#84400 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? nilovg Hi James, I kept your post to think it over. Op 26-mrt-2008, om 2:28 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > It seems as if the Abhidhamma is > proposing a type of philosophical idealism which states that the world > doesn't exist, people don't exist, nothing exists- except, again, that > vague and undefined "nama and rupa"! What is that? What does that > mean? --------- N: While asking: 'what does this mean, what is that?', is there not something, some reality? We can call it mind, but it is there just for a moment. It may be a moment of doubt and this is also real, it can be experienced. The next moment you may have aversion about the Abhidhamma, and this is also real. The mind is variegated, there are many different moments. You may prefer positive moments, moments that are beneficial, but these do not arise because you want them to arise. Are there not many moments in life you do not ask for, but they still arise? If you agree, that is the beginning of understanding the truth of non-self. All I wrote above is defined in detail in the Abhidhamma. Now about the apple, the world, beings, do these exist? They exist merely in our thinking, and thinking only lasts for a moment. This thinking is the result of many moments of seeing, defining what one sees, remembrance of former experiences. However, thinking can be wholesome, beneficial thinking, and negative, unwholesome thinking. Thinking motivates our actions in society, our behaviour towards others. Wholesome thinking, with metta, wholesome actions and behaviour is to be encouraged, and the Buddha did all the time. I am not sure this answers your question. You may not be satisfied. Nina. #84401 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? nilovg Dear Ken H, Looking forward to discussions with you. We can talk about what can be directly experienced and what not. Nina. Op 26-mrt-2008, om 23:50 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > Even so, I > intend to grill him about these so-called "streams" when I see him > next week. :-) #84402 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:02 am Subject: Metta, Ch 1, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, (This is Acharn Sujin's book on Metta translated by me). Jealousy is another defilement which is an impediment to mettå. When we are jealous of someone we certainly do not treat him as a friend. If we really want to develop mettå in our daily life, we should be aware of its characteristic of sympathy and tenderness and we should realize that mettå cannot go together with jealousy. The Atthasåliní (Book II, Part II, Chapter 2, 373) states about envy: In the exposition of envy, “envy at the gains, honour, reverence, affection, salutation, worship accruing to others” is that envy which has the characteristic of not enduring, or of grumbling at the prosperity of others, saying concerning others’ gains, etc., “What is the use to these people of all this?” The person who has attained the first stage of enlightenment, the sotåpanna, has completely eradicated jealousy because he sees the characteristics of realities as they are: mental phenomena (nåma dhammas) and physical phenomena (rúpa dhammas), arising because of their appropriate conditions. He realizes that there isn’t anybody who can create gains for himself, or who can cause others to honour him, to greet him or to pay respect to him. In fact, obtaining gains and receiving honour and respect from others depends on conditions. Therefore, there should not be jealousy. When there is jealousy there is no mettå. All dhammas, realities, are anattå (non-self), kusala dhammas as well as akusala dhammas; they arise because of their appropriate conditions. So long as one is not yet an “ariyan”, a person who has attained enlightenment, there are conditions for jealousy. One is not only jealous of those who are not one’s relatives or friends but even of those who are near and dear to oneself. Stinginess is another defilement which is an impediment to mettå. The Atthasåliní (in the same section, 373) states that there is stinginess as to five things: dwelling (the place where one stays) family (for a monk this can be the family of servitors to a monastery or relatives) gain (for a monk: the acquirement of the four requisites) beauty and praise (one does not want others to be praised because of beauty or merits) dhamma (one does not want to share knowledge of dhamma) We read further on (375, 376): “Stinginess” is the expression of meanness. “Avariciousness” is the act or mode of being mean. The citta which is mean is the state of one endowed with stinginess. “Let it be for me only and not for another!”— thus wishing not to diffuse all one’s own acquisitions... The state of such a person is “avarice”, a synonym for soft meanness. An ignoble person is churlish. His state is “ignobleness”, a name for hard stinginess. Verily, a person endowed with it hinders another from giving to others. And this also has been said (Kindred Sayings, I, 120): Malicious, miserly, ignoble, wrong... Such men hinder the feeding of the poor..." ******* Nina. #84403 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? nilovg Dear Ken H, Op 27-mrt-2008, om 7:12 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > that sentient beings (as distinct from paramattha > dhammas) are described in the Abhidhamma I am not phased by the > possibility he may be right. I don't know what part of the > texts he could be referring to, but there will be an explanation. > There might, for example, be places where where descriptions of > sentient beings are given as metaphors. (?) -------- N: In the Vibhanga there are passages about different individuals, and why not. So long as it is understood, and always implied that a being is citta, cetasika and rupa. Also in the Abhidhamma two methods are mentioned: Suttanta method and Abhidhamma method. Nina. #84404 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (115) nilovg Dear Connie, thank you for the quote on prompted. Inner resistance: different moments. What will be the conquerer, kusala or akusala? Nina. Op 27-mrt-2008, om 2:23 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > despite inner resistance! "no doubt". #84405 From: Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:15 am Subject: Tep's question on panna jonoabb Hi Tep Many thanks for the off-list message. I hope you don't mind if I share it with all friends on the list. > Jon: "I think your point is that the terms "panna", "pannindriya" and > "dukkha-naana" as defined in the Dhammasangani and the Patism are > referring exclusively to the understanding of the ariyan (of any of the > 4 stages of enlightenment). Have I understood correctly? If so, I'd like to > go on and look at those definitions. But grateful for your confirmation > first that I have understood the issue. > > Jon: By the way, what (if any) do you see as being the practical implications > of this point? Looking forward to continuing our discussion. Tep: Yes, you understand it correctly; I believe your understanding is far greater than Scott's. ;-) Jon: A matter of mere comprehension, rather than any degree of understanding, I think ;-)) Tep: As I have observed, these Abhidhamma terms "panna", "pannindriya", "samma-ditthi" and "dukkha-naana" are interconnected and overlapping with all the other dhammas that are connecting with understanding/wisdom, such as "sampajanna", "panna sambojjhanga", and "dhamma-vicaya sambojjhanga" . For instance, the term "samma-ditthi" appears in all of these definitions ! Jon: Yes, they are overlapping *terms*; but I would not say they are overlapping *dhammas* (in fact, I don't think there could be such a thing as overlapping dhammas). Tep: The greatest implication is, as I repeatedly told Scott, : panna in the Abhidhamma books is the understanding faculty, a magga factor and a factor for Awakening in the ariya puggalas, it is not in the worldlings. The proof is in the pudding ! If you carefully study the Dhammasangani and Vibhanga (Abhidhamma book 2) like I have done, you will likely come to the same understanding. Jon: I would agree to this extent: I have seen it said that the Abhidhamma treats the Noble Eightfold Path as supramundane exclusively (that is, as the actual path-moments), while in the suttas it is treated as being either mundane or supramundane (that is, as including mundane path-moments (insight) also). Thus for example in the Abhidhamma samma-ditthi of the NEP is the samma-dithi of the 4 stages of enlightened beings only, and likewise samma-vayama, samma-samadhi and the other path factors. But I'm not aware that the Abhidhamma treats panna (the mental factor) as a mental factor of the enlightened being only. What is the basis for your view on this? Tep: Another implication : no-one can clearly understand the Suttanta-pitaka without comparing the meanings of the dhammas to the definitions in the Abhidhamma, and vice versa. Jon: I agree with you here! Tep: Thank you again, Jon, for your sincere curiosity. Jon: You're welcome, Tep. Sorry for being a bit slow on the uptake with this one. Jon #84406 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 3/27/2008 1:56:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, --------- <. . .> Howard: > No you, no Jon, no grilling, no him to be seen, and no next week. --------- I agree, ultimately those things are mere stories. But, unlike you, I don't see any problem with that. Thinking is an ultimate reality, and so there will be stories about (for example) going to Thailand. But that's as far as it goes. There is no actual Thailand, nor any actual going-to-Thailand, nor a goer- to-Thailand. As I say, I don't see any problem with that. To me, the Abhidhamma explanation is perfectly satisfactory. There are no inexplicable loose ends. Ken H =============================== No China and Tibet either - so, no problem. With metta, Howard #84407 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and James) - In a message dated 3/27/2008 2:34:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi James, Thanks for the question: -------- J: > Why is it more appropriate to say that mental phenomena is the object of the intellect instead of ideas? -------- In the Sabba Sutta the Buddha was categorising the things that could exist in the loka (the ultimately real world). ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: No "world" is a paramattha dhamma, so, according to you, there must be no world and certainly no ultimately real world so as you speak of. There must be no human realm or animal realm or heaven realms, no Tavatimsa Heaven, and, of course, no Dhamma, no Buddha, no Sangha. By ignoring aggregates (collections of similar paramattha dhammas), one ignores commonality of feature, and by ignoring those aggregates that are integrated, patterned collections of interrelated dhammas, one ignores the reality of relations and fails to understand the way things are because of wearing blinders. Speaking in everyday terms, a biologist who understands cells but not tissues and organs does not properly understand cells. ------------------------------------------------------- Therefore, he made no mention in that sutta of ideas (concepts). Elsewhere in the Dhamma it is explained that [mind-door] citta can know concepts. But that doesn't mean concepts are real. It just means mind- door citta can experience illusory things. Ken H ============================== With metta, Howard #84408 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Ken) - In a message dated 3/27/2008 5:13:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Dear Ken H, Op 27-mrt-2008, om 7:12 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > that sentient beings (as distinct from paramattha > dhammas) are described in the Abhidhamma I am not phased by the > possibility he may be right. I don't know what part of the > texts he could be referring to, but there will be an explanation. > There might, for example, be places where where descriptions of > sentient beings are given as metaphors. (?) -------- N: In the Vibhanga there are passages about different individuals, and why not. So long as it is understood, and always implied that a being is citta, cetasika and rupa. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I agree. These "individuals" are nothing more than aggregations of namas and rupas of a certain sort. Individuals are not imagined, but they are typically wrongly conceived of, as the name 'individual' itself suggests. An in-divid-ual is, in fact, quite divisible(!), being nothing more than an ever-changing stream of interdependent phenomena - a dynamic aggregation. ------------------------------------------------------ Also in the Abhidhamma two methods are mentioned: Suttanta method and Abhidhamma method. Nina. ========================== With metta, Howard #84409 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are scottduncan2 Dear James and Ken, Regarding: James: "Thanks for the answer but it isn't complete. You cut off the first question: What is "intellect" in the Sabba Sutta?" SN 23(1) The All "At Saavatthi. 'Bhikkhus, I will teach you the all. Listen to that... "And what, bhikkhus, is the all? The eye and forms, the ear and sounds, the nose and odours, the tongue and tastes, the body and tactile objects, the mind and mental phenomena. This is called the all..." "Sabbasutta.m 23. Saavatthiya.m Sabba.m vo bhikkhave desissaami ta.m su.naatha. Ki~nca bhikkhave sabba.m: cakkhu~nceva ruupaa ca sota~nca saddaa ca ghaana~nca gandhaa ca jivhaa ca rasaa ca kaayo ca pho.t.thabbaa ca mano ca dhammaa ca ida.m vuccati bhikkhave sabba.m." Scott: Bh. Bodhi uses 'mind and mental phenomena' for 'mano ca dhammaa'. The word tranlated as 'intellect' or 'mental phenomena' is 'dhammaa'. Sincerely, Scott. #84410 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are scottduncan2 "The word tranlated as 'intellect' or 'mental phenomena' is 'dhammaa'." Scott: Um, that would be 'translated'. 'Tranlated' is the verb for one of the excuses for being late for work. Sincerely, Scott. #84411 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:32 am Subject: Re: as they really are truth_aerator Hi Jill, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jill.sanders23" wrote: I found this "Knowledge and vision of things as they really are" . So, what does Buddhism claim things really are. >>> Buddha and his disciples have found through DIRECT EXPERIENCE that all things are inconstant (dependently originated), are NOT ultimate happines (they are ultimately suffering, even the best meditations), and they lack "Self". Buddha has found that we are grabbing "hot coals", so to speak. Ordinary people are looking for happiness in all the wrong places, and the Buddha has found the only and the highest security. Nibbana. Religions or any other paths don't have a method of overcoming ALL, ALL suffering. Original Buddhism does, although as time goes on, it becomes to look like just another philosophy, thanks to Scholars who do not practice and criticize practice.... :( >> I get the feeling that Buddhism seem to be saying that this world is an > illusion of some kind and that goal of Buddhism seems to be that of > wanting to get out of it. But maybe I have grasped it wrong. I hope it > is ok to ask some questions. > Jill. > Regarding the world. The Buddhism teaches how to reach LIBERATION FROM SUFFERING, which would mean ultimate and unconditional Happiness, Nibbana. Wishing all the best, Alex #84412 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > In a message dated 3/27/2008 1:56:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > I agree, ultimately those things are mere stories. But, unlike you, I don't see any problem with that. > > Thinking is an ultimate reality, and so there will be stories about (for example) going to Thailand. But that's as far as it goes. There is no actual Thailand, nor any actual going-to-Thailand, nor a goer-to-Thailand. > > As I say, I don't see any problem with that. To me, the Abhidhamma > explanation is perfectly satisfactory. There are no inexplicable > loose ends. > > Ken H >> You are making a logical mistake. Just because there is no whole in a part it doesn't mean that "whole" doesn't exist. Precisely because WHOLE (to be disassembled) exists, there are parts which make a "whole". If lets say a wall doesn't exist, then why can't you walk through the wall? Why is it obstructing the view? Anyhow all of these ontological questions is red herring perhaps. The main questions are: Suffering, its cause, its cessation, and the path leading to its cessation. Lots of Metta, Alex #84413 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are walterhorn Hi, Ken, James and Howard, I hope you won't mind if I jump in entirely "non-exegetically" (That is, I make absolutely no claims as to what is in any scripture.) I think however, that these questions have also been long debated in the world of western philosophy, so, if I may, I'd like to make a couple of points regarding what has been learned in that realm. First, I think it's likely to create no end of trouble to suggest that "mental phenomena are the object of the intellect." Ideas are generally of non-ideas. That, in fact, is the very nature of the mental--to refer to or be about the non-mental. Following Brentano, this is often called "the intentionality of the mental." Those philosophers who have failed to understand intentionality have made lots and lots of boo-boos. Of course, ideas CAN be about other mental phenomena, but that is the exception, not the rule. Second, questions about whether what have often been called 'logical constructs' are themselves 'things' or part of ultimate reality, are likely to be definitional. If we know an orange is made entirely of its segments, have we proved there is no such thing as the orange? If we know the segments are made exclusively of cells and the cells of molecules and the molecules of atoms and the atoms of teensier things, have we proved that only these teensiest things exist? Well, if we wish to insist that only those smallest building blocks can be real, we may do so, but....so long as we're careful to remember that the orange is made up of nothing but these little guys, what have we gained by denying that the orange exists? I mean, oranges seem to exist in a manner in which the whole consisting of my left sneaker, the Taj Mahal and an uneaten Snickers Bar at the White House does not. The fruit seems to be 'organic' in a sense that many other constructs aren't. So if it's claimed that NONE of these wholes exists just in virtue of having parts, we will have lost some important fact about the world. Again, my thoughts and those of my daughters' (tight as we may be) just can't combine in quite the same way as each of theirs do with others belonging to their mental chain. That, too, is a fundamental feature of the universe that I don't think it makes sense to drop simply because we've realized that every batch of things has things in it. I hope at least some of this makes sense. All best, Walto #84414 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are upasaka_howard Hi, Walto - In a message dated 3/27/2008 1:17:35 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, calhorn@... writes: So if it's claimed that NONE of these wholes exists just in virtue of having parts, we will have lost some important fact about the world. Again, my thoughts and those of my daughters' (tight as we may be) just can't combine in quite the same way as each of theirs do with others belonging to their mental chain. That, too, is a fundamental feature of the universe that I don't think it makes sense to drop simply because we've realized that every batch of things has things in it. I hope at least some of this makes sense. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: It does to me. ;-) -------------------------------------------------- All best, Walto ============================ With metta, Howard #84415 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:11 am Subject: Happy & Humble Harmlessness! bhikkhu0 Friends: Tender Harmlessness & Patient Tolerance Protects all Beings! The Blessed Buddha – the Great Defender - was always a friend of tolerance & harmlessness: I am a friend of the footless, I am a friend of the bipeds; I am a friend of those with four feet, I am a friend of the many-footed. May not the footless harm me, may not the bipeds harm me, may not those with four feet harm me, and may not those with many feet harm me. A. II, 72 Among tigers, lions, leopards & bears I lived in the wood. No one was frightened of me, nor did I fear anyone. Uplifted by such universal friendliness I enjoyed the forest. Finding great solace in sweet silent solitude. Suvanna-sama Jataka 540 I am a friend and helper to all, I am sympathetic to all living beings. I develop a mind full of love and delights always in harmlessness. I gladden my mind, fill it with joy, makes it immovable and unshakable. I develop the divine states of mind not cultivated by simple men. Theragatha. 648-9 Thus he who both day and night takes delight in harmlessness sharing love with all that live, finds enmity with none. SN I 208 He who does not strike nor makes others strike, who robs not nor makes others rob, sharing love with all that lives, finds enmity with none. Itivuttaka 22 As a mother even with her life protects her only son, so let one cultivate infinite, yeah universal, friendliness towards all sentient, living & breathing beings. When one with a mind of true affection feels compassion for this entire world, above, below and across, unlimited everywhere. The one who has left violence, who never harm any being, who never kill nor causes to kill, such one, mild, is a Holy Noble One. Dhammapada 405 The one who is friendly among the hostile, who is harmless among the violent, who is detached among the greedy, such one is a Holy Noble One. Dhammapada 406 He is not Noble who injures living beings. He is called Noble because he is gentle & kind towards all living beings. Dhammapada 270 Tolerance is the highest training. Patience is the best praxis. So all Buddhas say. Dhammapada 184 Let no one deceive another or despise anyone anywhere, or through anger or irritation wish for another to suffer. Khuddakapatha 9 Solitude is happiness for one who is content, who has heard the Dhamma and clearly sees. Cordial non-violence is happiness in this world harmlessness towards all living beings. Udana 10 How to become harmless: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/The_Buddha_on_Noble_Frienship.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Blessing_all_Beings_by_Bliss.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Patient_is_Tolerance.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Bon_Benevolence.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Friendliness_Frees.htm Happy & Humble Harmlessness! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ..... #84416 From: "colette" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:01 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 Good Day Alex, I'm glad you raised the issue: > If lets say a wall doesn't exist, then why can't you walk through the > wall? Why is it obstructing the view? colette: lets look at Time & Space (place) we could be bringing in a lot of Semde & Longde followers here, and we're going to try to suspend them. These two words Time & Space are conceptualizations of something that only exists in the mind. The Wall does not exist ULTIMATELY yet, as a pesky fungus, it exists RELATIVELY. If, we in our deepest meditations, can vanquish the wall from reality that we experience RELATIVELY then maybe it's possible to bring the ULTIMATE reality to the fore and transcend the relative reality that we actually experience. Which means that if the wall is transcended BY THE ULITIMATE TRUTH and the RELATIVE TRUTH is suspended, THEN surely it must be possible to walk through the wall, or walk on water, or do whatever the "being" wants to do with the wall that does not exist. IT OBSTRUCTS or is an OBSCTRUCTION (Obscuration) because of the mental formations that cling to the concept of the wall. When our minds first came into contact with the concept of wall we were programmed to formulate those constituents of the wall and the feelings that the wall should and would give us, etc. Therefore, the 8, eight Concsciousnesses all work together to gratify the Alaya- Vijnana, thus, the Alaya-Vijnana seems to be the only Consciousness of any value to the Theravadan since that is the consciousness that is masturbated or gratified properly, the other consciousnesses seem to be subordinate to the Alaya-Vijnana which the Theravadan refuses to acknowledge. I hope I didn't mess up too many mind's with my electrical current or electro-magnetic fields which I just put into shock therapy, no? LOL toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Ken, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/27/2008 1:56:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > kenhowardau@ writes: > > I agree, ultimately those things are mere stories. But, unlike > you, I don't see any problem with that. > > > > Thinking is an ultimate reality, and so there will be stories > about (for example) going to Thailand. But that's as far as it goes. > There is no actual Thailand, nor any actual going-to-Thailand, nor a > goer-to-Thailand. > > > > As I say, I don't see any problem with that. To me, the Abhidhamma > > explanation is perfectly satisfactory. There are no inexplicable > > loose ends. > > > > Ken H > >> > > You are making a logical mistake. Just because there is no whole in a > part it doesn't mean that "whole" doesn't exist. Precisely because > WHOLE (to be disassembled) exists, there are parts which make > a "whole". <....> #84417 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are - Wholes & its parts truth_aerator Hi Walter and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Walter Horn" wrote: > > First, I think it's likely to create no end of trouble to suggest > that "mental phenomena are the object of the intellect." Ideas are > generally of non-ideas. That, in fact, is the very nature of the > mental--to refer to or be about the non-mental. >>> Well, the base of infinite space, base of infinite consciousness, base of nothingness, base of neither perception nor non perception are mental phenomenon not found in 5 senses, and these mental phenomenon are objects of "consciousness". Furthermore, why can't there be ideas of (perhaps past, or other) ideas? > Second, questions about whether what have often been called 'logical constructs' are themselves 'things' or part of ultimate reality, are likely to be definitional. If we know an orange is made entirely of > its segments, have we proved there is no such thing as the orange? > If we know the segments are made exclusively of cells and the cells > of molecules and the molecules of atoms and the atoms of teensier > things, have we proved that only these teensiest things exist? >>> I agree with you here. The divisibility doesn't disprove the "whole" which is being divided. The only thing it shows that the whole is not indivisible and ultimate. Well, > if we wish to insist that only those smallest building blocks can be real, we may do so, but.... >>> Any natural number (length, width, height, duration, etc) >0 is divisible. 0 is the smallest indivisible number. Lets analyze citta for example: Abh commentary claim that citta lasts (58 billionth of a second or 1/58,000,000,000). http://www.bddronline.net.au/bddr14no1/abhi082.html Now, that number IS further divisible. For example that duration is made of 10 parts each lasting 1/580,000,000,000) or 580 billionth of a second, or 100 parts each lasting 5,800 billionth of a second... And even those numbers can be divided ad infinitum! Thus the duration of each Dhamma cannot be the mathematically the Ultimate, undivisible Reality. If you say that citta lasts 0 seconds (the only number that CANNOT be further divided), then this also doesn't make sense. Even infinity of such 0 duration cittas would still make the whole process = ZERO, ZILCH, NOTHING. 0 x infinity = 0 . Furthermore the same sort of argument can be applied to size of rupa particles. You may say that division into parts is purely mental (or conventional, or fictional), etc, but this isn't so. If we imagine that there are "wholes" without "parts" then we have ridiculous events not evident in experience. Ex: Walking 1 mile in one step. This can't be done. We walk in MANY steps. We can cognize PART of the object with PART of it be obscured, so saying that "parts do not exist" is not tenable. Ex seeing entire universe at once and it at all times without ANY possibility of seeing only a part of it... Thus atomistic theory is anything BUT the "Ultimate Reality". Don't get me wrong, I am NOT against momentarism. Every moment, any of the 5 aggregates are different by that unit of time. However making nice, neat and tight boxes consisting of really really irreducible and Ultimate Units is mathematically flawed. -------- Lots of best wishes, Alex #84418 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:50 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are - Wholes & its parts walterhorn Hi, Alex et al. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hi Walter and All, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Walter Horn" > wrote: > > > > > First, I think it's likely to create no end of trouble to suggest > > that "mental phenomena are the object of the intellect." Ideas are > > generally of non-ideas. That, in fact, is the very nature of the > > mental--to refer to or be about the non-mental. > >>> > > Well, the base of infinite space, base of infinite consciousness, > base of nothingness, base of neither perception nor non perception are > mental phenomenon not found in 5 senses, and these mental phenomenon > are objects of "consciousness". > > Furthermore, why can't there be ideas of (perhaps past, or other) > ideas? > I agree (and I think I said as much in my last post) that mental events can be the subject of ideas; however, I also believe such cognitions to be the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, I don't think that the "base of infinite space, base of infinite consciousness, the base of nothingness, or the base of neither perception nor non perception" are themselves mental events (though as to what, if anything, they ARE, I'd be afraid to hazard a guess). Best, Walto #84419 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:34 pm Subject: Re: as they really are kenhowardau Hi James and Scott, I was almost ready to post this reply last night when a thunderstorm hit. So I switched the computer off at the wall and went to bed. ------- J: > Thanks for the answer but it isn't complete. You cut off the > first question: What is "intellect" in the Sabba Sutta? > > Sorry, so I did! In my post to Jill I used Ven. Thanissaro's translation of the sutta because it was the easiest to find. He uses the word "intellect" but I doubt other translators do. The Pali, I think, is "mano-vinnana" which is normally translated as "mind-consciousness" or "mind-door consciousness." Mind-consciousness can, potentially, take anything as it's object - nama, rupa or pannatti. The other five sense bases can only experience the sense-rupas. ------- Now, this morning, I see that Scott has come to the rescue: ---- Scott: Bh. Bodhi uses 'mind and mental phenomena' for 'mano ca dhammaa'. ---- Thanks, Scott, so my recollection - manovinnana - was not quite right. But we are talking about the same thing, I think - mind- consciousness (or mind-door-consciousness). But you should have quit while you were ahead, Scott: the next bit has got us all confused! :-) -------- S: > The word translated as 'intellect' or 'mental phenomena' is 'dhammaa'. -------- No, I think only Ven. Thanissaro uses the word "intellect." He refers to "intellect and ideas" whereas Ven. Bodhi, whom you quoted, refers to "mind and mental phenomena." Neither translator is using their terms synonymously: the former term refers to the sense base and the latter to the sense object. Have I got that right? Ken H #84420 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:18 pm Subject: Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau Hi Larry, ----- <. . .> KH: > > "I don't remember any discussion of the Sihopama Sutta. That kind of story would be a metaphor for how the present dhamma is 'painful in the sense of terror.' " > > Larry: > That's basically it. The deities in this sutta were terrified when they heard the "lion's roar" of the Buddha's teaching on impermanence. This may also be a foreshadowing of the insight knowledge of appearance as terror. Whatever arises is destroyed. That is terror.It is not that the meditator is afraid. "Terror" is a characteristic of destruction, like looking at a war zone and seeing nothing but devastation. --------------- Thanks, Larry, that sounds fair to me. Unless, and until, someone corrects us I will assume that "terror" (for a dhamma) is an integral part of its destruction. ----------------------- Ken: > > "As I see it there is no harm in understanding nama as the "experiencer" of objects or the "performer" of functions (etc). The trouble arises only when we conceive a "core of self" as doing those things." Larry: > But a core is defined as an experiencer and a performer. ----------------------- You may be right. But, then again, you may be wrong. In Para.16 we read: ". . . all that [materiality] is 'not self in the sense of having no core'. In the sense of having no core because of the absence of any core of self conceived as a self, an abider, a doer, an experiencer, one who is his own master; for what is impermanent is painful" I must admit that could be read as saying that "doer" and "experiencer" are synonyms for "self." Notice, however, that it says, "any core of self conceived as a self, . . . a doer, an experiencer, . . ." It doesn't say "any *paramattha dhamma* conceived as a self (etc)." As I see it, that is the essence. So long as we don't conceive a core of self, we can refer to a dhamma in any way we like. We can say it is "an abider" because it lasts (abides) for a moment. We can say it is "a doer" because it does things (it performs functions) within that single moment. There is no harm in saying these things so long as we are referring purely to the fleeting paramattha dhamma itself. The trouble comes only when we are referring to a perceived "core of self" within that dhamma. What do you think? Ken H > Consciousness experiences an object and performs a function, but it is > not an experiencer or a performer. However, the thrust of the argument > here is that consciousness is not an experiencer because it is painful > in the sense of terror. "Were materiality [or consciousness] self it > would not lead to affliction." > > Larry > #84421 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:57 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? kenhowardau Hi Colette, ----- C: > Maybe it is possible that people recognized that I have always accepted this Adhidharma-description of namas and rupas, and have kept that description out front while I continue grasping <. . .> the Yogacara-conceptualization and the Mind-Only School. ----- How can you do that? I don't know what the Mind-Only School is, but I assume it teaches there is only mentality and no materiality. That would make a refreshing change from modern physics, which seems to teach there is only materiality. But, even so, it must be hard to study all the different schools that you study, when they seem to be saying such totally different things. I think there would be only one way of doing what you do. When you enter the classroom of one teaching you would have to leave all the other teachings at the door. (And pick them up again on your way out.) Is that what you do? Or do you form an amalgam of all the teachings and develop your own, unique, understanding? Ken H #84422 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:33 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? kenhowardau Hi Nina, ---------- > Looking forward to discussions with you. We can talk about what can be directly experienced and what not. > ----------- Thanks, it will be good to iron out a few points - especially on this topic. Sometimes my fellow no-controllers seem understand what they are saying differently to the way I understand what they are saying. If you know what I mean! :-) Ken H #84423 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 3/27/2008 1:56:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --------- > <. . .> > Howard: > No you, no Jon, no grilling, no him to be seen, and no next > week. > --------- > > I agree, ultimately those things are mere stories. But, unlike you, I > don't see any problem with that. > > Thinking is an ultimate reality, and so there will be stories about > (for example) going to Thailand. But that's as far as it goes. There > is no actual Thailand, nor any actual going-to-Thailand, nor a goer- > to-Thailand. > > As I say, I don't see any problem with that. To me, the Abhidhamma > explanation is perfectly satisfactory. There are no inexplicable > loose ends. > > Ken H > =============================== > No China and Tibet either - so, no problem. > Hi Howard, That's right, ultimately the only problems are ignorance and wrong view. Changing the subject somewhat: it seems to me as if there is an innate resistance to conventional reality. Most people can watch terrible suffering on the evening news while they enjoy their dinner. It's as if we instinctively realise this world is just concepts, and not real. Otherwise, how could we cope? Even if we were to devote our lives to relieving suffering in Tibet, what would we be doing about suffering in all the other parts of the world? Callously disregarding it? Ken H #84424 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:44 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > How can you do that? I don't know what the Mind-Only School is, but I > assume it teaches there is only mentality and no materiality. >>> Materiality in a sense of being a perception, DOES exist. It is interesting that when one analyzers reality, one cannot find anything outside of one's own perceptions (mind). The "objective- reality" (in a sense of being independent of observer) IS A SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT ITSELF. "Matter" is a certain sort of perception (form&colour, touch perception + perception of concept of matter). The common critiques against mind-only are weak. Some say that: "If you place one object in front of another, then you won't see the other object. Thus this shows that there is objective time-space and one object obstructing another. Or that an object in a dark place isn't seen, but it is seen in a bright place). Or how can their be other uncontrollable "beings" in mind only. The answer is: In dreams as well you have walls, dark and bright places. In dreams you TOO have cities and streets. In dreams you TOO can see "your" reflection in the mirror, etc etc... >>>>>>> That would make a refreshing change from modern physics, which seems to teach there is only materiality. But, even so, it must be hard to study all the different schools that you study, when they seem to be saying such totally different things. >>>> Well... All of them teach the insubstantiality of subject-object. The biggest concern is with "Dhamma". Is there MANY dhammas, or few? Are dhamma particle self contained "attalike" units or not? Do these particles exist (in some latent form) in the past and future? Best wishes, Alex #84425 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? buddhatrue Hi Nina (Ken H., Scott, Howard, Colette), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi James, > I kept your post to think it over. > Op 26-mrt-2008, om 2:28 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > > It seems as if the Abhidhamma is > > proposing a type of philosophical idealism which states that the world > > doesn't exist, people don't exist, nothing exists- except, again, that > > vague and undefined "nama and rupa"! What is that? What does that > > mean? > --------- > N: While asking: 'what does this mean, what is that?', is there not > something, some reality? We can call it mind, but it is there just > for a moment. It may be a moment of doubt and this is also real, it > can be experienced. The next moment you may have aversion about the > Abhidhamma, and this is also real. The mind is variegated, there are > many different moments. You may prefer positive moments, moments > that are beneficial, but these do not arise because you want them to > arise. Are there not many moments in life you do not ask for, but > they still arise? If you agree, that is the beginning of > understanding the truth of non-self. > All I wrote above is defined in detail in the Abhidhamma. > Now about the apple, the world, beings, do these exist? > They exist merely in our thinking, and thinking only lasts for a > moment. This thinking is the result of many moments of seeing, > defining what one sees, remembrance of former experiences. However, > thinking can be wholesome, beneficial thinking, and negative, > unwholesome thinking. Thinking motivates our actions in society, our > behaviour towards others. Wholesome thinking, with metta, wholesome > actions and behaviour is to be encouraged, and the Buddha did all the > time. > I am not sure this answers your question. You may not be satisfied. Nina, your writing is somewhat non-linear so I have a hard time following it. Allow me to just summarize the problem I am having. Since we are discussing "reality", we have to see how the Buddha defined reality. The Buddha does so in the Sabba Sutta: "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,… James: This description of reality seems very Abhidhammaesque. The sense bases and their objects- which are dhammas (phenomenon). Two important things to note here is that the Buddha said there is a reality "out there". There is the eye and its objects, the ear and its objects, etc. So, anyone who states that reality is all just "in the mind" is contradicting the Buddha. Additionally, the Buddha begins this description with "simply". He wanted to emphasize that reality is limited to just these things and nothing else. Going back to the sutta: intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. James: Okay, here is where we run into trouble. How should this be defined? Scott and Ken H. are reaching different definitions of this part. Here is some additional information: According to Bhikkhu Bodhi, the post-canonical Pali commentary uses the three terms viññāṇa, mano and citta as synonyms for the mind sense base (mana-ayatana); however, in the Sutta Pitaka, these three terms are generally contextualized differently: • viññāṇa refers to awareness through a specific internal sense base, that is, through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind. Thus, there are six sense-specific types of viññāṇa. It is also the basis for personal continuity within and across lives. • mano refers to mental "actions" (kamma), as opposed to those actions that are physical or verbal. It is also the sixth internal sense base (ayatana), that is, the "mind base," cognizing mental sensa (dhammā) as well as sensory information from the physical sense bases. • citta includes the formation of thought, emotion and volition; this is thus the subject of Buddhist mental development (bhava), the mechanism for release. