the analytical method and synthetical method. He also emphasized the difference between paramattha dhammas and concepts, as I checked on Rob K's web: Abhidhamma/vipassana, http://www.abhidhamma.org/ dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm And still, something is missing. He makes the Abhidhamma appear as very dry (a valley of dry bones) and theoretical. Rob K also has an article by Sayadaw Sitagu, as I mentioned before, stressing that Abhidhamma study and sartipatthaana should go together. If not, then the life is taken out of the Abhidhamma, I am inclined to think. Below more remarks. Op 27-feb-2008, om 14:23 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Karunadasa: But the Pali Abhidhamma Pitaka did not > succumb to this error of conceiving the dhammas as ultimate unities or > discrete entities. In the Pali tradition it is only for the sake of > definition and > description that each dhamma is postulated as if it were a separate > entity; > but in reality it is by no means a solitary phenomenon having an > existence of > its own. ...It is only for the purpose of definition and > description that things are artificially dissected. In actuality > the world given to experience is a vast network of tightly > interwoven relations. ------ N: As I understand, he emphasizes I see that Ken H also falls over the 'vast network'. ------ Ken H: According to the Abhidhamma the actual "world given to experience" is whichever of the six worlds - of fleeting namas and rupas - that has arisen in the present moment. There is no vast network here. There is just a very specific network linking a solitary citta with a few cetasikas and rupas. ------ N: No, it is not only for the purpose of definition and description, that we see the classifications lists. Moreover, things are not artificially dissected. I would like to return to Beginners Abh about rupa: < the order of the following in the original list given by Scott is meaningful: apparent (uppanna.m), cognizable by the six modes of cognition (chahi vi~n~naa.nehi vi~n~neya.m), impermanent (annica.m), subject to decay (jaraabhibhuuta.m). Uppanna.m: arisen or present. Thus, here is reference to the present rupa. The present rupa is cognized. I quote the Expositor to this part (p. 400) to show that the Abhidhamma is not abstract, that it deals with this very moment. <'Arisen (uppanna.m) by means of the six modes of [sense-]cognition' means that only matter as now present should be understood by means of all the six modes of cognition. ... It is impermanent in that it becomes and perishes; it is overpowered by old age of its having such nature; or, because in the material body old age is evident, therefore it is said to be 'overpowered by old age.' The stages of insight have to be developed so that impermanence, arising and falling away of nama and rupa can be realized.> The lists in the Dhsg are not for just reading over, not just for the purpose of definition, they are not artificially classified. They remind us that they occur now in daily life, and can be object of awareness, one at a time. Yes, it has to be one at a time, not more than one. Each citta, and thus also citta with awareness, can cognize only one object at a time. Kusala dhammas, akusala dhammas, indeterminate (avyaakata) dhammas, this is the beginning of the Matika of the Dhsg. We have to understand this, kusala dhamma cannot arise at the same time as akusala dhamma. We have to know the difference. Indeterminate dhamma, such as seeing which is vipaaka, does not arise at the same time as the akusala citta which defines what is seen and thinks long stories about it. Nina. #83349 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion : Dhammasangani sarahprocter... Hi Tep & Alex, --- Tep Sastri wrote: > Let me ask Sarah and Jon the same question you posted plus my own: > > > (I am not sure if I am allowed to post a link to a non Theravada > > article on this forum) > > I am not sure if I am allowed to discuss non-Theravada ideas here or > not. But I think when a discussion helps highlight/contrast the > Theravada principles with others, or improve members' understanding > of the Buddha's Teachings, anything goes. ..... S: I think that Howard expressed our thoughts when he said that "..this is a Theravadin list, and other materials .... shouldn't be dealt with more than briefly and tangentially." Fine to "highlight/contrast the Theravada principles with others....", but not "anything goes"!! So, just try to relate any quotes/refs/qus back to Theravada teachings as you usually both do. Any other questions/comments about this or other Guidelines, off-list to the mods account pls. Thx. Metta, Sarah (& Jon) ============== #83350 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Karunadasa's "Dhamma Theory" Introduction to Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 2/28/2008 1:46:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, > What can I say? What would change your mind? :-) > -------------- > Howard: > Nothing I've seen so far! Ken, I'm starting to feel like a masochist. > Don't you find this tiresome yet? I do. ---------------- No, not really. On the internet I find it much easier to discuss Dhamma with people I disagree with than with people I agree with. In real-life discussions it is the other way around. Strange, I know! Obviously, it is different with you. Most of our chats end with you telling me how boring or tiresome (or worse) I am. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: No, no, Ken! Not it's you at all, but the perpetual "sparing" and rehashing of the same stuff. There's nothing boring or tiresome about you, and my remarks were not personal attacks, even "soft" attacks - at least they were not intended to be, and I apologize if my remarks have appeared that way, or, worse, if they ever were that way. I think you're a good guy, bright, interesting, and a friend. ---------------------------------------------------------- But that's OK by me. While you continue to express what IMHO are wrong views I will continue to say so. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: That's fine, and certainly is your right. Sometimes I may just not reply - though most likely, despite my better judgement, I'll get "pulled in," and we'll get into round 1,000,000 or so of our lightweight championship boxing competition in the WDDA (World Dhamma Disputation Association). --------------------------------------------------------- Ken H ============================ With metta, Howard #83351 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] noble truth upasaka_howard Hi, Leo - In a message dated 2/28/2008 2:13:34 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, leoaive@... writes: hi i think it is like that. i have seen also in abhidhamma that states are: good, bad, neutal it does not say anywhere that good states are dukkha. it is more like bad states are dukkha. leo ================================= Wholesome states don't remain, and in that sense they are unsatisfactory (dukkha). More generally, they are conditioned, and all conditioned dhammas are unsatisfactory (Sabbe sankhara dukkha.) With metta, Howard #83352 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Feb 27, 2008 11:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Karunadasa's "Dhamma Theory" Introduction to Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/28/2008 5:23:59 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Karunadasa has his merits as he explained the difference between the analytical method and synthetical method. He also emphasized the difference between paramattha dhammas and concepts, as I checked on Rob K's web: Abhidhamma/vipassana, http://www.abhidhamma.org/ dhamma_theory_philosophical_corn.htm And still, something is missing. He makes the Abhidhamma appear as very dry (a valley of dry bones) and theoretical. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: That's really interesting to me, Nina! I find the opposite. He enlivens it for me - he wets the dry bones for me! (Evidently, this is a matter of taste and "accumulations"! :-) ------------------------------------------------------- Rob K also has an article by Sayadaw Sitagu, as I mentioned before, stressing that Abhidhamma study and sartipatthaana should go together. If not, then the life is taken out of the Abhidhamma, I am inclined to think. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard That sounds correct to me! I certainly agree. ----------------------------------------------------------- Below more remarks. Op 27-feb-2008, om 14:23 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Karunadasa: But the Pali Abhidhamma Pitaka did not > succumb to this error of conceiving the dhammas as ultimate unities or > discrete entities. In the Pali tradition it is only for the sake of > definition and > description that each dhamma is postulated as if it were a separate > entity; > but in reality it is by no means a solitary phenomenon having an > existence of > its own. ...It is only for the purpose of definition and > description that things are artificially dissected. In actuality > the world given to experience is a vast network of tightly > interwoven relations. ------ N: As I understand, he emphasizes I see that Ken H also falls over the 'vast network'. ------ Ken H: According to the Abhidhamma the actual "world given to experience" is whichever of the six worlds - of fleeting namas and rupas - that has arisen in the present moment. There is no vast network here. There is just a very specific network linking a solitary citta with a few cetasikas and rupas. ------ N: No, it is not only for the purpose of definition and description, that we see the classifications lists. Moreover, things are not artificially dissected. I would like to return to Beginners Abh about rupa: < the order of the following in the original list given by Scott is meaningful: apparent (uppanna.m), cognizable by the six modes of cognition (chahi vi~n~naa.nehi vi~n~neya.m), impermanent (annica.m), subject to decay (jaraabhibhuuta.m). Uppanna.m: arisen or present. Thus, here is reference to the present rupa. The present rupa is cognized. I quote the Expositor to this part (p. 400) to show that the Abhidhamma is not abstract, that it deals with this very moment. <'Arisen (uppanna.m) by means of the six modes of [sense-]cognition' means that only matter as now present should be understood by means of all the six modes of cognition. ... It is impermanent in that it becomes and perishes; it is overpowered by old age of its having such nature; or, because in the material body old age is evident, therefore it is said to be 'overpowered by old age.' The stages of insight have to be developed so that impermanence, arising and falling away of nama and rupa can be realized.> The lists in the Dhsg are not for just reading over, not just for the purpose of definition, they are not artificially classified. They remind us that they occur now in daily life, and can be object of awareness, one at a time. Yes, it has to be one at a time, not more than one. Each citta, and thus also citta with awareness, can cognize only one object at a time. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. I have never disputed this. ----------------------------------------------- Kusala dhammas, akusala dhammas, indeterminate (avyaakata) dhammas, this is the beginning of the Matika of the Dhsg. We have to understand this, kusala dhamma cannot arise at the same time as akusala dhamma. We have to know the difference. Indeterminate dhamma, such as seeing which is vipaaka, does not arise at the same time as the akusala citta which defines what is seen and thinks long stories about it Nina. ============================ With metta, Howard #83353 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Karunadasa's "Dhamma Theory" Introduction to Abhidhamma nilovg Hi Howard, I find your answer also interesting. We seem to agree on most. Not on the dry bones ;-)) Out of interest, how does he enliven it for you? When I read an article like his I feel very bored. Nina. Op 28-feb-2008, om 13:34 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Howard: > That's really interesting to me, Nina! I find the opposite. He > enlivens > it for me - he wets the dry bones for me! (Evidently, this is a > matter of > taste and "accumulations"! :-) > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Rob K also has an > article by Sayadaw Sitagu, as I mentioned before, stressing that > Abhidhamma study and sartipatthaana should go together. If not, then > the life is taken out of the Abhidhamma, I am inclined to think. > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard > That sounds correct to me! I certainly agree. #83354 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Karunadasa's "Dhamma Theory" Introduction to Abhidhamma nilovg Hi Howard Op 28-feb-2008, om 13:15 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Sometimes I may just not reply ----- Yes, true. I then wonder: he must disagree and does not want to continue. Nina. #83355 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:31 am Subject: Perseverance in Dhamma, Ch 2, no. 4. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the Gradual Sayings (III, Book of the Fives, Ch XXI, Kimbila, § 2, “On hearing Dhamma”): Monks, there are these five advantages from hearing Dhamma. What five? He hears things not heard; purges things heard; dispels doubt; makes straight his view; and his heart becomes calm. Verily, monks, these are the five advantages from hearing Dhamma. As we read in the text, he purges things heard. The Thai translation has: he clearly understands what he has heard. This means that we should not listen passively, but investigate what we hear, consider it again and again so that we gain more understanding of the Dhamma. So long as we have not attained enlightenment doubt about nåma and rúpa is bound to arise, but right understanding can eliminate doubt. We read that he makes straight his view. We have wrong view of realities, we believe that they last and we take them for self. By listening and considering paññå can grow so that there is less wrong view, our view can be straightened. We read that his heart becomes calm. The Thai translation has: the citta of the person who listens will have confidence. When there is more understanding of the Dhamma, confidence in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha will grow. Acharn Sujin stressed again and again that we should consider whether there is dhamma now. What is dhamma? Seeing, visible object, hearing, sound, thinking of all experiences through the senses. We usually think with attachment (lobha), aversion (dosa) and ignorance (moha). Sense-cognitions such as seeing and hearing only last for one moment and then defilements are bound to arise. It seems that we recognize defilements more easily than the moments of seeing and hearing. However, it is essential to understand also the moments of seeing and hearing. It is on account of what we experience through the senses that many defilements arise. The Abhidhamma helps us to have more understanding of our life, to disentangle different realities. We see only visible object, and shortly after seeing we define what we see, we remember the image of a person or thing. We cling to such images and we are neglectful in understanding the different cittas that arise and that experience different objects. We take the person or thing we perceive for reality, for something that really exists and that is lasting. This is wrong view, and wrong view is the condition for much confusion and trouble in our life. ****** Nina. #83356 From: "pannabahulo" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:51 am Subject: Suffering aggregates pannabahulo Dear Dhamma Friends, The more we look and the more we understand,the more defiled the mind appears.It's not a pretty picture - at least this mind isn't.It seems that to come out of suffering one needs to see this endless stream of dirt as though through a magnifying glass. A couple of weeks ago a monk friend said to me,"At least you know you're sick; most people don't even realise they are." But knowing one is sick is no cure. How do you all manage to stay afloat when you see that we are permeated with defilements? How does one keep walking when the burden is so heavy and the journey so long? Sure we can say that there is a light at the end of the tunnel; but anything can happen along the way.Maybe next life will be as a mosquito or a doormouse.We have no idea what kamma vipaka has in store; or if the panna we develop this time around is enough to counterbalance what has yet to appear. But I guess we can say that we have no choice but to carry on.There isn't really any other alternative. What sayest thou? With metta - and some feeling of optimism which I guess I cannot deny. Pannabahulo Bhikkhu #83357 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Karunadasa's "Dhamma Theory" Introduction to Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 2/28/2008 9:16:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I find your answer also interesting. We seem to agree on most. Not on the dry bones ;-)) Out of interest, how does he enliven it for you? When I read an article like his I feel very bored. ============================== I wish I could point to something specific to justify my finding it "enlivening," Nina, but I cannot. It must just be an idiosyncrasy of mine! ;-)) With metta, Howard #83358 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Suffering aggregates upasaka_howard Hi, Bhante - In a message dated 2/28/2008 9:52:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, pannabahulo@... writes: Dear Dhamma Friends, The more we look and the more we understand,the more defiled the mind appears.It's not a pretty picture - at least this mind isn't.It seems that to come out of suffering one needs to see this endless stream of dirt as though through a magnifying glass. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, Sir - quite so. Knowing the way things are, especially when they are "not so good," is critically important. Without that, we're lost. With that, we've begun. ----------------------------------------------------- A couple of weeks ago a monk friend said to me,"At least you know you're sick; most people don't even realise they are." But knowing one is sick is no cure. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is the beginning. Now just rely on the Great Physician, take his medicine, and move on towards robust health. That's the way I see it. ------------------------------------------------------- How do you all manage to stay afloat when you see that we are permeated with defilements? How does one keep walking when the burden is so heavy and the journey so long? ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: By cultivating patience and determination through the very practice that the Buddha so kindly gave us. By "keeping on keeping on" at some point it will be possible to look back and realize that one is now standing on a far higher peak than when one started, and the confidence and trust engendered by that will be stirring. ------------------------------------------------------- Sure we can say that there is a light at the end of the tunnel; but anything can happen along the way. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Much of what happens is determined by our own intentional actions. The matter is not random. We can't take back past actions of ours, but there is always NOW, and what we do now conditions future events for good or ill. ------------------------------------------------------ Maybe next life will be as a mosquito or a doormouse.We have no idea what kamma vipaka has in store; or if the panna we develop this time around is enough to counterbalance what has yet to appear. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: So? A slogan in economics is "Let bygones be bygones." It is a useful slogan. ----------------------------------------------------- But I guess we can say that we have no choice but to carry on.There isn't really any other alternative. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, there is - but it is no good! ---------------------------------------------------- What sayest thou? With metta - and some feeling of optimism which I guess I cannot deny. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Excellent, Bhante. There is good reason for optimism - we still have the Buddha word available to us. -------------------------------------------------- Pannabahulo Bhikkhu ======================= With metta, Howard #83359 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Suffering aggregates nilovg Venerable Pannabahulo, Op 28-feb-2008, om 15:51 heeft pannabahulo het volgende geschreven: > We have no idea what kamma vipaka has in > store; or if the panna we develop this time around is enough to > counterbalance what has yet to appear. > But I guess we can say that we have no choice but to carry on.There > isn't really any other alternative. ------ N: We can only understand the present moment, and thinking of the future is only thinking, but also this can be object of awareness. Any little amount of understanding arising now is accumulated and can condition the arising of understanding again later on. Even if the next life is in an unhappy plane, after that there will be other lives where there is an opportunity for the accumulated understanding to condition the arising again of understanding and in this way it grows. It works its way inspite of all contrarieties. Nina. #83360 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Suffering aggregates TGrand458@... Dear Pannabahulo Bhikkhu Sounds a little melancholy. Despite the afflicting conditions we are comprised of, I think the Buddha would have liked us to fill our minds with cheer and joy, happiness and loftiness, as we pursue the study and practice of his teaching. With effort we can generate these qualities. Knowing that -- "anything can happen along the way" -- can be good inspirational motivation to strive diligently. And with a mind detached from all conditioned things, internal and external, we can end the "endless" stream. TG #83361 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:15 am Subject: AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta To Girimananda TGrand458@... Hi All This is a great Sutta for striving and shows how the Buddha combined teachings of practical common sense things, through inferential reflection, with teachings of -- direct mindfulness as well... I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. And on that occasion Ven. Girimananda was diseased, in pain, severely ill. Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "Lord, Ven. Girimananda is diseased, in pain, severely ill. It would be good if the Blessed One would visit Ven. Girimananda, out of sympathy for him." "Ananda, if you go to the monk Girimananda and tell him ten perceptions, it's possible that when he hears the ten perceptions his disease may be allayed. Which ten? The perception of inconstancy, the perception of not-self, the perception of unattractiveness, the perception of drawbacks, the perception of abandoning, the perception of dispassion, the perception of cessation, the perception of distaste for every world, the perception of the undesirability of all fabrications, mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. [1] "And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy with regard to the five aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the perception of inconstancy. [2] "And what is the perception of not-self? There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'The eye is not-self, forms are not-self; the ear is not-self, sounds are not-self; the nose is not-self, aromas are not-self; the tongue is not-self, flavors are not-self; the body is not-self, tactile sensations are not-self; the intellect is not-self, ideas are not-self.' Thus he remains focused on not-selfness with regard to the six inner & outer sense media. This is called the perception of not-self. [3] "And what is the perception of unattractiveness? There is the case where a monk ponders this very body — from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin, filled with all sorts of unclean things: 'There is in this body: hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin, muscle, tendons, bones, bone marrow, spleen, heart, liver, membranes, kidneys, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, gall, phlegm, lymph, blood, sweat, fat, tears, oil, saliva, mucus, oil in the joints, urine.' Thus he remains focused on unattractiveness with regard to this very body. This is called the perception of unattractiveness. [4] "And what is the perception of drawbacks? There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty dwelling — reflects thus: 'This body has many pains, many drawbacks. In this body many kinds of disease arise, such as: seeing-diseases, hearing-diseases, nose-diseases, tongue-diseases, body-diseases, head-diseases, ear-diseases, mouth-diseases, teeth-diseases, cough, asthma, catarrh, fever, aging, stomach-ache, fainting, dysentery, grippe, cholera, leprosy, boils, ringworm, tuberculosis, epilepsy, skin-disease, itch, scab, psoriasis, scabies, jaundice, diabetes, hemorrhoids, fistulas, ulcers; diseases arising from bile, from phlegm, from the wind-property, from combinations of bodily humors, from changes in the weather, from uneven care of the body, from attacks, from the result of kamma; cold, heat, hunger, thirst, defecation, urination.' Thus he remains focused on drawbacks with regard to this body. This is called the perception of drawbacks. [5] "And what is the perception of abandoning? There is the case where a monk does not tolerate an arisen thought of sensuality. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He does not tolerate an arisen thought of ill-will. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He does not tolerate an arisen thought of harmfulness. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, & wipes it out of existence. He does not tolerate arisen evil, unskillful mental qualities. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, & wipes them out of existence. This is called the perception of abandoning. [6] "And what is the perception of dispassion? There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the stilling of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving, dispassion, Unbinding.' This is called the perception of dispassion. [7] "And what is the perception of cessation? There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — reflects thus: 'This is peace, this is exquisite — the stilling of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving, cessation, Unbinding.' This is called the perception of cessation. [8] "And what is the perception of distaste for every world? There is the case where a monk abandoning any attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions with regard to any world, refrains from them and does not get involved. This is called the perception of distaste for every world. [9] "And what is the perception of the undesirability of all fabrications? There is the case where a monk feels horrified, humiliated, & disgusted with all fabrications. This is called the perception of the undesirability of all fabrications. [10] "And what is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing? There is the case where a monk — having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building — sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "[i] Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. [ii] Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. [iii] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body, and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. [iv] He trains himself to breathe in calming the bodily processes, and to breathe out calming the bodily processes. "[v] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [vi] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. [vii] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental processes, and to breathe out sensitive to mental processes. [viii] He trains himself to breathe in calming mental processes, and to breathe out calming mental processes. "[ix] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the mind, and to breathe out sensitive to the mind. [x] He trains himself to breathe in satisfying the mind, and to breathe out satisfying the mind. [xi] He trains himself to breathe in steadying the mind, and to breathe out steadying the mind. [xii] He trains himself to breathe in releasing the mind, and to breathe out releasing the mind. "[xiii] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on inconstancy, and to breathe out focusing on inconstancy. [xiv] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on dispassion,_1_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.060.than.html#n-1) and to breathe out focusing on dispassion. [xv] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on cessation, and to breathe out focusing on cessation. [xvi] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on relinquishment, and to breathe out focusing on relinquishment. "This, Ananda, is called mindfulness of in-&-out breathing. "Now, Ananda, if you go to the monk Girimananda and tell him these ten perceptions, it's possible that when he hears these ten perceptions his disease may be allayed." Then Ven. Ananda, having learned these ten perceptions in the Blessed One's presence, went to Ven. Girimananda and told them to him. As Ven. Girimananda heard these ten perceptions, his disease was allayed. And Ven. Girimananda recovered from his disease. That was how Ven. Girimananda's disease was abandoned. #83362 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta To Girimananda TGrand458@... Hi All Again Sorry, due to some malfunction in my system, the paragraphs are all messed up making the original post very hard to read. :-( TG #83363 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:27 am Subject: Re: Suffering aggregates truth_aerator Dear Bhante, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "pannabahulo" wrote: > > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > The more we look and the more we understand,the more defiled the mind > appears.It's not a pretty picture - at least this mind isn't.... >>>> Develop Jhana (but don't tell lay people about it.). The worst thing that would happen then is you being reborn in Rupa loka where you would have the opportunity to see the next Buddha. Develop insight based on Jhana. Read Suttas. Smile! You have the opportunity to practice. Most people either can't practice or don't have panna to see the importance of Dhamma-Vinay. Lots of Metta, Alex #83364 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:49 am Subject: Am I allowed to Study Abh? Some irreconcilable key/root differences. truth_aerator Hello all, With all interest in Abh (even though of the historical issues), I do however have key differences that I hold in mind (based on my meditative experience AND certain SUTTAS, not to mention centuries of advances in 'Buddhist' thought). a) None of the Dhammas have self nature. No ultimate realities. Except for Nibbana. I really HAVE TO substitute realities for mind phenomenon in CMA in order not to feel "nausea". b) All Dhammas (including Rupa) require mind in order to make sense of them. Existence/non, both, neither, require mind, consciousness or mental functioning of some sort. Dhammas DO NOT have 100% their own characteristics by themselves. Thats right, mind is required to differentiate between lets say compassion and cruelty (or at the very least to see/feel the difference). Same goes with lets say hearing or seeing. These functions require mind to distinguish them for unconsious person does NOT see or hear and for HIM these things require working and functional mind. In short, Existence depends on perception of it (same with non, both, neither)and perception is mental functioning. This is found in the suttas (which would definately contradict root Abh commentarial ontologies). The only thing outside and independent of 6 senses is Nibbana. ------ "Maha Kotthita:] "Being asked if, with the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Being asked if ... there is not anything else ... there both is & is not anything else ... there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Now, how is the meaning of your words to be understood?" [Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' complicates non-complication.1 The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' complicates non-complication. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far complication goes. However far complication goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of complication. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html --------- With those corrections, am I still allowed to study Abh? Lots of Metta, Alex #83365 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] AN 10.60 Girimananda Sutta To Girimananda upasaka_howard Looked ok at my end, TG. With metta, Howard #83366 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (12) nilovg Dear Han, I like the sutta you presented and your remarks about it. An observation below. Op 28-feb-2008, om 5:10 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > In the same way, when an individual is > pure in his bodily behavior & verbal behavior, and > periodically experiences mental clarity & calm, one > should at that time pay attention to the purity of his > bodily behavior...the purity of his verbal behavior, > and to the fact that he periodically experiences > mental clarity & calm. Thus the hatred for him should > be subdued. An entirely inspiring individual can make > the mind grow serene. > > Han: To me, it is a bit tricky. Why should a person > who is pure in his bodily behavior & verbal behavior, > and who periodically experiences mental clarity & > calm, make another person angry? I have no answer! --------- N: Dosa is not only anger, it can have the form of irritation, even a slight irritation is a sign that there is dosa. When someone is so perfect, don't we feel sometimes irritation? This can be jealousy. Jealouse accompanies dosa. There may be conceit. We compare ourselves with someone else, and become distressed or discouraged. Conceit does not arise at the same time as dosa, but it can condition dosa. Now, when paying attention only to the other's qualities, not thinking of 'person' would help to lessen dosa. These qualities are dhammas and they arise because of conditions. Nobody possesses them. Nina. #83367 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (95) nilovg Dear Han, Our ailments, sicknesses are a test for sure. And then hundreds of small happenings: noisy neighbour's children, dropping a pencil behind a cupboard, etc. etc. We are usually forgetful of nama and rupa, impatient. And how we need patience to learn more about the nama and rupa appearing in daily life. They each have their own characteristics that have to be 'studied' with mindfulness. Thank you for the reminder, Nina. Op 28-feb-2008, om 5:30 heeft han tun het volgende geschreven: > Patience is needed with regard to our environment, in > the different situations of daily life. Daily life can > be a test for our patience and endurance. #83368 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Am I allowed to Study Abh? Some irreconcilable key/root differences. nilovg Hi Alex, > A: With those corrections, am I still allowed to study Abh? N: You had better, so that one day the remainderless stopping will be reached. Nina. #83369 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. .. Transformation into Sotapanna?.. nilovg Hi Tep, Op 28-feb-2008, om 1:08 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > N: I can understand, Tep, that you feel despair at times. Then I saw > Jon's answer which is so encouraging. At the very moment of kusala > citta there cannot be ignorance and wrong view. > > T: Are you encouraged by Jon's words that are verifiable by your own > experience, or are you encouraged because his words reminded you of a > dhamma theory you had previously rejoiced in a reading? -------- N: We can verify that at the moment of kusala citta, even one short moment, there cannot be despair or discouragement. This truth we can read about in the suttas and learn through the Abhidhamma, and also verify it now, at this moment. When you think of helping someone else there is no time to worry about oneself. All these things are very daily, that is the beauty of the Dhamma. Nina. #83370 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Am I allowed to Study Abh? Some irreconcilable key/root differences. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In the following, I'm not completely clear on which positions you are presenting as yours, another's, and Abhdhammic positions. In a message dated 2/28/2008 1:49:41 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all, With all interest in Abh (even though of the historical issues), I do however have key differences that I hold in mind (based on my meditative experience AND certain SUTTAS, not to mention centuries of advances in 'Buddhist' thought). ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I understand "meditative experience" and I understand "suttas", but what are these "centuries of advances in 'Buddhist' thought" you speak of? What is the "advance"? Some thinking down through the years about the Dhamma has surely been good but other thinking quite poor. Some may be useful to us, but we have to pick and choose, and always go back to the Buddha himself for "the goods." Why should the thinking about the well being of sentient beings generally have advanced any more than retrogressed down through the centuries? Have any of the "Buddhist thinkers" improved on the Buddha himself? Human nature hasn't changed in the last 2500 years, I'm rather sure, and for the most part we're just as foolish (or the opposite) as ever. Was there any person 2500 years ago more evil than the Hitler of little more than 50 years ago? --------------------------------------------------- a) None of the Dhammas have self nature. No ultimate realities. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think the Abhidhamma asserts anything more than *conditioned* nature of dhammas. The fact of being and nature being borrowed, dependent and not "own" does not, however, preclude the objective distinguishablility of dhammas from each other. Hardness and heat are distinguishable qualities. As for no ultimate realities, as you know, I agree there are none if by 'a reality' one means a self-existent entity. But it is not given that Abhidhamma means "self-existent entity" by 'dhamma', and I don't think it does. The paramattha dhammas are the phenomena that comprise the five khandhas. They are ultimate phenomena in that they are direct elements of experience, not aggregations of same, thought of as individuals. I agree that rendering 'dhammas' by 'realities' is not good, but that has no bearing on the content of the Abhidhamma. -------------------------------------------------- Except for Nibbana. I really HAVE TO substitute realities for mind phenomenon in CMA in order not to feel "nausea". ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: That last sentence confuses me. Can you elaborate? ----------------------------------------------------- b) All Dhammas (including Rupa) require mind in order to make sense of them. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: So? ------------------------------------------------- Existence/non, both, neither, require mind, consciousness or mental functioning of some sort. Dhammas DO NOT have 100% their own characteristics by themselves. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. Dhammas are things-in-relation. Their being and nature are conditioned by other phenomena, and are not self-owned. ------------------------------------------------- That's right, mind is required to differentiate between lets say compassion and cruelty (or at the very least to see/feel the difference). ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, it is mind that does the distinguishing. But only phenomena that are unalike are legitimately distinguished. ----------------------------------------------- Same goes with lets say hearing or seeing. These functions require mind to distinguish them for unconsious person does NOT see or hear and for HIM these things require working and functional mind. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: But understanding them as different is not what makes them different. Their being different is what leads to their being distinguished. ----------------------------------------------- In short, Existence depends on perception of it (same with non, both, neither)and perception is mental functioning. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I do believe that the interdependence of vi~n~ana and namarupa expressed in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta does show the mutual dependency of knowing and known. I don't know whether that is what you are referring to. -------------------------------------------------- This is found in the suttas (which would definitely contradict root Abh commentarial ontologies). The only thing outside and independent of 6 senses is Nibbana. ------ "Maha Kotthita:] "Being asked if, with the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Being asked if ... there is not anything else ... there both is & is not anything else ... there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Now, how is the meaning of your words to be understood?" [Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' complicates non-complication.1 The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' complicates non-complication. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far complication goes. However far complication goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of complication. " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.174.than.html --------- With those corrections, am I still allowed to study Abh? ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: What are you correcting? Also, might it not be better to refer to them as "disagreements" rather than "corrections"? ------------------------------------------------------ Lots of Metta, Alex ============================= With metta, Howard #83371 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Am I allowed to Study Abh? Some irreconcilable key/root differences. truth_aerator Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: I understand "meditative experience" and I understand "suttas", but what are these "centuries of advances in 'Buddhist' thought" you speak of? What is the "advance"? >> Centuries of 'advances' means correcting the realistic ontology tendencies of Abh which may create paradoxes at the least, and at most harmful level sneak back the self in a guise of "ultimate realities". If you noticed I have put 'Buddhist' in quotes indicating that at least some are definately radical (triple body, Bodhisatva concept, to name a few) >>>>>> Some may be useful to us, but we have to pick and choose, and always go back to the Buddha himself for "the goods." >>>> The thing is that suttas CAN be interpreted in VARIOUS ways as we have seen with Abhidhammas and other 'Buddhist' philosophical traditions. >>> Why should the thinking about the well being of sentient beings generally have advanced any more than retrogressed down through the centuries? >>> I agree here which is why I approach Abh. and later 'Buddhist' thought with CAUTION. Abh (at least the way it is presented in CMA) has factual errors. Ex: Abh. and teachers who base their teaching from it say that Metta,Compassion, Altruistic Joy brings one to 3rd Jhana and Equinimity to 4th Jhana. In the CDB pg 1607 (or 1609) the Buddha has said that metta can go as high as 4th Jhana, Infinite compassion can go to infinite space (5th Jhana), Altruistic Joy to Infinite Consciousness (6th) and Uppekha Brahmavihara to base of nothingness. #2) Stream Enterers, Dhamma followers, & faith followers are defined as PEOPLE who last more then mind moment in the Suttas. MN70 is an example. There is also another sutta which definately speaks of them as people (I don't remember exactly which sutta). >> Have any of the "Buddhist thinkers" improved on the Buddha himself? >>> Impossible of course. But, some may have provided additional explanations helpful to us... Or not. >>> Human nature hasn't changed in the last 2500 years, I'm rather sure, and for the most part we're just as foolish (or the opposite) as ever. Was there any person 2500 years ago more evil than > the Hitler of little more than 50 years ago? > --------------------------------------------------- There WERE very bad people in the past, maybe as hateful if not more than today. They didn't have weapons of mass destruction though. Devadatta is prime example. Monk Kokalika (the one who kept insulting chief disciples) and fell through Earth to hell. > -------------------------------------------------- > Except for Nibbana. I really HAVE TO substitute realities for mind > phenomenon in CMA in order not to feel "nausea". > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > That last sentence confuses me. Can you elaborate? > ----------------------------------------------------- >>> Nibbana is the only "thing" that is independent of 6 senses. ALL other things ARE dependent on 6 senses, at least in part. The "nausea" part was my disagreement at proposing a realistic ontology of ultimate self contained atoms. > > b) All Dhammas (including Rupa) require mind in order to make sense of them. > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > So? > ------------------------------------------------- > Meaning that Rupa has to arise with citta in one way or another. It can't be found outside of some sort of citta. > > That's right, mind is required to > differentiate between lets say compassion and cruelty (or at the very > least to see/feel the difference). > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: Well, it is mind that does the distinguishing. But only phenomena that are unalike are legitimately distinguished. Howard: But understanding them as different is not what makes them different. Their being different is what leads to their being distinguished. > ----------------------------------------------- >>> Thank you for this argument. > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I do believe that the interdependence of vi~n~ana and namarupa expressed > in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta does show the mutual dependency of knowing and > known. I don't know whether that is what you are referring to. > -------------------------------------------------- Yes, that is what I am refering to. Nama rupa which can be taken as psychophysical world is only "relevant" as a relation to consciousness. This doesn't mean that one causes the other, it simply means that they are both mutual interdependent. Consciousness needs something to be conscious off, and "something" assumes cognizing as "something". > With those corrections, am I still allowed to study Abh? > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: Also, might it not be better to refer to them as "disagreements" rather than "corrections"? > ------------------------------------------------------ > True, I didn't use the proper words. Lots of Metta, Alex #83372 From: han tun Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 12:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Patthaana (12) hantun1 Dear Nina, > > Han: To me, it is a bit tricky. Why should a person who is pure in his bodily behavior & verbal behavior, and who periodically experiences mental clarity & calm, make another person angry? I have no answer! --------- > Nina: Dosa is not only anger, it can have the form of irritation, even a slight irritation is a sign that there is dosa. When someone is so perfect, don't we feel sometimes irritation? This can be jealousy. Jealouse accompanies dosa. There may be conceit. We compare ourselves with someone else, and become distressed or discouraged. Conceit does not arise at the same time as dosa, but it can condition dosa. Now, when paying attention only to the other's qualities, not thinking of 'person' would help to lessen dosa. These qualities are dhammas and they arise because of conditions. Nobody possesses them. --------- Han: Now, it makes sense, Nina. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #83373 From: "m. nease" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Suffering aggregates m_nease Bhante, I agree with everything you've written below--in my opinion, wholesome moments of any kind are incredibly rare and moments of insight or development rarest of all. But unpleasant feeling is a red flag--when real understanding is present, feeling (if I'm not mistaken) is neutral or pleasant. So if I think I'm seeing things clearly but am depressed by the view, I'm deluded--understanding is not present at that moment. (By the way, I think this is also a good marker of the difference between sa.mvega and ordinary disgust). For me, the temptation is always to try to replace unpleasant feelings with pleasant ones--without much true consideration of whether the change is for the better in terms of the jaati of the volition. This, of course, is a serious mistake. The fact, though, that when a moment of understanding arises, unpleasant feeling is banished for that moment, I've always taken for an example of 'beautiful in the beginning' (though I don't know if this is supported by the texts). This reminds me of something Sarah wrote--some years ago, I think: "The reason that the emphasis is on rt understanding and not on concentration, calm and rt effort is because at a moment of rt understanding, these other cetasikas (mental factors) arise automatically with it. Any moment of kusala (wholesomeness) is calm already, calm from akusala for a moment. Concentration (ekaggata) is a universal cetasika which applies with every citta (moment of consciousness). Only by developing understanding will rt concentration be developed. Similarly, effort (samma vayama) can be kusala (wholesome) or akusala (unwholesome), so again rt understanding is the key to know the difference." Sagaavara.m, mike #83374 From: han tun Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (95) hantun1 Dear Nina, Thank you very much for your kind post. You have cleverly linked this thread with my thread on byaadhi. I see sufferings due to sickness only as a condition for developing samvega ~naana and later on, hopefully, vipassanaa ~naana. Now, you have drawn the attention to the fact that the sufferings due to sickness could also be a condition for developing the perfection of patience and endurance. Very good, Nina, I appreciate it. There is also another reminder in the Text which could be linked with the root dosa which I am writing under Patthaana series. “There is a difference between a person with pa~n~naa and without it. As to the person with pa~n~naa, no matter what wrong someone else has done to him, this makes his patience grow firmer and more accomplished. As to the person who lacks pa~n~naa, the wrongs of someone else provoke an increase in impatience, the opposite of patience.” Thank you very much. Respectfully, Han #83375 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:19 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. .. Transformation into Sotapanna?.. dhammanusara Dear Nina and Jon (KenH, Howard, Scott, Alex), - The Dhamma verification issue has not been fully discussed at DSG. Members are happy with quoting books and commentaries, but shy away from citing their real experience of the Abhidhamma at the true dhamma level. I am going to explain what I mean by real experience of the Abhidhamma below. > N: We can verify that at the moment of kusala citta, even one short > moment, there cannot be despair or discouragement. This truth we can > read about in the suttas and learn through the Abhidhamma, and also > verify it now, at this moment. When you think of helping someone else there is no time to worry about oneself. All these things are very > daily, that is the beauty of the Dhamma. T: When I talk about "verification" of the ultimate reality like kusala citta, I think of it as the verification at the level where the truth is "seen" with the Eye of Wisdom or yathabhutam pajanaati. The helping of someone is common to all good religious people not just only to good Buddhists. Besides; at that low-level of "reality" there is no need for "verification" with the Eye of Wisdom. The application of the Abhidhamma should be at the pure dhamma level that is empty from self-views or things pertaining to self-views and the I-sense. THe following sutta should be a help. "...Bhikkhus, there being self, there would be self's property?" — "Yes, Lord." — "...Or there being self's property, there would be self?" — "Yes, Lord." — "Bhikkhus, self and self's property being unapprehendable as true and established (saccato thetato: cf. use at M. 2), then would not this view 'This is self, this the world; after death I shall be permanent... endure as long as eternity' be the pure perfection of a fool's idea?" — "How not, Lord? It would be the pure perfection of a fool's idea." [MN 22 Translator : Nanamoli] ................. "Monks, where there is a self, would there be [the thought,] 'belonging to my self'?" "Yes, lord." "Or, monks, where there is what belongs to self, would there be [the thought,] 'my self'?" "Yes, lord." "Monks, where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality, then the view-position — 'This cosmos is the self. After death this I will be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change. I will stay just like that for an eternity' — Isn't it utterly & completely a fool's teaching?" "What else could it be, lord? It's utterly & completely a fool's teaching." [MN 22 Translator: Thanissaro] T: The thought about self or "what belongs to (pertaining to) self" are pinned down as a reality in every non-ariyan. And that is the dhamma of a "fool". Until we experience the true dhamma at the Abhidhamma level, I believe it is not possible for us to truly understand the real taste of the Abhidhamma. Tep === #83376 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Beginner's Abhidhamma Discussion : Dhammasangani dhammanusara Hi Sarah and Alex (Howard), - Thank you, Sarah, for the formal reply to Alex's and my questions. S: I think that Howard expressed our thoughts when he said that "..this is a Theravadin list, and other materials .... shouldn't be dealt with more than briefly and tangentially." Fine to "highlight/contrast the Theravada principles with others....", but not "anything goes"!! T: You are lucky to have an exceptional member like Howard who is such a wonderful adviser to DSG, besides other roles (too many to count). It is time to appoint him as a Moderator/Advisor of this Group. Don't you think so? .......... S: So, just try to relate any quotes/refs/qus back to Theravada teachings as you usually both do. Any other questions/comments about this or other Guidelines, off-list to the mods account pls. Thx. T: No problem at all since I normally do not touch those "hot" things anyway. Tep === #83377 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:39 pm Subject: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. truth_aerator Dear Tep and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Nina and Jon (KenH, Howard, Scott, Alex), - > > The Dhamma verification issue has not been fully discussed at DSG. > Members are happy with quoting books and commentaries, but shy away > from citing their real experience of the Abhidhamma at the true dhamma > level. I am going to explain what I mean by real experience of the > Abhidhamma below. > I would like to know if anyone has DIRECTLY experienced deep Abhidhammic principles. 