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_(Buddhism) James: So, I say, that if the eye receives the colors and shape of an apple, the ear hears the crunch of the apple, the nose smells the smell of the apple, the tongue tastes the taste of the apple, the hand feels the texture and weight of the apple, and the mind puts these sensations together to form the idea of "apple", then, according to the Buddha, the apple exists. The apple is an object of all of the six senses, including the mind, so an apple exists. The same goes for people, trees, rocks, etc. Returning to the sutta: Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." James: Now this last part, which many seem to skip over, is important because it gives the motivation for this sutta. The Buddha didn't want to just describe reality for the heck of it or because he thought that this description would bring wisdom. He offered this description to counteract those who state that "reality" is not what our senses tell us it is. He wanted us to "simply" trust our senses to discover reality or "the all". This again, reinforces the idea that if my mind states that beings exist, then they do exist. They are not imaginary and only in the mind. They are not "just an idea or a story". They exist outside of the mind and they are real. Metta, James #84426 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Ken (and James) - > > In a message dated 3/27/2008 2:34:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > Hi James, > > Thanks for the question: > > -------- > J: > Why is it more appropriate to say that mental phenomena is the > object of the intellect instead of ideas? > -------- > > In the Sabba Sutta the Buddha was categorising the things that could > exist in the loka (the ultimately real world). > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No "world" is a paramattha dhamma, so, according to you, there must be > no world and certainly no ultimately real world so as you speak of. There must > be no human realm or animal realm or heaven realms, no Tavatimsa Heaven, > and, of course, no Dhamma, no Buddha, no Sangha. > Hi Howard, What, then, is your understanding of the Sabba Sutta? When the Buddha described the all as, "the eye, visible object, the ear, audible object, . . . did he mean to include "the animals, the gods, the Buddha, the sangha, . . . . Howard, Ken, . . . (and so on)"? ------------------- H: > By ignoring aggregates (collections of similar paramattha dhammas), one ignores commonality of feature, and by ignoring those aggregates that are integrated, patterned collections of interrelated dhammas, one ignores the reality of relations and fails to understand the way things are because of wearing blinders. Speaking in everyday terms, a biologist who understands cells but not tissues and organs does not properly understand cells. -------------------- There are no collections of similar paramattha dhammas. There are only the paramattha dhammas that have arisen in the present moment. That is the point of the Sabba Sutta and all the other suttas. It is something not otherwise known or appreciated. In another message addressed to Nina and me, you made a similar point: -------- <. . .> N: > > In the Vibhanga there are passages about different individuals, and why not. So long as it is understood, and always implied that a being is citta, cetasika and rupa. > > H: >Yes, I agree. These "individuals" are nothing more than aggregations of namas and rupas of a certain sort. Individuals are not imagined, but they are typically wrongly conceived of, as the name 'individual' itself suggests. An in-divid-ual is, in fact, quite divisible(!), being nothing more than an ever-changing stream of interdependent phenomena - a dynamic aggregation. --------- I am not sure if you are agreeing in this case. When Nina said "citta cetasika and rupa" she meant just one citta, didn't she? (Plus varying numbers of cetasikas and rupas). I think you, Howard, are saying that an individual is several different cittas (plus cetasikas and rupas) - constantly changing from one kind to another. The present citta, cetasikas and rupas are not imagined but you are saying individuals, too, are not imagined. I would say that any so-called 'individual' that is other than, or more than, the presently arisen, fleeting, paramattha dhammas *is* imagined. Ken H #84427 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Ken, Ken: "Notice, however, that it says, "any core of self conceived as a self, . . . a doer, an experiencer, . . ." It doesn't say "any *paramattha dhamma* conceived as a self (etc)." As I see it, that is the essence. So long as we don't conceive a core of self, we can refer to a dhamma in any way we like. We can say it is "an abider" because it lasts (abides) for a moment. We can say it is "a doer" because it does things (it performs functions) within that single moment. There is no harm in saying these things so long as we are referring purely to the fleeting paramattha dhamma itself. The trouble comes only when we are referring to a perceived "core of self" within that dhamma." Larry: Can you give me a real life example? I find both the argument that, consciousness experiences an object but is not an experiencer, and the argument that, whatever is dukkha cannot be self, to be unconvincing. If we define experiencer to be that which experiences then consciousness is an experiencer according to its professed characteristic: consciousness experiences an object. And who is to say that self has to be all powerful? Certainly no one believes that their self is all powerful. So if anyone is unhappy at being less than all powerful, it is _I_ who am unhappy. Therefore, I think we need a better explanation of "no core" or "emptiness", which is the same thing. One possibility is that a formation of various elements has no core. In fact we could say there is an empty space at its core. This room that I am sitting in has no core. There is a room as a formation of elements and at its center is nothing. The same could be said of this body/mind complex. But this doesn't particularly tie into dukkha and impermanence, which seems to be necessary so everything fits together. I agree that conceiving a core of self is a problem, simply because there isn't one. I go around saying "I think this" and "I think that". "I did this" and "I did that". In saying so there is the assumption that there is an "I" at the core of this body and mind that thinks and acts. But really the body acts and the mind thinks, but nobody is home. Larry #84428 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:23 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Ken, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/27/2008 1:56:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > kenhowardau@ writes: > > <. . .> > Thinking is an ultimate reality, and so there will be stories > about (for example) going to Thailand. But that's as far as it goes. > There is no actual Thailand, nor any actual going-to-Thailand, nor a > goer-to-Thailand. > > <. . .> Alex: > You are making a logical mistake. Just because there is no whole in a > part it doesn't mean that "whole" doesn't exist. Precisely because > WHOLE (to be disassembled) exists, there are parts which make > a "whole". ---------------- Yes, Alex, but the Buddha was asked precisely that. In the Loka Sutta, for example, he was asked "What is the all?" In other words, he was asked, "What is the whole?" According to the Buddha, the whole is one citta plus a number of cetasikas and rupas arising at one of six possible doorways. Am I right, or am I right? :-) Ken H #84429 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Nina, Nina: "Pa~n~naa directly realizes rupa that appears as rupa and nama that appears as nama. " Larry: I agree but that is purification of view. Here we are investigating all sorts of exotic dhammas: past and future, far and near, internal and external. And we are using "inductive insight". Larry #84430 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 7:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? lbidd2 Hi Ken and Alex, Sorry for butting, but I couldn't resist. Ken: "Yes, Alex, but the Buddha was asked precisely that. In the Loka Sutta, for example, he was asked "What is the all?" In other words, he was asked, "What is the whole?" According to the Buddha, the whole is one citta plus a number of cetasikas and rupas arising at one of six possible doorways. Am I right, or am I right? :-)" Larry: He didn't say there is no all (or whole). Am I right, or am I right? ;-) Larry #84431 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 9:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are kenhowardau Hi Walto, --------- > I hope you won't mind if I jump in entirely "non-exegetically" (That > is, I make absolutely no claims as to what is in any scripture.) - --------- I don't mind at all! :-) However, I'm not sure how to respond to non- exegetical material. When you are commenting on philosophical and scientific matters I really don't know how to relate them back to the Dhamma. Your explanations of 'the parts and the whole' for example, are valid in their own right, but I don't see how they apply to anything the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that, when the five khandhas arise together, a sentient being is said to exist. According to my understanding, this means when there is (for example) eye base, eye citta, visible object, contact, feeling dependent on eye-contact (and so on) then a sentient being is said to exist. In other words, that is all a human being ultimately is. So the Buddha is not talking here about the body parts and mental parts that make up what we commonly know as a human body and mind. Did you see my reply to Alex? I think he too was thinking that paramatha dhammas were the "parts" that made up a conventionally recognisable body. But no, the whole (the all, the loka) that the Buddha described was just a single citta with some cetasikas and rupas. Nothing conventionally recognisable as a sentient being! Sorry if I am not making myself clear, this is my eighth post for the day and I may be suffering burnout. :-) Ken H #84432 From: Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:42 pm Subject: Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II jonoabb Hi James Thanks for providing the sutta passage. Regarding that passage, you say: > Now, even thought the Buddha doesn't mention jhana in > this sutta, it has to be jhana which has made these > former teachers the most apt to learn the Dhamma. Well that is a view that we can discuss further. But you brought up this sutta as substantiating the general proposition that those who had achieved jhana had little dust in their eyes (his former teachers and ascetics being an example of such). I think it is clear that no such general proposition is to be found in the sutta. Is there any other sutta you can cite in support of your general proposition? Jon > Then the Blessed One, having understood Brahma's invitation, out of > compassion for beings, surveyed the world with the eye of an Awakened One. ... And knowledge & vision arose within me: 'Uddaka Ramaputta > died last night.' The thought occurred to me, 'A great loss has Uddaka > Ramaputta suffered. If he had heard this Dhamma, he would have quickly > understood it.' > > James: The Buddha described his two former teachers as LONG having > "little dust in their eyes" and being wise, competent, and > intelligent. Now, even thought the Buddha doesn't mention jhana in > this sutta, it has to be jhana which has made these former teachers > the most apt to learn the Dhamma. It isn't knowledge of the Dhamma, > after all- these two former teachers were Hindu who believed in atta > and Brahma. It was their accomplishment of jhana which made them > wise, intelligent, and most apt to learn the Dhamma. Jon, if you see > a better explanation I would be interested to know. > > Metta, > James #84433 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:23 pm Subject: Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Hi James > > Thanks for providing the sutta passage. > > Regarding that passage, you say: > > Now, even thought the Buddha doesn't mention jhana in > > this sutta, it has to be jhana which has made these > > former teachers the most apt to learn the Dhamma. > > Well that is a view that we can discuss further. But you brought up this sutta as substantiating the general proposition that those who had achieved jhana had little dust in their eyes (his former teachers and ascetics being an example of such). > > I think it is clear that no such general proposition is to be found in the sutta. James: Well, I think there is- and you provide no contrary analysis, just this pompous statement! > > Is there any other sutta you can cite in support of your general proposition? James: Actually, there are many but I won't post them for you. As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink! :-) > > Jon Metta, James #84434 From: "Sukinder" Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:36 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? sukinderpal Hi Howard (Nina and Ken H), Thanks for your reply and giving time for me to respond. I would like to do this now. ========================== > > Sukin: Same thing I would say, denial of cause and effect as taught > > in the Dhamma. In fact these are based on "self / wrong view", one > > which has taken the existence of people and situations as being real > > and hence generating a perverted sense of cause and effect (even if > > that position says, "no cause and effect"). > > > > ===================================== Howard: > > Sukin, I don't get it! It seems to me that you are reading this > > backwards! The sutta says that the position "There is no this world, > > no next world, > > no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no priests or > > contemplatives who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this > > world & the next > > after having directly known & realized it for themselves" is WRONG VIEW. > > Perfect right view of course is the seeing of the true nature of these > > things, namely as mere aggregations of empty, conditioned, fleeting > > dhammas, > > but it is wrong view to conceive of them as nonexistent. > > S: I think everyone goes by belief in some kind of cause and effect, > otherwise what motivation would there be to act at all? This cannot be > avoided, since view arises often to make sense of experiences and > thinking arises all the time to form ideas of people and situations > including making evaluations. Even those who believe in annihilation, > thats a judgement based on some other idea about cause and effect, even > if this changes with change in situation and ends up being mere > justification for indulgence in sense pleasures. > > The denials expressed in the above view are denials of cause and effect > in accordance with the nature of reality and is not a denial of > conventional reality. > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > No, it involves a denial of various aggregations, including certain > sorts of people. Sukin now: Given that all the references can be interpreted as being about "cause and effect" and those such as `this and next world', `spontaneous rebirth', `faring and practicing rightly', and `final realization' are clearly *not* about existence / non existence of beings or what these beings might be constituted of, I think that we should take it that the wrong view here has to do with failure to appreciate kamma / vipakka and conditionality. And given that conditionality exists between momentary realities and is known only by the development of insight into the moment, I think it wrong to go by this idea of "aggregations". I personally prefer to think in terms of nama and rupa or citta, cetasikas and rupa, finding the teachings by way of the Five Aggregates somewhat more difficult to understand. However, be this from reading the Abhidhamma or the Suttas, my impression has always been that whenever the Khandhas are mentioned, the Buddha was talking about momentary realities, same as when reading about citta, cetasikas and rupa. I have never got the impression that the Buddha in talking about the Khandhas, that he meant us to think this as being what "beings" are. Conditioned existence yes, and that these arise together in this and other realms, yes. However this is still about momentary realities only. And given that at any moment, only one reality can ever be the object of understanding / insight, I think it misleading to go about thinking to distinguish `being' as being constituted of "aggregations" etc. In other words, in my view, this is not part of the development of Right View. In fact given the tendency to conceiving and further proliferations, this more likely leads one away from the importance of understanding the present moment and instead take yet other ideas as object of understanding. And this seems to have been just what has happened here with your stating that distinguishing "certain sorts of people" being part of Right View. Should not namas and rupas be the object of study rather than this? ======================== Sukin: > Do you really believe anyone would deny the > existence of their own parents for instance? > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't believe that anyone in their right mind would actually believe > in such denial, but do see such denials made on DSG all the time! Sukin now: So we are not in our right minds when we make such assertions even though we also stress at the same time, the importance of developing understanding of momentary realities and conditionality? ;-) I have just read some of your conversations with Ken H. You seem to insist there, that if one were to believe in the non-existence conventional realities, one would not have any justification to make decisions about and act conventionally, for example making a decision to go to Bangkok. Perhaps we need to distinguish between "view" on the one hand, and "conceptualizing" on another. One may think about people and situations, which one invariably does, but this does not require *believing them to be real* does it? Do I have to *believe* in the reality of a `car' except conventionally, in order to use it? Visible object arise so does seeing, thinking arises, touch, intention, bodily intimation, feelings and so many other paramattha dhammas arise and fall away. In all this, are you insisting that I take "car" to be *real* as well before I can be justified in driving it? And is car also a kind of `aggregation'? It seems "conceiving" is what worldlings like us always do. Different people use different ideas to explain / justify any initial misperception. From my perspective, there is essentially little difference, after having conceived, that one person explains `beings' in terms of atoms, or energy or any other way, including those that are taken from the Dhamma. Bookstores are full with such attempts at using Dhamma ideas to support the individual's wrong view. I know Howard, that I've gone a step beyond Nina who simply suggested that the idea of `aggregations' could possibly lead to misunderstanding, on to saying that it in fact originates from some level of misunderstanding. Nina must understand your position better than I do, which means that I must be misunderstanding you or even got it all wrong. So I will take it that you or perhaps Nina will correct me. ;-) Metta, Sukin #84435 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? upasaka_howard Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 3/28/2008 9:36:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sukinder@... writes: I know Howard, that I've gone a step beyond Nina who simply suggested that the idea of `aggregations' could possibly lead to misunderstanding, on to saying that it in fact originates from some level of misunderstanding. Nina must understand your position better than I do, which means that I must be misunderstanding you or even got it all wrong. So I will take it that you or perhaps Nina will correct me. ;-) =========================== Each of the five aggregates is a mere collection of phenomena of a similar sort. An aggregation is also a mere collection of paramattha dhammas, but they are dhammas that are closely interrelated in complex ways. A namarupic stream is a good example of such. With metta, Howard #84436 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:08 am Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > According to the Buddha, the whole is one citta plus a number of > cetasikas and rupas arising at one of six possible doorways. > > Am I right, or am I right? :-) > > Ken H > Where did He say the above using those terms in the suttas? What you've said, comes strait from Abh. In fact He described and classified the "world" by these methods vinnana-nama-rupa 5 aggregates 6 sense spheres (the mind in DN1 view#8 can be split up into 3 parts, thus making as much as 8 consciousnessess). It is true that the whole is made out of parts (it is interesting to know what these parts are made of). But the whole in a conventional sense exists. Just because the wall is a concept, it doesn't mean that you can walk through it. Totally ignoring the conventional truth is dangerous. You don't want to check "no ken standing with eyes closed on highway, no highway, no cars moving at 70mph, no crash, etc . " Another thing I'd like to stress. In the suttas, in DO, nama-rupa comes together and also is dependent on consciousness. I wonder why? The "matter" IS a set of perceptions! Hardness is tactile feeling + concept "hardness". Length, width, height - is visual perception + concept "lwh" Weight is tactile feeling (if you hold an object in your hand) + concept of weight. Motion - visual perception + concept of "motion". Etc etc. Matter (rupa) is what is "known". Consciousness (vinanna) - is knowing aspect Mentality - is "Feeling, perception, intention, contact& attention " - mn9 Cause of nama rupa = vinnana mn9 Wishing all the best, Alex #84437 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are walterhorn Hi, Ken. Thanks for your response. I do see the difficulty you mention in comparing assertions which purport to be about what The Buddha taught and those which instead purport to be about the way the world is (or seems to be)--whatever might be the correct interpretation of any scripture. With deep respect to all the very gifted writers I find here, I confess that I am more interested in death, suffering, personal identity, etc., than what anybody wrote about those things--except, of course, to the extent that we can learn from these writings, in the sense of coming to see, independently, that they are true or provide a means to discern truths. What attracted me to Buddhist texts some years back is how subtle and careful a thinker we find therein. (I don't get that same buzz of extreme intelligence and from the Christian gospels, for example.) Now, of course, in order to see just what it is that we may learn from those writings, we would certainly have to study them assiduously. And I can certainly see that exactly such study is being undertaken done by the careful, smart, and industrious people in this group. But, in the end, my ilk can never be entirely satisfied to learn what so-and-so has instructed on such-and-such an issue, even if these teachings have been very firmly established to mean exactly thus-and- so. Similarly, Biblical or Talmudic (or Constitutional) scholarship can have only a historical interest for those who do not (presumably through some sort of revelation or other source of intrinsic trust) believe that whatever may be discovered to have been meant by the writers of such and such documents must be true. I guess it's a matter of personality to a large extent. To take another example, some people are comfortable with gurus. Such people are able to trust a teacher or teachers implicitly and know with a moral certainty that whatever they are taught will not only be in their best interest, but absolutely true. But others will take their teachings even of the saintly as we might take the claim of George Washington--sure HE says he never tell a lie, but what does that prove? Again, I neither mean any disrespect for exegetical scholarship nor suggest that my way is better. Perhaps, it is nothing but a fools errand to eschew the sacredness of any text, for, certainly, to learn anything, we must start somewhere. But for whatever reasons/causes (perhaps nothing better than an adolescent anti-authoritarianism crazily frozen into place for 40 years), my authority can only be the light of my own reason (dim as that often is). Heaven knows, I'm wrong about half the time, but I don't think I can learn even that sad truth just by being told that some Sutta says it's so. All best, Walto --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Walto, > > --------- > > I hope you won't mind if I jump in entirely "non-exegetically" > (That > > is, I make absolutely no claims as to what is in any scripture.) - > --------- > > I don't mind at all! :-) However, I'm not sure how to respond to non- > exegetical material. When you are commenting on philosophical > and scientific matters I really don't know how to relate them back to > the Dhamma. > > Your explanations of 'the parts and the whole' for example, are valid > in their own right, but I don't see how they apply to anything the > Buddha taught. > > The Buddha taught that, when the five khandhas arise together, a > sentient being is said to exist. According to my understanding, this > means when there is (for example) eye base, eye citta, visible > object, contact, feeling dependent on eye-contact (and so on) then a > sentient being is said to exist. In other words, that is all a human > being ultimately is. So the Buddha is not talking here about the body > parts and mental parts that make up what we commonly know as a human > body and mind. > > Did you see my reply to Alex? I think he too was thinking that > paramatha dhammas were the "parts" that made up a conventionally > recognisable body. > > But no, the whole (the all, the loka) that the Buddha described was > just a single citta with some cetasikas and rupas. Nothing > conventionally recognisable as a sentient being! > > Sorry if I am not making myself clear, this is my eighth post for the > day and I may be suffering burnout. :-) > > Ken H > #84438 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:33 am Subject: A Decision About My Replies to Posts upasaka_howard Hi, all - I have made a decision with regard to my posting which I hope, for the most part, to abide by. The decision is to reply to a post, except when just conveying a pleasant greeting or thank-you, only when what I have to say is, at least to some degree and in some way, new, and not just a rehash of what I've said time and again. Also, I will typically quote and reply to only the portion/portions of a post about which I have something somewhat new to say. There are also times when I will simply choose to let the poster have "the last word," either out of agreement, or out of respect or kindness, or because I think that what the poster said "speaks for itself," and it would be best to let each list member make his/her own evaluation without my putting in my two cents. It is my definite intention to implement this decision without ever being rude. But I can imagine that there will be cases in which my non-reply or limited reply is taken as rudeness. For such a case, I apologize in advance. It is not at all my intention to cause offense. 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) #84439 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Metta, Ch 1, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, The commentator investigates here the citta of the ordinary person who has not yet eradicated avarice. Only the ariyan has eradicated avarice completely. When aversion, conceit, jealousy or stinginess arise there is no mettå with the citta. If we want to develop mettå we should acquire a refined knowledge of our different cittas. The characteristics of the cittas which think of particular persons should be investigated. Mettå should not be restricted to a particular group of people. We should continue to develop mettå evermore. There can never be enough mettå. The Buddha showed in many different suttas the benefit of the development of mettå. We read in the Kindred Sayings (I, Sagåthå vagga, Chapter X, The Yakkhas, §4, Manibhadda): Thus we see the great benefit of the development of mettå. Mettå can be developed as a subject of tranquil meditation, samatha. If there is right understanding of the development of calm with this subject, a high degree of calm, even absorption, jhåna, can be attained. The cittas which attain absorption, jhånacittas, are of a higher plane of citta. At the moments of jhånacitta there are no sense impressions and one is temporarily free from defilements. However, after the jhånacittas have fallen away, defilements arise again. The development of tranquillity with mettå as meditation subject will not lead to the eradication of anger, dosa. Only the development of satipatthåna, right understanding of realities, leads to the eradication of defilements. Defilements are eradicated subsequently at four stages of enlightenment. Only at the fourth stage, the stage of the arahat, all defilements are eradicated. At the third stage, the stage of the “non- returner”, anågåmí, anger or aversion is eradicated. The anågåmí has no more anger and is full of mettå. ****** Nina. #84440 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Hi Larry, Op 28-mrt-2008, om 3:26 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > Nina: "Pa~n~naa directly realizes rupa that appears as rupa and nama > that appears as nama. " > > Larry: I agree but that is purification of view. Here we are > investigating all sorts of exotic dhammas: past and future, far and > near, internal and external. And we are using "inductive insight". -------- N: We are at the second stage of tender insight, comprehension by groups, sammassana ~naa.na. Insight is not thinking. The term inductive insight is not clear. I think Scott gave me the Pali, but I forgot. At this stage the object is always the present object, and I would not call it exotic. Nina. #84441 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are nilovg Hi Howard, Op 28-mrt-2008, om 3:04 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > H: > By ignoring aggregates (collections of similar paramattha > dhammas), one ignores commonality of feature, and by ignoring those > aggregates that are integrated, patterned collections of interrelated > dhammas, one ignores the reality of relations and fails to understand > the way things are because of wearing blinders.... > -------------------- > N: Could you explain more about dhammas> ? I think we have to be very precise. What are these > similar paramattha dhammas? ----------- > > N: > > In the Vibhanga there are passages about different individuals, > and why not. So long as it is understood, and always implied that a > being is citta, cetasika and rupa. -------- > H: >Yes, I agree. These "individuals" are nothing more than > aggregations of namas and rupas of a certain sort. Individuals are > not imagined, but they are typically wrongly conceived of, as the > name 'individual' itself suggests. An in-divid-ual is, in fact, quite > divisible(!), being nothing more than an ever-changing stream of > interdependent phenomena - a dynamic aggregation. > --------- > N: I have often heard you speak about aggregations. I am somewhat > hesitant about the term aggregations. It seems to suggest a whole, > whereas the 'world' should be broken down.: the eye, visible > object, seeing, the ear, sound, hearing, etc. This leads to > detachment. Remember the sutta: what is the world? It crumbles > away. We have to consider momentary realities. This is an approach we do not usually have. It is this: consider and be aware of just one dhamma at a time as it appears through one of the six doors, and then we shall know what is there in truth and in reality. When thinking of people, the reality is the citta that thinks. And thinking is quite different from rupa that does not know anything. --------- Nina. #84442 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? nilovg Hi James, Op 28-mrt-2008, om 2:59 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will > speak." > > "As you say, lord," the monks responded. > > The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & > sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations,… > > James: This description of reality seems very Abhidhammaesque. The > sense bases and their objects- which are dhammas (phenomenon). Two > important things to note here is that the Buddha said there is a > reality "out there". There is the eye and its objects, the ear and > its objects, etc. So, anyone who states that reality is all just "in > the mind" is contradicting the Buddha. -------- N: I would not say that reality is all just "in the mind". I am not thinking either of . Objects impinge on the six doorways and thus there are conditions for cognizing them. ---------- > J: Additionally, the Buddha > begins this description with "simply". He wanted to emphasize that > reality is limited to just these things and nothing else. Going back > to the sutta: > > intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. > > James: Okay, here is where we run into trouble. How should this be > defined? Scott and Ken H. are reaching different definitions of this > part. Here is some additional information: > > According to Bhikkhu Bodhi, the post-canonical Pali commentary uses > the three terms viññāṇa, mano and citta as synonyms for > the mind sense > base (mana-ayatana); -------- N: Manaayatana includes all cittas. B.B. is not right, also in the suttanta, not just in the Co. we find the following: the words citta, mano and vi~n~naa.na are the same in meaning, they are the paramattha dhamma that is citta, consciousness. We read in the “Kindred Sayings” (II, Nidaana-sa.myutta, Ch VII, 61: However, in different contexts there is a differentiation of terms. The aggregate of consciousness is called vi~n~naa.nakkhandha, and it includes all cittas. For seeing-consciousness, the word cakkhuvi~n~naa.na is used. Mano can stand for the citta which is the mind-door. The last bhavangacitta arising before the mind-door process begins is the mind-door. The mind-door is the means through which citta experiences an object in that process. "Mana~nca pa.ticca dhamme ca uppajjati manovi~n~naa.nan"ti.... Dependent on the mind-door (mano) and objects (dhamma) arises mind- consciousness (manovi~n~naa.na)... This passage occurs for example in the “Kindred Sayings” (IV, 85, Loko: the world). ---------- > J: quotes: however, in the Sutta Pitaka, these three terms > are generally contextualized differently: > • viññāṇa refers to awareness through a specific > internal sense base, > that is, through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind. Thus, there > are six sense-specific types of viññāṇa. It is also the > basis for > personal continuity within and across lives. ------- N: See above, in different contexts there is preference for certain terms. < It is also the basis for personal continuity within and across lives.> Here we have to be careful, lest people think of reincarnation. This is your quote from B.B., not you. -------- > J: quotes: • mano refers to mental "actions" (kamma), as opposed to > those actions > that are physical or verbal. ------- N: This is in another context: kamma through body, speech and mind. Kamma through the citta which is kusala or akusala. -------- > J: It is also the sixth internal sense base > (ayatana), that is, the "mind base," cognizing mental sensa > (dhammā) > as well as sensory information from the physical sense bases. ------ N: Thus, all cittas. ------- > J: quotes: • citta includes the formation of thought, emotion and > volition; this > is thus the subject of Buddhist mental development (bhava), the > mechanism for release. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_(Buddhism) ------ N: This definition is not so clear. ------- > > James: So, I say, that if the eye receives the colors and shape of an > apple, the ear hears the crunch of the apple, the nose smells the > smell of the apple, the tongue tastes the taste of the apple, the hand > feels the texture and weight of the apple, and the mind puts these > sensations together to form the idea of "apple", then, according to > the Buddha, the apple exists. The apple is an object of all of the > six senses, including the mind, so an apple exists. The same goes for > people, trees, rocks, etc. ------ N: Because of different experiences one at a time and sa~n~naa which remembers them we form the idea of apple, it is an object of thinking, a concept. Where did the Buddha say that such an idea is something that exists? -------- > J: Returning to the sutta: > > Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' > if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, > would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. > Why? Because it lies beyond range." > > James: Now this last part, which many seem to skip over, is important > because it gives the motivation for this sutta. The Buddha didn't > want to just describe reality for the heck of it or because he thought > that this description would bring wisdom. He offered this description > to counteract those who state that "reality" is not what our senses > tell us it is. He wanted us to "simply" trust our senses to discover > reality or "the all". This again, reinforces the idea that if my mind > states that beings exist, then they do exist. They are not imaginary > and only in the mind. They are not "just an idea or a story". They > exist outside of the mind and they are real. ------ N: I am inclined to think that all our experiences are deluded, ignorance is the first link of the D.O. To me: things are not really what they seem to us with our deluded minds. The Buddha stated what the all is: simply nama and rupa that can be experienced one at a time as they appear. There is no other reality except what he stated. That, I think, is the meaning of another all someone else may like to describe but which has no foundation. Nina. #84443 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/28/2008 10:51:10 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, Op 28-mrt-2008, om 3:04 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > H: > By ignoring aggregates (collections of similar paramattha > dhammas), one ignores commonality of feature, and by ignoring those > aggregates that are integrated, patterned collections of interrelated > dhammas, one ignores the reality of relations and fails to understand > the way things are because of wearing blinders.... > -------------------- > N: Could you explain more about dhammas> ? I think we have to be very precise. What are these > similar paramattha dhammas? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: All rupas are similar in being conditioned dhammas that are not instances of knowing. All vedana are similar in being instances of affective feeling. All instances of vi~n~nana are alike in being mere knowing of object. (And so on.) ---------------------------------------------------- ----------- > > N: > > In the Vibhanga there are passages about different individuals, > and why not. So long as it is understood, and always implied that a > being is citta, cetasika and rupa. -------- > H: >Yes, I agree. These "individuals" are nothing more than > aggregations of namas and rupas of a certain sort. Individuals are > not imagined, but they are typically wrongly conceived of, as the > name 'individual' itself suggests. An in-divid-ual is, in fact, quite > divisible(!), being nothing more than an ever-changing stream of > interdependent phenomena - a dynamic aggregation. > --------- > N: I have often heard you speak about aggregations. I am somewhat > hesitant about the term aggregations. It seems to suggest a whole, > whereas the 'world' should be broken down.: the eye, visible > object, seeing, the ear, sound, hearing, etc. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: As I see it, viewing an aggregation as anything more than a collection of interrelated dhammas - viewing it as a single phenomenon, is an error, for it is just a collection. Likewise, viewing it as nothing at all and as not functioning differently from the individual dhammas that compose it is also an error. The acting-in-concert of an aggregation of dhammas is different from the acting of the dhammas on their own. Think of the chariot example: When the chariot is taken apart and pieces of the chariot are set on the ground, there can no longer be a functioning chariot. Likewise, upon the death and decomposition of the body, there is no further bodily function. -------------------------------------------- This leads to > detachment. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, it is important to do the mental analysis - as the chariot metaphor suggests. Likewise, it is important to analyze dhammas as momentary, conditioned, and not self-existent. ---------------------------------------------- Remember the sutta: what is the world? It crumbles > away. We have to consider momentary realities. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Which also crumble away. ---------------------------------------------- This is an approach we do not usually have. It is this: consider and be aware of just one dhamma at a time as it appears through one of the six doors, and then we shall know what is there in truth and in reality. When thinking of people, the reality is the citta that thinks. And thinking is quite different from rupa that does not know anything. --------- Nina. ========================== With metta, Howard #84444 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? truth_aerator Hi James, my 2 cents, >>>>> Two important things to note here is that the Buddha said there is a reality "out there". There is the eye and its objects, the ear and its objects, etc. So, anyone who states that reality is all just "in the mind" is contradicting the Buddha. >> It is possible to interpret that in a different way. Before a "visual object" appears in the consciousness due to causes and conditions (such as past volition/kamma), we can only imagine that there "is an object out there.". The object before it impinges on 5-senses can only exist as an abstraction, or imagination in the intellect. So, these "external" objects before they are perceived in 5 senses are only found in the 6th sense, the mind. The internal/external in the sense IS a subjective and dependently originated abstraction itself. In Arupa planes, internal/external starts to lose any sense. You may say: "Lets say Paul is looking at a cup and John isn't looking at the cup, this proves that objects are really out there." However a simple answer is that YOU are seeing a set of shapes and colors, so for your consciousness (mind) the cup does exist. The only way to conclussively "prove" that there is a reality independent from the mind would be to temporarily stop the mind and try to percieve anything. Nonsense! Without the mind, matter doesn't exist (or at least it doesn't matter, in which case how can it be reality if it is not percieved in any shape or form and doesn't affect, even indirectly.) Or "Paul and John both see the cup, this proves that cup exists really there." What this says is that they share similiar perceptions. They have somewhat similiar current experience (looking at the cup) at this time. All of this can happen in a dream and a dream is purely mental and without any parallel material objects happening. >>>>> Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." >>>> Anything outside of 6 senses, outside of mind ultimately, cannot be described because mind IS the range of knowing. We can describe only what we know, and knowing is a function and range of the mind. Best wishes, Alex #84445 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? nilovg Hi Ken H, Op 28-mrt-2008, om 1:33 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > Sometimes my fellow no-controllers seem understand what they are > saying differently to the way I understand what they are saying. If > you > know what I mean! :-) ------ N: Very interesting. We can also discuss aggregations. And of course: the present moment, we shall not forget! Nina. #84446 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? nilovg Hi Ken, Howard, Sarah had a saying: we cannot become the world's manager. We wish others' wellbeing, but then we need equanimity when we cannot help them. We have to remember that people are heirs to their deeds. We need not remember with indifference that is akusala, heartlessness. We can see the benefit of kusala citta. Nina. Op 28-mrt-2008, om 2:09 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > Changing the subject somewhat: it seems to me as if there is an > innate resistance to conventional reality. Most people can watch > terrible suffering on the evening news while they enjoy their dinner. > It's as if we instinctively realise this world is just concepts, and > not real. > > Otherwise, how could we cope? Even if we were to devote our lives to > relieving suffering in Tibet, what would we be doing about su #84447 From: "colette" Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:34 am Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 Good Morning KH, Eureka, YES, is it very hard to distinguish between the endless amount of different Buddhist Schools but that's just part of the way I learn and get the best results from "my magik". The concept, as I see it, is that I have asked to study buddhism and people come along with all THEIR different flavors of Buddhism. This is not my fault, it, they, the diffferent flavors, already exist, I have just asked to study Buddhism and that means that I get the entire basket of Buddhism dropped on my plate. For instance, I began at the Theosophical Society's library in Wheaton IL, the Olcott Library, simply studying Golden Dawn literature but found that this library was a treasure trove of obscure texts. I studyied Isreal REgardie's version of the G.D. for a short time before finding that I was drawn to my interest which was the psychological and CGJung and which turned out to be Dion Fortune which lead to my introduction to THE SOCIETY OF THE INNER LIGHT. How can I do this, it seperates as a meal takes on it's different characteristics during the cooking process i.e. the fat seperates from the broth, the curd rises from the milk, etc. Concerning Physics and numena/phenomina: EXACTLY MY CONFUSION! I have, for decades, been searching for answers to these questions. For instance, How is it even remotely possible for me to receive answers to questions that I have never spoken of but have held in my mind only? There is a relationship, a very close relationship, between an individual and the environment the individual exists in, which led me to my jest, when I was doing Old English Text caligraphy, back in the early 80s, to my work that focused on "The Possession of your possessions. Taking your life away...." I now feel that it is a result of comets striking the earth very early in the universes' origination, which deposited the material, chemicals, needed to create life i.e. we, the organic life, and human life, are both the same and possess an affinity for eachother. Materialism has taken away the consciousness which is there that relates us to our own selves. It blinds us and deviates us from our natural state of being. About your concept of "classrooms". Even here, as the DSG is a psuedo- classroom, there are many different interpretations and meanings to the multitude of concepts found in the doctrine(s). Over time, for instance of sitting on a back burner not boiling but simply simmering, the chemical mix will seperate and distinguish itself as one or the other. I come to the table, for instance, here, with an open mind knowing that the mission statement clearly defines this group as being Theravadan but I do not rule out any other psychology or philosophy being here as well. You speak of "entering" and "leaving" which creates a "before" and "after" WHICH CAN NOT BE NOR CAN IT EVER BE, if, I am applying certain Mind-Only schools of thought. It does not begin nor can it end, if we are applying Buddhist thought properly -- and I don't care which school you use in Buddhism any and all school teach Karma and the cyclical behavior of "Birth, Life, Death, Birth, Life, Death..." The Theravadans, however, EXCLUSIVELY RELY UPON THIS TEACHING as a means of maintaining control, similar to what China is doing to Tibet. As for my own conglomorations and dishes served up to the people. As I've said, the mix seperates itself during the cooking process, but I am new to Buddhism therefore I seek recipes or schools of thought that have previously worked and have been accepted as being true to the teachings. Once I find the past documentation of the "work in progress" I can then apply it to what I have on the burners at that time and see how it will transpire. For insance I wouldn't want to cook something longer if the the sugars had already began to harden or take on lumpy characteristic. I wouldn't want to feed a customer a dried out, well done, piece of meat, if the customer asked for a "bloody steak". In the U.S.A. bloods are highly regulated by the FDA, for instance the Polish cannot import nor can they make BLOOD SAUSAGE which is a traditional food stuff. This is a good post asking good questions of my techniques. I would like to elaborate further at a latter time. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Colette, > > ----- > C: > Maybe it is possible that people recognized that I have always > accepted this Adhidharma-description of namas and rupas, and have > kept that description out front while I continue grasping <. . .> the > Yogacara-conceptualization and the Mind-Only School. > ----- > > How can you do that? I don't know what the Mind-Only School is, but I > assume it teaches there is only mentality and no materiality. That > would make a refreshing change from modern physics, which seems to > teach there is only materiality. But, even so, it must be hard to > study all the different schools that you study, when they seem to be > saying such totally different things. > > I think there would be only one way of doing what you do. When you > enter the classroom of one teaching you would have to leave all the > other teachings at the door. (And pick them up again on your way > out.) Is that what you do? Or do you form an amalgam of all the > teachings and develop your own, unique, understanding? > > Ken H > #84448 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 3:17 pm Subject: e-card from Adelaide 2 sarahprocter... Dear Friends, Yesterday evening, Mike (Jon's elder brother) and Sue got married at their home where we're staying. A few very close friends and immediate family members, including three of Mike's grown-up children attended. It was a non-religious ceremony and I was interested that the civil celebrant who conducted the short service, stressed virtues we often refer to here - patience, courage and tolerance in a partnership. Later she also added 'humour and respect' as also being key components in a healthy and happy relationship. Helpful for us all to reflect on, I think. On Thursday afternoon, we took Jon's godmother, Albany, up into the hills for a scenic drive and afternoon tea. She had been engaged to Jon's uncle, but he'd died in the war and she's lived a wonderful single life, working hard for decades and still busy even now at the age of 97! She still does all her own housework (though has someone pop in once a month to help with heavy chores!!), still drives, goes out twice a week for mahjong (which she took up in her 70s, arranging for a teacher to show her and a group of friends how to play), out 2 or 3 times a week to play bridge. She still goes out to lunches, family functions and so on too, sometimes staying away for weekends. She's always cheerful and positive. Last year when she had an ulcerated leg and was home-bound for months, she was a great example of patience and continued to take an interest in others' problems. She eats anything, she says, and certainly enjoyed the apple strudel with our tea. Again, we never mention religions but I always learn from her simple, humble approach and attitude to life. She's seen all her close friends die and younger family members, but she just accepts this as part of life. For her 100th, one step at a time, she says, so no planning. In any case, she doesn't want a telegram from the Queen or any fuss! Oh, and she's just got a mobile phone because a month ago, her car broke down and she was stuck, eventually having to get to a house to call for assistance. Several hours later she got a lift home in the pick-up truck as she told us, again with great humour! Metta, Sarah =========== #84449 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:01 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? kenhowardau Hi Alex, I'm not sure how we got into this discussion, but, as far as the Dhamma is concerned, there is both mentality (nama) materiality (rupa). Nama experiences an object, rupa does not experience anything. ----------------- A: > Materiality in a sense of being a perception, DOES exist. It is interesting that when one analyzers reality, one cannot find anything outside of one's own perceptions (mind). The "objective- reality" (in a sense of being independent of observer) IS A SUBJECTIVE STATEMENT ITSELF. ------------------- Rupa can be directly known by panna (right understanding). When it is so known there is no doubt that it is rupa, as distinct from nama. ---------------------------------- A: > "Matter" is a certain sort of perception (form&colour, touch perception + perception of concept of matter). The common critiques against mind-only are weak. Some say that: "If you place one object in front of another, then you won't see the other object. Thus this shows that there is objective time-space and one object obstructing another. Or that an object in a dark place isn't seen, but it is seen in a bright place). Or how can their be other uncontrollable "beings" in mind only. The answer is: In dreams as well you have walls, dark and bright places. In dreams you TOO have cities and streets. In dreams you TOO can see "your" reflection in the mirror, etc etc... ---------------------------------- It is interesting to know what the Mind-Only school has to say, but it isn't Dhamma, and I will give it a miss (time being short, as you know). ------------------- >>>>>>> That would make a refreshing change from modern physics, which seems to teach there is only materiality. But, even so, it must be hard to study all the different schools that you study, when they seem to be saying such totally different things. >>>> A: > Well... All of them teach the insubstantiality of subject- object. The biggest concern is with "Dhamma". Is there MANY dhammas, or few? -------------------- There is only one Dhamma. I don't know why you say it teaches insubstantiality. It teaches anatta, but that is not necessarily insubstantiality. --------------------------------- A: > Are dhamma particle self contained "attalike" units or not? Do these particles exist (in some latent form) in the past and future? --------------------------------- There are namas and rupas that are arisng and falling-away now, as we speak. How much do you know about them? :-) Ken H #84450 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau Hi Larry, --------- <. . .> KH: > > We can say it is "a doer" because it does things (it performs functions) within that single moment. There is no harm in saying these things so long as we are referring purely to the fleeting paramattha dhamma itself. The trouble comes only when we are referring to a perceived "core of self" within that dhamma." Larry: Can you give me a real life example? ----------- I could name quite a few people who have made a big issue of this at DSG over the years. Dan, would be one of them. They will accept that nama is the experience (or he experiencing) of an object, but they will not accept that nama "experiences" an object. In real life, these are people who (IMHO) want to leave the door open just a little. Dan wanted to leave the door open to the possibility that other teachers and gods had found Nibbana (albeit by another name) and taught different paths to it. But the only path is to know that namas and rupas are the be-all and end-all of existence. They are the answer to the big question: "Who is it, or what is it, that experiences?" They leave no room for any other explanations. Other people have different reasons for wanting to leave the door open just a little bit. I won't keep going on about it now, but I have strong opinions on this matter - as you can see. ---------------- L: >I find both the argument that, consciousness experiences an object but is not an experiencer, and the argument that, whatever is dukkha cannot be self, to be unconvincing. ------------------ Don't waste any time on the first of those two arguments. It is not found in the texts (as far as I know). As for the second, Nina explained it just recently (in a post to James, I think) in a way that I found very helpful. Have a look for it if you haven't seen it already. --------------- L: > If we define experiencer to be that which experiences then consciousness is an experiencer according to its professed characteristic: consciousness experiences an object. --------------- Yes, these are two ways of saying the same thing. I have no problem with saying nama is an experiencer of objects. -------------------- L: > And who is to say that self has to be all powerful? ------------------ This is a separate issue, isn't it? Or do you see a link between the two? ------------------------ L: > Certainly no one believes that their self is all powerful. So if anyone is unhappy at being less than all powerful, it is _I_ who am unhappy. Therefore, I think we need a better explanation of "no core" or "emptiness", which is the same thing. ------------------------ I've just had another look for that post from Nina, and I haven't found it yet.But there is a good explanation for why dukkha can't be self. In the meantime, think of the Anattalakhana Sutta: if consciousness (etc) were self, it would be possible to make consciousness the way we want it to be (permanent and not subject to suffering). ------------------------------------ L: > One possibility is that a formation of various elements has no core. In fact we could say there is an empty space at its core. This room that I am sitting in has no core. There is a room as a formation of elements and at its center is nothing. The same could be said of this body/mind complex. But this doesn't particularly tie into dukkha and impermanence, which seems to be necessary so everything fits together. I agree that conceiving a core of self is a problem, simply because there isn't one. I go around saying "I think this" and "I think that". "I did this" and "I did that". In saying so there is the assumption that there is an "I" at the core of this body and mind that thinks and acts. But really the body acts and the mind thinks, but nobody is home. ---------------------------------------- Yes, there are [ultimately] only dhammas, And all dhammas are anatta. Ken H #84451 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Adelaide 2 nilovg DEar Sarah, thank you for your e-card. What a wonderful example given by Albany, we can learn from it! Nina. Op 28-mrt-2008, om 23:17 heeft sarah abbott het volgende geschreven: > She had been engaged to Jon's uncle, > but he'd died in the war and she's lived a wonderful single life, > working > hard for decades and still busy even now at the age of 97! #84452 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:51 am Subject: Metta, Ch 1, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, The development of right understanding of realities, satipatthåna, can be the condition for more mettå. Paññå, right understanding, knows that what one takes for beings, people or self are only mental phenomena, nåma dhammas, and physical phenomena, rúpa dhammas. We use conventional terms and names for the different beings and things which appear, but in reality there are only nåmas and rúpas which arise because of conditions and then fall away. Each citta which falls away is succeeded by the next one, and also rúpas which fall away are replaced so long as there are conditions for them to be produced. Someone said that while he is not engaged in any activity he finds that he is distracted, that he has akusala cittas. He wishes, in order to have kusala cittas, to recite stanzas about mettå for a long time. If one develops satipatthåna however, one should remember that even feeling distracted or dull can be object of awareness. In such circumstances sati can be aware immediately of the characteristic which appears and then there are kusala cittas. It is not easy to know the characteristic of the reality which appears; paññå should really be developed so that there can be precise knowledge of the different characteristics of nåma and rúpa. There must be awareness of the characteristic of the reality which experiences, nåma dhamma, and of the characteristic of the reality which does not know anything, rúpa dhamma. The difference between the characteristics of nåma and rúpa should be clearly distinguished. When there is awareness of the realities which appear one at a time through the doorways of the senses and the mind, through the six doors, their characteristics must be carefully considered and investigated. In that way nåma and rúpa can be understood as they are: as non-self. The person who believes that he should just recite texts about mettå may not be sure whether there are at such moments kusala cittas or akusala cittas. He may not know that awareness, sati, is necessary for the development of paññå, understanding, which clearly knows the reality appearing at the present moment. Perhaps he may not even know to which purpose he recites texts. If we really want to cultivate mettå we should see the disadvantage of all kinds of akusala, such as aversion, conceit, jealousy and stinginess. ****** Nina. #84453 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are nilovg Hi Howard, I am glad that meanwhile your health improved. I read about your policy as to answering posts, and I think it is good. If we keep on answering, there is no end to a dialogue. Who is the last to answer? I am inclined to answer as much as possible, but then I do not know when to stop. Also about bringing something new: this is a challenge. We are inclined to answer in the same wording, rehashing as you say. But on the other hand, I do not mind being reminded of reality now by Ken H. since I am forgetful :-)) Op 28-mrt-2008, om 16:24 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > N: Could you explain more about > dhammas> ? I think we have to be very precise. What are these > > similar paramattha dhammas? > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > All rupas are similar in being conditioned dhammas that are not > instances of knowing. All vedana are similar in being instances of > affective feeling. > All instances of vi~n~nana are alike in being mere knowing of > object. (And > so on.) > ---------------------------------------------------- > N: As I am sure, you will agree: here we are thinking of the > concept khandha, or khandha in abstracto. Not all twentyeight rupas > arise now, and as to naama, not all feelings, not all cittas arise > now. I think that when the Buddha speaks about the khandhas he does not merely speak about classifications. He meant it very concretely: which reality classified in the khandhas is present, that is, arises at this moment? We are interested in what can be directly experienced at this moment. Hardness may appear now, and that is only one ruupa, the Earth Element, that appears and falls away. Also all other dhammas arising at the same time fall away, but we are not interested in those. > ----------- > > > > N: > > In the Vibhanga there are passages about different > individuals, > > and why not. So long as it is understood, and always implied that a > > being is citta, cetasika and rupa. > -------- > > H: >Yes, I agree. These "individuals" are nothing more than > > aggregations of namas and rupas of a certain sort. Individuals are > > not imagined, but they are typically wrongly conceived of, as the > > name 'individual' itself suggests. An in-divid-ual is, in fact, > quite > > divisible(!), being nothing more than an ever-changing stream of > > interdependent phenomena - a dynamic aggregation. > > --------- > > N: I have often heard you speak about aggregations. I am somewhat > > hesitant about the term aggregations. It seems to suggest a whole, > > whereas the 'world' should be broken down.: the eye, visible > > object, seeing, the ear, sound, hearing, etc. > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > As I see it, viewing an aggregation as anything more than a collection > of interrelated dhammas - viewing it as a single phenomenon, is an > error, for > it is just a collection. Likewise, viewing it as nothing at all and > as not > functioning differently from the individual dhammas that compose it > is also an > error. The acting-in-concert of an aggregation of dhammas is > different from > the acting of the dhammas on their own. Think of the chariot > example: When the > chariot is taken apart and pieces of the chariot are set on the > ground, > there can no longer be a functioning chariot. Likewise, upon the > death and > decomposition of the body, there is no further bodily function. > -------------------------------------------- ------ N: I know what you mean by acting in concert, but I cannot directly experienced this, it is thinking about a whole. A collection cannot be directly experienced, and thus, I am not interested. You speak of interrelated dhammas, but this sounds to me too abstract. I am interested in the conditions for a dhamma that appears now. Visible object or colour appears now and we have learnt that it cannot appear if there is no seeing. Moreover it has to impinge on eyesense, otherwise there could not be seeing. This is still thinking, but when time comes, it can be directly realized by insight. You say: < Likewise, upon the death and decomposition of the body, there is no further bodily function.> I find it helpful and realistic to think of death at this moment, death in the ultimate sense: each moment citta, cetasika and rupa are dying, and there is nothing left of them, and then with the arising of a new citta there is rebirth. Also rupas are replaced so long as kamma, citta, temperature and nutrition produce them. If we consider what can be directly experienced at this moment, I think that the question of: does an individual exist or not does not need to be posed anymore when one understands that there are only nama and rupa. It is the same as in the case of: is there a free will or not. This question does not have to be posed when one understands that there are only nama and rupa. ------- > This leads to > > detachment. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, it is important to do the mental analysis - as the chariot > metaphor > suggests. Likewise, it is important to analyze dhammas as momentary, > conditioned, and not self-existent. > ---------------------------------------------- > N: It is more than just mental analysis. It is the development of > direct understanding by being aware of nama and rupa one at a time > when they appear. But without any intention with the idea of self > to be aware, or focussing with the idea of self, even surreptiously. > >Remember the sutta: what is the world? It crumbles > > away. We have to consider momentary realities. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Which also crumble away. > ---------------------------------------------- > N: Absolutely right :-)) Nina. > #84454 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are upasaka_howard Hi, nina - In a message dated 3/29/2008 7:06:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I am glad that meanwhile your health improved. I read about your policy as to answering posts, and I think it is good. If we keep on answering, there is no end to a dialogue. Who is the last to answer? I am inclined to answer as much as possible, but then I do not know when to stop. Also about bringing something new: this is a challenge. We are inclined to answer in the same wording, rehashing as you say. But on the other hand, I do not mind being reminded of reality now by Ken H. since I am forgetful :-)) Op 28-mrt-2008, om 16:24 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > N: Could you explain more about > dhammas> ? I think we have to be very precise. What are these > > similar paramattha dhammas? > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > All rupas are similar in being conditioned dhammas that are not > instances of knowing. All vedana are similar in being instances of > affective feeling. > All instances of vi~n~nana are alike in being mere knowing of > object. (And > so on.) > ---------------------------------------------------- > N: As I am sure, you will agree: here we are thinking of the > concept khandha, or khandha in abstracto. Not all twentyeight rupas > arise now, and as to naama, not all feelings, not all cittas arise > now. I think that when the Buddha speaks about the khandhas he does not merely speak about classifications. He meant it very concretely: which reality classified in the khandhas is present, that is, arises at this moment? We are interested in what can be directly experienced at this moment. Hardness may appear now, and that is only one ruupa, the Earth Element, that appears and falls away. Also all other dhammas arising at the same time fall away, but we are not interested in those. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Certainly I agree! ---------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > > > > N: > > In the Vibhanga there are passages about different > individuals, > > and why not. So long as it is understood, and always implied that a > > being is citta, cetasika and rupa. > -------- > > H: >Yes, I agree. These "individuals" are nothing more than > > aggregations of namas and rupas of a certain sort. Individuals are > > not imagined, but they are typically wrongly conceived of, as the > > name 'individual' itself suggests. An in-divid-ual is, in fact, > quite > > divisible(!), being nothing more than an ever-changing stream of > > interdependent phenomena - a dynamic aggregation. > > --------- > > N: I have often heard you speak about aggregations. I am somewhat > > hesitant about the term aggregations. It seems to suggest a whole, > > whereas the 'world' should be broken down.: the eye, visible > > object, seeing, the ear, sound, hearing, etc. > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > As I see it, viewing an aggregation as anything more than a collection > of interrelated dhammas - viewing it as a single phenomenon, is an > error, for > it is just a collection. Likewise, viewing it as nothing at all and > as not > functioning differently from the individual dhammas that compose it > is also an > error. The acting-in-concert of an aggregation of dhammas is > different from > the acting of the dhammas on their own. Think of the chariot > example: When the > chariot is taken apart and pieces of the chariot are set on the > ground, > there can no longer be a functioning chariot. Likewise, upon the > death and > decomposition of the body, there is no further bodily function. > -------------------------------------------- ------ N: I know what you mean by acting in concert, but I cannot directly experienced this, it is thinking about a whole. A collection cannot be directly experienced, and thus, I am not interested. You speak of interrelated dhammas, but this sounds to me too abstract. I am interested in the conditions for a dhamma that appears now. Visible object or colour appears now and we have learnt that it cannot appear if there is no seeing. Moreover it has to impinge on eyesense, otherwise there could not be seeing. This is still thinking, but when time comes, it can be directly realized by insight. You say: < Likewise, upon the death and decomposition of the body, there is no further bodily function.> I find it helpful and realistic to think of death at this moment, death in the ultimate sense: each moment citta, cetasika and rupa are dying, and there is nothing left of them, and then with the arising of a new citta there is rebirth. Also rupas are replaced so long as kamma, citta, temperature and nutrition produce them. If we consider what can be directly experienced at this moment, I think that the question of: does an individual exist or not does not need to be posed anymore when one understands that there are only nama and rupa. It is the same as in the case of: is there a free will or not. This question does not have to be posed when one understands that there are only nama and rupa. ------- > This leads to > > detachment. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Yes, it is important to do the mental analysis - as the chariot > metaphor > suggests. Likewise, it is important to analyze dhammas as momentary, > conditioned, and not self-existent. > ---------------------------------------------- > N: It is more than just mental analysis. It is the development of > direct understanding by being aware of nama and rupa one at a time > when they appear. But without any intention with the idea of self > to be aware, or focussing with the idea of self, even surreptiously. > >Remember the sutta: what is the world? It crumbles > > away. We have to consider momentary realities. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Which also crumble away. > ---------------------------------------------- > N: Absolutely right :-)) Nina. > ============================== With metta, Howard #84455 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 6:24 am Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? truth_aerator Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > Rupa can be directly known by panna (right understanding). When it is so known there is no doubt that it is rupa, as distinct from nama. > > ---------------------------------- SO a worldling doesn't directly percieve matter (rupa)? Known (rupa) is distinct from Knowing in that sense. However it IS part of the mind in a sense that you know what is inside of your sense perceptions. Best wishes, Alex #84456 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:14 am Subject: Contentment! bhikkhu0 Friends: Contentment (Santutthi) is the most supreme Treasure! There is the case where a Bhikkhu is content with whatever old robe at all, with whatever old almsfood at all , with whatever old hut at all, and with whatever old medicine for curing sickness at all. This Dhamma is for one who is content, not for one who is discontent! Thus was it said. And with reference to exactly this salient contentment with little was this said... AN VIII 30 And how is a Bhikkhu content? Just as a bird, wherever it goes, flies with it's wings as its only burden, even so is he content with a set of robes to protect his body & almsfood to pacify his hunger. Wherever he goes, he takes only simple necessities as robes, belt, bowl and razor along. This is how a Bhikkhu is content... DN 2 There is the case where a Bhikkhu is content with whatever old robe at all, with whatever old almsfood at all , with whatever old hut at all. He speaks in praise of being content with any old requisite at all. He does not, for the sake of any requisite, do anything unsuitable or inappropriate. When not getting any requisites, he is not troubled. When getting requisites, he uses it unattached to it, not obsessed, blameless, seeing the drawbacks & dangers, he realizes the escape from them. He does not, on account of his contentment with any old requisite at all, exalt himself or disparage others. Thus is he clever, energetic, alert, and aware! This, Bhikkhus, is called a Bhikkhu standing quite firm in the ancient, original lineage of the Noble Ones... AN IV 28 Good are friends, when need arises, good is contentment with just what one has, good is merit, when life is at an end, good is the elimination of all Suffering! Dhammapada 331 Solitude is happiness for one who is content, who has heard the Dhamma & clearly sees. Harmlessness is happiness in all worlds, harmlessness towards all living beings. Udana 10 Therefore be capable, upright, & straight, easy to instruct, gentle, & not proud, content & easy to support with little, with few duties, living simple & light, with peaceful abilities, mastering all, modest, & with no greed for support. Do not do even a minor thing that the wise & noble would criticize. Sutta Nipata I, 8 Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) #84457 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 2:53 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? jonoabb Hi KenH > PS: I'll admit that Jon (that great Abhidhamma stalwart) has > occasionally conceded there are "streams" of namas and rupas. I have > no doubt that he uses such concepts purely as aids to understanding > the how the present, momentary, realities came about. Even so, I > intend to grill him about these so-called "streams" when I see him > next week. :-) Looking forward to the grilling ;-)) In the meantime, a comment or two about "streams" of namas and rupas for your considertaion: 1. I don't think I've ever mentioned streams of rupas (or cetasikas). Only streams of cittas. 2. As regards streams of cittas, the term "stream" comes from the textual term "bhavanga sota", or stream of bhavangha [cittas]. 3. In absolute (paramattha) terms, a "stream" of cittas refers to cittas that are related to each other by contiguity condition (and other conditions such as disappearance condition). Jon #84458 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 3/29/2008 5:53:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi KenH > PS: I'll admit that Jon (that great Abhidhamma stalwart) has > occasionally conceded there are "streams" of namas and rupas. I have > no doubt that he uses such concepts purely as aids to understanding > the how the present, momentary, realities came about. Even so, I > intend to grill him about these so-called "streams" when I see him > next week. :-) Looking forward to the grilling ;-)) In the meantime, a comment or two about "streams" of namas and rupas for your considertaion: 1. I don't think I've ever mentioned streams of rupas (or cetasikas). Only streams of cittas. 2. As regards streams of cittas, the term "stream" comes from the textual term "bhavanga sota", or stream of bhavangha [cittas]. 