1) Only one citta (such as seeing or hearing) happens at a time. a) Has somebody actually experienced this? If so, whom? b) Can one experience this directly? 2) I've read that something like 58 billion cittas arise in a lighting flash moment. a) Why not 59 or 57 billion? b) Has somebody actually experienced it? Is it something a person today can experience? 3) 89 cittas. Why 89 not more nor less (except for 121 division)? a) Has anyone here experienced it? b) Can it be experienced today? 4) All the mental factors (cetasikas) that arise with each citta. a) Has anyone here experienced it? b) Can it be experienced today? 5) Rupa lasting 17 mind moments. a) Has anyone here experienced it? b) Can it be experienced today? 6) Cognitive process and all its exact constituents. a) Has anyone here experienced it? b) Can it be experienced today? Just a few questions... Lots of Metta, Alex #83378 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:12 pm Subject: The Real (Re: [dsg] Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views ...) dhammanusara Hi Howard (KenH, Alex, James), - Thank you for responding to my last post. Let me reply to the issues in which our thoughts differ, but without trying to reconcile the differences. >Tep: I think the Buddha was talking about the middle way, the right view of the Path, or the right discernment, that avoids both extreme views of the eternalists and the annihilationists in this world. He denied neither existence nor non-existence. Howard: Sure he did. He said that neither would even occur to one who has right discernment. Right discernment reveals the unreality of both inherent existence and nihilistic nonexistence with regard to all dhammas. Phenomena exist only contingently, as things-in-relation and "dependent arisings." T: What you have said about right discernment I agree with. But about the "phenomena exist ...", I think it is your thought/interpretation of what the Buddha said. ....................... >Tep: He didn't even discuss existence or non-existence. Why did he not care about the two extreme views? Since they disappear anyway when right discernment arises, so why waste time making a big deal of them. Howard: He discussed them only to deny them. T: He only denied extreme views. ...................... >Tep: Again, the key Teaching is "they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately", and this is referring to the right discernment of an ariyan -- the right view that is free from clinging (attavadupadana) in the khandhas. The Buddha was not concerned with the usage of the word "real". Howard: I really don't know why you keep on talking about how ariyans see things as though that were something other than as they are. Seeing with right discernment is seeing things as they actually are. T: Other things that you keep talking about are not what the Buddha taught, and so they are not the real issue. That's why I keep talking about the ariyans' view with right discernment, since it is the real issue. .................... >Howard: >From SN 3.12, one translator, Andrew Olendzky, quotes the Buddha as teaching the following: "Forms and sounds and flavors and smells And touches and all mental states, Are wished for, cherished and pleasing, As long as it's said that 'They're real.'" >And I sure think think that makes my point about the danger in calling things "realities" or sometimes even just calling them "real." T: No, Howard. The danger is due to tanha and nandi-raga in the sensed objects. Again, it is clear from SN 3.12 above that the "All" becomes real to anyone who clings to the sensed objects with infatuations: reality viewing is a domain of worldings, it is conditioned by tanha & ditthi. The Teaching has nothing to do with existence/non-existence or the usage of the word reality. Howard: The sutta says they "are wished for, cherished and pleasing AS LONG AS IT'S SAID THAT "THEY'RE REAL." (Emphasis mine.) That quite obviously shows the effect of language. In any case, be my guest, Tep. Go ahead and use 'real' in every other sentence from now to Kingdom Come! ;-)) T: In my humble and not-aggravating opinion, "As long as it's said that 'They're real.' " does not obviously show the effect of language, but rather clearly shows the effects of wrong view which is conditioned by craving/clinging. Sincerely, Tep == #83379 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:58 pm Subject: Re: Suffering aggregates buddhatrue Hi Alex (and Ven. P), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Bhante, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "pannabahulo" > wrote: > > > > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > > > The more we look and the more we understand,the more defiled the > mind > > appears.It's not a pretty picture - at least this mind isn't.... > >>>> > > Develop Jhana James: EXCELLENT advice!! (but don't tell lay people about it.). James: He doesn't have to be specific, but he could encourage lay people to also develop jhana...or mundane concentration (access concentration). The worst thing > that would happen then is you being reborn in Rupa loka where you > would have the opportunity to see the next Buddha. > > Develop insight based on Jhana. Read Suttas. James: Again, excellent advice! As the Buddha taught, and the Vism. details, the process is: 1. Sila, 2. Samadhi, 3. Panna. Those who believe that it is possible to go right to step three make a big mistake (or that step three automatically contains steps one and two...as KS teaches...also make a mistake). The Venerable already has one down pat (being a monk is perfect sila). The next step is to develop samadhi....and not vipassana! samadhi...jhana. The mind must be made calm. Of course, to develop calm isn't easy. Many factors must be in place first. Since the Venerable is manic- depressive, he should focus on getting his body strong and balanced before he could attain samadhi. This mean proper nutrition, vitamin/mineral supplements, and possibly medication (as a last resort). > > Smile! You have the opportunity to practice. Most people either can't > practice or don't have panna to see the importance of Dhamma-Vinay. James: Excellent advice again! The Venerable is in a much better position than the rest of us to practice the Dhamma. He just needs to remember that there are no short-cuts and that Right View needed to begin the path is not the same Right View at the end of the path. > > Lots of Metta, > > Alex > Metta, James #83380 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:00 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... dhammanusara Dear KenH (Howard, ...), - Our discussion has been going on like it has no ending. > T: Well, the failure to reach a common conlusion on these issues > confirms the reason why the Buddha, our Greatest Teacher, never > talked about reality(ies) or existence in the Suttas. If you > disagree, then please show me a sutta or two that the Perfect One > defined/explained/discussed these two issues. And if you could, then I'd be very happy to reply to the following questions: .... .... KH: Hi Tep, Why should I have to prove that the Buddha did *not* teach the non- existence of dhammas? Shouldn't the onus be on anyone who maintained that he did? It would be like asking me to prove the Buddha didn't teach the art of flower arrangement. T: If you disagree with me that the Buddha, our Greatest Teacher, never talked about reality(ies) or existence in the Suttas, then it follows that you believe He taught realities/existence of dhammas in the Suttas. Only when you disagree, then my request is you prove your point. ................. >KH: The whole idea of no ultimate-existence is almost ludicrous. What sense could be made of the world if nothing was ultimately real? What world would there be to make sense of? No, the only sensible question is, "Which things did the Buddha say were ultimately real (the rest being mere pannatti)?" T: The issue of my concern is not about if ultimate existence is non- existent. Neither do I want to ask the so-called "only sensible question". So please go back to the above remark I made. .................. T: The only thing in your reply that gladdened me is the sutta quote from SN 22.94. BTW Do you know why it was not translated by Ven. Thanissaro Bhikkhu? "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." KH: But you must have seen that sutta many times since 2003, Tep, and you are still not convinced. :-) I think you will be convinced only when you finally agree that the whole purpose of the Buddha's teaching was that we should understand the presently arisen paramattha dhammas(ultimate realities). T: I admit that this sutta quote really shows that the Buddha did talk about the khandhas as being real. Then why have you and Howard kept on arguing about reality and existence of the dhammas, since who knows when? Tep === #83381 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:10 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... truth_aerator Dear Tep and Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > T: The only thing in your reply that gladdened me is the sutta quote > from SN 22.94. BTW Do you know why it was not translated by Ven. > Thanissaro Bhikkhu? >>>> Maybe he doesn't have the time to translate every single sutta? > > "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." >>>> Exists as impermanent, not self and REAL suffering. The thing is, the interpretation of the word "exists". Rainbows exists, unicorns too (as figment of imagination), so do dreams as a fact of (delusive) experience. People also exist (but not as ordinary people misinterpet)... The thing is not to award these hot coals with grand titles they simply don't deserve. "Seeing things as they are" may be more basic as we think, it is a mode of emptiness that doesn't add or subtract anything from EXPERIENCE due to seeing with wisdom that all speculations are dependently arisen, inconstant, fabricated, will, impermanent, shaky and REAL suffering. Lots of Metta, Alex #83382 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:22 pm Subject: Re: People are like Tornadoes .. Speculative Views on the Abhidhamm... dhammanusara Dear Alex (and KenH), - Thank you for the good comment you made : A: > > "Seeing things as they are" may be more basic as we think, it is a > mode of emptiness that doesn't add or subtract anything from > EXPERIENCE due to seeing with wisdom that all speculations are > dependently arisen, inconstant, fabricated, will, impermanent, > shaky and REAL suffering. > T: It also means 'full understanding" (pari~n~naa) of the first kind. Regards, Tep === #83383 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:48 pm Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. dhammanusara Hi Alex (and all), - Thank you for your questions that should lead to a useful and revealing discussion on how the dhamma theory and the descriptions of the ruupa, citta, and cetasika (that are much more detailed than what one can find in the Suttanata-pitaka) can be used to guide the various developments (bhavana) that were taught by the Buddha. My reply to your questions is given at the bottom. > Alex: > Dear Tep and all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" > wrote: > > > > Dear Nina and Jon (KenH, Howard, Scott, Alex), - > > > > The Dhamma verification issue has not been fully discussed at DSG. Members are happy with quoting books and commentaries, but shy away from citing their real experience of the Abhidhamma at the true dhamma level. I am going to explain what I mean by real experience of the Abhidhamma below. > > > Alex: > I would like to know if anyone has DIRECTLY experienced deep > Abhidhammic principles. > > 1) Only one citta (such as seeing or hearing) happens at a time. > > a) Has somebody actually experienced this? If so, whom? > b) Can one experience this directly? > > > 2) I've read that something like 58 billion cittas arise in a > lighting flash moment. > > a) Why not 59 or 57 billion? > b) Has somebody actually experienced it? Is it something a person > today can experience? > > > 3) 89 cittas. Why 89 not more nor less (except for 121 division)? > > a) Has anyone here experienced it? > b) Can it be experienced today? > > > > 4) All the mental factors (cetasikas) that arise with each citta. > > a) Has anyone here experienced it? > b) Can it be experienced today? > > > > 5) Rupa lasting 17 mind moments. > > a) Has anyone here experienced it? > b) Can it be experienced today? > > 6) Cognitive process and all its exact constituents. > > a) Has anyone here experienced it? > b) Can it be experienced today? > > Just a few questions... > > Lots of Metta, > > Alex ............... T: For me I can only experience some of the kaya, vedana, citta, and dhamma as described in DN 22, MN 10. I don't know how to directly know (Abhijaanaati or abhijaaneyya) every citta in the group of 89, or all the ruupas as described in the Dhammasangani, etc. If anyone in this group knows how, please kindly teach me. Regards, Tep === #83384 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:01 pm Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. scottduncan2 Dear Tep and Alex, Please consider: SN38(8) Volition (1) Cetanaasutta.m "At Saavatthi: 'Bhikkhus, what one intends (ceteti), and what one plans (pakappeti), and whatever one has a tendency towards (anuseti): this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness (aaramma.nameta.m hoti vi~n~naa.nassa .thitiyaa). When there is a basis there is a support for the establishing of consciousness (Aaramma.ne sati pati.t.thaa vi~n~naa.nassa hoti). When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. "If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards anything, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness...Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. "But, bhikkhus, when one does not intend, and one does not plan, and one does not have a tendency towards anything, no basis exists for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is no basis there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is unestablished and does not come to growth, there is no production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering." Scott: I'd be curious, as a way of furthering the laudable study of Abhidhamma, if either of you could offer an explanation for the meaning and description of 'basis for the maintenance of consciousness' and, 'when there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness'. Here are a few related questions, for your kind consideration. These are not meant at all to be rhetorical. I'd be interested in either an answer without recourse to Abhidhamma, for those not so inclined, or with recourse to Abhidhamma. I personally think, Tep, since you like to see where one might be coming from, that the questions cannot be answered in any correct or satisfactory or precise way without recourse to Abhidhamma. 1) What is 'basis'? 2) How is 'basis' a 'support for establishing consciousness'? 3) How are what one intends (ceteti), plans (pakapeti), or 'whatever one has tendency towards' (anuseti) seen as 'bases for the maintenance of consciousness'? 4) What do ceteti, pakapeti, and anuseti refer to? Thanks for your continued keen interest in and openness to an open-minded approach to this most important aspect of the Dhamma. Sincerely,] Scott. #83385 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:11 pm Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. truth_aerator Dear Scott, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Tep and Alex, > > Please consider: > > SN38(8) Volition (1) Cetanaasutta.m >>>> Please reconsider avoiding strait answer to my original questions. Please don't change the subject. Those questions that I've said were briefly about experiencing what Abh said. Your negative attitude may actually be an answer. You know, no answer IS an answer. Many cryptic phrases in Pali Canon can be interpreted in VARIOUS ways. Before we discuss your interesting and very deep questions (which may be aimed at someone of deep panna, Arahats with analytic knowledges) please reply to my original set of questions. Or maybe you did reply through evasion... Lots of Metta, Alex #83386 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:19 pm Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. dhammanusara Dear Scott (and Alex), - It would be fair if you may, first of all, kindly answer Alex's questions about the Abhidhamma before giving us questions on a sutta interpretation. I guess you would not know the answer to all the questions you are asking us (below) without getting a "solution key" from the sutta Commentaries. Is my suspicion correct? Further, how do you know if the Co. are correct or not? >Scott: > Here are a few related questions, for your kind consideration. These are not meant at all to be rhetorical. I'd be interested in either an answer without recourse to Abhidhamma, for those not so inclined, or with recourse to Abhidhamma. I personally think, Tep, since you like to see where one might be coming from, that the questions cannot be answered in any correct or satisfactory or precise way without recourse to Abhidhamma. > > 1) What is 'basis'? > 2) How is 'basis' a 'support for establishing consciousness'? > 3) How are what one intends (ceteti), plans (pakapeti), or 'whatever one has tendency towards' (anuseti) seen as 'bases for the maintenance of consciousness'? > 4) What do ceteti, pakapeti, and anuseti refer to? > > Thanks for your continued keen interest in and openness to an > open-minded approach to this most important aspect of the Dhamma. .................. T: Of course, given time to read and think, I will try to answer your four questions above -- even if you may not kindly consider the questions I have asked. ;-) Regards, Tep === #83387 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:43 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,243 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 243. In detail, however, sense-desire clinging is the firm state of the craving described above as of one-hundred-and-eight kinds with respect to visible data and so on. [False-] view clinging is the ten-based wrong view, according as it is said: 'Herein, what is [false-] view clinging? There is no giving, no offering, ... [no good and virtuous ascetics and brahmans who have themselves] realized by direct-knowledge and declare this world and the other world: such view as this ... such perverse assumption is called [false] view clinging' (Vbh. 375; Dhs. 1215). Rite-and-ritual clinging is the adherence [to the view that] purification comes through rites and rituals, according as it is said: Herein, what is rite-and-ritual clinging? ... That purification comes through a rite, that purification comes through a ritual, that purification comes through a rite and ritual: such view as this ... such perverse assumption is called rite-and-ritual clinging' (Dh. 1216). Self-doctrine clinging is the twenty-based [false] view of individuality, according as it is said: 'Herein, what is self-doctrine clinging? Here the untaught ordinary man ... untrained in good men's Dhamma, sees materiality as self ... such perverse assumption is called self-doctrine clinging' (Dhs. 1217). This is the 'brief and full account of states'. ************************** 243. vitthaarato pana pubbe ruupaadiisu vuttaa.t.thasatappabhedaayapi ta.nhaaya da.lhabhaavo kaamupaadaana.m. dasavatthukaa micchaadi.t.thi di.t.thupaadaana.m. yathaaha ``tattha katama.m di.t.thupaadaana.m? natthi dinna.m, natthi yi.t.tha.m...pe0... sacchikatvaa pavedentiiti yaa evaruupaa di.t.thi...pe0... vipariyesaggaaho. ida.m vuccati di.t.thupaadaana''nti (dha0 sa0 1221; vibha0 938). siilabbatehi suddhiiti paraamasana.m pana siilabbatupaadaana.m. yathaaha ``tattha katama.m siilabbatupaadaana.m? siilena suddhi, vatena suddhi, siilabbatena suddhiiti yaa evaruupaa di.t.thi...pe0... vipariyesaggaaho. ida.m vuccati siilabbatupaadaana''nti (dha0 sa0 1222; vibha0 938). viisativatthukaa sakkaayadi.t.thi attavaadupaadaana.m. yathaaha ``tattha katama.m attavaadupaadaana.m? idha assutavaa puthujjano...pe0... sappurisadhamme aviniito ruupa.m attato samanupassati...pe0... vipariyesaggaaho, ida.m vuccati attavaadupaadaana''nti (dha0 sa0 1223; vibha0 938). ayamettha dhammasa"nkhepavitthaaro. #83388 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:44 pm Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. scottduncan2 Dear Tep and Alex, Regarding: T: "It would be fair if you may, first of all, kindly answer Alex's questions about the Abhidhamma before giving us questions on a sutta interpretation. I guess you would not know the answer to all the questions you are asking us (below) without getting a "solution key" from the sutta Commentaries. Is my suspicion correct? Further, how do you know if the Co. are correct or not?" A: "Please reconsider avoiding strait answer to my original questions. Please don't change the subject. Those questions that I've said were briefly about experiencing what Abh said. Your negative attitude may actually be an answer. You know, no answer IS an answer. Many cryptic phrases in Pali Canon can be interpreted in VARIOUS ways. Before we discuss your interesting and very deep questions (which may be aimed at someone of deep panna, Arahats with analytic knowledges) please reply to my original set of questions. Or maybe you did reply through evasion..." Scott: Alex, you are not asking question with a view to getting an answer. You are, however, a consummate rhetorician. Let's look at these 'questions', shall we? A: "I would like to know if anyone has DIRECTLY experienced deep Abhidhammic principles. 1) Only one citta (such as seeing or hearing) happens at a time. a) Has somebody actually experienced this? If so, whom? b) Can one experience this directly? 2) I've read that something like 58 billion cittas arise in a lighting flash moment. a) Why not 59 or 57 billion? b) Has somebody actually experienced it? Is it something a person today can experience? 3) 89 cittas. Why 89 not more nor less (except for 121 division)? a) Has anyone here experienced it? b) Can it be experienced today? 4) All the mental factors (cetasikas) that arise with each citta. a) Has anyone here experienced it? b) Can it be experienced today? 5) Rupa lasting 17 mind moments. a) Has anyone here experienced it? b) Can it be experienced today? 6) Cognitive process and all its exact constituents. a) Has anyone here experienced it? b) Can it be experienced today?" Scott: You both know that not a one of these questions can be answered, in the same way that my questions can be addressed. There is a clear derision implicit in the whole line of questioning. There is absolutely no doubt that these are rhetorical questions meant to communicate another message all together. If this were mere skepticism it would be fine, but it is not. It is dismissal. Allow me to anticipate the underlying assertion, since it has been telegraphed clearly for the past two days in the series of 'questions' Alex has been posting: "Since none of these Abhidhamma assertions appear to me to be open to direct experience, I reject the Abhidhamma method of exegesis outright." The questions I pose are capable of answer, either way, Abhidhamma or opinion, Commentarial clarification or any other opinion new or old. They, at least, will allow for a study of Dhamma. Alex's 'questions' appear to simply restate his constant and well-known themes. I would hope that further Abhidhamma study devoid of rhetoric and with true open minds might ensue. Sincerely, Scott. #83389 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 1:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 2/28/2008 6:39:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Tep and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep Sastri" wrote: > > Dear Nina and Jon (KenH, Howard, Scott, Alex), - > > The Dhamma verification issue has not been fully discussed at DSG. > Members are happy with quoting books and commentaries, but shy away > from citing their real experience of the Abhidhamma at the true dhamma > level. I am going to explain what I mean by real experience of the > Abhidhamma below. > I would like to know if anyone has DIRECTLY experienced deep Abhidhammic principles. 1) Only one citta (such as seeing or hearing) happens at a time. a) Has somebody actually experienced this? If so, whom? b) Can one experience this directly? ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: It often seems that there are multiple, simultaneous sense-door objects: sound & sight & touch etc all at the same time. At other times there seems to be just one object, say a sound. I really believe that the simultaneous experiencing is a smearing-together illusion. But how would we *know* which is the case? If our attention were microscopically precise, what would be the difference. We'd still either experience a multiple-sense-door or a single-sense-door experience, but in what way would the experiencing seem any different from that at present? How would we know that we knew? ;-) But what I find a much more interesting question is "In terms of suffering and its end, why would it matter whether there is one object at a time or more?" - that is, "What does it matter as regards the ultimate goal of the Dhammic life?" And that same question arises in my mind with regard to all the other issues that you point to in the rest of this post. The tilakkhana - they matter! The four noble truths - they matter! Dependent origination and conditonality - they matter! But the rest seem like ... well, they seem like some of the most unimportant simsapa leaves on the trees. ------------------------------------------------------------- 2) I've read that something like 58 billion cittas arise in a lighting flash moment. a) Why not 59 or 57 billion? b) Has somebody actually experienced it? Is it something a person today can experience? -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: And if we knew the count? ---------------------------------------------------- 3) 89 cittas. Why 89 not more nor less (except for 121 division)? a) Has anyone here experienced it? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Who knows? But again, why should one care? ------------------------------------------------ b) Can it be experienced today? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Same response. ------------------------------------------------- 4) All the mental factors (cetasikas) that arise with each citta. a) Has anyone here experienced it? b) Can it be experienced today? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Are we talking cetasika count? I don't consider the Dhamma to be a "numbers game!" In any case, can we experience the object being felt as pleasant, being recognized, and being concentrated on at the very same time as we're noting the feeling, noting the recognition, and noting the concentration? I doubt it. But we *are* aware of feeling, and we are aware of recognizing, and we are aware of being concentrated - after the fact, presumably. So, here, somewhat I can answer "yes". But most importantly, we can and do note craving and aversion and clinging and their opposites and all the factors are relevant to our enslavement and our release. And it is *these* and the knowing of them that is important! ---------------------------------------------------- 5) Rupa lasting 17 mind moments. a) Has anyone here experienced it? b) Can it be experienced today? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Why should I care. This precise numeric ratio of 17 to 1, cittas over rupas, is an irrelevancy in its specificity. In the suttas, making the point not to grasp onto mind as self, the Buddha pointed out that thoughts change far more quickly than 5-sense-door objects. Now *that* is useful to know, for why attempt to cling to a speeding train? ----------------------------------------------- 6) Cognitive process and all its exact constituents. a) Has anyone here experienced it? b) Can it be experienced today? ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know. What is your point exactly, Alex, in this a) and b) question given repeatedly for each of these topics? Is your unstated opinion "no" and "no", or do you have no opinion? Do you suppose anyone here *does* have an answer "yes" and "yes"? It's not clear to me what you are pursuing with this. Why not state outright what that is? My attitude on this material, as I have indicated above, is that most of these particular matters have little relevance to the core point of the Dhamma, and that makes them rather "abhi" in the sense of "superfluous". It is these aspects of Abhidhamma that hold little interest for me. The parts of Abhidhamma that *do* hold interest for me are those that present basic Dhamma but with a slightly different perspective (for example, conditionality as discussed in terms of condiitonal relations), for the novel perspective provides additional insight. ------------------------------------------------- Just a few questions... Lots of Metta, Alex ========================== With metta, Howard #83390 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:04 pm Subject: What is Detrimental? bhikkhu0 Friends What actually are the Disadvantageous Mental States? Cut Short: Mental states mixed or joined with any form of even diluted hate are Disadvantageous! Mental states mixed or joined with any form of even diluted greed are Disadvantageous! Mental states mixed or joined with any form of even diluted ignorance are Disadvantageous! In Detail: At whatever occasion any disadvantageous thought pertaining to the sense sphere, accompanied by gladness & associated with knowledge, pointed to any sense object, such as a visible form, a sound, a smell, a taste, a touch, or a mental object, then right at that time arises momentarily: Contact, feeling, perception, intention, idea, directed thought, sustained thinking, joy, happiness, one-pointedness of the mind, the ability of faith, energy, awareness, concentration, understanding, the ability of mind & gladness, the ability of vitality, wrong view, wrong motivation, wrong effort, wrong awareness, and wrong concentration. There arise the powers of conviction, enthusiasm, acute awareness, focused concentration, understanding. There arise the evil powers of no-shame, of no-fear of the consequences of wrong-doing! There arise greed, hatred, confusion, & possessiveness. There arises then wrong view, but neither shame, conscience nor any fear of wrongdoing... Calm, insight and non-distraction is present. These & whatever formless immaterial mental states these later causally produce: These are the Disadvantageous mental states... Source: The Classification of States. DhammasanganÄ«. The 1st of the 7 Abhidhamma Books. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130622 http://www.amazon.com/dhammasangani-Enumeration-realities-Bibliotheca-Indo-Budhi\ ca/dp/8170306108/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8 &s=books&qid=1204111405&sr=8-1 <...> What is Detrimental? Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #83391 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. lbidd2 Hi Alex, I have experienced most but not all of the elements of abhidhamma. I think if you looked carefully you would see that you have also. If it is too complicated, just think of it as 5 khandhas. Some people want to know everything in great detail. Others are satisfied with simple explanations. Larry #83392 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:59 pm Subject: Re: Karunadasa's "Dhamma Theory" Introduction to Abhidhamma kenhowardau Hi Howard (PS to Larry), ----------- <. . . > H: > It's not you at all, but the perpetual "sparing" and rehashing of the same stuff. ----------- You have my sympathies. :-) Occasionally I feel the same way, especially when my rehashing isn't appreciated. But most of the time I can't get enough of it. I am a bit like the Ancient Mariner who was condemned to telling his story over and over again. Or maybe I'm more like someone who sat for an exam in which the paper read: '"There is only the present moment." Discuss. Time allowed: the rest of your life!' :-) -------------------------------------------------------- <. . .> Howard: > That's fine, and certainly is your right. Sometimes I may just not reply - though most likely, despite my better judgement, I'll get "pulled in," and we'll get into round 1,000,000 or so of our lightweight championship boxing competition in the WDDA (World Dhamma Disputation Association). --------------------------------------------------------- I should be the last one to talk about people not replying. I really admire the way you and some others here are able to keep up with so many threads. I get left behind, and most of my posts have lost their relevance before I can finish writing them. So, just be glad I am not better organised! :-) Ken H PS: Larry, sorry for being so late with the next Vism. instalment. Just wait till I get myself organised! K #83393 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:42 pm Subject: Abhidhamma vs. Yogacara Views of Consciousness buddhatrue Hi All, I have been doing some reading into Yogacara and I came across this description (and I was wondering if anyone had any input/ideas): As Abhidharma grew more complex, disputes intensified between different Buddhist schools along a range of issues. For Yogācāra the most important problems revolved around questions of causality and consciousness. In order to avoid the idea of a permanent self, Buddhists said citta is momentary. Since a new citta apperceives a new cognitive field each moment, the apparent continuity of mental states was explained causally by claiming each citta, in the moment it ceased, also acted as cause for the arising of its successor. This was fine for continuous perceptions and thought processes, but difficulties arose since Buddhists identified a number of situations in which no citta at all was present or operative, such as deep sleep, unconsciousness, and certain meditative conditions explicitly defined as devoid of citta (āsaṃjñī-samāpatti, nirodha-samāpatti). If a preceding citta had to be temporally contiguous with its successor, how could one explain the sudden restarting of citta after a period of time had lapsed since the prior citta ceased? Where had citta or its causes been residing in the interim? Analogous questions were: from where does consciousness reemerge after deep sleep? How does consciousness begin in a new life? The various Buddhist attempts to answer these questions led to more difficulties and disputes. Yogācārins responded by rearranging the tripartite structure of the mental level of the eighteen dhātus into three novel types of consciousnesses. Mano-vijñāna (empirical consciousness) became the sixth consciousness (and operated as the sixth sense organ, which previously had been the role of manas), surveying the cognitive content of the five senses as well as mental objects (thoughts, ideas). Manas became the seventh consciousness, redefined as primarily obsessed with various aspects and notions of "self," and thus called "defiled manas" (kliṣṭa-manas). The eighth consciousness, ālaya-vijñāna, "warehouse consciousness," was totally novel. The Warehouse Consciousness was defined in several ways. It is the receptacle of all seeds, storing experiences as they "enter" until they are sent back out as new experiences, like a warehouse handles goods. It was also called vipāka consciousness: vipāka means the "maturing" of karmic seeds. Seeds gradually matured in the repository consciousness until karmically ripe, at which point they reassert themselves as karmic consequences. Ālaya-vijñāna was also called the "basic consciousness" (mūla-vijñāna) since it retains and deploys the karmic seeds that both influence and are influenced by the other seven consciousnesses. When, for instance, the sixth consciousness is dormant (while one sleeps, or is unconscious, etc.), its seeds reside in the eighth consciousness, and they "restart" when the conditions for their arising are present. The eighth consciousness is largely a mechanism for storing and deploying seeds of which it remains largely unaware. Cittas occur as a stream in ālaya-vijñāna, but they mostly cognize the activities of the other consciousnesses, not their own seeds. For Yogācāra 'ignorance' (avidya) in part means remaining ignorant of what is transpiring within one's own ālaya-vijñāna. In states devoid of citta, the flow of cittas are repressed, held back, but their seeds continue to regenerate without being noticed, until they reassert a new stream of cittas. Warehouse Consciousness acts as the pivotal karmic mechanism, but is itself karmically neutral. Each individual has its own Warehouse Consciousness which perdures from moment to moment and life to life, though, being nothing more than a collection of ever-changing "seeds," it is continually changing and therefore not a permanent self. There is no Universal collective mind in Yogācāra. http://www.acmuller.net/yogacara/articles/intro-uni.htm James: What I find interesting is the "problem" presented by the Abhidhamma in that there are times that cittas are not present and how the Yogacara view of eight different consciousnesses accounts for this. But I also find the idea of a "storehouse consciousness" problematic in that it isn't momentary (anicca) but is forever changing (anicca as well...or is it??). Thoughts anyone? BTW, my laptop is broken and I am looking for a competent repair person. I won't be back on the Internet until after the weekend. Metta, James #83394 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:12 am Subject: 2 kinds of Jhana (and self-hypnotism!) sarahprocter... Dear Azita, Pinna, Jon & all, At the Foundation, in the context of a discussion on the two kinds of jhana, you'll remember that I read out a passage from the Atthasalini, 'Fourfold Jhana', PTS transl. First of all, I read out a short paragraph on the phrase 'born of solitude' in the context of mundane jhana: "In the term 'born of solitude' the meaning is separation, solitude, freedom from the Hindrances. Or it means 'solitary,' 'separated.' The group of states associated with jhaana and separated from the Hindrances is the meaning. And 'born of solitude' is born from that solitude, or in that solitude." The Pali for this paragraph is: "Vivekajan ti. Ettha vivitti viveko niivara.navigamo ti attho. Vivitto ti vaa viveko, niivara.navivitto jhaanasampayuttadhammaraasii ti attho. Tasmaa vivekaa tasmi.m vaa viveke jaatan ti vivekaja.m." ***** Now here's the paragraph on the two kinds of jhana with the Pali below. (Quoted by Scott before): "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 its examining the object and extinguishing the opposing Hindrances, jhaana is to be thus understood." Pali: "Duvidha.m jhaana.m aaramma.nupanijjhaana~n ca lakkha.nupanijjhaana~n ca. Tattha a.t.thasamaapatti-pa.thaviikasi.naadiaaramma.nam upanijjhaayatii ti aaramman.nupanijjhaanan ti sa"nkha"gataa vipassanaa. Maggaphalaani pana lakkha.nupanijjhaana.m naama. Tattha vipassanaa aniccadilakkha.nassa upanijjhaayanato lakkha.nupanijjhaana.m , vipassanaaya katakiccassa magge ijjhanato maggo lakkha.nupanijjhaana.m phala.m pana nirodha-sacca.m. Tattha lakkha.nam upanijjhaayatii ti lakkha.nupanijjhaana.m. Tesu imasmi.m atthe aaramma.nupanijjhaanam adhippeta.m. Kasmaa? Aaramma.nupanijjhaanato pacaniikajjhaapanato vaa jhaanan ti veditabba.m" S: As for the note "[for self-hypnotism]" for mundane jhana which you picked up during our discussion, this was added by the translator. He refers the reader in a foot-note to a note of Mrs R-D's in her translation of the Dhsg in which she refers to pathavi kasina (earth kasina) as the first "quasi-hypnotic device"....No need to say more! ***** Metta, Sarah ========= #83395 From: "Tep Sastri" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:04 am Subject: Re: Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. ... A Pali Lesson? .. dhammanusara Dear Scott (Alex, and anyone), - At ATI the same sutta is SN 12.38 : Cetana Sutta Intention (Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu). SN38(8) Volition (1) Cetanaasutta.m "At Saavatthi: 'Bhikkhus, what one intends (ceteti), and what one plans (pakappeti), and whatever one has a tendency towards (anuseti): this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness (aaramma.nameta.m hoti vi~n~naa.nassa .thitiyaa). When there is a basis there is a support for the establishing of consciousness (Aaramma.ne sati pati.t.thaa vi~n~naa.nassa hoti). When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of future renewed existence. When there is the production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair come to be. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. "If, bhikkhus, one does not intend, and one does not plan, but one still has a tendency towards anything, this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is a basis, there is a support for the establishing of consciousness...Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering. "But, bhikkhus, when one does not intend, and one does not plan, and one does not have a tendency towards anything, no basis exists for the maintenance of consciousness. When there is no basis there is no support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is unestablished and does not come to growth, there is no production of future renewed existence, future birth, aging-and-death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, displeasure, and despair cease. Such is the cessation of this whole mass of suffering." ............... > Scott's Question: 1) What is 'basis'? 2) How is 'basis' a 'support for establishing consciousness'? 3) How are what one intends (ceteti), plans (pakapeti), or 'whatever one has tendency towards' (anuseti) seen as 'bases for the maintenance of consciousness'? 4) What do ceteti, pakapeti, and anuseti refer to? T: This sutta is about volitional formations that supports (as paccaya for) the establishing/stationing of cittas. It is explained by the Dependent Origination as you know it : when patisandhi citta comes to be, the consequence is thus a renewed becoming(bhava) and the whole mass of dukkha. In order to cut off the "basis" that supports the establishing of consciousness, one must stop the volitional formations (i.e. intending, planning, or having a tendency toward anything). Answers: 1. The basis here is 'aarammana' which means "support, help, footing, expedient, anything to be depended upon as a means of achieving what is desired, i. e. basis foundation" [PTS Dictionary]. 2. This 'support for establishing consciousness' is volitional formations that produce kamma and dukkha according to Paticcasamuppada. 3. The Dependent Origination explains volitional formations that consist of cetesi, pakappeti, and anuseti. 4. Their meanings are as follows: ceteti = intend, to think, to reflect, to be of opinion pakappeti = to arrange, fix, settle, prepare, determine, plan anuseti = to obsess, to fill the mind persistently. .................. Scott: I personally think, Tep, since you like to see where one might be coming from, that the questions cannot be answered in any correct or satisfactory or precise way without recourse to Abhidhamma. T: Thank you for responding to my request. But why do you think 'the questions cannot be answered in any correct or satisfactory or precise way without recourse to Abhidhamma' ? Tep === #83396 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:23 am Subject: What is Neutral? bhikkhu0 Friends What are the Neutral States? Cut Short: Mental states, which neither are Advantageous, nor Disadvantageous are Neutral! In Detail: Which states are neither Advantageous nor Disadvantageous? 1: States that are RESULTING EFFECTS of others states are themselves neutral: There are states, which are the resulting effects of prior advantageous & disadvantageous states of the sensuous sphere, the fine material sphere, the formless sphere, or of the Supramundane... These states are either a feeling, a perception, a mental construction, or a moment of consciousness. These effects are neither advantageous nor disadvantageous, but inherently neutral. 2: UNINTENTIONAL ACTIONS (kiriya kamma) are neutral states: There are mental states, which neither are advantageous, nor disadvantageous, nor resultants. These are unintentional inert actions, which does not cause any effects or kamma accumulation. These states are neither advantageous nor disadvantageous, nor causes, nor effects, but neutral. Example: Stepping on & killing an ant, not having seen it, nor wished to harm, is a neutral action. 3: All forms of MATTER, MATERIALITY, and FORM are neutral states: Mountains, trees, food, water, air, knives, weapons, & even atomic bombs are all neutral states. It is the intention behind utilizing these dead passive things, which can be either good or bad... 4: NibbÄ?na are undecided, indeterminate, and undeterminable: The Unconditioned Element of NibbÄ?na is a neutral state, - causing nothing -, & as such neither advantageous, nor disadvantageous, nor a resulting effect of anything else... These are the neutral states, which are neither advantageous nor disadvantageous. Source: The Classification of States. DhammasanganÄ«. The 1st of the 7 Abhidhamma Books. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=130622 http://www.amazon.com/dhammasangani-Enumeration-realities-Bibliotheca-Indo-Budhi\ ca/dp/8170306108/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8 &s=books&qid=1204111405&sr=8-1 What is Neutral? Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #83397 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Alone with Dhamma, Ch 4, no 2. .. Transformation into Sotapanna?.. nilovg Hi Tep, Op 28-feb-2008, om 23:19 heeft Tep Sastri het volgende geschreven: > T: When I talk about "verification" of the ultimate reality like > kusala > citta, I think of it as the verification at the level where the truth > is "seen" with the Eye of Wisdom or yathabhutam pajanaati. ------ N: I am not thinking of higher levels of verification. There are also lower levels, and also these are helpful, they are a beginning. It is not so that suddenly we reach the eye of wisdom, there is a very gradual development. We should not despise the beginning level. -------- > T: The helping > of someone is common to all good religious people not just only to > good > Buddhists. Besides; at that low-level of "reality" there is no need > for "verification" with the Eye of Wisdom. ------ N: That shows that kusala is kusala, no matter for whom, also for those of other religions. So, at a low level, people can learn: this is kusala, this is beneficial and it leads to good results. and for akusala the opposite. Very basic, but true, and useful for everybody. -------- > > T: The application of the Abhidhamma should be at the pure dhamma > level > that is empty from self-views or things pertaining to self-views and > the I-sense. ------- N: I like to consider the different moments. At the moment of kusala citta there cannot be at the same time wrong view. But, wrong view is accumulated as a latent tendency and only at the stage of the sotaapanna it can be eradicated. I do not see the Application of the Abhidhamma, or, we can say, the Dhamma, at the pure dhamma level empty from self-views. -------- > > T: The thought about self or "what belongs to (pertaining to) self" > are > pinned down as a reality in every non-ariyan. And that is the > dhamma of > a "fool". Until we experience the true dhamma at the Abhidhamma level, > I believe it is not possible for us to truly understand the real taste > of the Abhidhamma. ------- N: See above. Kusala is possible, learning about the different cittas is possible. We can see: yes, this happens in daily life, even though knowledge is not yet very precise. Learning is possible. Otherwise wrong view could never be eradicated. Nina. #83398 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Real Experience of Abhidhamma Questions. nilovg Hi Howard, Op 29-feb-2008, om 3:57 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > But what I find a much more interesting question is "In terms of > suffering and its end, why would it matter whether there is one > object at a time or > more?" - that is, "What does it matter as regards the ultimate goal > of the > Dhammic life?" And that same question arises in my mind with regard > to all the > other issues that you point to in the rest of this post. The > tilakkhana - > they matter! The four noble truths - they matter! Dependent > origination and > conditonality - they matter! But the rest seem like ... well, they > seem like some > of the most unimportant simsapa leaves on the trees. ------- N: It is good you consider what really matters. But just one point here I like to touch on: "why would it matter whether there is one object at a time or more?" - I think it does matter. It leads to detachment from taking realities for self, for person. Take seeing and defining what one sees. Should visible object not be known as just that which appears through eyesense? Otherwise we believe that a person can really be seen. And also, visible object is rupa, different from nama. The stages of insight could not arise if the difference is not known. Nina. #83399 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Suffering aggregates sukinderpal Dear Venerable Pannabahulo, Reading your post I thought about what the reaction of 'meditators' on DSG would be. I've only quickly looked through the several responses. But from what I got out of that, predictably the suggestions offered by that particular camp was basically to the effect of encouragement for "what can and should be done". On the other hand, also as expected, the other side, namely Nina and Mike, drew your attention to the importance of understanding the present moment. As you say, “we have no choice but to carry on. There isn't really any other alternative." This would probably sound hopeless to those who believe in "doings". However, as I think must be where you are coming from, when there is some understanding into the nature of present moment realities, such a conclusion is more or less inevitable, isn't it? If indeed this moment is conditioned and fallen away before we know it, what can be done!!? Understanding it to be as so, helps to reduce little by little the worldling’s tendency to control experiences with all the wrong efforts associated. After all uncontrollability / anatta *is* their nature and no matter how we struggle against this, behind it all are just these same paramattha dhammas each performing their individual functions and nothing more. From this perspective doesn't it appear somewhat silly then this idea about "doing something" / meditation upon which one then builds "hope"? And given the fact of there being just the present moment realities, do not all these stories about the need for Jhana etc. sound merely like justifications to do something else when there is no understanding now? And would this not also then serve as something to hide behind for the very ignorance and wrong view? There is ignorance of the present moment, but the thoughts that are conditioned to arise as a result are taken seriously, how hollow it then sounds all these statements about this or that practice being what the Buddha taught us to deliberately take up!? “Self View” seems to be behind it all. The fears and hopes projected into the future is due to Self View which has made a wrong interpretation of experiences, why then would there be ideas about “doings” if there was in fact any understanding about the present moment being conditioned? If this moment is conditioned, then all moments past and future likewise are, is this not Right Understanding on the other hand? Attachment to self and hence what it can get out of experiences, this conditions an interpretation of the Dhamma accordingly. It makes the Dhamma little different from other religions, those which promise gains and goals at the end of having followed certain prescribed activities. All those activities are done with full force of “Self” and clearly they amount to nothing more than rites and rituals, wouldn’t they? Anyway, as you would have understood from our last telephone conversation, what is being suggested is not to *stop* meditation. The goal being the understanding of present moment realities regardless of activity, one should be encouraged to face the fact of all and any moment as being conditioned and this includes any akusala tendencies. However, what must precede this is a correct intellectual understanding of what the Buddha taught otherwise those same tendencies would lead the way. Shouldn’t the correct interpretation and any walking along the Path, gradually lead one to having greater confidence of there being at any given moment, only ultimate realities performing their specific functions? On the other hand, if one continues to think in terms of ‘self’ acting in conventional situations with no regard to conditioned dhammas, does this not in fact reflect failure of any progress being made? (You talked about your own past practices). So in the end, the objection to any “doings” is in fact an objection to the “wrong view” which has conditioned those ideas. Venerable Sir, I am glad that your reasons for questioning the particular approach has somewhat lessened. And welcome back to DSG. :-) With respect, Sukin pannabahulo wrote: > > Dear Dhamma Friends, > > The more we look and the more we understand,the more defiled the mind > appears.It's not a pretty picture - at least this mind isn't.It seems > that to come out of suffering one needs to see this endless stream of > dirt as though through a magnifying glass. > A couple of weeks ago a monk friend said to me,"At least you know > you're sick; most people don't even realise they are." But knowing > one is sick is no cure. >