3. In absolute (paramattha) terms, a "stream" of cittas refers to cittas that are related to each other by contiguity condition (and other conditions such as disappearance condition). --------------------------------------------------- Howard: And it is exactly a collection of dhammas that are related to each other in some real way, and most especially in a variety of real ways, that I call an "aggregation" of dhammas. ------------------------------------------------- Jon ======================== With metta, Howard #84459 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 3:47 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > I see no problem with thinking about fingers and tables as impermanent. > After all, that is what we are attached to. And I have it on the > authority of Ken H that when thinking is rooted in wisdom it qualifies > as insight. > > Larry > Hi Larry, When I first read that I wondered where I had made the authoratative pronouncement. :-) The closest I can remember saying was that thinking with panna was "pariyatti." I suppose pariyatti could be called insightful thinking. But it is not satipatthana or vipassana (direct right understanding). Also, there was the following in one of our recent conversations: ------ Larry: > > Notice the use of "any". We are going for general characteristics and so an inclusive comprehension. > > KenH: > As Nina points out, there is thinking in between these moments of tender insight. This might be where your term "inclusive comprehension" comes in. But the actual insights are of one dhamma at a time. ------- So I got it right that time, didn't I? Sorry about any other, misleading, times. :-) Ken H #84460 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Ken, Ken: "But the only path is to know that namas and rupas are the be-all and end-all of existence. They are the answer to the big question: "Who is it, or what is it, that experiences?" They leave no room for any other explanations." Larry: I don't understand what it means for consciousness to experience an object. If ear consciousness experiences sound, what happens? Ken: "In the meantime, think of the Anattalakhana Sutta: if consciousness (etc) were self, it would be possible to make consciousness the way we want it to be (permanent and not subject to suffering). Larry: I understand this to mean that if there were a self it would be all powerful so it could create any state and there would be no dukkha. But self view doesn't assume that it is all powerful. So where does the Buddha get the idea that a self must be all powerful? Larry #84461 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 4:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Ken and Nina, Regarding "inclusive comprehension" and "thinking between the insights" I think the text is clearly pointing toward a larger view and I would call that larger view one of the "tender insights". It seems reasonable that understanding only one moment isn't enough. However, I haven't read ahead so I don't know how this story will come out. I'm adopting a 'wait and see' attitude. Larry #84462 From: Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:59 am Subject: Re: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? jonoabb Hi Howard Thanks for coming in on this thread. > 3. In absolute (paramattha) terms, a "stream" of cittas refers to cittas > that are related to each other by contiguity condition (and other conditions > such as disappearance condition). > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > And it is exactly a collection of dhammas that are related to each other > in some real way, and most especially in a variety of real ways, that I call > an "aggregation" of dhammas. > ------------------------------------------------- I'd be interested to know whether there are any suttas that speak of such collections of dhammas or relations. In the case of the stream of cittas, there is only ever one citta arisen at any given moment. Jon #84463 From: "colette" Date: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:58 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 Hi Alex, Ken, et al, Alex, you had to bring this up and I like the approach so allow me to do with it what I do and DO NOT ATTACH emotions and feelings to it. You go straight to the Abhidharma approach, no problems, I do the same thing since the Abh. is in simplest terminology. Then you examine the whole and the parts that constitute the whole. My interpretation: you gladly sacrifice the analysis of the parts and simply accept the analysis of the whole. Man, numbers-crunchers and/or middle-managers can really get on my nerves with their obedience and obsessive compulsive disorder of ritual behavior towards dotting all I's and crossing all T's since that's where there bread & butter (their paycheck, the drug that stimulates the hormones in the brain) is dependent upon. Thus I'm in your corner here, on this subject. You culminate with DO in the form of nama & rupa. You ponder the dependence of nama & rupa on DO, WHY? Did a tree in the woods fall if you or I did not hear the tree fall? If it did fall, then how do we know it fell? I'm getting at consciousness is not consciousness UNTIL recognition or COGNITIVE RECOGNITION. Now I'd be getting into the mind-only or yogacara schools. We can honestly theorize that the tree fell yet we cannot know the tree fell if we did not consciously and cognitively experience the tree falling, could we? Now what about Rupa? Can you actually be sure that Rupa exists if you have not experienced it? The tree falling is a visual experience and not a tactile experience, is there any part of YOUR nama or nuemena or mind (thoughts) that aid you in "experiencing" the sight of a tree falling? Doesn't your body "know" that tactile consciousness of falling down and therefore transpose that cognition onto the sight, visual consciousness, of the tree falling? The same for the other consciousnesses? But it all gets back to the Storehouse Consciousness, the Alaya-Vijnana where your unconscious (see C.G.Jung) sends electric signals to your eyes or your ears, reminding you of what the Alaya-Vijnana knows from the experience of "falling". HERE WE EASILY SEE the application of "Conditioning" and the hazards of "clinging", no? gotta go, just wanted to begin trying something new out. Thanx for letting me have a chance to play in the sandbox with the rest of the people. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Dear Ken, > > Where did He say the above using those terms in the suttas? What you've > said, comes strait from Abh. >... > Another thing I'd like to stress. In the suttas, in DO, nama-rupa comes > together and also is dependent on consciousness. I wonder why? > > The "matter" IS a set of perceptions! > > Hardness is tactile feeling + concept "hardness". > > Length, width, height - is visual perception + concept "lwh" > > Weight is tactile feeling (if you hold an object in your hand) + > concept of weight. > > Motion - visual perception + concept of "motion". > Etc etc. > > Matter (rupa) is what is "known". > Consciousness (vinanna) - is knowing aspect > Mentality - is "Feeling, perception, intention, contact& attention " - > mn9 > > Cause of nama rupa = vinnana mn9 #84464 From: "colette" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 Hi Jon, Can I ask a few questions to clear up some discrepencies which create the misinterpretations and potentials for WRONG VIEW(s)? I've read the STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS since it's terminology related the process of thought as a stream or river where it is always flowing. My understanding would be that there can be a "stream of namas" which are of the mind, but a stream of rupas seems a bit odd as well as an impossibility. If we view that rupas could be a stream we can simplify this misleading terminology as being reality since we are confronted by rupas constantly in this materialistic society/world. If you have not renounced rupas, materialism, and have tried the ascetic path of removing all materialism from your sphere of influence, for lack of better terms, then I believe that you'd have great trouble, difficulty, in realizing how rupas themselves can play such an influential part in an existance of illusion(s). I certainly believe that there can be and are streams of cittas, which are the mental formation of representations of the rupas as well as streams of namas which are the mental representations of the conditioning a sentient being undergoes throughout existance. Somehow I simply ponder why KenH would attempt to grill you a stream of rupas since they, the rupas, are a hinderance therefore you would have to be clinging to them as a representation of your reality which you cannot get rid of lest you cease to exist. You know I'm leading into Svabhava here and whether you created the rupas or the rupas created you. Citta is an explanation, a descriptive message, to raise consciousness. I ponder if cittas are like the dharmas, impermenent and like the boat used to cross the river. I lack the ability to cut & paste so you'll have to refer to your definition of "citta" as being "3", below: I have trouble with this concept being that something like "pain" can be raised to consciousness through the eye- consciousness of seeing a weapon or seeing a poverty striken person suffering on the street or any number of ways. This type of citta would be part of a stream of consciousness but without the actual experience of the citta, how can there be actual conditioning taking place in the mind or consciousness i.e. Paris Hilton represents all prostitutes or sex workers in the world, aka "great harlot", yet she has always lived a priveledged and descriminatory life, so how could she even have consciousness of what she represents? Is it possible that she simply thinks it's all a game and that money or Tom Cruise's famous line "show me the money" are the only tangible factors envolved therefore she stays in a drug enduced hallucinatory world? I wouldn't mind watching KenH grill you but I don't think he has the bar-b to do the grilling with, yet. Got any shrimp or prawns? Maybe some callimari? toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Hi KenH ... > Looking forward to the grilling ;-)) > > In the meantime, a comment or two about "streams" of namas and rupas for your considertaion: > > 1. I don't think I've ever mentioned streams of rupas (or cetasikas). Only streams of cittas. > > 2. As regards streams of cittas, the term "stream" comes from the textual term "bhavanga sota", or stream of bhavangha [cittas]. > > 3. In absolute (paramattha) terms, a "stream" of cittas refers to cittas that are related to each other by contiguity condition (and other conditions such as disappearance condition). > > Jon > #84465 From: "colette" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 12:34 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 HI KenH, What's happening here? > 1. I don't think I've ever mentioned streams of rupas (or cetasikas). Only > streams of cittas. > > 2. As regards streams of cittas, the term "stream" comes from the textual > term "bhavanga sota", or stream of bhavangha [cittas]. > > 3. In absolute (paramattha) terms, a "stream" of cittas refers to cittas > that are related to each other by contiguity condition (and other conditions > such as disappearance condition). > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > And it is exactly a collection of dhammas that are related to each other colette: ouch, there's that pesky DOCTRINE OF SHUNYATA, you know, emptiness, lacking substantiation, lacking permenence. ------- > in some real way, and most especially in a variety of real ways, colette: so, if this is the case, then you suggest that the saying "ya can't take it with ya when ya go" is a false statement. You suggest that all the baubles & trinkets will go with the individual at death, meeting Yama, then, upon rebirth, will be there for the explicit use of the individual that has re-incarnated. ------------- that I call > an "aggregation" of dhammas. colette: this is the first time I've run into a person actually saying such things so give me the time to ponder this entire conception , tonight because I know you are part of the process that is leading me to greater realizations. For instance I've begun to ponder that applicability of THE GREAT PERFECTION, Dzogchen, because I can't actually find a place or time when perfecting greatly is the course of the day/night, but this could be the illusion I suffer because of my lack of experience with these techniques, it could also be a mudra or a mahamudra, who knows. Thanks to both You and Jon. toodles, colette #84466 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] as they really are kenhowardau Hi Walto, ----------------- <. . .> W: > But, in the end, my ilk can never be entirely satisfied to learn what so-and-so has instructed on such-and-such an issue, even if these teachings have been very firmly established to mean exactly thus-and- so. Similarly, Biblical or Talmudic (or Constitutional) scholarship can have only a historical interest for those who do not (presumably through some sort of revelation or other source of intrinsic trust) believe that whatever may be discovered to have been meant by the writers of such and such documents must be true. ------------------ Blind belief, or blind faith, is a pitiful quality, but it is not unique to religious people. There is belief in a self that will live eternally, and there is belief in a self that will be annihilated. Perhaps we alternate between the two, but I think every one of us (who is not an ariyan) suffers from one of those blind beliefs. ---------------------------- W: > I guess it's a matter of personality to a large extent. To take another example, some people are comfortable with gurus. Such people are able to trust a teacher or teachers implicitly and know with a moral certainty that whatever they are taught will not only be in their best interest, but absolutely true. But others will take their teachings even of the saintly as we might take the claim of George Washington--sure HE says he never tell a lie, but what does that prove? ---------------------------- Some teachers invite us to see for ourselves if what they say is true. ------------------------------------- W: > Again, I neither mean any disrespect for exegetical scholarship nor suggest that my way is better. Perhaps, it is nothing but a fools errand to eschew the sacredness of any text, for, certainly, to learn anything, we must start somewhere. But for whatever reasons/causes (perhaps nothing better than an adolescent anti-authoritarianism crazily frozen into place for 40 years), my authority can only be the light of my own reason (dim as that often is). Heaven knows, I'm wrong about half the time, but I don't think I can learn even that sad truth just by being told that some Sutta says it's so. ----------------------------------------- As a "see for yourself" teaching, the Dhamma has no place for fake right understanding. If right understanding arises it does so because the conditions for it are present. If doubt and/or wrong understanding arise it is equally because of conditions. There is no control over conditions. :-) Ken H #84467 From: "gazita2002" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:29 am Subject: Att. KenH. gazita2002 Hello KenH, can you write me off list with your details about arrival in Bkk. We are having a session on Wed afternoon if you are here in time. Write me via gmail ; azitag@... Travel well, azita gill #84468 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 1:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 3/30/2008 7:58:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard Thanks for coming in on this thread. > 3. In absolute (paramattha) terms, a "stream" of cittas refers to cittas > that are related to each other by contiguity condition (and other conditions > such as disappearance condition). > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > And it is exactly a collection of dhammas that are related to each other > in some real way, and most especially in a variety of real ways, that I call > an "aggregation" of dhammas. > ------------------------------------------------- I'd be interested to know whether there are any suttas that speak of such collections of dhammas or relations. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Uh, huh. ;-) ---------------------------------------------- In the case of the stream of cittas, there is only ever one citta arisen at any given moment. Jon ======================== With metta, Howard #84469 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:46 am Subject: Metta, Ch 1, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, For the development of mettå it is necessary to have a refined, detailed knowledge of one’s different cittas. They must be known as they really are. Kusala citta and akusala citta have different characteristics. Even if there is kusala of a slight degree, that moment is completely different from the moments of attachment. If sati and paññå do not arise one cannot know when there is lobha and when there is mettå. If one does not know their different characteristics one may unknowingly develop akusala instead of mettå since one takes for kusala what is in fact akusala. Therefore a precise knowledge of the different characteristics of lobha and mettå is necessary. The Atthasåliní (Book II, Part II, Chapter 2) explains about the many aspects of lobha mentioned in the Dhammasangani. We read about “delight”: “Delight” refers to this that by greed beings in any existence feel delight, or greed itself is delighting in. In “passionate delight” we get the first term combined with delight. Craving once arisen to an object is “delight”; arisen repeatedly, it is “passionate delight”... This is daily life which should really be investigated. When mettå does not arise citta is infatuated by objects, it delights in objects all the time. If there is no awareness we do not know when there is lobha. The clinging to the different objects which are experienced will condition our behaviour, our actions through body and speech, and then we can find out that there is no mettå. When we have learnt through our own experience the characteristic of lobha and of mettå when they arise, we can compare them and clearly know their difference. We should not only try to develop mettå when anger arises, but also when there is attachment. We should consider with what kind of citta we think of our friends, our circle of relatives, those who are near and dear to us. We should find out whether there are at such moments cittas with mettå or cittas with lobha, and we should learn by our own experience the difference between these moments. If we earnestly wish to develop mettå we should not waste any opportunity to learn about the characteristics of our different cittas so that there are conditions for the development of mettå. It is useless to think that we should develop mettå only when we become angry. ****** Nina. #84470 From: "connie" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:46 am Subject: Perfections Corner (116) nichiconn Dear Friends, Continuing with Ch.1 : The perfection of generosity is a condition to cross over to the further shore, namely, the eradication of defilements, different from the realm of defilements. It is an extremely long way to reach the further shore, the eradication of defilements; it is not easy to reach it. We should clearly understand what the eradication of defilements means. Therefore, we should know whether at the moment of giving we are hoping for a reward or not. Giving that eliminates lobha, attachment, is giving with the aim to eradicate defilements, and that means that we should not expect any kind of reward. Nina: What will be the conquerer, kusala or akusala? Connie: I think akusala moments would outnumber the kusala ones in any of my days but in the long (long, long, long) run, kusala must win out. Summary & Exposition of the Topics of Abdhidhamma: << Accomplishment in renunciation is achieving the state of complete non-arising of all the defilements including the subtle traces. >> peace, c. #84471 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Hi Larry and Ken, Op 30-mrt-2008, om 0:56 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > Regarding "inclusive comprehension" and "thinking between the > insights" > I think the text is clearly pointing toward a larger view and I would > call that larger view one of the "tender insights". It seems > reasonable > that understanding only one moment isn't enough. However, I haven't > read > ahead so I don't know how this story will come out. I'm adopting a > 'wait > and see' attitude. -------- N: I also looked again for the term inductive insight, naya vipassanaa. Naya is method, or inference. XX, 1 and 2: See also the footnote. This is definitely insight, vipassana ~naa.na. Comprehension by Groups is the third stage of tender insight. Different from pariyatti. As Larry says, it seems reasonable that understanding only one moment isn't enough. There are several rounds of direct understanding through mind-door. But it is not sufficient to understand only a few dhammas. The insight one has gained has to be applied to all kinds of dhammas, that is why there are pari~n~nas. ------- The other post: Ken: "But the only path is to know that namas and rupas are the be-all and end-all of existence. They are the answer to the big question: "Who is it, or what is it, that experiences?" They leave no room for any other explanations." Larry: I don't understand what it means for consciousness to experience an object. If ear consciousness experiences sound, what happens? ------ N: This is a good question and it touches on the direct experience of characteristics. We take hearing for granted and perhaps we never considered what it is that experiences. Hearing just experiences sound and it has no other activity. But we cannot really understand this when there is no awareness of hearing when hearing appears. There is the experience of sounds all day long, but often we do not pay attention to them. There are also moments of seeing, and at the moment of seeing, there is no hearing. We can learn that they are dhammas arising because of their own conditions. Nina. --------- Larry : I understand this to mean that if there were a self it would be all powerful so it could create any state and there would be no dukkha. But self view doesn't assume that it is all powerful. So where does the Buddha get the idea that a self must be all powerful? ------- N: We should think of a self who controls, who directs. And is this not the case when we cling to: I see, I hear? #84472 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (116) nilovg Dear Connie, thank you. Op 30-mrt-2008, om 16:46 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > Nina: What will be the conquerer, kusala or akusala? > > Connie: I think akusala moments would outnumber the kusala ones in > any of my days but in the long (long, long, long) run, kusala must > win out. > > Summary & Exposition of the Topics of Abdhidhamma: << > Accomplishment in renunciation is achieving the state of complete > non-arising of all the defilements including the subtle traces. >> -------- N: The subtle traces would be the latent tendencies. You say: in the long (long, long, long) run, kusala must win out. If pa~n~naa is being developed through satipatthaana, as you know. But it takes many, many lives. Nina. #84473 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:31 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? kenhowardau Hi Alex, -------- KH: > > Rupa can be directly known by panna (right understanding). When it is so known there is no doubt that it is rupa, as distinct from nama. > > A: > SO a worldling doesn't directly percieve matter (rupa)? -------- No, that's not what I meant. A worldling does directly perceive rupas. When there is seeing, for example, the citta called eye- consciousness is directly experiencing the rupa called visible object. It is the same for all of us - ariyans and worldlings alike. What I meant was that the cetasika called panna can (also) directly experience dhammas. When this happens there is right understanding - including the understanding that rupa is rupa, as distinct from nama. And, yes, I agree this kind of knowing is unique to the wise. It is not unique to the ariyans, but to people who are at least getting close to being ariyans. :-) ---------------------- A: > Known (rupa) is distinct from Knowing in that sense. ---------------------- Yes, rupa and nama are always two distinct types of dhamma - whether we know it or not. ----------------------------------- A: > However it IS part of the mind in a sense that you know what is inside of your sense perceptions. ------------------------------------ Well, that's one way of putting it. But I would rather put it the way the Abhidhamma does. Have you read "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" yet? Once you've read that you should find these DSG discussions a lot easier to follow. Ken H #84474 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 2:02 am Subject: Rejoicing Joy! bhikkhu0 Friends: Unselfish Joy: How to rejoice in others Success: By seeing that: If only happy at one's own success, such Joy is rare & limited! If happy also at other's success, the Joy is more frequent & even infinite! By observing that: It starts with basic sympathy, develops into acceptance, approval & appreciation, culminates in rejoicing mutual Joy by directing mind to, initiation, frequent cultivation & boundless expansion of Mutual Joy.. By knowing that: Mutual Joy is the cause of satisfied contentment! Mutual Joy eliminates all acidic jealousy and envy! Mutual Joy is an infinite, truly divine and sublime state! Buddha: If it were impossible to cultivate this Good, I would not tell you to do so! Buddhaghosa: See how this good being is very Happy! How fine! How excellent! How sweet! Let there be Happiness. Let there be open Freedom. Let there be Peace. Let there be Bliss from this. Let there be Understanding of this. Moreover: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Mutual_Joy.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Infinitely_Joyous_Consciousness.htm Mudita: The Buddha's Teaching on Unselfish Joy: BPS Wheel Publication No. 170 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel170.html Rejoicing Joy causes contentment! ;-) Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) #84475 From: "colette" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:15 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 Hi KenH, > No, that's not what I meant. A worldling does directly perceive > rupas. When there is seeing, for example, the citta called eye- > consciousness is directly experiencing the rupa called visible > object.It is the same for all of us - ariyans and worldlings alike. > > What I meant was that the cetasika called panna can (also) directly > experience dhammas. When this happens there is right understanding - colette: I think you're experiencing the actual frustration that words because I want to question you on this: sothe "cetasika called panna" obviously is a thing in itself since you suggest that "...panna can directly experience dhammas" which also means that the "dhamma" is a self existant thing. Each individual object either the panna of the cestasika or the dhamma are both self existant and individual things (rupas, for lack of better words) and when they come into contact with each other, for instance at an intersection, or a tangent, or a ramp (on/off), then and only then can right understanding occur or develope as a virus grows from a fungus or something in an incubator such as a uterus? I perceive that cetasika called panna and the dhamma both possess the quality of right understanding it is just each individual's lack of ability to communicate with the phenomina that it just experienced (commonly refered to in Buddhism as IGNORANCE) i.e. perception, rationalization, translation, etc. Therefore since they both possess and emulate the characteristics of right understanding THEN I do not see the requirement for the two, panna from cetasika and dhamma, to have the requirement to possess intersection, or tangent, the chemical combination of the two as the only way to produce right understanding. If the individual cannot translate the communication techniques used by the cetasika of panna and the dhamma, individually, then why would the individual require the two, panna and dhamma, to chemically react together to create a spark, for instance? toodles, colette #84476 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? jonoabb Hi Howard > I'd be interested to know whether there are any suttas that speak of such > collections of dhammas or relations. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Uh, huh. ;-) > ---------------------------------------------- Is this reply part of your new posting practice? I'm afraid it's meaning is lost on me ;-)). Translation, please. Jon #84477 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:54 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? kenhowardau Hi Colette, ----- <. . .> C: > sothe "cetasika called panna" obviously is a thing in itself since you suggest that "...panna can directly experience dhammas" which also means that the "dhamma" is a self existant thing. Each individual object either the panna of the cestasika or the dhamma are both self existant and individual things ------ Some people are reluctant to describe dhammas as "self existent." They think anything that is dependent on something else for its existence cannot be called self existent. But, to my mind, "self existent" means having a distinct identity. So, in a moment of seeing, the citta that sees and the rupa that is seen are separate (distinct, self existent) things. Is that how you understand it? --------------- C: > (rupas, for lack of better words) and when they come into contact with each other, for instance at an intersection, or a tangent, or a ramp (on/off), then and only then can right understanding occur or develope as a virus grows from a fungus or something in an incubator such as a uterus? ---------------- Yes, I think that's right. However, namas and rupas don't actually bump into each other. In the world of paramattha dhammas contact is, itself, a nama. When (for example) eye-citta and visible-rupa arise together (and other necessary conditions are fulfilled) then the cetasika called 'contact' is conditioned to arise with them. When a mind-citta is experiencing the same visible rupa (after the eye-citta has fallen away) it is possible that the cetasika called panna will also arise. But the conditions for panna are very rare. -------------- C: > I perceive that cetasika called panna and the dhamma both possess the quality of right understanding it is just each individual's lack of ability to communicate with the phenomina that it just experienced (commonly refered to in Buddhism as IGNORANCE) i.e. perception, rationalization, translation, etc. -------------- No, I don't think I can agree with that. According to the Abhidhamma, namas (cittas and cetasikas) are the only dhammas that can experience or know anything. Rupas (visible object, for example), can't possibly know anything. Ken H #84478 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Nina, Thanks for your answers. I think I understand the one about "control". It basically goes back to the "I". There is no "I" that controls or is a doer or experiencer. In other places in Vism. and I believe the suttas there is talk of "mastery" of various states, usually jhana or siila. This is conventional language and shouldn't be understood as " 'I' am a master of jhana." I would like to know more about sound and hearing. When hearing consciousness experiences sound it seems as though sound is the experience, but, on the other hand, if hearing experiences sound then isn't hearing the experience? Or are there two experiences, sound and hearing? Larry #84479 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:08 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------ > N: Because of different experiences one at a time and sa~n~naa which > remembers them we form the idea of apple, it is an object of > thinking, a concept. Where did the Buddha say that such an idea is > something that exists? > -------- He said that in the sutta. "The All" includes the mind and mental objects. This is how to determine what exists. So, objective reality includes what the mind cognizes. Metta, James #84480 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? buddhatrue Hi Alex, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Anything outside of 6 senses, outside of mind ultimately, cannot be > described because mind IS the range of knowing. We can describe only > what we know, and knowing is a function and range of the mind. The Buddha described "The All" as the objects of the six senses, including the mind. He didn't describe "The All" as the mind only and its objects. The arguments of "mind only" contradict what the Buddha taught. Granted, nama and rupa arise at the same time and depend on each other, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Metta, James #84481 From: "connie" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:22 pm Subject: Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections Corner (116) nichiconn > Summary & Exposition of the Topics of Abdhidhamma: << > Accomplishment in renunciation is achieving the state of complete > non-arising of all the defilements including the subtle traces. >> -------- N: The subtle traces would be the latent tendencies. You say: in the long (long, long, long) run, kusala must win out. If pa~n~naa is being developed through satipatthaana, as you know. But it takes many, many lives. Dear Nina, "If pa~n~naa is being developed through satipatthaana", thank you. Earlier, when you mentioned chanda, I was reminded of Lama Govinda's book saying << adhimokkha is the source of energy >>. He wrote << decision (adhimokkha, which literally means 'liberation', namely from doubt or uncertainty [adhi + muc; mu~ncati = to liberate]) >> best wishes, connie #84482 From: "jonoabb" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:19 pm Subject: e-card from Adelaide jonoabb Hi All Adelaide airport. End of our stay. Many opportunities for patience and equanimity. Sarah has been a great example in this regard. The wedding party yesterday was something of an eye-opener for us (although no doubt nothing out of the ordinary for the folks here): staggering amounts of liquor consumed, unruly behaviour by the younger ones, guests staying until all hours (making access to our bedroom impossible), family arguments after the guests had left, etc. On the last-mentioned, Sarah found herself in the role of mediator, and her efforts seemed to be much appreciated; one niece was heard to explain to another that Sarah was a really good friend and it was "because she is a Buddhist". Managed to fit in a day trip to the south coast for swimming (parking on the beach, which was quite deserted) and visiting friends and relatives. Any moment, any time, is an appropriate time for awareness. Flight to Hong Kong, via Melbourne, now boarding. Arrival in HK just before midnight. More opportunities... Happy to be on our way! Jon #84483 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? TGrand458@... Hi Matheesha In a message dated 3/22/2008 4:08:36 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, dhammachat@... writes: Hi TG, a "being" is a conditionally relative "system" of interacting and > altering elements held together and propagated by craving and false views, then I > would say yes, there are beings. I'd probably prefer to call it a "becoming" Do you think that upadana/clinging giving rise to bhava/becoming happens all the time? I felt that it is in those moments where there has been previous craving (say, craving for a certain type of food), which in turn has given rise to upadana, which gives rise to bhava - as close as we can get to seeing 'rebirth' -a thought of that same food popping up into our heads, apparently from nowhere, but caused by upadana, based on previous craving. This thought would contain the 4 aggregates. If it arose in a foetus, it would contain 5. I am deliberating between this and the idea of bhava happening every single moment, because that is what most insight meditators seem to sense. I would like to know your thoughts on this. I guess the question is what factors are involved in giving rise to every moment? with metta Matheesha ............................................................. Sounds like you've considered a lot about this. My sense is the Bhava is continuous. Its intensity fluctuating based on relative cravings/clingings/ignorance. My sense is that it is always at least latently present as long as there is a "human system" which has not escaped the bounds of samsara. I think you're idea is interesting though. TG #84484 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:34 pm Subject: Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau Hi Larry, ------- <. . .> Larry: > I understand this to mean that if there were a self it would be all powerful so it could create any state and there would be no dukkha. But self view doesn't assume that it is all powerful. So where does the Buddha get the idea that a self must be all powerful? ------- I can think of some reasons. (Whether they are right or not is another matter): Anything impermanent cannot be self, can it? This is because, if something changes, then the past 'thing' has gone and the present thing is completely new. In that case, the present thing cannot say of a past event "I did that. That was me," because it wasn't that thing at all. It was something else. Therefore, a self would have to be unchanging. Unchanging means it can't be sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes happy, sometimes sad, etc. Therefore, an unchanging self would have to be impervious to outside influences (that would otherwise change it). In other words, a self would have to be all powerful. What do you think? Ken H #84485 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 3/22/2008 8:09:51 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: > NEW TG: Were the terms -- disease, tumor, dart, and alien addressed? Can > one insightfully see "consciousness, one insightfully see "consciousness," > your point of view? Aren't those symbolic representations? Or do you think the > Buddha literally thought we should see consciousness as a "Dart" and that > THIS is consciousness' THIS is consciousness's "characteristic and functio > for what it really is? So maybe we should throw "consciousness" at dart > boards? ;-) > > > Dart is meant to express something that causes pain. But as a teaching, one > needs to take the idea "dart" and convert it to seeing something that is > causing pain. This conversion is a conceptual process. > I do not see any necessary inconsistency between direct insight into the true nature of presently arisen dhammas (khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, etc) and a description of those dhammas in the suttas as being like a disease, a tumor, a dart, and alien. ................................................ TG: The Suttas say that the Elements, Aggregates should be seen as -- these things. Is there something regarding the "true nature" of the elements that is beyond -- conditioned, impermanent, afflicting, nonself? When we discuss some issue of "a dhamma" such as "its firmness;" then I think we are dealing with the "false facade" of elements and succumbing to a conventional delusional perspective not at all indicative of "true nature." Granted ... at a more subtle level than normal human perspectives...but nevertheless, it is still delusion. Truly seeing/experiencing nature results in turning away from it, not identifying aspects of it. Understanding elements allows the mind to realize they are hollow and empty. It does not lead to seeing them as "ultimate realities with their own characteristics." ........................................................... I agree with you that these terms are to some extent symbolic representations, and need to be understood in more detail (as given in the commentary). But the gaining of the appropriate knowledge remains a case of direct experiencing of presently arisen dhammas. By that development, the true meaning of the words of the sutta become apparent. > I believe the reason these types of terms are used is to "jolt" or almost > "shock" a mind into a more mindful and deeply insightful disposition, and try to > bring about revulsion and detachment. > I don't see where you get this from. ........................................................ TG: I get this from the Suttas and what I would think is a pretty low threshold of interpretation. "A murderer with raised sword," a pit of burning charcoals," "the description of hell states," etc. Dart, thorn, murderer, tumor, disease, etc. It all fits together doesn't it? Its motivation that leads the mind to detachment. ............................................................... The sutta gives ground for reflection for those who are sufficiently advanced to benefit from it, but the development of awareness/insight remains the same: attention to a presently arisen dhamma. Where is the necessity for inferential knowledge (of the kind you refer to) as part of insight development? ...................................................................... TG: Its throughout the Suttas. Its even throughout the Satipatthana Sutta. Its got to do with analysis, with understanding. Obviously none of this -- the Suttas, Abhidhamma, Commentaries, can mean a thing without it. TG OUT ......................................................................... Hoping you see this on your return. Jon #84486 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? TGrand458@... Hi Howard and Matheesha Yes Howard, this is the way I see it too. TG In a message dated 3/22/2008 5:26:21 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: I do think that the there is an ever-repeating cycle of sense-of-self --> craving (or aversion) ---> attachment (a.k.a. clinging) ---> becoming (i.e., gestation of sense-of-self) --> (re-arising of) sense-of-self, and when the final two links occur with the attachment arising at the moment of bodily death, they describe the mental aspect of the rebirth process, with the re-arising of sense-of-self co-occurring with the first instant of vi~n~nana in the new lifetime. #84487 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Direct Knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... Hi Jon In a message dated 3/22/2008 8:43:45 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi TG I have gone back to your original post in this thread . > "Any kind of form whatsoever ... , whether past, future, or present, > internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near -- one > sees all [of these] as it really is with correct wisdom thus: This is not > mine, this I am not, this is not my self. ..." > > So the Buddha demonstrates various ways to see the 5 Aggregates in order to > "view them properly" and to utilize them as insight to overcome attachment.. " > > 1) Past, future, or present ... Of these three, only one has the possibility > of "direct knowledge." The other two are certainly inference. > > ... > > So 11 ways to insightfully realize how the 5 Aggregates "really are." -- > According to the Buddha. Only Two of the Eleven are definitely Direct > Knowledge insights. Four of them are definitely not direct Knowledge insights. And > the others could be included in either or both categories. > > My point is that -- both Direct Knowledge's and Inferential Knowledge's > support each other and they are both crucial to the development of overcoming > suffering. The idea that insight is limited to "knowing present realities" is > absurd. I agree with the general proposition that direct understanding and what you call inferential understanding (what is referred to in the teachings as understanding gained through hearing or through reflecting on what has been heard or directly understood) support each other. There is no doubt but that what we loosely refer to as intellectual understanding must precede direct understanding, and that the direct understanding gained then supports further intellectual understanding. But it is still the direct understanding, and not the intellectual understanding, that constitutes insight. As regards the 11-fold classification of the khandhas, these are also considered to be a matter of direct knowledge, although arguably there is also an element of what might be called inferential knowledge there. I take the "past, present or future" classification as an example. .......................................................... TG: I think I can pretty much agree with everything you said above. .................................................................. Rupas that are directly known at the present moment become past rupas the next moment, and were merely rupas-to-be (future rupas) the previous moment. But as more and more presently arisen rupas are directly known by ever-developing insight, there comes a point at which it can be said, based on that direct experience, that all rupas that have ever been or that ever will be experienced exhibit the same general rupa characteristic. So it is still a matter of insight into presently arisen dhammas, as I understand the traditional explanation. ............................................................. TG: OK, the "lovefest" is over. LOL TG OUT #84488 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 10:12 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? kenhowardau Hi Jon (and Azita), --------- <. . .> J: > Looking forward to the grilling ;-)) > > In the meantime, a comment or two about "streams" of namas and rupas for your consideration: > > 1. I don't think I've ever mentioned streams of rupas (or cetasikas). Only streams of cittas. > > 2. As regards streams of cittas, the term "stream" comes from the textual term "bhavanga sota", or stream of bhavangha [cittas]. > > 3. In absolute (paramattha) terms, a "stream" of cittas refers to cittas that are related to each other by contiguity condition (and other conditions such as disappearance condition). > -------- Just a minute ago I was printing out my list of questions for Bangkok. At the very top was: "Jon wrote about a stream of cittas. "In the same post to Tep (82373): >Jon: It is worth noting that while each citta arising in a stream is conditioned by the falling away of its predecessor, the same cannot be said for the rupas that are taken as the being's body. "What is the significance of that?" ---- It's a vague question, I'll admit. But that just shows how far over my head this subject is. So now you'll have a question on notice as well as several without notice. See you on Saturday! Ken H PS: Azita, thanks for your message. I answered it off-list. See you on Wednesday! #84489 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 3/24/2008 9:18:17 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, For when you return (thanks for the reply): TG: "This is what Nyanatiloka says regarding 'yoniso manasikaara' -- 'In a more general sense, the terms appears frequently in the Suttas as yoniso-manasikara, 'wise (or reasoned, methodical) attention' or 'wise reflection'. It is said, in M.2, to counteract the cankers ) asava, q.v.); it is a condition for the arising of Right View (s. M. 43), of Stream-entry (s. sotapattiyanga)43), of Stream-entry (s. Enlightenment (s. S. XLVI, 2, 49, 51).' Let's see...wise attention, wise reflection, counter-acting asavas, a condition for Stream-entry, Right View, and the Factors of Enlightenment ... according to Nyanatiloka. Being that its was in the Sutta in which Sariputta was teaching that I quoted, and you can confirm this perhaps, it would seem it is also a condition for Once-returner, Non-returner, and Arahatship. And what was your point regarding that term, the Sutta, and the way I mis-understood it?" Scott: In order to explain how I think we differ, I'll point to the thesis you present, and demonstrate how I (mis?)understand it. I'll take a recent definitional statement: TG: "If a 'being' is a conditionally relative 'system' of interacting and altering elements held together and propagated by craving and false views, then I would say yes, there are beings..." Scott: Imbedded here is a version of the theory of conditionality you posit, as far as I can tell; 'conditional relativity' and 'interacting system' being central. As I read it, what is presented in the above is an alternative to the Abhidhamma description of the 'structure' and 'dynamics' of reality. It is this vision you present, and what I see as its basis, that causes the misunderstanding. I'll state my thesis as if I understand you, knowing I likely don't, and when you return you can amend my take on it. I read you to consider elements to have the capacity to 'alter' over time. ............................................................. TG: “This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it.â€? (The Buddha . . . MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) Since I don't view any elements as "things" that arise "unto themselves," or as "anything" that could alter "unto itself," I don't view it as something that alters "as itself" through time. I DO view phenomena as continuously altering in accordance to conditions. Hence phenomena are "empty, hollow, coreless, because they never are never a "self same thing" ... not even in the present. Elements are just apparitions that echo conditionality circumstances. I think the above quote speaks for itself. It would not seem to support your thesis. ............................................................. This is, I think, in opposition to the Abhidhamma description of momentaneity - the sequential arising, presence, and falling away .......................................................... TG: #1 The Buddha does not call it "presence." The Buddha calls it "changing while persisting." Interesting eh? Do you consider this a flaw in Abhidhamma's presentation? .................................................................... of dhammas, with the accompanying 'dynamics' of conditionality as set out in Pa.t.thaana. This leads you to theorizing about states of mind which start out one way and shift over time, morphing into something other than when they started. In other words, contrary to a view which has dhammas arising and falling away, and serving in various ways as condition in sequence but being completely distinct each time, you seem to see a continuous, whole, and transforming process. This doesn't accord with the arising and falling away of 'seamlessly discrete' dhammas as per the Abhidhamma method. ............................................................ TG: I can't speak to the flaws in the Abhidhamma method. I try to avoid them. My views of elements are in accordance to the Buddha's teaching. As far as seamlessly discrete dhammas...well, have you read the sutta where the Buddha is directly questioned as to whether feelings, perception, mental activities, and consciousness are really separate things, or whether they are really just separated for purposes of analysis. The Buddha answers that they are not really separate things but are just separated for purposes of analysis. Sorry I don't have the reference handy...its probably in Majjhima Nikaya. ................................................................ When it comes to the sutta we are discussing, you don't seem to consider yoniso manasikaara to be a dhamma of momentary appearance. You seem to rely heavily on the meaning of the term, that is the English, to define it. This leads you to think about 'wise reflection' as an amorphous, ongoing state of thought which is shifting over time. When you think of 'condition' in this case, you seem to think of seamless dynamics, perhaps akin to those of fluid. ....................................................... TG: Phenomena arise, alter, and disintegrate in accordance to conditions. Beyond that, I don't care to try to unravel what you think I think. ..................................................... From the momentary point of view, manasikaara arises with each and every citta, while yoniso manasikaara is less common. That it serves as condition for 'Right View' (pa~n~naa) is true, but perhaps not as you think. The path, according to my understanding, arises and takes Nibbaana as object. And this series of moments is eradicative, according to my understanding and depending of the level (stream entry, once-return, etc.). It is also of the moment, consisting of a series of moments, but momentary nonetheless. ........................................................ TG: "A series of moments" is an interesting notion. Did the Buddha teach this? Sutta reference? ........................................................... So, while the statement that yoniso manasikaara serves as condition for the arising of the path is true, the citta which it accompanied and coloured with its characteristic would have already fallen away; it would not have become transformed into the coherent, persisting cognitive state from an earlier and related state as you seem to suggest. ................................................... TG: Abhidhamma and commentaries present some very interesting and elaborate theories. I think it has some strong points and some weak points. The hyper-theorethical depiction of exactly what "dhammas" are and exactly how they behave I think is one of its short comings. Even if it were correct, I think it misses the mark of what the Buddha was trying to teach. I guess I just don't have that "dhammas jones." You seem to have bought into the Abhidhamma and commentarial view system and that's up to you. If it works to get you enlightened, that's great. That's all that matters. TG OUT Apologies in advance for any incoherence in the above - its all mine. Sincerely, Scott. #84490 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Adelaide nilovg Dear Sarah and Jon, Op 31-mrt-2008, om 5:19 heeft jonoabb het volgende geschreven: > family arguments after the guests had left, etc. On the > last-mentioned, Sarah found herself in the role of mediator, and her > efforts seemed to be much appreciated; one niece was heard to explain > to another that Sarah was a really good friend and it was "because she > is a Buddhist". ------ N: This is really wonderful to read. It shows that understanding that ultimately there is no person, only nama and rupa, really helps patience in all circumstances. I enjoy reading such examples of daily life and it is encouraging. We are leaving Wednesday afternoon, and looking forward to seeing you and all friends, Nina. #84491 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. for Ken H, was: Why is "there are no beings" nilovg Dear Ken H, Op 31-mrt-2008, om 7:12 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > "In the same post to Tep (82373): >Jon: It is worth noting that while > each citta arising in a stream is conditioned by the falling away of > its predecessor, the same cannot be said for the rupas that are taken > as the being's body. > > "What is the significance of that?" > ---- N: Ruupas do not succeed one another as in the case of cittas that succeed one another and where each cittga that falls away condiitons the next one by way of contiguity condition. We can call it a stream, all accumulations of good and bad tendencies and all kammas comitted are passed on from moment to moment. As to rupa: rupas that arise in groups (kalapas) are produced by four factors: by kamma, citta, temperature and nutrition. True that fallen away rupas are replaced by new one depending on the factors that produce them. But this is not by anantara paccaya as in the case of citta. Ken, one more Q., but can you wait until I am there on Saturday: As to the past and future khandhas: these are mentioned under the section on the third stage of insight. Not all is clear here as to the object of insight that is a present dhamma. This is on top of my list: more about charactreistics that appear now. And let us discuss more about awareness which is not thinking, and also the difference between nama and rupa. Have a good journey, and looking forward to seeing you, Nina. #84492 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 3/30/2008 9:07:57 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Howard > I'd be interested to know whether there are any suttas that speak of such > collections of dhammas or relations. > ---------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Uh, huh. ;-) > ---------------------------------------------- Is this reply part of your new posting practice? I'm afraid it's meaning is lost on me ;-)). Translation, please. Jon ============================= No, I was just being "cutely" humorous, for what I thought was good reason, but which wasn't appreciated. The serious answer is that, as I've explained, the 'aggregation' terminology is strictly mine, but I do think it was fairly clearly defined and defended (or explained). The Buddha certainly discussed many collections of dhammas, most prominently the aggregates, and I have been simply pointing to those collections of dhammas that "hang together" due to patternings of characteristics and interrelationships of various sorts, relationships especially including kammic relations for those streams of namas and rupas most often referred to as "persons", and, more generally, "sentient beings". When the Buddha spoke of people being heir to "their" kamma, that is an example of why a namarupic stream (a stream of cittas, their objects, and their associated cetasikas) is not just a grab-bag collection of dhammas, but is a prime example of what I call an "aggregation". In any case, I take your mentioned interest in whether suttas explicitly identify certain collections in a way that shouts "aggregation! agrregation!" to be an ironic means on your part of posing a question to which you already have your answer, and your actually saying to me "This is just your idea, not the Buddha's, not Dhamma, and not of interest." And my reply of "Uh, huh" was my way of saying that "Yes, I realize that you consider this illegitimate." But not wanting to get into a fight about my personal terminology, which I actually think isn't very bad, I simple replied "uh, huh" to acknowledge your non-appreciation without "mixing it up". I hope this less brief response clarifies the matter, Jon. With metta, Howard #84493 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:40 am Subject: Metta, Ch 1, no 6 nilovg Dear friends, I will now go into some questions with regard to the development of mettå. Question: the characteristic of lobha is love and attachment. If one says that attachment to relatives and friends is lobha and that it is therefore wrong to be attached to them I think that this does not agree with our ordinary, daily life in the world. Khun Sujin: If one wants to develop mettå there must be a precise knowledge of one’s different cittas. If people only recite texts about mettå it is not sufficient; the characteristic of mettå should be known precisely. When there is mettå there is no anger. However, when we love someone and we are attached to that person there is lobha, not mettå, and lobha can condition anger. We should consider which reality is better, mettå or selfish love, whichis actually lobha. When we are in the company of family or friends, there can be mettå and then we can come to know its characteristic. When there is mettå we wish other people’s benefit, there is no clinging, no selfish love. True mettå towards someone else cannot condition dislike of that person. Thus, when we have mettå instead of lobha others will benefit from this too. Both the person who has mettå and the person who is the object of mettå will benefit. If there is only lobha in our daily life there are many conditions for dislike and unpleasant feeling. However, to the extent mettå develops there will be less opportunities for the arising of dosa. We will become more considerate and think more often of the benefit of others. Question: You said that sati and paññå (sati-sampajañña) are necessary for the development of mettå and that one therefore should know the characteristics of sati and paññå. If one does not know them mettå cannot be developed, is that right? Khun Sujin: There are two kinds of mental development, samatha, tranquil meditation, and vipassanå, the development of insight or right understanding of realities. For both kinds of mental development sati- sampajañña is necessary. However, paññå in samatha is different from paññå in vipassanå.Paññå in samatha knows the way to develop tranquillity, the temporary freedom from defilements. Paññå in the development of vipassanå knows the characteristics of mental phenomena and physical phenomena, of the realities which appear one at a time through the six doors. ****** Nina. #84494 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:46 am Subject: Re: Metta, Ch 1, no 6 walterhorn Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear friends, > > ....when we have > mettå instead of lobha others will benefit from this too. Both the > person who has mettå and the person who is the object of mettå will > benefit. Can you explain why others are more likely to benefit and/or in what way or ways they may be expected benefit more greatly from unattached than from attached love? Can one's love of some 'ideal'--say the Four Noble Truths--be characterized as either metta or lobha? What I mean is, May not some attachment to a particular doctrine or way of life be 'for our own sake' and be valuable in spite (or even because) of that fact? Many thanks for any assistance you may provide on these questions. All best, Walto #84495 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] e-card from Adelaide glenjohnann Dear Sarah and Jon lovely to get your e-cards - always lots of opportunities for Dhamma reminders I find when traveling, particularly when with family and old friends in old familiar places. Your excursion with Albany was particularly inspiring. Looking forward to seeing you later this week! Ann #84496 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Metta, Ch 1, no 6 nilovg Dear Walto, Op 31-mrt-2008, om 15:46 heeft Walter Horn het volgende geschreven: > ....when we have > > mettå instead of lobha others will benefit from this too. Both the > > person who has mettå and the person who is the object of mettå will > > benefit. > > Can you explain why others are more likely to benefit and/or in what > way or ways they may be expected benefit more greatly from unattached > than from attached love? ------ N: When there is attachment, lobha in Pali, you think of your own benefit, of some gain for yourself, you hope , perhaps without realizing it, to get something in return from the other person. Of course this is very human, and we all have attachment. But it is beneficial to realize it so that the many moments of attachment can be alternated with pure metta, moments you do not think of your own wellbeing. Then you do not feel tired helping others, it never is enough. Metta never is enough. In this way metta can be accumulated little by little so that it becomes your nature. ------- > W: Can one's love of some 'ideal'--say the Four > Noble Truths--be characterized as either metta or lobha? What I mean > is, May not some attachment to a particular doctrine or way of life > be 'for our own sake' and be valuable in spite (or even because) of > that fact? -------- N: Metta is always for another being, not for a doctrine. As to lobha, anything can be the object of lobha except nibbaana and the lokuttara cittas that experience it. One may be attached to a way of life. The aim of Buddhism is knowing the truth, also the truth about yourself. When one knows when there is attachment it can be understood as a conditioned phenomenon. It arises, because it also arose in the past. It is understanding that is valuable, not attachment to understanding, that detracts from the truth. When there is attachment there is also ignorance and this conceals the truth. Nina. > #84497 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Metta, Ch 1, no 6 upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/31/2008 1:55:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: N: When there is attachment, lobha in Pali, you think of your own benefit, of some gain for yourself, you hope , perhaps without realizing it, to get something in return from the other person. Of course this is very human, and we all have attachment. But it is beneficial to realize it so that the many moments of attachment can be alternated with pure metta, moments you do not think of your own wellbeing. Then you do not feel tired helping others, it never is enough. Metta never is enough. In this way metta can be accumulated little by little so that it becomes your nature. ============================ Sadhu x 3!! I like that very much, Nina. I find it clearly and beautifully stated. I also find it to be, itself, an expression of lovingkindness. Well done! :-) With metta, Howard #84498 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:23 am Subject: [dsg] Q. Re: Metta, Ch 1, no 6 walterhorn Dear Nina, Thank you very much: your response is both interesting and helpful. Best, Walto #84499 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Hi Larry, Op 31-mrt-2008, om 3:57 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > I would like to know more about sound and hearing. When hearing > consciousness experiences sound it seems as though sound is the > experience, but, on the other hand, if hearing experiences sound then > isn't hearing the experience? Or are there two experiences, sound and > hearing? --------- N: When hearing experiences sound, sound is the object of the citta that hears. Sound itself is rupa, it does not know anything. Hearing only experiences sound, and there is no other citta at that moment that cognizes hearing. In another process hearing itself can be the object cognized by other cittas arising in a mind-door process. When sati arises it can be aware of sound or of hearing, but not at the same time. At the first stage of vipassana ~naa.na there are several mind-door processes of cittas which know rupa and nama one at a time and distinguish their different characteristics. We know in theory that rupa does not know anything and that nama knows an object, but there may be doubt: when is it nama that appears, when rupa. Sati and pa~n~naa have to be developed so that doubt disappears. I heard on tape the other day: So, it does not matter if we only understand very little, it has to be so. At another part of the tape it is said that this does not mean laziness. One can be firm in the development of understanding and kusala. Saddhaa, confidence, can be firm. Doubt only disappears very gradually, there is so much avijja. And the moment of awareness is very short. However, it is conditioned by listening and a growing understanding because of listening. Nina. #84500 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? nilovg Hi James, Op 31-mrt-2008, om 4:08 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > N: Because of different experiences one at a time and sa~n~naa which > > remembers them we form the idea of apple, it is an object of > > thinking, a concept. Where did the Buddha say that such an idea is > > something that exists? > > -------- > > He said that in the sutta. "The All" includes the mind and mental > objects. This is how to determine what exists. So, objective reality > includes what the mind cognizes. ------- N: As far as I understand, the mental objects in this sutta are dhammas, including cetasikas, subtle rupas (thus not the rupas mentioned before: the senses and the objects experienced through the senses) and nibbaana. Concepts can be thought of through the mind-door, but these are not objects we have to develop understanding of. We need not develop understanding of a table or an apple. What is difficult for us, unfamiliar to us, are the namas and rupas that have the three characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and anatta. These are the truth the Buddha wanted to teach us ignorant beings who keep on clinging to illusions. Concepts do not have these three characteristics, they are mere constructs of thought. But we keep on going after them, forgetting about what is really important. Nina. #84501 From: "connie" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:04 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (117) nichiconn Dear Friends, Continuing ch.1 of The Perfections Leading to Enlightenment: Besides generosity by way of material aid, there is a higher kind of giving, and that is the giving of Dhamma. This is actually the gift of right understanding which will be beneficial both in this life and also in the lives to come. When we give material things to people who are needy and poor, this has only a temporary effect for them. We may not take into consideration the root cause of their poverty. The fact that people are poor is the result of akusala kamma, and so long as one commits akusala kamma there are conditions for rebirth as a poor person. Besides assistance in a material way, we should help people by going to the root-cause of their poverty, and that is, helping them to have right understanding of the truth of the Dhamma. Thus we shall see that we are really able to help each other in daily life, both with material gifts and with the gift of Dhamma. By the gift of Dhamma we help others to gain right understanding of the Dhamma and to apply the Dhamma as well. Moreover, helping people to gain right understanding of the Dhamma can be a condition for them also to develop more kusala: generosity, morality and mental development. Therefore, a person practises loving-kindness, mettaa, when he helps others in different ways to understand the Dhamma, by propagating it through radio programs, by printing Dhamma books, by Dhamma discussions, by explaining the Dhamma, without expecting a result for himself. In that case his actions of generosity are a perfection, leading to the eradication of defilements. He has the firm understanding that developing kusala not bound up with lobha, attachment, is development of the perfections. Some people who like to propagate the Dhamma want to evaluate the result of their good deeds. However, the true result of someone's efforts has nothing to do with the number of people who listen to the Dhamma he tries to propagate or the amount of good deeds he has performed for this purpose. The result of his efforts manifests itself in the citta of the listener who is thus better able to develop his understanding further and to apply the Dhamma. to be continued, connie #84502 From: "colette" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:39 am Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 Hi Ken, Good Parley! "cetasika called panna" obviously is a thing in itself > since you suggest that "...panna can directly experience dhammas" > which also means that the "dhamma" is a self existant thing. Each > individual object either the panna of the cestasika or the dhamma are > both self existant and individual things > ------ > > Some people are reluctant to describe dhammas as "self existent." colette: here we come to triffles! But these triffles are highly significant triffles. The dhammas are self-existant only in the fact the they make clear the teaching being transmitted; OTHERWISE, the dhammas are as transient as a cloud in the sky or a snowflake falling to the ground. The Buddha made this point perfectly clear. -------------------------- > They think anything that is dependent on something else for its > existence cannot be called self existent. colette: this is a problem with drug addiction. Those addicted cannot see their addiction and therefore deny the addiction takes place. ---------------- But, to my mind, "self > existent" means having a distinct identity. colette: CERTAINLY. There is no other identity other than that identity which is experienced at the time of experience accordingly to cause & conditions AT THAT TIME and AT THAT PLACE. Yet, that self- existance is not permanent, that self existance is subordinate to the time/place & cause/conditions without which that self existance would not be. Thus identity, therefore, is completely subject to D.O. and IS SHUNYA or the DOCTRINE OF SHUNYATA. -------------------- So, in a moment of > seeing, the citta that sees and the rupa that is seen are separate > (distinct, self existent) things. > colette: which is the case in every second of experiencing this bardo of rebirth, YOU, as the individual traveling that Bardo, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIVITY IN THAT BARDO. -------------------------- > C: > (rupas, for lack of better > words) and when they come into contact with each other, for instance > at an intersection, or a tangent, or a ramp (on/off), then and only > then can right understanding occur or develope as a virus grows from > a fungus or something in an incubator such as a uterus? > ---------------- > > Yes, I think that's right. colette: that it simply one of an innumerable amount of potentialities. --- However, namas and rupas don't actually > bump into each other. colette: this is where MISS INTERPRETATION COMES INTO PLAY and we can exhibit the Great Harlot or sex worker. They do not but they do, DON'T THEY? Does not the thought of the one bump into the thought of the other, IN YOUR MIND and in your mind only. \ colette #84503 From: "colette" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:38 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 Hi Ken, This is one of those times when I AM HOT and I AM ON THIS COMPLETELY therefore I can continue without having my stream of consciousness which I began initiating you in. --------------------------------- > Some people are reluctant to describe dhammas as "self existent." > They think anything that is dependent on something else for its > existence cannot be called self existent. colette: lets start here, again. Yes, self-existance does not AUTOMATICALLY require SVABHAVA. There are deeper and more subtle forces which combine, as chemicals combine, to create or cause the manifestation of these supposed self- existant dhammas. And that is all. The Buddha used those things, that which the Buddha had experienced and that which the Buddha was attuned to at the time (which certainly manifests the teachings of cause & conditions/name & form) BUT that is all there is. They, the things that we speak of as being self existant, would exist and do exist elsewhere at all times. The practioner has to learn how to see these things as they are WITHOUT THOSE CONDITIONS EXISTING. Pardon me, this goes back to a dispute I originally had with the head priest of the OSOGD where he was suggesting insane impossibilities, that he wants his bad karma repared by going back to the original TZIM TZUM, divine contraction, OF THE UNIVERSE, which implies THE supposed BIG BANG. I originally contended that it would be suicide, if it could even happen, BECAUSE the practioner that was performing this act would then automatically get caught up in the divine contraction and would cease to exist. I will still throw down with you, Maxx, at any time and anywhere, it don't matter since I know there's a contract out on me. The WPO (white power organization) have been after me for some time and the amount of titanium screws and plates in my face, thank you Northwestern University Hosp., are a testiment to that. Once you place this "thing" as being "self existant" you then place it's contituent parts as also being self existant. Dependent Origination requires the transience of everything, which is perfectly logical and reasonable if the student takes the time to look at what is being discussed. The transience of these things which you term as self existant IS STILL A REQUIREMENT, IS STILL PART OF THE PLAY. If you would take the time to even begin discovering the Madhyamika, more specifically Shunayata, then you would begin to see my position. LETS JUST CUT THE CAKE as the Average White Band would and did say at one time, You have to find it somewhere to examine the first four elements of alchemy: fire, water, air and earth, AND, you have to go back to a joke I made at UIC on my website in early 2001, concerning "air" where a person was to reach out and grab in front of them, open their hand, and tell me what they had in their hand: the joke being that they should and would grab AIR and they would open their hand to find air YET THEY WOULD TELL ME THAT THEY GRABBED NOTHING which is clearly an indication of their misinterpretation and misidification of anything and everything. Since they do not need air then I see no reason they should be offered oxygen thuslet them make a living on their backs. ... THERAVADAN = THE OLE BOY NETWORK ----------------------------- But, to my mind, "self > existent" means having a distinct identity. colette: go to any governmental office and ask to find any person in the world. All you need is, in the U.S.A., a social security number, if not a drivers license number, if not..., what I'm getting at here is IDENTITY IS NOT SELF-EXISTANT. Do you mean to say that I cannot find your parents, at any time and in any place? I can cross reference your DNA signature and find your parents to ask them if you were born of this hallucinatory DIVINE CONCEPTION but then I'd have to ask Alison Moyet to play her song DIVINE INTERVENTION "for the warm injection, will calm the pain. We all need, just a little divine intervention." And, as Go Go Yobari from the Kill Bill movie clearly indicated, an injection is a violation of the body's water tight integrity and therefore "do you want to penetrate me now"? It's identity is not self existant, it is only self existant at the time and at the place, YET it is still obligated to DEPENDENT ORIGINATION. -------------------------------- So, in a moment of > seeing, the citta that sees and the rupa that is seen are separate > (distinct, self existent) things. > colette: ah, you raise the issue of the Yogacara and the Mind-Only schools of thought. How is it possible that you know what you see? Is it true that the only way for you to believe in anything is to see it. I will throw down with Phil Collins anytime and anywhere, "seein' is believin'" IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW something or anything. ... gotta go, the computer shut down and will shut down if I do not stop my message here. They'll blame it on the battery but in a library under the doctrine of the Patriot ACt while Bush-Cheney are still in control, we all know the truth of the matter. toodles, colette #84504 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 5:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? buddhatrue Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > ------- > N: As far as I understand, the mental objects in this sutta are > dhammas, including cetasikas, subtle rupas (thus not the rupas > mentioned before: the senses and the objects experienced through the > senses) and nibbaana. James: I don't see a justification for assuming this. The sutta doesn't say, or even imply, anything of the sort. > Concepts can be thought of through the mind-door, but these are not > objects we have to develop understanding of. We need not develop > understanding of a table or an apple. James: As I explained, this sutta is not about developing understanding. This sutta is not about satipatthana. It is about determining what is included in "the all". > What is difficult for us, unfamiliar to us, are the namas and rupas > that have the three characteristics of impermanence, dukkha and > anatta. These are the truth the Buddha wanted to teach us ignorant > beings who keep on clinging to illusions. James: Again, this sutta isn't about this. It is designed to refute those who claim that reality is different than what our senses tell us it is. > Concepts do not have these three characteristics, they are mere > constructs of thought. But we keep on going after them, forgetting > about what is really important. > Nina. Metta, James #84505 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Ken, I agree that what is impermanent cannot be self for the reasons you give, but I would argue that therefore since there is no self there cannot be a self that is an agent, one that experiences, acts, and controls even a little. However, the Buddha didn't quite make this argument here. In MN35 Saccaka didn't buy the argument that whatever is impermanent is not self but when the Buddha said self must control any state, he agreed that there wasn't any such controller and therefore no self. This is essentially the argument we have here in XX,16: because it is impossible to escape the oppression of impermanence how could there be a doer who could do something about this oppression? Therefore there is no core that is a doer. You made the distinction between doer in the sense of a paramattha dhamma that performs a function and a doer conceived as self. I think that's a valid distinction and conforms to the idea that consciousness controls a state in the sense of performing a function but it isn't a controller that can do what it wants. "Doing what I want" is a misconception. Larry #84506 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Nina, Nina: "Hearing only experiences sound, and there is no other citta at that moment that cognizes hearing. In another process hearing itself can be the object cognized by other cittas arising in a mind-door process." Larry: The object of consciousness is the experience, not the consciousness? Does that mean the experience is the same for all 15 consciousnesses in a 5-door process but the understanding of that object evolves through those 15 consciousnesses and perhaps becomes an object of a mind-door process? Is rupa as experience different from rupa itself? Larry #84507 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:18 pm Subject: Re: Q. for Ken H, was: Why is "there are no beings" kenhowardau Hi Nina, Thanks for your help with rupas: ------------- <. . .> True that fallen away rupas are replaced by new one depending on the factors that produce them. But this is not by anantara paccaya as in the case of citta. ------------- Understood! ---------------------- N: > Ken, one more Q., but can you wait until I am there on Saturday: As to the past and future khandhas: these are mentioned under the section on the third stage of insight. Not all is clear here as to the object of insight that is a present dhamma. ---------------------- I see - I think! :-) Looking forward to Saturday. Now I'd better check for the 50th time that I have packed everything. (I am not what you would call a seasoned traveller.) :-) Ken H #84508 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:40 pm Subject: Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@... wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > I agree that what is impermanent cannot be self for the reasons you > give, but I would argue that therefore since there is no self there > cannot be a self that is an agent, Therefore there > is no core that is a doer. Hi Larry, I couldn't quite follow your explanation of MN35, but I think we agree on the principles. Clearly, if there is a self it would have to be a core. The outside bits - the bits we are aware of - are obviously impermanent and unsatisfactory. And so religious people of all persuasions are always trying to find the *inner* self. The sooner they realise there is no such thing the better it will be for all of us. :-) ----------- L: > <. . .> a valid distinction and conforms to the idea that consciousness controls a state in the sense of performing a function but it isn't a controller that can do what it wants. "Doing what I want" is a misconception. ------------ Exactly! I think the commentaries talk about dhammas performing their functions "disinterestedly." They don't care about what they do; they just do it. Sorry to have been so slow with my Visum. presentations. I won't have my copy in Thailand, and it would be a bit awkward typing from it in an internet café, anyway. :-) I'll leave it to you whether to you want to wait until I get back (in about 18 days), or take over from me. Ken H #84509 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 4:03 pm Subject: 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) TGrand458@... Hi All Below is an article that describes 3 types of insight found in the Suttas. 2 of the types are NOT derived from direct experience. This is what I mean when I talk about inference or reasoning/thinking being mutual support for direct insight. This SHOULD? dispel the notion that "all of insight ONLY entails" direct seeing. (I'll post the link and then I'll also copy the article into the e-mail. My e-mails seem corrupt so the link may work better.) I'll be particularly interested in hearing from those who keep claiming that insight is only direct experience. :-) _Relevance of Vedana to Bhavana-maya Panna_ (http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/90sem/vedana5.html) Relevance of Vedana to Bhavana-maya Panna Vipassana Research Institute The Pali term bhavana-maya panna means experiential wisdom. Bhavanabhavana1 is meditation through which wisdom (panna) is cultivated. In order to understand the essence of the term bhavana-maya panna and its relevance to vedana (sensation), we first need to understand the meaning of the term panna. Panna is derived from the root 'na' which means 'to know', prefixed by 'pa' meaning 'correctly'.2 Thus, the literal English translation of the word panna is 'to know correctly'. Commonly used equivalents are such words as 'insight', 'knowledge' or 'wisdom'. All these convey aspects of panna, but, as with all Pali terms, no translation corresponds exactly. In the ancient texts, panna is defined more precisely as yatha-bhutam-nana-dassanamyatha-bhuta-nana-dassanam,3 seeing things as they are, not as they appear to be. That is, understanding the true nature of anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering) and anatta (essencelessness) in all things. This realisation leads to the ultimate truth of nibbana. It may also be described as pakarena janati'ti pannapakarena janati ti panna-because it is understood through different angles it is panna. The Visuddhimagga elaborates on this explaining that the characteristic of panna is to penetrate the true nature of things. Its function is to dispel the darkness of ignorance, and prevent one from becoming bewildered by its manifestation. Its immediate cause is concentration (samadhi). Hence the words 'He whose mind is concentrated knows and sees things according to reality'.4 The texts mention three types of panna5-suta-maya pannasuta-maya panna, cinta-maya pannacinta-maya panna and bhavana-mayapanna. Suta-mayapanna is wisdom obtained from listening to others, from being instructed by others about impermanence, suffering and essencelessness. It may also develop from reading sacred texts.6 This type of panna is clearly dependent on an external source. Thus, suta-mayapanna consists of learning which has been gained by listening to others (parato sutva patilabhati).7 Such wisdom is parokkha (inferred knowledge). This may inspire one to tread on the path of Dhamma, but in itself cannot lead to the attainment of liberation. Cinta-maya panna is the wisdom obtained from one's own thinking, not just from hearing others (parato asutva patilabhati).8 It is the understanding of impermanence, suffering and essencelessness, from what one has grasped by the means of one's own intellect. It is the process of intellectually analyzing something to see whether it is logical and rational. Having gone through such a process, one can then accept a teaching intellectually. One may thereby become knowledgeable about the theory of Dhamma, and may be able to explain it to others. One may even be able to help others realize the fact of anicca, dukkha and anatta, but still one cannot obtain liberation for oneself. On the contrary, there is a danger that one may accumulate more mental defilements by developing ego since one lacks the direct experience of wisdom. Sometimes we find in the texts a change in the order of suta-maya panna and cinta-maya panna. At times cinta-maya panna is mentioned first, followed by suta-maya panna and bhavana-maya panna. At times, suta-maya panna is followed by cinta-maya panna and bhavana-maya panna. But in both cases, bhavana-maya panna comes at the end and is of prime importance for the realisation of truth. It does not make any difference in which order we find the first two. Initially a person may listen to the Dhamma from an outside source- suta-maya panna, and then develop cinta-maya panna by rationally thinking about it, trying to understand anicca, dukkha and anatta intellectually, and thereby develop yoniso manasikara (right thinking). Or one may start with cinta-maya panna, one's own intellectual understanding, by reflecting rationally on anicca, dukkha and anatta, and then, by listening to others (suta-maya panna), one may confirm one's intellectual understanding. We should remember that whichever of the two may come first, neither of them can give liberation. Liberation results only from bhavana-maya panna. Bhavana-maya pannabhavana-maya panna is the wisdom obtained by meditation-the wisdom that comes from the direct experience of the truth. This development of insight is also called vipassana- bhavana (Vipassana meditation). The meditator makes right effort and so realizes for himself that every thing in the world is transitory, a source of suffering, and essenceless. This insight is not the mere acceptance of what someone else has said, nor the product of deductive reasoning. It is, rather, the direct comprehension of the reality of anicca, dukkha and anatta. To develop bhavana-maya panna, we must experience all phenomena and undestand their true nature. And this is done through experiencing vedana, (bodily sensations), because it is through these sensations that the totality of our nature manifests itself as pancakkhandha (the five aggregates). Phenomena The Visuddhimagga states- Ya vedayati ti vedana, sa vedayita lakkhana, anubhavanarasa...9 That which feels the objects is vedana; its characteristic is to experience, its function is to realize the object... It is through vedana that we experience all phenomena -that we can directly experience our true nature of arising and passing away, that we experience anicca. Further, with every phenomenon, vedana is present. As the Buddha said- Vedana-samosarana sabbe dhamma.Vedana-samosarana sabbe dhamma.vedana-samosarana sabbe dhamma10 Everything that arises in the mind is accompanied by sensation. Therefore, the specific tool that a Vipassana meditator uses to develop experiential wisdom is bodily sensation. By observing sensations objectively throughout the body, it is realized that they all have the same nature of arising and passing away (uppada-vaya dhammino); the nature of impermanence. Having experienced this fact, one realizes that not only unpleasant sensations, but pleasant as well as neutral sensations are also a source of suffering. Further, by observing the ephemeral nature of all sensations, the meditator realizes how they are so insubstantial. They are changing every moment. That which is changing cannot be a source of happiness because an arisen pleasant sensation will eventually pass away, resulting in suffering due to our attachment to it. Moreover, these sensations are beyond our control and arise regardless of what we wish (anatta). Through vedana, one can realize that all the other aggregates have the same nature of anicca, dukkha and anatta. By observing sensations throughout the body, the awareness becomes sharper and subtler and the entire process of mind can be observed. The observation of vedana is the most direct and tangible way to experience the reality of the entire mind-matter phenomenom. The comprehensive insight gained through vedana, that is, by direct experience of vedana (paccanubhotipaccanubhoti), is bhavana-maya panna. Through this insight, one sees things as they really are (yatha-bhuta pajanati) and with repeated practice, one is gradually freed from the past conditioning of lobha (greed), dosa (hatred) and moha (ignorance). This leads to liberation. The teachings of a Buddha are not for mere intellectual entertainment but to be directly experienced, because this alone can free one from the ingrained habit pattern of reacting with craving and aversion. Freedom from this past habit pattern is possible when one works with the body sensations. When one experiences pleasant sensations, at that moment, the past mental habit of craving arises. If one observes this objectively with anicca-bodha (realisation of impermanence), the force of craving will gradually diminish and be eradicated. In the same way, when one experiences an unpleasant sensation, at that moment the past mental habit pattern of aversion will arise. If one observes this objectively with anicca-bodha, then the force of aversion will gradually diminish and get eradicated. Similarly, when one experiences neutral sensations, at that moment, the past mental habit pattern of ignorance arises. If one observes this experience objectively with anicca-bodha, the force of ignorance will gradually diminish and be eradicated. Therefore, a Vipassana meditator specifically uses vedana as a tool to change the habit pattern of the mind and to eradicate the anusaya (deep-rooted latent tendencies to react). In this way, bhavana-maya panna changes the habit pattern of the mind through the development of insight into one's nature with the help of vedana. The Vipassana meditator attains this insight through observing bodily sensations. The deeper and more constant his insight, the closer he approaches the Ultimate Truth and the closer he comes to freedom from suffering. This is the relevance of vedana in the development of bhavana-maya panna, the one and only way for liberation-ekayano maggo. Notes: (All references VRI edition) 1. A Dictionary of the Pali Language, ed. R. C. Childers, Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1909, p. 330 2. Pali-English Dictionary, ed. T. W. Rhys Davids, Pali Text Society, London, 1925, p. 392 3. Patisambhidamagga 2.30 4. Visuddhi-Magga, Dhammasabhavapativedhalakkhana panna, dhammanam- sabhavapaticchadakamohandhakaravidhamsanarasa; assammohapaccupatthana; samahito yathabhutam janati passati-ti vacanato pana samadhi tassa padatthanam. 5. Digha Nikaya 3.305; Vibhanga 753 6. Rhys Davids, op. cit., p. 718 7. Vibhanga, loc. cit 8. Loc. cit 9. Abhidhammattha-sangaha, Hindi translation and commentary by Venerable Dr. U. Rewata Dhamma, Varanaseyya Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya, Varanasi, Vol. 1, p. 101; Dhammasangani Atthakatha, 1,Phassapancamakarasivannama 10. Anguttara Nikaya 3.10.58 TG #84510 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:24 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? kenhowardau Hi Colette, Thanks for your reply. I've just got time for one quick comment: ------------ C: > <. . .> this goes back to a dispute I originally had with the head priest of the OSOGD where he was suggesting insane impossibilities, that he wants his bad karma repared by going back to the original TZIM TZUM, divine contraction, OF THE UNIVERSE, which implies THE supposed BIG BANG. I originally contended that it would be suicide, if it could even happen, BECAUSE the practioner that was performing this act would then automatically get caught up in the divine contraction and would cease to exist. ------------- All this wanting - wanting to repair kamma, wanting to cease to exist, wanting not to cease to exist etc. - is the wrong way. The right way lies in the present moment. If we could just understand that whatever exists now is mere impermanent, conditioned, mental-and- physical phenomena there would be no thought of wanting. Wanting for whom? Ken H #84511 From: LBIDD@... Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Ken, Ken: "I'll leave it to you whether to you want to wait until I get back (in about 18 days), or take over from me." Larry: We can wait. Have a good time. Larry #84512 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:12 pm Subject: Re: 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > Hi All > > > Below is an article that describes 3 types of insight found in the Suttas. > 2 of the types are NOT derived from direct experience. This is what I mean > when I talk about inference or reasoning/thinking being mutual support for > direct insight. > > > This SHOULD? dispel the notion that "all of insight ONLY entails" direct > seeing. ( +++++ Dear TG Before I enter this discussion could you read this post and point out where you disagree - it makes it easier for me to follow as it is an extract from Nina's book on my website. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/64739 http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas.html http://www.zolag.co.uk/ =============================================== Chapter 34 Understanding (paññå) There are many kinds and degrees of understanding. There can be understanding which is knowing the benefit of wholesomeness and the disadvantages of unwholesomeness, there can be understanding which stems from contemplation on the shortness of life. These kinds of understanding can arise even when one has not listened to the Dhamma. When one has studied the Dhamma there can be intellectual understanding about ultimate realities, about kamma and vipåka, about nåmas and rúpas which can be experienced through six doors, and, when understanding develops further there can be direct understanding of ultimate realities, of nåma and rúpa. Direct understanding of realities can develop to the highest wisdom which eradicates all defilements. #84513 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) TGrand458@... In a message dated 3/31/2008 10:12:21 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, rjkjp1@... writes: Dear TG Before I enter this discussion could you read this post and point out where you disagree - it makes it easier for me to follow as it is an extract from Nina's book on my website. Hi Robert? Few comments. 1) First of all, I'm simply making a point, so its not really incumbent on me to show disagreements with off topic articles. However, it is reasonably incumbent on those who insist that panna is ONLY direct knowing of "dhammas," to respond to a legitimate article that clearly shows otherwise. This is the partial intent of the post. The other intent is to get my point across about the role of thinking, contemplating, etc. in insight development...which has met with considerable objection. 2) The statement of Nina's is too terse and broad to give an accounting of what is the main thinking behind it. I feel I know what that thinking is, within reason, and the statement merely "hints at things to come." ;-) 3) I do not intend to let this topic meander into off-topic / side-topics so as to side-step the point. (Not to be taken that I think this is your intent.) 4) Anyone that's been following my posts at all in the last few months knows what I'm talking about. I don't have the inclination to rehash all that work. Sorry not to be more accommodating. TG #84514 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Q. for Ken H, was: Why is "there are no beings" nilovg Hi Ken H and Icaro, Op 1-apr-2008, om 4:18 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > Now I'd better check for the 50th time that I have packed everything. > (I am not what you would call a seasoned traveller.) :-) ------- N: I keep on checking. I always think, when packing, of the list of twentyeight rupas Icaro meditated on when packing for Boot camp. Sa~n~naa remembers, it is interesting to see how sa~n~naa functions. Have agood journey. Nina. #84515 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:56 pm Subject: Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive scottduncan2 Dear TG: Thanks for the reply: TG: "MLDB, pg. 642, The Greater Discourse to Sakuludayin, Mahasakuludayi Sutta, #77) This body of mine, made of material form, consisting of the four great elements, procreated by a mother and father, and built up out of boiled rice and porridge, is subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to dissolution and disintegration, and this consciousness of mine is supported by it and bound up with it..." Scott: The Paa.li: "Puna ca para.m udaayi, akkhaataa mayaa saavakaana.m pa.tipadaa yathaapa.tipannaa me saavak.m eva.m pajaananti: aya.m kho me kaayo ruupii caatummahaabhuutiko maataapettikasambhavo odanakummaasuupacayo aniccucchaadanaparimaddanabhedanaviddha.msanadhammo, ida~nca pana me vi~n~naa.na.m ettha sita.m ettha pa.tibaddha.m..." TG: "Since I don't view any elements as 'things' that arise 'unto themselves,' or as 'anything' that could alter 'unto itself,' I don't view it as something that alters 'as itself' through time. I DO view phenomena as continuously altering in accordance to conditions. Hence phenomena are 'empty, hollow, coreless', because they never are never a 'self same thing' ... not even in the present. Elements are just apparitions that echo conditionality circumstances. I think the above quote speaks for itself..." Scott: This is often rehashed, TG. I'll restate my opinion that this sort of impermanence, that is, 'slow impermanence' considered to be in relation to 'bodies' - conceptual wholes - is not the final analysis. In the above, the body is shown to consist of 'material form', (ruupii) 'the four elements' (caatummahaabhuutiko) The thesis proposed above seems essentially about Nothing - heavily insubstantialist. If I paraphrase the thesis, it might run like this: "...Elements are nothings which don't arise 'unto themselves', or are nothings that cannot alter 'unto [themselves] through time'. Phenomena, which are nothings with no arisings, are continuously altering in accordance to conditions...are empty, hollow, coreless, never 'self-same things...just apparitions that echo conditionality circumstances..." You seem to be saying that there are no phenomena. What, in your view, are 'elements'? The notion of 'continual alteration' seems to be yours as well. The sutta refers to form (ruupa) consisting of the four elements (mahaabhuuta). Ruupa is not 'nothing'. TG: "#1 The Buddha does not call it 'presence.' The Buddha calls it 'changing while persisting...Do you consider this a flaw in Abhidhamma's presentation?" Scott: No, Abhidhamma, as has been oft stated, refers to arising, presence, and ceasing as the 'moments' of a dhamma. Please show me where 'changing while persisting' is stated in the suttas. In your interpretation of the Mahasakuludayi Sutta you suggest that the 'body' changes while persisting but you misunderstand the sutta. TG: "As far as seamlessly discrete dhammas...Sorry I don't have the reference handy...its probably in Majjhima Nikaya." Scott: If you can remember the sutta I'd appreciate it. TG: "Phenomena arise, alter, and disintegrate in accordance to conditions." Scott: Doesn't this contradict your earlier view? TG: "'A series of moments' is an interesting notion. Did the Buddha teach this? Sutta reference?" Scott: I'm off to look for this, I'll post what I have for now. Sincerely, Scott. #84516 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 12:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) rjkjp1 Dear Tg Ok, I see. I don't read much on dsg so have no idea what ahs been said over recent months. Have never heard the idea that panna is only direct knowing of dhammas though, it must be new. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > > > In a message dated 3/31/2008 10:12:21 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > rjkjp1@... writes: > > Dear TG > Before I enter this discussion could you read this post and point out where > you disagree - it makes it easier for me to follow as it is an extract from > Nina's book on my website. > > > > > Hi Robert? > > > Few comments. 1) First of all, I'm simply making a point, so its not > really incumbent on me to show disagreements with off topic articles. However, it > is reasonably incumbent on those who insist that panna is ONLY direct > knowing of "dhammas," to respond to a legitimate article that clearly shows > otherwise. #84517 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 1:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? nilovg Hi James, Op 1-apr-2008, om 2:50 heeft buddhatrue het volgende geschreven: > > James: As I explained, this sutta is not about developing > understanding. This sutta is not about satipatthana. It is about > determining what is included in "the all". -------- N: See the following suttas: the abandoning of the all, and the following: . And then the same dhammas are mentioned as in the first sutta about the all. We have to look at the context of this sutta. First it has been defined what the all includes: all that is real. Then the way is explained leading to detachment from the all. That is: by understanding it. This implies vipassana! ----------- > James: Again, this sutta isn't about this. It is designed to refute > those who claim that reality is different than what our senses tell > us it is. ------- N: A clear explanation of what are the objects of right understanding: realities. --------- > N: As far as I understand, the mental objects in this sutta are > > dhammas, including cetasikas, subtle rupas (thus not the rupas > > mentioned before: the senses and the objects experienced through > the > > senses) and nibbaana. > > James: I don't see a justification for assuming this. The sutta > doesn't say, or even imply, anything of the sort. -------- N: What I say here above are details found in the Abhidhamma : just all paramattha dhammas that are not those mentioned already before: eyesense, visible object, etc. ***** Nina. #84518 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 2:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Hi Larry, Op 1-apr-2008, om 4:08 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > Is rupa as experience different from rupa itself? -------- N: Perhaps we should clarify first what experience is. Rupa can be experienced by a citta that cognizes it. Rupa itself does not know anything, it is not an experience. When you say , you mean the experience of rupa. Nama experiences rupa and nama can also be experienced by another nama. ---------- > Nina: "Hearing only experiences sound, and there is no other citta at > that moment that cognizes hearing. In another process hearing > itself can > be the object cognized by other cittas arising in a mind-door > process." > > Larry: The object of consciousness is the experience, not the > consciousness? ------- N: Citta cannot experience itself. Since cittas arise and fall away, succeeding one another so fast, it may seem to you that sound is experienced and also that you realize: there is experience, in this case hearing, at the same moment. But this cannot be the same moment since only one citta arises at a time and cognizes only one object. --------- > L: Does that mean the experience is the same for all 15 > consciousnesses in a 5-door process but the understanding of that > object > evolves through those 15 consciousnesses and perhaps becomes an object > of a mind-door process? ---------- N: Rupa such as sound is experienced by all cittas of the ear-door process, and then sound is experienced through the mind-door. In each process, sense-door process and mind-door process, there are javanacittas which may be kusala cittas or akusala cittas. When they are kusala cittas they may be accompanied by pa~n~naa even in a sense- door process. Remember: there are eight types of kusala cittas, four arise with pa~n~naa and four without it. Sense-door processes and mind-door processes alternate so rapidly, and we should not try to catch what is what. We should not state that understanding only arises in a mind-door process, it all happens so fast because of conditions. When understanding has been accumulated it arises and nobody can prevent its arising, also in a sense-door process. ****** Nina. > #84519 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 2:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) nilovg Hi TG, Op 1-apr-2008, om 5:03 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > I'll be particularly interested in hearing from those who keep > claiming that > insight is only direct experience. :-) -------- N: I followed most of what you have written. Vipassana ~naa.na is vipassana ~naa.na, different from thinking. Thinking thinks about realities, but does not directly experience them. I read the article. I find that it is well explained that the order of suttamaya ~naa.na and cinta-maya~naa.na may differ. I know the sutta about vedana, but the conclusion I do not agree with it: The Buddha gave us many suttas explainign the objects of understanding under the aspect of feeling, but he did not state that only feeling should be considered, see the sutta about 'the all' which points to all the different realities. Since feeling accompanies each citta, also the sense-cognitions, actually knowing feeling implies knowing the all, knowing all nama and rupa of our daily life. Nina. #84520 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 2:47 am Subject: Metta, Ch 1, No 7. nilovg Dear friends, Question: Sometimes mettå can arise when one is concerned about other people who are in trouble. At such a moment there is sati but there may not be paññå which knows the characteristic of sati. Is there true mettå at such a moment? Khun Sujin: When mettå arises the citta is kusala and it is accompanied by sati which is a wholesome reality (sobhana dhamma). One may not have sati-sampajañña so that a higher degree of calm can be developed, but when there is mettå it has to be accompanied by sati, because of conditions. Sati which is non-forgetful of kusala accompanies each kusala citta. Because of accumulations of kusala there can be conditions for different kinds of kusala, for dåna, generosity, for síla, abstention from unwholesome deeds or for mettå. Those types of kusala are accompanied by sati but not necessarily by paññå. However, if one wants to develop mettå as subject of calm and attain to higher degrees of calm, sati-sampajañña is necessary. Through sati- sampajañña the difference between the characteristics of mettå and lobha can be known precisely. Question: I will speak about events in my daily life. Sometimes when I drive the car I recite: “May all beings be happy, may they not suffer any harm or misfortune.” When I happened to be in a complicated traffic situation, however, I could at first not be considerate to others. Later on I realized that I did not behave in accordance with the texts about mettå I had recited. I started to consider more those texts and I learnt to apply mettå in the traffic situation. Thus this is the effect of thinking and considering. Khun Sujin: When you are in a complicated traffic situation do you think of the words, “May all beings be happy”? Question: No, I do not think of these words at such moments. Khun Sujin: The development of mettå is not a matter of thinking of words, but one should know the reality of mettå-citta. Such a moment is different from the moments of annoyance, anger or vengeance. Question: If I had not recited texts about mettå I would not be considerate in the traffic situation, I would only think of myself. Khun Sujin: You should have a detailed knowledge of realities, you should find out whether there is at the moment you recite true mettå or just thinking of words. There is true mettå at the moment you are considerate towards others, not when you just recite words. Question: The reciting does have an effect. If I had not recited I would not have asked myself whether I really wanted other beings to be happy. The fact that I asked myself this was the effect of my recitation. Khun Sujin: When you asked yourself this you realized already that mettå is not just reciting words but that it should be practised. Question: Yes, that is true. When I practised mettå in the situation I did not recite. Khun Sujin: Some people only think of reciting texts about mettå, but after they have finished reciting they become angry when something unpleasant occurs. One may recite words about mettå, but mettå may not arise when there are beings or people present. One may recite for a long time, but when something unpleasant happens, where is mettå? How much longer should one then recite so that mettå can arise? ******* Nina. #84521 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' upasaka_howard Hi, Larry (and Nina) - In a message dated 3/31/2008 10:08:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi Nina, Nina: "Hearing only experiences sound, and there is no other citta at that moment that cognizes hearing. In another process hearing itself can be the object cognized by other cittas arising in a mind-door process." Larry: The object of consciousness is the experience, not the consciousness? Does that mean the experience is the same for all 15 consciousnesses in a 5-door process but the understanding of that object evolves through those 15 consciousnesses and perhaps becomes an object of a mind-door process? Is rupa as experience different from rupa itself? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think that is an important question, Larry, that I do not see explicitly addressed, i.e., without requiring interpretation, in the Tipitaka. As I interpret the Bahiya Sutta, and more so, the Kalaka Sutta, the experienced rupa and "the rupa itself" are one and the same. The sight seen *is* the eye-door rupa, the sole one.The terminology of "visible object" makes the opposite view easier to hold, but I still find it absurd, for there can be no sight independent of eye and seeing - there can be no unseen sight. This, however, does NOT identify what is seen with the seeing of it. When visual contact occurs, the visual object-content is the sight - the eye-door rupa, and its being seen (it's presence) is the consciousness of it. The seeing, the seen, and the eye-door (activation) are distinguishable but co-occurring, mutually dependent and inseparable players in a single mental event: visual contact. -------------------------------------------------------- Larry ============================ With metta, Howard #84522 From: "colette" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:37 pm Subject: Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 Hi Ken, Sorry, but you've got Miss Interpretation standing next to you and doing what she does best: give advice. She typically gives 100% wrong advice when she's advising people about what I say or what I do or what I think etc. WANTING TO: Repair karma: this is a desire held by the priest of the OSOGD applying his ignorance to karma and suggesting that he can repair his karma by going back to the place where the first karma created negative actions. wanting to cease to exist: where the heck did that come from. I spoke that I considered attempting to return to the initial Tzim Tzum, in Jewish Kabbalah, would be a suicidal attempt. I never said any person wanted to commit suicide. wanting not to cease to exist: this is a form of clinging to something that does not exist BECAUSE OF THE PRAVDA (truth just in case you're a brain scientist or a rocket surgeon that doesn't speak Russian, if you want I can make it fit into a definition that deals with any and all publications coming from the government <...>) FOUND IN THE DOCTRINE OF SUNYATA. In this incarnation we are permitted the opportunity to benefit ourselves and those around us applying certain doctrines and philosophies. In applying the Buddhist doctrines of IMPERMENENCE- TRANSIENCE (Lets try to at least remember, when we get totally drunk, that Lord Yama holds the Wheel of Birth, Life, and Death), as long as we hallucinate that our "selves" and/or our bodies are of some magical properties that they will always remain, here we find the truth about Svabhava, we will cling to this delusion that we are not sacrificing our bodies every day for an ideal or a philosophy, for instance in the corporate world where robotics are the rule of every day and every night. Here I find "letting go", releasing things from my or your grasp and seeing that which was grasped is empty and of little or no value to continue clinging to it. A friend of mine lost his mother about a month ago and I told him: when I lived in New Orleans we mourned the death and our loss of a friend but our mourning had to be tempered since it is their gain, they have been released from this suffering and are now progressing on their existance. Let go, let everything go. <.....>what you claim to be wrong view most certainly has greater potential of being the Path to Enlightenment before it is wrong. I want to go speak with a friend, I think Buddhatrue, that wrote Nina a msg. concerning Nina's misinterpretations about another sutta./ toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Colette, > > Thanks for your reply. I've just got time for one quick comment: > > ------------ > C: > <. . .> this goes back to a dispute I originally had with the > head priest of the OSOGD where he was suggesting insane > impossibilities, that he wants his bad karma repared by going back to > the original TZIM TZUM, divine contraction, OF THE UNIVERSE, which > implies THE supposed BIG BANG. I originally contended that it would > be suicide, if it could even happen, BECAUSE the practioner that was > performing this act would then automatically get caught up in the > divine contraction and would cease to exist. > ------------- > > All this wanting - wanting to repair kamma, wanting to cease to > exist, wanting not to cease to exist etc. - is the wrong way. The > right way lies in the present moment. If we could just understand > that whatever exists now is mere impermanent, conditioned, mental- and- > physical phenomena there would be no thought of wanting. Wanting for > whom? > > Ken H > #84523 From: "colette" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:51 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 Hi James, I have a few minutes left, I waisted so much time researching backwards on this thread as a means of finding out what sutta you are speaking of so that I can familiarize myself with it and hold a better discussion with you and the group. You seem to be having the same difficulty that I have with my views and how there are some people that simply refuse to release any of their long held traditions of grasping and imprisoning certain doctrines and beliefs, it's a common mental illness called delusions of granduer, <....> I like your argument that they misinterpret what the sutta was/is about. Could you give me the name of the sutta so that I can work on it? thanx. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > Hi Nina, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > wrote: > > > ------- > > N: As far as I understand, the mental objects in this sutta are > > dhammas, including cetasikas, subtle rupas (thus not the rupas > > mentioned before: the senses and the objects experienced through > the > > senses) and nibbaana. > > James: I don't see a justification for assuming this. The sutta > doesn't say, or even imply, anything of the sort. > > > Concepts can be thought of through the mind-door, but these are > not > > objects we have to develop understanding of. We need not develop > > understanding of a table or an apple. > > James: As I explained, this sutta is not about developing > understanding. This sutta is not about satipatthana. It is about > determining what is included in "the all". <....> #84524 From: "colette" Date: Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:58 pm Subject: Re: 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) ksheri3 Hi TG, Pardon me, is this my ball, laying on the green? (I'm thinking of something that Chevy Chase or Rodney Dangerfield might've said in the movie Caddy Shack). I don't have much time on the computer but I liked what I got a chance to read before going back downstairs and getting in bed with Tummo, Osel, et al. > Relevance of Vedana to Bhavana-maya Panna > Vipassana Research Institute > > The Pali term bhavana-maya panna means experiential wisdom. Bhavanabhavana1 > is meditation through which wisdom (panna) is cultivated. colette: cultivated implies cultivating or cultivation which is an important aspect here, that many novices will overlook. In Freemasonry and many other esoteric groups I've had the luck to participate with I've found a complete lack of attention for and lack of attention to FOUNDATIONAL REQUIREMENTS. Either they, the practioners, are too self-centered or too busy to be bothered by such mundane things or are simply too busy with their attachmetn to the everyday 9-5 world in which they live. They believe that wisdom is just sitting there and if they reach far enough off of the horse they ride upon on the merry-go-round, then they will eventually be able to grab it and claim victory for a job well done. <...> In the process of laying a foundation upon which to build the practioner is contemplating the actual foundation: why it can support certain things, how heavy things can be that it supports, etc. This is part of the Wisdom which is being cultivated, NURTURED to reach FRUITION. --------------------------- In order to > understand the essence of the term bhavana-maya panna and its relevance to vedana > (sensation), we first need to understand the meaning of the term panna. colette: I just found out today that Naropa was an Indian and not a Chinese. Malarepa was the Chinese or non-Indian. I never knew that Naropa was of a different culture ---- Panna > is derived from the root 'na' which means 'to know', prefixed by 'pa' meaning > 'correctly'.2 Thus, the literal English translation of the word panna is 'to > know correctly'. Commonly used equivalents are such words as 'insight', > 'knowledge' or 'wisdom'. All these convey aspects of panna, but, as with all Pali > terms, no translation corresponds exactly. > In the ancient texts, panna is defined more precisely as > yatha-bhutam-nana-dassanamyatha-bhuta-nana-dassanam,3 seeing things as they are, not as they > appear to be. colette: VERY IMPORTANT. Simple sight, seeing things as they are not as they appear to be, IS SO PRIMORDIAL, FOUNDATIONAL. Sure, it allows a person freedoms to do what I revel in doing, taking tangents or "off-ramps" (leaving the beaten path for a little sight-seeing) and this is great but the practioner can't attach themselves to what is seen and experienced through the tangent or off-ramp. The practioner has to stay attached to the beaten path. ------------- That is, understanding the true nature of anicca (impermanence), > dukkha (suffering) and anatta (essencelessness) in all things. colette: this is a point I was trying to make to Ken concerning his misinterpretations and misdirections of what I was/am saying. This, also is pure ABHIDHARMA, I mean this sounds so very close to the Abh. analysis and practice that I ponder the writer. Now it's time for bed. Thank you for letting me say my peace but it's off to the Land of Nod and the Dream state to see what I can get out of astral projections. toodles, colette #84525 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 12:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and all) - The article's presentation of the forms of pa~n~na strikes me as balanced, correct and comprehensive. What find idiosyncratic about Goenka's approach to matters is not his view on insight, but his perspective on vedana and meditation: His view of vedana is not that of knowing as pleasant, unpleasant, or affectively neutral, but is pretty much identical with knowing-as-an-object, particularly of bodily sensation, which is not distinguishable, as I see it, from body-door vi~n~nana. He seems to think that knowing of body-door rupas (bodily sensations) is the be-all and end-all. Now, I agree that bodily sensation is an extremely important foundation of mindfulness, and I have benefited greatly from the practice, but it is far from the sole practice. Awareness of vedana (in the true sense), of emotional reactions of craving, aversion, of mind-states of alertness, distraction, clarity and its lack, of volition (very important), and of thinking are also extremely important. Mental introspection and guarding the senses are of major importance. With metta, Howard #84526 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 6:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Hi Howard, Op 1-apr-2008, om 12:35 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > the experienced > rupa and "the rupa itself" are one and the same. The sight seen > *is* the > eye-door rupa, the sole one.The terminology of "visible object" > makes the opposite > view easier to hold, but I still find it absurd, for there can be > no sight > independent of eye and seeing - there can be no unseen sight. > This, however, does NOT identify what is seen with the seeing of it. ------ N: I agree with the beginning and end of the above, but not with the middle: I shall explain: rupas arise and fall away in groups, kalapas. Each group consists of at least eight rupas, the eight inseparable rupas. These are the four Great Elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind, + colour (or visible object), odour, flavour, nutritive essence. When hardness (Earth) impinges on the bodysense, colour arises together with it, and the other rupas of that group, but only hardness is experienced and not colour and the other rupas of that group. Nina. #84527 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 3:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/1/2008 9:48:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: N: I agree with the beginning and end of the above, but not with the middle: I shall explain: rupas arise and fall away in groups, kalapas. Each group consists of at least eight rupas, the eight inseparable rupas. These are the four Great Elements of Earth, Water, Fire and Wind, + colour (or visible object), odour, flavour, nutritive essence. When hardness (Earth) impinges on the bodysense, colour arises together with it, and the other rupas of that group, but only hardness is experienced and not colour and the other rupas of that group. Nina. ============================== In the Kalaka Sutta the Buddha taught "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer." With metta, Howard P. S. What sense does an unseen sight make to you? It makes none to me. #84528 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 5:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) TGrand458@... Hi Nina The point I've been making is that insight incorporates aspects of thinking, reflecting, contemplating, as well as direct experience. These insight terms -- suta-maya-panna, cinta-maya-panna and bhavana-maya-panna, using the Pali "panna," come from the Suttas. Insight is built up gradually with study, analyzing, reflecting, contemplating the conditionality qualities of nature. This, combined with and culminating with direct knowing of "internal" experience, leads to freedom. It is in this way these insight knowledges are mutually supportive. Hence "My" thesis; as Scott would say. This is the way the Suttas present the matter. IMO, you have narrowed the matter down (with the "help" of commentaries) into a format that does not reflect what the Suttas present (in more ways than one). Hence you are unable to deal with "insight issues" of past, future, external, far, etc. In addition to things like Charnel Ground contemplations, foulness of bodily parts, etc. which are also insight contemplations. Therefore, "thinking," which is essentially using the imagination, is a VITAL aspect of insight and crucial in cultivating the mental states that lead to liberation. What you wrote below I did not find very coherent in relation to this topic, but it seems to follow the same old line that ignores the compelling and overwhelming evidence that is contained in the Suttas. TG In a message dated 4/1/2008 3:41:02 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi TG, Op 1-apr-2008, om 5:03 heeft _TGrand458@..._ (mailto:TGrand458@...) het volgende geschreven: > I'll be particularly interested in hearing from those who keep > claiming that > insight is only direct experience. :-) -------- N: I followed most of what you have written. Vipassana ~naa.na is vipassana ~naa.na, different from thinking. Thinking thinks about realities, but does not directly experience them. I read the article. I find that it is well explained that the order of suttamaya ~naa.na and cinta-maya~naa.of suttamaya I know the sutta about vedana, but the conclusion I do not agree with it: The Buddha gave us many suttas explainign the objects of understanding under the aspect of feeling, but he did not state that only feeling should be considered, see the sutta about 'the all' which points to all the different realities. Since feeling accompanies each citta, also the sense-cognitions, actually knowing feeling implies knowing the all, knowing all nama and rupa of our daily life. Nina. #84529 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 10:07 am Subject: Re: 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) icarofranca Hi Collete!!! > colette: cultivated implies cultivating or cultivation which is an > important aspect here, that many novices will overlook. In > Freemasonry and many other esoteric groups I've had the luck to > participate with I've found a complete lack of attention for and >lack > of attention to FOUNDATIONAL REQUIREMENTS. Either they, the > practioners, are too self-centered or too busy to be bothered by such > mundane things or are simply too busy with their attachmetn to the > everyday 9-5 world in which they live. Since everybody here knows that I have no deal with freemansonry at all, I feel myself free to stand some remarks about these questions. When the dedicated practicioner begins to learn about Samatha-Vipassana, he is instructed by his Bhante, Lama, Rinpoche, Bhagavan, Guru, etc,that exists many grades on mindfulness methods: the basest of all is the mere "sitting in silence", that has no difference against other no-buddhistic methods. This is called an "impure" approach. At the other end of the way, passing through all levels of absorption on Samatha and Vipassana, the very dedicated mindfullness practicioner reaches the shores of Jhana, Satori, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, etc, in all immaterial spheres...but who will make any distinction with this level of practice against the buddy that´s only stupidly sitting in silence? No man indeed! No external observer can make any distiction. Shikkan-Taza, Satori, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, even Jhana, that´s only words to label something we reach after some expertise on mindfulness. Even at learning the Pali, we can only begin to read and understand the Tipitaka after some good intentional effort. So, leave alone that silly chap that only seems to sleep at his seat, without any regard about high principles or the highest doctrine...perhaps he´s reaching the immaterial sphere of nothingness with his intimorate and bold meditation practice! I will continue reading the Vissudhimagga english translation with glee!!!! > > They believe that wisdom is just sitting there and if they reach far > enough off of the horse they ride upon on the merry-go-round, then > they will eventually be able to grab it and claim victory for a job > well done. <...> Reading the Vissudhimagga in Pali is something I could claim for a victory!!! Mettaya, Ícaro #84530 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 6:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... Hi Scott In a message dated 4/1/2008 12:57:14 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: TG: "Since I don't view any elements as 'things' that arise 'unto themselves,' or as 'anything' that could alter 'unto itself,' I don't view it as something that alters 'as itself' through time. I DO view phenomena as continuously altering in accordance to conditions. Hence phenomena are 'empty, hollow, coreless', because they never are never a 'self same thing' ... not even in the present. Elements are just apparitions that echo conditionality circumstances. I think the above quote speaks for itself..." Scott: This is often rehashed, TG. I'll restate my opinion that this sort of impermanence, that is, 'slow impermanence' considered to be in relation to 'bodies' - conceptual wholes - is not the final analysis. In the above, the body is shown to consist of 'material form', (ruupii) 'the four elements' (caatummahaabhuutik(r .................................................. NEW TG: "Conceptual wholes" is just your "conception" of what you think I am saying because you don't understand what I am saying. ..................................................... The thesis proposed above seems essentially about Nothing - heavily insubstantialist. If I paraphrase the thesis, it might run like this: ........................................................... NEW TG: In an attempt to discredit me, you actually compliment me! Thanks!. The only change I'd make above is to say "no-thing" as opposed to nothing. ..................................................... "...Elements are nothings which don't arise 'unto themselves', or are nothings that cannot alter 'unto [themselves] through time'. Phenomena, which are nothings with no arisings, are continuously altering in accordance to conditions..altering in accordance to conditi never 'self-same things...just apparitions that echo conditionality circumstances.cir ........................................................... NEW TG: Again, change "nothing" to no-thing" and your not too far off base. However, I DO NOT say there are "no arisings," ..................................................... You seem to be saying that there are no phenomena. .......................................................... NEW TG: No. This is what YOU are saying I'm saying. Since it is my belief you do not grasp the significance of Dependent Arising, you seem unaware that nothing can have "its own identity." BTW, almost all of the terms I use that you seem to object to are directly from the Suttas. I copied this from 'my above' to refresh your memory... "I DO view phenomena as continuously altering in accordance to conditions." .................................................... What, in your view, are 'elements'? The notion of 'continual alteration' seems to be yours as well. ......................................................... NEW TG: Have you read the Suttas lately? The sense of gradual change is throughout. Again, you don't seem to directly tackle the quotes I post to back up my statements. RE: ELEMENTS... Elements are just "perceptible reference points" so as to understand the conditional, impermanent, afflicting, and nonself qualities of nature. I repeat... Elements are just "perceptible reference points" so as to understand the conditional, impermanent, afflicting, and nonself qualities of nature. ............................................................ The sutta refers to form (ruupa) consisting of the four elements (mahaabhuuta)(mahaabhuuta). Ruupa TG: "#1 The Buddha does not call it 'presence.' The Buddha calls it 'changing while persisting..it 'changing while persisti Abhidhamma's presentation?A Scott: No, Abhidhamma, as has been oft stated, refers to arising, presence, and ceasing as the 'moments' of a dhamma. Please show me where 'changing while persisting' is stated in the suttas. ..................................................... NEW TG: Its all over the place in the Suttas. I'll look it up for you later. I would highly recommend you do more Sutta reading! Something like this must be in at least a dozen Sutta passages throughout the Nikayas. Actually, I posted on it within the last month or so and I'm pretty sure I referenced it then. I'll keep a look out though. .................................................. In your interpretation of the Mahasakuludayi Sutta you suggest that the 'body' changes while persisting but you misunderstand the sutta. TG: "As far as seamlessly discrete dhammas...Sorry I don't have the reference handy...its probably in Majjhima Nikaya." Scott: If you can remember the sutta I'd appreciate it. ................................................................... NEW TG: I may try to look for it for you. Maybe someone else knows its location. A very important passage for one who holds a view along the lines of -- the ultimate distinctiveness of elements. Not that this necessarily applies to you. .................................................................... TG: "Phenomena arise, alter, and disintegrate in accordance to conditions." Scott: Doesn't this contradict your earlier view? ............................................................ NEW TG: Nope, its exactly accords with it. Once again, this is a copy of "my earlier view" that you are responding to... "I DO view phenomena as continuously altering in accordance to conditions. " Looks like a near perfect match! ............................................................ TG: "'A series of moments' is an interesting notion. Did the Buddha teach this? Sutta reference?" Scott: I'm off to look for this, I'll post what I have for now. .............................................................. NEW TG: One of our main blocking points is in the way we understand Dependent Arising. However, I find the entire "dhammas theory" as ultimate realities with their own characteristics -- to be way off the mark. So that's another blocking point. I would love to see you chime in on the 3 Panna's topic that I posted. I seem to recall you acting like I must be loco to think that panna could refer to anything along the lines of inferential thinking? You said I must mean something else like yonisa-manasikara. Well, now we have the ACTUAL term panna to deal with. I'll be very interested in how I am mis-understanding the Pali this time around. :-) But shocked if you actually comment directly on the matter. ;-) TG #84531 From: "matheesha" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 11:16 am Subject: Qualities of a Sotapanna matheesha333 Qualities of a Sotapanna Sadda endowed with unwavering faith in the Awakened One endowed with unwavering faith in the Dhamma endowed with unwavering faith in the Sangha http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.179.than.html Sila abstains from taking life, abstains from taking what is not given, abstains from illicit sex, abstains from lying, abstains from distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.179.than.html Unable to perform `ananthariya papa kamma' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.than.html#n-5 see more below – they may break minor training rules, but cannot hide it, wants to confess it, doesn't want to repeat it. Panna Knows and Sees Nama (Phassa, Vedana, Sanna, Cetana, and Thanha) Knows and Sees Rupa (dhathu, sense doors) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#okkanta Knows and Sees Vinnana http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.003.than.html [ie- sees the aggregates] Understands Cause and Effect http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.097.than.html Knows and Sees the Paticcasamuppada http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.092.than.html No doubt (does not think `did I exist etc.) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.051.than.html Knows and sees anicca, dukkha, anatta (tilakkana) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.122.than.html Sees arising and passing away http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.033.than.html perceives Nibbida, Viraga, Nirodha http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.083.than.html understands the Four Noble Truths http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.051.than.html experiences nibbana http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.090.than.html understands gratification, danger and escape At Savatti, "Bikkhus, the uninstructed worldling does not understand as it really is the gratification (aasvada), the danger (aadinava) and the escape (nissarana) in the case of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness." "But, Bikkhus, the instructed Noble Disciple understands as it really is the gratification, the danger and the escape in the case of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness" -Gratification Khandavagga, 73.1 SN self view, adherence to rites and rituals as the path to enlightenment, doubt (3 fetters) — AN 3.87 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/stream2.html has a remaining residue of the conceit `I' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html Life linked with long life, human or divine; is linked with beauty, human or divine; is linked with happiness, human or divine; is linked with status, human or divine; is linked with influence, human or divine. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.030.than.html Dana/ lack of greed http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.032.than.html No fear of death and the next life http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.184.than.html Other features "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, considers thus: 'Is there any internal enthrallment unabandoned in me that, enthralled with which, my enthralled mind would not know or see things as they actually are?' If a monk is enthralled with sensual passion, then his mind is enthralled. If he is enthralled with ill will, then his mind is enthralled. If he is enthralled with sloth and torpor, then his mind is enthralled. If he is enthralled with restlessness and anxiety, then his mind is enthralled. If he is enthralled with uncertainty, then his mind is enthralled. If a monk is absorbed in speculation about this world, then his mind is enthralled. If a monk is absorbed in speculation about the other world, then his mind is enthralled. If a monk is given to arguing and quarreling and disputing, stabbing others with weapons of the mouth, then his mind is enthralled. "He discerns that, 'There is no enthrallment unabandoned in me that, enthralled with which, my enthralled mind would not know and see things as they actually are. My mind is well directed for awakening to the truths.' This is the first knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'When I cultivate, develop, and pursue this view, do I personally obtain serenity, do I personally obtain Unbinding?' "He discerns that, 'When I cultivate, develop, and pursue this view, I personally obtain serenity, I personally obtain Unbinding.' This is the second knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'Is there, outside of this [Dhamma and discipline], any other priest or contemplative endowed with the sort of view with which I am endowed?' "He discerns that, 'There is no other priest or contemplative outside [the Buddha's Dispensation] endowed with the sort of view with which I am endowed.' This is the third knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'Am I endowed with the character of a person consummate in view?' What is the character of a person consummate in view? This is the character of a person consummate in view: although he may commit some kind of offence for which a means of rehabilitation has been laid down, still he immediately confesses, reveals, and discloses it to the Teacher or to wise companions in the holy life; having done that, he undertakes restraint for the future. Just as a young, tender infant lying on his back, when he has hit a live ember with his hand or his foot, immediately draws back; in the same way, this is the character of a person consummate in view: although he may commit some kind of offence for which a means of rehabilitation has been laid down, still he immediately confesses, reveals, and discloses it to the Teacher or to wise companions in the holy life; having done that, he undertakes restraint for the future. "He discerns that, 'I am endowed with the character of a person consummate in view.' This is the fourth knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'Am I endowed with the character of a person consummate in view?' What is the character of a person consummate in view? This is the character of a person consummate in view: although he may be active in the various affairs of his companions in the holy life, he still has a keen regard for training in heightened virtue, training in heightened mind, & training in heightened discernment. Just as a cow with a new calf watches after her calf all the while she is grazing on grass, in the same way, this is the character of a person consummate in view: although he may be active in the various affairs of his companions in the holy life, he still has a keen regard for training in heightened virtue, training in heightened mind, & training in heightened discernment. "He discerns that, 'I am endowed with the character of a person consummate in view.' This is the fifth knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'Am I endowed with the strength of a person consummate in view?' What is the strength of a person consummate in view? This is the strength of a person consummate in view: when the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata is being taught, he heeds it, gives it attention, engages it with all his mind, hears the Dhamma with eager ears. "He discerns that, 'I am endowed with the strength of a person consummate in view.' This is the sixth knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'Am I endowed with the strength of a person consummate in view?' What is the strength of a person consummate in view? This is the strength of a person consummate in view: when the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata is being taught, he gains understanding in the meaning, gains understanding in the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. "He discerns that, 'I am endowed with the strength of a person consummate in view.' This is the seventh knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "A disciple of the noble ones thus possessed of seven factors has well examined the character for the realization of the fruit of stream-entry. A disciple of the noble ones thus possessed of seven factors is endowed with the fruit of stream-entry." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/stream2.html "There is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that 'I am a learner,' and whereby a monk who is an adept [i.e., an arahant], standing at the level of an adept, can discern that 'I am an adept.' "And what is the manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that 'I am a learner'? There is the case where a monk is a learner. He discerns, as it actually is, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that 'I am a learner.' "Furthermore, the monk who is a learner reflects, 'Is there outside of this [doctrine & discipline] any priest or contemplative who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One?' And he discerns, 'No, there is no priest or contemplative outside of this doctrine & discipline who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One.' This too is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that 'I am a learner.' "Furthermore, the monk who is a learner discerns the five faculties: the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment. He sees clear through with discernment their destiny, excellence, rewards, & consummation, but he does not touch them with his body. This too is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that 'I am a learner.' "And what is the manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is an adept, standing at the level of an adept, can discern that 'I am an adept'? There is the case where a monk who is an adept discerns the five faculties: the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment. He touches with his body and sees clear through with discernment what their destiny, excellence, rewards, & consummation are. This is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is an adept, standing at the level of an adept, can discern that 'I am an adept.' "Furthermore, the monk who is an adept discerns the six sense faculties: the faculty of the eye... ear... nose... tongue... body... intellect. He discerns, 'These six sense faculties will disband entirely, everywhere, & in every way without remainder, and no other set of six sense faculties will arise anywhere or in any way.' This too is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is an adept, standing at the level of an adept, can discern that 'I am an adept.'" — SN 48.53 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/stream2.html #84532 From: "icarofranca" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 11:37 am Subject: Re: 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) icarofranca Hi Collete!!! > colette: cultivated implies cultivating or cultivation which is an > important aspect here, that many novices will overlook. In > Freemasonry and many other esoteric groups I've had the luck to > participate with I've found a complete lack of attention for and >lack > of attention to FOUNDATIONAL REQUIREMENTS. Either they, the > practioners, are too self-centered or too busy to be bothered by such > mundane things or are simply too busy with their attachmetn to the > everyday 9-5 world in which they live. Since everybody here knows that I have no deal with freemansonry at all, I feel myself free to stand some remarks about these questions. When the dedicated practitioner begins to learn about Samatha-Vipassana, he is instructed by his Bhante, Lama, Rinpoche, Bhagavan, Guru, etc,that exists many grades on mindfulness methods: the basest of all is the mere "sitting in silence", that has no difference against other no-buddhistic methods. This is called an "impure" approach. At the other end of the way, passing through all levels of absorption on Samatha and Vipassana, the very dedicated mindfullness practitioner reaches the shores of Jhana, Satori, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, etc, in all immaterial spheres...but who will make any distinction with this level of practice against the buddy that´s only stupidly sitting in silence? No man indeed! No external observer can make any distiction. Shikkan-Taza, Satori, Mahamudra, Dzogchen, even Jhana, that´s only words to label something we reach after some expertise on mindfulness. Even at learning the Pali, we can only begin to read and understand the Tipitaka after some good intentional effort. So, leave alone that silly chap that only seems to sleep at his seat, without any regard about high principles or the highest doctrine...perhaps he´s reaching the immaterial sphere of nothingness with his intimorate and bold meditation practice! I will continue reading the Vissudhimagga english translation with glee!!!! > > They believe that wisdom is just sitting there and if they reach far > enough off of the horse they ride upon on the merry-go-round, then > they will eventually be able to grab it and claim victory for a job > well done. <...> Reading the Vissudhimagga in Pali is something I could claim for a victory!!! Mettaya, Ícaro #84531 From: "matheesha" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 11:16 am Subject: Qualities of a Sotapanna matheesha333 Qualities of a Sotapanna Sadda endowed with unwavering faith in the Awakened One endowed with unwavering faith in the Dhamma endowed with unwavering faith in the Sangha http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.179.than.html Sila abstains from taking life, abstains from taking what is not given, abstains from illicit sex, abstains from lying, abstains from distilled & fermented drinks that cause heedlessness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.179.than.html Unable to perform `ananthariya papa kamma' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.2.01.than.html#n-5 see more below – they may break minor training rules, but cannot hide it, wants to confess it, doesn't want to repeat it. Panna Knows and Sees Nama (Phassa, Vedana, Sanna, Cetana, and Thanha) Knows and Sees Rupa (dhathu, sense doors) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/index.html#okkanta Knows and Sees Vinnana http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn25/sn25.003.than.html [ie- sees the aggregates] Understands Cause and Effect http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.097.than.html Knows and Sees the Paticcasamuppada http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.092.than.html No doubt (does not think `did I exist etc.) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.051.than.html Knows and sees anicca, dukkha, anatta (tilakkana) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.122.than.html Sees arising and passing away http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.033.than.html perceives Nibbida, Viraga, Nirodha http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.083.than.html understands the Four Noble Truths http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.051.than.html experiences nibbana http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.090.than.html understands gratification, danger and escape At Savatti, "Bikkhus, the uninstructed worldling does not understand as it really is the gratification (aasvada), the danger (aadinava) and the escape (nissarana) in the case of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness." "But, Bikkhus, the instructed Noble Disciple understands as it really is the gratification, the danger and the escape in the case of form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness" -Gratification Khandavagga, 73.1 SN self view, adherence to rites and rituals as the path to enlightenment, doubt (3 fetters) — AN 3.87 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/stream2.html has a remaining residue of the conceit `I' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089.than.html Life linked with long life, human or divine; is linked with beauty, human or divine; is linked with happiness, human or divine; is linked with status, human or divine; is linked with influence, human or divine. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.030.than.html Dana/ lack of greed http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn55/sn55.032.than.html No fear of death and the next life http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.184.than.html Other features "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the root of a tree, or to an empty dwelling, considers thus: 'Is there any internal enthrallment unabandoned in me that, enthralled with which, my enthralled mind would not know or see things as they actually are?' If a monk is enthralled with sensual passion, then his mind is enthralled. If he is enthralled with ill will, then his mind is enthralled. If he is enthralled with sloth and torpor, then his mind is enthralled. If he is enthralled with restlessness and anxiety, then his mind is enthralled. If he is enthralled with uncertainty, then his mind is enthralled. If a monk is absorbed in speculation about this world, then his mind is enthralled. If a monk is absorbed in speculation about the other world, then his mind is enthralled. If a monk is given to arguing and quarreling and disputing, stabbing others with weapons of the mouth, then his mind is enthralled. "He discerns that, 'There is no enthrallment unabandoned in me that, enthralled with which, my enthralled mind would not know and see things as they actually are. My mind is well directed for awakening to the truths.' This is the first knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'When I cultivate, develop, and pursue this view, do I personally obtain serenity, do I personally obtain Unbinding?' "He discerns that, 'When I cultivate, develop, and pursue this view, I personally obtain serenity, I personally obtain Unbinding.' This is the second knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'Is there, outside of this [Dhamma and discipline], any other priest or contemplative endowed with the sort of view with which I am endowed?' "He discerns that, 'There is no other priest or contemplative outside [the Buddha's Dispensation] endowed with the sort of view with which I am endowed.' This is the third knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'Am I endowed with the character of a person consummate in view?' What is the character of a person consummate in view? This is the character of a person consummate in view: although he may commit some kind of offence for which a means of rehabilitation has been laid down, still he immediately confesses, reveals, and discloses it to the Teacher or to wise companions in the holy life; having done that, he undertakes restraint for the future. Just as a young, tender infant lying on his back, when he has hit a live ember with his hand or his foot, immediately draws back; in the same way, this is the character of a person consummate in view: although he may commit some kind of offence for which a means of rehabilitation has been laid down, still he immediately confesses, reveals, and discloses it to the Teacher or to wise companions in the holy life; having done that, he undertakes restraint for the future. "He discerns that, 'I am endowed with the character of a person consummate in view.' This is the fourth knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'Am I endowed with the character of a person consummate in view?' What is the character of a person consummate in view? This is the character of a person consummate in view: although he may be active in the various affairs of his companions in the holy life, he still has a keen regard for training in heightened virtue, training in heightened mind, & training in heightened discernment. Just as a cow with a new calf watches after her calf all the while she is grazing on grass, in the same way, this is the character of a person consummate in view: although he may be active in the various affairs of his companions in the holy life, he still has a keen regard for training in heightened virtue, training in heightened mind, & training in heightened discernment. "He discerns that, 'I am endowed with the character of a person consummate in view.' This is the fifth knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'Am I endowed with the strength of a person consummate in view?' What is the strength of a person consummate in view? This is the strength of a person consummate in view: when the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata is being taught, he heeds it, gives it attention, engages it with all his mind, hears the Dhamma with eager ears. "He discerns that, 'I am endowed with the strength of a person consummate in view.' This is the sixth knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones considers thus: 'Am I endowed with the strength of a person consummate in view?' What is the strength of a person consummate in view? This is the strength of a person consummate in view: when the Dhamma and Discipline proclaimed by the Tathagata is being taught, he gains understanding in the meaning, gains understanding in the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. "He discerns that, 'I am endowed with the strength of a person consummate in view.' This is the seventh knowledge attained by him that is noble, transcendent, not held in common with run-of-the-mill people. "A disciple of the noble ones thus possessed of seven factors has well examined the character for the realization of the fruit of stream-entry. A disciple of the noble ones thus possessed of seven factors is endowed with the fruit of stream-entry." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/stream2.html "There is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that 'I am a learner,' and whereby a monk who is an adept [i.e., an arahant], standing at the level of an adept, can discern that 'I am an adept.' "And what is the manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that 'I am a learner'? There is the case where a monk is a learner. He discerns, as it actually is, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.' This is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that 'I am a learner.' "Furthermore, the monk who is a learner reflects, 'Is there outside of this [doctrine & discipline] any priest or contemplative who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One?' And he discerns, 'No, there is no priest or contemplative outside of this doctrine & discipline who teaches the true, genuine, & accurate Dhamma like the Blessed One.' This too is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that 'I am a learner.' "Furthermore, the monk who is a learner discerns the five faculties: the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment. He sees clear through with discernment their destiny, excellence, rewards, & consummation, but he does not touch them with his body. This too is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is a learner, standing at the level of a learner, can discern that 'I am a learner.' "And what is the manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is an adept, standing at the level of an adept, can discern that 'I am an adept'? There is the case where a monk who is an adept discerns the five faculties: the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment. He touches with his body and sees clear through with discernment what their destiny, excellence, rewards, & consummation are. This is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is an adept, standing at the level of an adept, can discern that 'I am an adept.' "Furthermore, the monk who is an adept discerns the six sense faculties: the faculty of the eye... ear... nose... tongue... body... intellect. He discerns, 'These six sense faculties will disband entirely, everywhere, & in every way without remainder, and no other set of six sense faculties will arise anywhere or in any way.' This too is a manner of reckoning whereby a monk who is an adept, standing at the level of an adept, can discern that 'I am an adept.'" — SN 48.53 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/stream2.html #84533 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 3:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II jonoabb Hi James >> Well that is a view that we can discuss further. But you brought up >> this sutta as substantiating the general proposition that those who >> had achieved jhana had little dust in their eyes (his former teachers >> and ascetics being an example of such). >> >> I think it is clear that no such general proposition is to be found >> in the sutta. >> > James: Well, I think there is- and you provide no contrary analysis, ... > I don't understand what kind of "contrary analysis" you could have in mind. You yourself concede that there is no actual mention of jhana in the sutta passage. So its supposed role is something that is assumed or imputed by you. So how could the passage possibly substantiate the role of jhana as a general proposition? > ... just this pompous statement! > Spoken like a true debater (if one's case has no merit, make a few personal comments to divert attention ;-)). >> Is there any other sutta you can cite in support of your general >> proposition? >> > James: Actually, there are many but I won't post them for you. As > they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink! :-) > Well, there may be other horses following the discussion who are not as stubborn this old nag and who'd be interested to see these (alleged) suttas ;-)). Jon #84534 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 6:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive scottduncan2 Dear TG, Thanks for the reply: NEW TG: "'Conceptual wholes' is just your 'conception' of what you think I am saying because you don't understand what I am saying." Scott: This is true. Would you be so kind as to clarify what you are saying? NEW TG: "In an attempt to discredit me, you actually compliment me! Thanks!. The only change I'd make above is to say "no-thing" as opposed to nothing...Again, change "nothing" to no-thing" and your not too far off base. However, I DO NOT say there are 'no arisings'." Scott: So here is the paraphrase with the suggested change: "...Elements are no-things which don't arise 'unto themselves', or are no-things that cannot alter 'unto [themselves] through time'. Phenomena are continuously altering in accordance to conditions never 'self-same things...just apparitions that echo conditionality circumstances" I'm just discussing with you, TG, hence I don't know where you get the whole 'discredit' thing from. I disagree with your thesis but this is just about views. I am assuming you post your views to be discussed. In this way, at least, you can at least continue to test out your theories and fine tune them. If you don't wish to discuss, please just say so. With this in mind, you cannot, in my opinion, eat your cake and have it too. As I suggested: 'You seem to be saying that there are no phenomena' and yet you suggest that something arises and alters. NEW TG: "...Since it is my belief you do not grasp the significance of Dependent Arising, you seem unaware that nothing can have 'its own identity'. BTW, almost all of the terms I use that you seem to object to are directly from the Suttas. I DO view phenomena as continuously altering in accordance to conditions." Scott: Please point out in what way you consider Dependent Arising to factor in here, as well as in what way I don't grasp its significance. I'm not sure what 'identity' has to do with this. I am referring to dhammas with characteristics. What is it that arises according to your thesis? What is it that 'continuously alters'? NEW TG: "...Elements are just 'perceptible reference points' so as to understand the conditional, impermanent, afflicting, and nonself qualities of nature." Scott: This is your own theory, TG. You've coined a phrase: 'perceptible reference points'. What does it mean? NEW TG: "Its all over the place in the Suttas. I'll look it up for you later...I'll keep a look out though." Scott: Thanks, TG. NEW TG: "I may try to look for it for you. Maybe someone else knows its location. A very important passage for one who holds a view along the lines of -- the ultimate distinctiveness of elements. Not that this necessarily applies to you." Scott: It may... NEW TG: "One of our main blocking points is in the way we understand Dependent Arising. However, I find the entire "dhammas theory" as ultimate realities with their own characteristics -- to be way off the mark. So that's another blocking point." Scott: Fair enough. TG: "I would love to see you chime in on the 3 Panna's topic that I posted..." Scott: Thanks, TG. I have limited time these days and so will get to it when I can (and when we sort out this ongoing discussion). I did read the portion of the essay. Sincerely, Scott. #84535 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 6:24 pm Subject: Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi James > > >> Well that is a view that we can discuss further. But you brought up > >> this sutta as substantiating the general proposition that those who > >> had achieved jhana had little dust in their eyes (his former teachers > >> and ascetics being an example of such). > >> > >> I think it is clear that no such general proposition is to be found > >> in the sutta. > >> > > James: Well, I think there is- and you provide no contrary analysis, ... > > > > > I don't understand what kind of "contrary analysis" you could have in > mind. You yourself concede that there is no actual mention of jhana in > the sutta passage. So its supposed role is something that is assumed or > imputed by you. So how could the passage possibly substantiate the role > of jhana as a general proposition? > 8 Jhanas are mentioned in MN26. Alara Had mastered 7, Udakka Ramaputta 8. in MN25, MN111 and others there is mention of 9 (8 + nirodha) jhanas as a step by step training for blinding Mara forever. Again, Samma-Samadhi is the crown of Buddhist practice, that is why it is placed last and 7 previous factors are ornaments. Samma-Samadhi helps right view by supplying more experiential data to become more liberating. "Suppose that a wild deer is living in wilderness glen. Carefree it walks, carefree it stands, carefree it sits, carefree it lies down. Why is that? Because it has gone beyond the hunter's range. 5 In the same way, a monk — quite withdrawn from sensual pleasures, withdrawn from unskillful qualities — enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. This monk is said to have blinded Mara. Trackless, he has destroyed Mara's vision and has become invisible to the Evil One. 6 ... "Then again the monk, with the complete transcending of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, enters & remains in the cessation of perception & feeling. And, having seen [that] with discernment, his mental fermentations are completely ended. This monk is said to have blinded Mara. Trackless, he has destroyed Mara's vision and has become invisible to the Evil One. Having crossed over, he is unattached in the world. Carefree he walks, carefree he stands, carefree he sits, carefree he lies down. Why is that? Because he has gone beyond the Evil One's range." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.026.than.html Best wishes, Alex #84536 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 3:13 pm Subject: What is Meditation? bhikkhu0 Friends: Bending the Mind by Meditation! Meditation is Higher Education of Another Kind! Details Inside! Meditation is an exquisite method of mind training, without which it is difficult to progress mentally... It has been practiced for millennia within many religious schools, but is especially deep-rooted in Buddhism. In the early centuries after the Buddha Gotama, it was so commonly practiced in India and on Sri Lanka, that if one met somebody at the well or in the village, that did not yet have a personal meditation object, then this individual was regarded as somewhat primitive and uncultivated... The purpose of all sorts of Buddhist mediation is to achieve two very advantageous mental states: 1: Calm Tranquillity (Samatha), and 2: Clear Insight (VipassanÄ?) These two crucially important mental states are mutually dependent and goes hand in hand: When calm then one sees & understands with better and clearer insight! Like a mirror kept quiet reflects the images clearly without the blur arising from agitated vibrations. Having insight about the universal transience (anicca), inherent suffering (dukkha), and utter egolessness (anattÄ?) have a calming effect on all urge, yearning push and restless drive as such is recognized as gross & futile. Calm Tranquillity thus causes & produces deeper insight. Clear Insight thus causes & produces deeper calm The Buddha therefore says: "May you develop mental calm & concentration, Bhikkhus; for one who is mentally calm & concentrated, sees things according to reality" (SN.XXII.5). More on this duality of Calm & Insight is found here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Calm_and_Insight.htm Calm or Tranquillity (Samatha), is an exquisitely pleasant fusion of some degree of stable concentration (samÄ?dhi ), focused mental one-pointedness (cittekaggatÄ?) and undivided undistractedness (avikkhepa). The effects of Calm are: favourable rebirth, present happy life, & the clarity of a mind which has insight! The climax of calm is reaching the quite sweet & subtle state of mental absorption called JhÄ?na. This unique unification of mind is explained in delicate detail right here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/What_is_Right_Concentration.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Requisites_for_Jhana_Absorption.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Details_of_the_Jhana_Absorptions.htm Clear Insight (VipassanÄ?), is assured intuitive knowledge of how things really & ultimately are. There are 18 main insights, each one marking a distinct kind of profound & noble understanding all achieved by deliberately directed, repeated & sustained contemplation: 1: On impermanence (aniccÄ?nupassanÄ?), 2: On suffering (dukkhÄ?nupassanÄ?), 3: On no self (anattÄ?nupnupassanÄ?), 4: On disgust (nibbidÄ?nupassanÄ?). 5: On disillusion (virÄ?gÄ?nupassanÄ?), 6: On ceasing (nirodhÄ?nupassanÄ?), 7: On relinquishment (patinissaggÄ?nupassanÄ?), 8: On the waning, fading & destruction of all (khayÄ?nupassanÄ?), 9: On the vanishing of all phenomena (vayÄ?nupassanÄ?), 10: On the inevitable & inherent change (viparinÄ?mÄ?nupassanÄ?), 11: On the signless dimension (animittÄ?nupassanÄ?), 12: On the desireless state (apanihitÄ?nupassanÄ?), 13: On void emptiness (suññatÄ?upassanÄ?), 14: On insight into states of higher understanding (adhipaññÄ?-dhamma-vipassanÄ?), 15: On knowledge and vision of the absolute reality (yathÄ?-bhÅ«ta-ñÄ?nadassana), 16: On experience of danger (Ä?dÄ«navÄ?nupassanÄ?), 17: On repeated reflecting contemplation (patisankhÄ?nupassanÄ?), 18: On contemplation of turning away (vivattanÄ?nupassanÄ?). These 18 chief principal insights (mahÄ?-vipassanÄ?) are all enumerated and explained here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_18_Principal_Insights.htm The effects of attaining these irreversible insights in a progressively deeper degree are successful attaining of the 4 stages of Nobility: Stream-entrance, Once-returning, Never-Returning & Arahat! The 4 most important meditation methods explained by the Buddha Gotama are: 1: Universal Friendliness. The 4 Infinitely Divine States - MettÄ?. Explained here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/All-Embracing_Kindness.htm 2: Contemplating the disgusting aspects of the Body - KÄ?ya-gatÄ?-sati. Explained here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Meditation_On_the_Body_Kayagata-Sati.htm 3: Mindfulness focused by awareness anchored on the Breath - Ä€nÄ?pÄ?na-sati. Explained here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Breathing_Calm_and_Insight.htm 4: SatipatthÄ?na - The 4 Foundations of Awareness: Form-Feeling-Mind-Mental States. Explained here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Four_Foundations_of_Awareness.htm They are all further elucidated with root texts by the Buddha in some detail here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/library/Manual/Meditation.Manual.htm All the 40 meditation objects or mental 'workplaces' (kammatthÄ?na) are explained here: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_40_Meditations.htm Which meditation object is suitable and advantageous for who? Any mediation object should ideally be given to one by an experienced noble friend (kalyÄ?na-mitta) Some gross guidelines for choosing mediation object are: The one who has desire and lust as dominating mental defilement, who eats slowly tasting all well, should gradually quell & silence this destructive urge by meditation on disgusting objects such as: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_Skeleton.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_32_Parts.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Corpse_Meditation.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Body_Contemplation.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Experiencing_Disgust.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Body_as_only_Form.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/The_Fire_of_Sense-Desire.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/The_9_Corpse_Meditations.htm The one who has anger and irritation as dominating mental defilement, who eats & walks fast, should gradually quell & silence this destructive boiling by meditation on infinite friendliness, infinite goodness and infinite good-will: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/III/Appeasing_Anger.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Subduing_Irritation.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Anger_and_Irritation.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/How_to_Cure_Anger_and_Irritation.htm The one who has doubt, uncertainty and speculation as dominating mental defilement, who vacillates in indecisiveness & who lacks determination should gradually increase first faith then understanding by calming the noise of conceptual thinking by meditation on Breathing: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/II/Awareness_by_Breathing.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Unique_Thing_Awareness_by_Breathing.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_LAMP_I.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_LAMP_II.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_LAMP_III.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/The_LAMP_IV.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Peaceful_and_Sublime_on_the_Spot.htm http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/IV/Experiencing_the_Breath.htm The ultimate Handbook on Meditation is: The Path of Purification: Visuddhimagga. In excellent if not legendary translation by Bhikkhu Nanamoli. Written by 'the Great Explainer' Buddhaghosa in 5th century AC on Sri Lanka. http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=771100 Meditation is best done in early morning 15-25 minutes for beginners, 45-60 minutes for trainees. Only a solitary, silent place, a pillow and some energetic effort is needed. One should Never give up! No-one can mentally purify another... We all have to do it ourselves by working out meditation! Only this is the WAY to lasting, absolute and ultimate Freedom, Peace and Happiness: NibbÄ?na! _______________________________________________________________________________ JhÄ?na - Mental Absorption! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #84537 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 7:36 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive scottduncan2 Dear TG, Further regarding: TG: "I seem to recall you acting like I must be loco to think that panna could refer to anything along the lines of inferential thinking? You said I must mean something else like yonisa-manasikara." Scott: The characteristic of pa~n~naa is not 'inferential thinking'. Sincerely, Scott. #84538 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 7:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Howard, Howard: "In the Kalaka Sutta the Buddha taught "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer." " Larry: This seems to hinge on what is meant by "construe". It can be interpreted in a "mind-only" way but I don't think it clearly points to that view. It definitely sets the Buddha's experience apart from everyone else's. The most unambiguous message I can get from it is: no views (ditthi). "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others, One who is Such -- among the self-fettered -- wouldn't further claim to be true or even false. "Having seen well in advance that arrow where generations are fastened & hung -- 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' -- there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened." http://myweb.ncku.edu.tw/~lausinan/AccessToInsight/html/canon/sutta/anguttara/an\ 04-024.html Larry #84539 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 9:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Nina, Nina: "Perhaps we should clarify first what experience is. Rupa can be experienced by a citta that cognizes it. Rupa itself does not know anything, it is not an experience. When you say , you mean the experience of rupa. Nama experiences rupa and nama can also be experienced by another nama." Larry: I still don't understand what experience is. I am using "experience" as a noun in the sense of a phenomenon and you are using it as a verb as interacting with another phenomenon. Is interacting really an ultimate reality or even a condition? Let's take the case of thirst (tanha). Does thirst experience its object? Let's say no. It is unsatisfied. But there is still the experience that is thirst. Apparently hearing, like sound, can only be experienced as object but thirsting can be experienced as object or it can be an experience with an object. That seems irregular to me. It doesn't flow. Something is wrong here. I would rather say hearing is the experience of sound (not hearing experiences sound). Then both hearing and thirsting and all consciousnesses can be experiences. That is much smoother, more even, regular. All consciousnesses are the same. They are experiences about objects. Like thirst is an experience about a glass of water. Larry #84540 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 9:18 pm Subject: Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' sarahprocter... Dear Ken H & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi all, > > We are up to paragraph 3. The subheading here is "[The Three Kinds of > Full Understanding]" > > "3. Here is the exposition: there are three kinds of mundane full- > understanding, that is, full-understanding as the known, full- > understanding as investigating, and full-understanding as abandoning, > with reference to which it was said: "Understanding that is direct- > knowledge is knowledge in the sense of being known. Understanding > that is full understanding is knowledge in the sense of > investigating. Understanding that is abandoning is knowledge in the > sense of giving up (Ps.i,87). ... S: There is also frequent reference directly or indirectly to these 3 pari~n~naas, i.e. ~naatapari~n~naa, tiira.napari~n~naa and pahaanapari~n~naa in the suttas. Recently I was discussing some of the suttas around the Sabba Sutta in SN with TG, including the ones on 'abandoning' the all, with reference to pahaanapari~n~naa. ..... > Herein the understanding that occurs by observing the specific > characteristics of such and such states, thus, 'materiality (rupa) > has the characteristic of being molested (ruppana); feeling has the > characteristic of being felt', is called 'full-understanding as the > known.' The understanding consisting in insight with the general > characteristics as its object that occurs in attributing a general > characteristic to those same states in the way beginning 'Materiality > is impermanent, [607] feeling is impermanent' is called 'full- > understanding as investigating.'(2) .... S: The text here again makes it very clear that the specific characteristics (sallakkha.navasena) have to be known before the general characteristics (saama~n~nalakkha.na.m) are known. If there is no understanding of namas as namas and rupas as rupas, there cannot be any understanding of the impermanence of dhammas etc. ... >The understanding consisting in > insight with the characteristic as its object that occurs as the > abandoning of the perception of permanence, etc., in those same > states is called 'full-understanding as abandoning.'" > .... S: Pahaanapari~n~naa. Following on from my note above, see SN 35:23 - 27 and BB's notes. For example, 26:4 "Bhikkhus, without directly knowing and fully understanding the all, without developing dispassion towards it and abandoning it, one is incapable of destroying suffering." note: "Spk: In this sutta the three kinds of full understanding are discussed: full understanding of the known, full understanding by scrutinization, and full understanding as abandonment." .... .... Ken H, by now you'll be in Bkk. If you have the chance, pls send us all a note of any of your impressions or any of the discussion topics when you meet A.Sujin and others today. We're back for 2 days - just enough to unpack and then re-pack, for Jon to attend meetings and do a little work, for medical appointments for me (I've had a frozen hip which travel doesn't help!), laundry on the go as I type and trying to get up-to-date here....oh, and a little rest after a pretty exhausting stay in Adelaide. We arrive Thursday nite and look f/w to seeing everyone on Saturday. Metta, Sarah ========== #84541 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 9:38 pm Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... sarahprocter... Dear Scott (Tep & all), Back to #78355 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > [Niruttipatha sutta,m <...> > Note 95: "Niruttipathaa adhivacanapathaa pa~n~nattipathaa Spk: > Language (nirutti, linguistic expression) is itself the pathway of > language; or alternatively, language is called the pathway of language > because it is the pathway for the communication of meanings to be > understood through language. The other two terms should be understood > in the same way; the three are synonyms." > > Scott: I wouldn't mind if anyone has access to further Commentarial > elaboration here. Anyway, Tep, do you know of any others? I can keep > searching. .... S: I was interested in this discussion you were having before. I think it has to come back to the understanding of dhammas and the use of language in this regard. In an earlier message, I wrote: "The nama or rupa quality of realities is there to be known regardless of any designated name. When there is awareness of feeling, it doesn't matter at all what it is called or what language is used, but its characteristic can be known. For those with insight or understanding of nirutti patisambhida, when a word such as `vedanaa' is heard, immediately there is understanding of its meaning, of its quality as a nama, distinct from a rupa. This is why some like Sariputta could hear a few words and immediately penetrate the `essence' of the language." Pls also see: #25340, #26420 and #37954 These are referrring to reference to nirutti patisambhida. Pls let me know if you see a relevance. I think I also quoted (and commented on) the Niruttipatha Sutta before, but now I can't find it in my busy run-around state. I can hear the laundry alarm now too.... Metta, Sarah ======== #84542 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 9:51 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 16th & 18th Feb Bangkok: sharing some thoughts sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- Alex wrote: > > >A:But with all of this said and > > > done, what must be done MUST BE DONE. > > .... > > S: By 5 khandhas? > > ... > > By what else? 6th aggregate? .... S: So you're saying that 'what must be done MUST BE DONE' by the 5 khandhas. What about the development of wisdom or the path factors, is this done by 5 khandhas? Are you sure rupas develop anything for a start? .... > > > S: Who or what is "using anatta as a strategy not to do anything"? > > > > 5 Aggregates of course. Or are you suggestin a 6th? ... S: Tell me how rupa khandha "uses anatta as a strategy...". Tell me how sanna khandha "uses anatta as a strategy...". Tell me how vedana khandha "uses anatta as a strategy...". Tell me how any khandha does what you suggest, let alone all khandhas. I think we need to be a lot more specific... Metta, Sarah ============ #84543 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 10:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Love them "dhammas" (The All and Concepts) sarahprocter... Hi Howard, Back to #84136 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > S: Yes, by understanding the conditioned dhammas, by developing dispassion > towards them, the unconditioned dhamma is realised and the defilements are > eradicated in stages. This is pahana pari~n~na, full understanding as > abandoning. > > Metta, > > Sarah > =================================== > As I see the matter, there are only paramattha dhammas and aggregations > of such. ... S: I would say: there are only paramattha dhammas. The khandhas refer to these paramattha dhammas and nothing else. So visible object appearing now is rupa khandha. The visible object that appeared a few moments ago was also rupa khandha when it occurred. Visible object that arise later will also be rupa khandha at such times. There isn't a conglomeration or aggregation of such rupas. However, whenever any rupas arise, they have characteristics in common with other rupas and distinct from namas. So, even though each visible object is distinct and has a specific characteristic, they are all rupa khandha. ... >We cling to both. We cling to dhammas as sources of delight and > despair, attempting to draw close to the pleasant ones and draw back from the > unpleasant, and we cling to and identify with aggregations by conceptualizing > them as singular realities at least as "real" as the dhammas of which they are > composed. ... S: I agree that there is clinging to both paramattha dhammas and to all sorts of concepts and ideas about them. Thanks for sharing your other comments. I generally agree with what you've said, unless the 'aggregation' you refer to is referring to the khandhas rather than concepts about the khandhas. Metta, Sarah ======== #84544 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 10:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing present moment. 11 surefire things for Liberation. Jhana sarahprocter... Dear Alex, --- Alex wrote: > > S: What is most interesting here is that you refer to the > commentaries when it suits your case as here and elsewhere. However, > when I and others do, we get one of your lectures about how nothing > can be trusted in the AP or commentaries:-)) > >>> > > Good point. However, whenever commentaries agree with the suttas, > then I agree with the commentaries. ... S: What you mean is that whenever commentaries agree *with your interpretation (or TB's) of the suttas*, then you agree with the commentaries!! ... >Even if we remove commentary on > Bahiya, it is not unreasonable to assume that he engaged in lots of > meditation when he was an ascetic. For awakening you MUST follow > Noble 8 (EIGHT NOT SEVEN) Fold Path. ... S: We have to consider again what is meant by meditation and samma-samadhi of the 8 fold-path. ... > > >A: 2) Susima Sutta: says nothing about LACK OF JHANA attainments, > those Arahats have denied only ARUPA and PSYCHIC POWERS. Again, if > you were on THEIR level of Panna, then you TOO could have achieved > Arahatship. > > .... > > S: So, go to U.P., look under 'Susima' and you'll see that the > commentary to this sutta makes it very clear that there had been no > jhana attainments. These were sukkha vipassikas. > > .... > > The sutta DOES NOT EXPLICITLY deny Jhana, it denies aruppas and > abhinnnas. Furthermore, are you implying that Buddha's path is > actually a 7 FOLD PATH? ... S: What does the commentary explicitly say? What exactly does it say with regard to mundane jhanas? I have never implied that there is a 7 fold path (although, ironically, there is a 7fold path at enlightenment for those who have attained 2nd and higher jhanas and for whom this is the basis or support of enlightenment). Back to the sukkha-vipassikas referred to in the Susima Sutta (as introduced by yourself). It is an 8 fold path and as a number of us have been stressing ad nauseum, at moments of enlightenment, the samadhi is equivalent in strength to 1st jhana, so it is referred to as lokuttara jhana. ... > It is wishful thinking to think that by thinking one can become an > Arahat and that only 7fold path is required. ... S: There has been no suggestion of this by anyone here. Metta, Sarah ======== #84545 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 10:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ecard from the desert sarahprocter... Dear Han (Azita, Sumane & all), I'm sorry that I don't have time to get the sutta out now, but briefly: --- han tun wrote: > So, the question is: > (i) if you practice loving-kindness there will be no > ill will, ... S: Unless ill will has been eradicated, it is bound to arise even if metta has been developed to the stage of jhana. In between moments of samatha, it is bound to arise again. ... or > (ii) to escape from ill will you must practice > loving-kindness, ... S: The development of metta in samatha only suppresses ill-will but never is an escape or eradication of ill-will on its own. As you know, there is no rule about what dhamma will arise next and no self to practice anything:-) .... or > (iii) any other interpretation which I miss? ... S: I think that whatever our different accumulations, whilst ill-will, doubts, attachment and ignorance arise, there is not a full liberation or escape. So when the path has been fully followed, the development of the brahma viharas are not followed by ill-will. Another topic for the firing squad? Metta, Sarah ======= #84546 From: "Dan D." Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 10:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' onco111 Hi Ken (cc: Larry, et al.), Someone was kind enough to point this post out to me and hoped I'd respond. Fair enough. Discussion of what 'nama' is... Let's see...we were discussing this very issue just a few years ago. Memories get fuzzy over the years, and it looks like a good time to refresh them, set straight any misunderstandings, and set aright any mischaracterizations. First: you write, "They [including Dan] will accept that nama is the experience (or he experiencing) of an object, but they will not accept that nama 'experiences' an object." Ken, you cut me to the quick! This is miles from what I said, meant, or believe. I do remember discussing three common ways of conceptualizing citta (#54662), viz. as agent ("that which cognizes an object [arammanam cinteti ti cittam]"), as instrument ("that by means of which the accompanying mental factors cognize the object [etena cintenti ti cittam]"), and as an activity "citta is itself nothing other than the process of cognizing the object [cintanamattam cittam]". Commenting on the three ways of thinking about citta, what I really wrote (and meant at the time) is: "None of the three models/formulations/definitions are perfect, but each highlights a different aspect. It is good to consider citta in each of the three ways" --a far cry from refusal to accept the nama-experiences-an- object model. I wrote several posts discussing the "activity" model because it seemed like it was being dismissed by some people. If one of the other models had been discounted by someone, I would surely have chimed in in defense of that model instead. However, our tendency to imagine a "core of self" within dhammas is so strong that I think the "citta is the experiencing" is often the best one to practice. Bhikkhu Bodhi apparently agrees (CMA I:3): "The third definition, in terms of sheer activity, is regarded as the most adequate of the three: that is, citta is fundamentally an activity or process of cognizing or knowing an object. It is not an agent or instrument possessing actual being in itself apart from the activity of cognizing. The definitions in terms of agent and instrument are proposed to refute the wrong view of those who hold that a permanent self or ego is the agent and instrument of cognition. ...This citta is nothing other than the act of cognizing, and that act is necessarily impermanent, marked by rise and fall." That is what I discussed and why I discussed it in the way that I did. After misconstruing what I wrote, you went on to some magical mind-reading and imagined a [false] motive for me to say what I didn't say. Second: "In real life, these are people who (IMHO) want to leave the door open just a little. Dan wanted to leave the door open to the possibility that other teachers and gods had found Nibbana (albeit by another name)..." Ken, I was very clear in stating that I did not (and do not) think there are other teachers or gods who have found Nibbana. I want to leave that door firmly closed. I do think that there is much wisdom to be found outside the dispensation but none reaches even close to the depth required for perception of nibbana. However, I do think that some practitioners in other traditions develop deeper insight and understanding of Dhamma than many who study and discuss cittas and rupas and anatta for years and years and sit in a corner with eyes closed and legs crossed for decades (#46842). They attain that wisdom without having heard a whisper of Buddha's teachings. Granted, their models of reality cannot take them all the way to Nibbana, but that does not mean they have nothing to offer. You don't need a PhD in mathematics to teach multiplication to a third grader. Third: Those teachers "taught different paths to [Nibbana]." This is complete misconstruing of what I have discussed at length. There is only one path to Nibbana, and it is a four-fold Noble one. Only the Buddha saw that path clearly enough to follow it all the way to Nibbana, and only his teachings describe it clearly enough to guide disciples all the way to Nibbana. But the Path is a reality, and not just words. We must take great care to distinguish clearly between the path itself and the words we use to describe the path. Outside the dispensation, people get fuzzy glimpses of the reality of the path, and then they describe what they see. The words are quite different from those that the Buddha used but they do describe a real vision of the real path. The vision is blurred, the description insufficient, and the guidance is limited, but a brief and fuzzy but true glimpse of reality is more valuable than memorizing the whole sutta pitaka with no understanding. -Dan #84547 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 10:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Patthaana (17) .. Components of Pa~n~naa in Ariyans ... sarahprocter... Dear Alex (& Scott), Butting in here.... --- Alex wrote: > >Scott: AN 2. Dukanipaata 3. Baalavaggo > > > > "32. Bhikkhus, these two things are on the side of wisdom > > (vijjaabhaagiyaa). Which two? Calm (samatho) and insisght > > (vipassanaa). Bhikkhus, what is the result of developing calm? The > > mind is developed. What is the result of a developing the mind? > > Whatever greed fades. > > > > Bhikkhus, what is the result of developing insight. Wisdom gets > > enhanced. What is the use of enhanced wisdom? Whatever ignorance > > fades. Even the minor defilements, do not release the mind. The > minor > > defilements of ignorance do not enhance wisdom. Thus bhikkhus, with > > the fading of greed there is release of mind and with the fading of > > ignorance release through wisdom." .... > >A: 2 comments about this very famous sutta: > 1) Vipassana comes WITH Samatha ... S: Exactly! Vipassana cannot arise or develop without samatha. In fact there cannot be any kusala of any kind without samatha(calm). Even at moments of dana or sila without any wisdom, there is calm as opposed to restlessness. As satipatthana develops, so does the accompanying samatha. ... (you can't clearly see the mind > overtaken by hindrances, and the mind overtaken by hindrances CAN'T > see clearly anyways) ... S: With the development of vipassana the hindrances are gradually worn away. At moments of insight (or satipatthana or any kind of kusala), there are no defilements arising. ... > > 2) Samatha develops the mind, which IS important for insight to take > over and see DO. ... S: Pa~n~naa develops the mind from the very beginning. It is accompanied by samatha. .... > > 3) In many suttas where "Vipassana" is mentioned, Samatha is > mentioned right there as well. Both are like two legs, you need BOTH! ... S: Exactly! They develop together. This is the insight accompanied by samatha which understands dhammas as anatta. It does not mean that samatha without insight has to be developed first. Metta, Sarah ====== #84548 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 10:44 pm Subject: Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) sarahprocter... Hi Connie, I wonder if you can elaborate on the following at all in your own simple words: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" > Part 48 > 16. Mahaanipaato > Conclusion > This is what is said in the commentary: "He said to me, he ordered me, 'Come, Bhaddaa! Go to the residence of the bhikkhuniis and in the presence of the bhikkhuniis go forth and be fully ordained.' Because the Teacher's order to me was the cause of my full ordination, it became my full ordination." It is to be understood that the meaning in the verse in the Apadaana is also explained in the sameway. > > > Evampi bhikkhunivibha"nge ehi bhikkhuniiti ida.m kathanti? Ehibhikkhunibhaavena bhikkhuniina.m upasampadaaya asabhaavajotanavacana.m tathaa upasampadaaya bhikkhuniina.m abhaavato. > > Even so, the expression "Come, bhikkhunii" occurs in the Bhikkhunii-vibha"nga.* How is that? It is not an expression that makes clear the independent existence of full ordination of bhikkhuniis by [the formula] "Come, bhikkhunii" because there are no bhikkhuniis [admitted to] full ordination in this way. > > *Vin IV 214 (BD III 160). > > Yadi eva.m, katha.m ehibhikkhuniiti vibha"nge niddeso katoti? Desanaanayasotapatitabhaavena. Aya~nhi sotapatitataa naama katthaci labbhamaanassaapi anaaha.ta.m hoti. > > If that is so, whay is the designation "Come, bhikkhunii" in the [Bhikkhunii-]vibha"nga? It is because [the expression] is carried along in the stream of the discourse method. For something that is not possible may not be mentioned on some occasions due to being swept [away] in the stream [of the discourse]. ... S: I've read it a couple of times and am still not quite clear. Looking forward to your further commentary. Metta, Sarah ====== #84549 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 11:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Seeing present moment. 11 surefire things for Liberation. Jhana sarahprocter... Hi Howard (& Alex), We were discussing whether sense objects can appear to jhana cittas. Back to #83826 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > With the abandoning of pleasure & pain â€" as with the earlier disappearance > of elation & distress â€" I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of > equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. > "When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of > defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I > directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my > manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a > thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of > cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: .... S: (sorry, I've somehow cut out the context and ref.) Here there are different kinds of wisdom at different moments with the rapidly changing processes of cittas. Because of the enlightenment, the jhana cittas can condition the kamavacara cittas to perform different functions such as dibbacakkhu nana and so on. The recollections occur after the jhana and lokuttara cittas have fallen away. ... > But even if, despite the foregoing, it is concluded that no rupas are > observable directly via the mind door during jhanas, investigation of namas > clearly *is* doable within jhanas. This is clear from that sutta, and also it > is clear from the Anupada Sutta that the jhanas are not states of mindless > absorption, but ones in which mental operations and factors needed for > investigation of dhammas regularly function - operations and factors such as "the > contact, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness; the enthusiasm, > decision, energy, mindfulness, equanimity, and attention." ... S: Yes, all these cetasikas arise with jhana cittas, but the object of the jhana cittas can only ever be one of the objects (kammathaana) specified. There is no investigation or reflection in jhana. The jhana cittas are absorbed in the object with these accompaning factors. The jhana cittas 'burn' the sense objects. .... >Though there is the > received belief that investigation of dhammas is carried out only upon exiting > from the jhanas, that is not at all implied in the suttas that I have seen. In > the Anupada Sutta, in particular, with regard to each jhana other than the 8th > & 9th, Sariputta related the following, indicating investigation of > dhammas, namas precisely, while still in the jhana, as follows: > > ***************************** > ... these states were defined by him ONE BY ONE, AS THEY OCCURRED [emphasis > mine]; known to him they arose, known they were present, known they > disappeared. He understood thus: ‘So indeed, these states, not having been, come into > being; having been, they vanish’. ... S: This was the highly developed insight, the insight that led to arahantship! It occurred in between the jhana cittas. I think the commentary clarifies this. The object of jhana cittas is never the impermanence of dhammas. Metta, Sarah ======== #84550 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 11:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? sarahprocter... Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > >S: 1b. There are no people, there are only namas and rupas. > > James: Really, what are people if not namas and rupas (in the process > of DO)? Isn't this just a semantic word play? ... S: If we just discuss and understand more about namas and rupas, then it doesn't matter what they're called or not called. We can refer to people with or without wrong view. Only right understanding can tell! ... > >S: 2b. There are no people, there are only namas and rupas. Rebirth > does not > > refer to rebirth of people but to rebirth of namas (cittas and > cetasikas). > > James: Again, this is just semantics. How is it that people are > really any different than namas and rupas? .... S: If it's clear that when we refer to people we are really referring to namas and rupas, then there's no difference, as you say. However, if we have the idea that Sarah or James is reborn, as opposed to cittas and cetasikas, then it's wrong. Just like now - only ever a succession of cittas, not a succession of Sarahs or Jameses! ... >>S: again in an ultimate sense, what we take > for our > > parents are again namas and rupas, particular streams of > accumulations. > > James: Do you take your parents for beings with minds and bodies? I > do. How is this any different than namas and rupas? ... S: When you hear your parents, what is really heard? When you see your parents, what is really seen? When you think about your parents, what is conceived? What exactly are the minds and bodies? Yes, only namas and rupas. It all depends on what is understood when you refer to your parents, their minds and bodies. .... >>S: Again, in an ultimate sense, the Buddha > > does not/did not exist as discussed at length, but the namas and rupas > > referred to as the Buddha definitely did. > > James: So you believe that the Buddha did not exist? Then why do you > believe in Buddhism? .... S: Read again what I said. I believe in the truth as taught by the dhammas we refer to as the Buddha. ... > > > ["In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to > > be found", Yamaka Sutta, SN 22:85] > > James: What is "Tathaagata"? It means "one who has thus gone". So, > someone or something that is gone cannot be identified with the mind > or the body. Did the Buddha say this same sort of thing about the > ordinary worldling (mother, father, etc.)? .... S: A good point and a good question. He taught that no self, no atta is to be found anywhere. There are just 5 khandhas, that's all. The rest are concepts, inc. any ideas about mother, father or ordinary worldling. Metta, Sarah ======== #84552 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 11:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... What Is Contemplation? sarahprocter... Hi Walto, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Walter Horn" wrote: >W: I think you're right that our understanding of such terms > as "freedom," "person," "death," "guilt," etc. can, in a sense, > evolve as we study those matters. And it may be quite difficult to > translate a term as we formerly understood it into what can almost be > thought of as our new language. I think the effort is useful, even > important, though. ... S: I agree about the difficulty and I'd just say, do persist until satisfied! Having said that, I originally came to the Abhidhamma after studying a lot of psychology. I found it helpful to consider the Abhidhamma with 'fresh' eyes, rather than trying to fit my ideas of memory, perception and so on from psychology into it. .... > > As I indicated, if one asks "Should we feel guilty if we wander off > the path?" or "Will I continue after my physical death?" it's not so > helpful to be told, "Well, Buddhists have a different concept of > guilt and person" Because, well, I want to know whether we should > feel what I understand by "guilty" and am unlikely to be too > interested in whether we should feel (let's call it) 'shmilty'! .... S: What I appreciate about the Dhamma is that it really all comes back to the present moment. So, if at this moment there is any kind of anxiety or guilt, we soon learn that it's accompanied by unpleasant feeling and it's not wholesome at all. I think this can be tested out even now. In other words, it's useless to feel guilty about wandering off the path and really, there is "a wandering off" at every moment when unwholesome states arise! It seems that the answers are not along the tracks of your enquiry, but perhaps it's because the approach is so different. For example, you refer to the question "Will I continue after my physical death?", and of course, the answer is that there is no Walto, no you to continue even now! ... <...> >Thus, while there is always > compulsion from prior physical/mental events, my sitting here because > I want to is importantly different from my sitting here because I've > been tied to my chair or been hypnotized to do so. ... S: But perhaps there is an idea of self behind both? ... > > We can't ever get outside the wheel of causes, I don't think, but, in > my view, we can be free anyways. These are based on philosophical > considerations, not revelations of any kind, of course, and I could > certainly be wrong. So if the Buddhist conception of freedom is the > same or similar to mine, I'd like to know how. But I don't know what > to do with information to the effect that the Buddhist conception of > freedom is just different, so I appreciate your sympathy with my > befuddlement and your post, generally. .... S: I think that the main difference in the views of 'freedom' come down to the ideas about self or 'atta'. If there is an idea of self, there is an idea of control and freedom. If there is an understanding of realities as not self, 'anatta', then the questions about freedom and determinism don't arise. That's how I see it. You may not find this so sympathetic, but I do understand the befuddlement and would like to explore these areas. I'm somewhat 'spaced out' as I send these replies today, so apologise for any incoherency. Metta, Sarah =========== #84553 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 1:04 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Hi Howard, Op 1-apr-2008, om 16:39 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > > P. S. What sense does an unseen sight make to you? It makes none to > me. ------ N: As said, colour or visible object arises together with each group of rupas, and only one of these at a time can be experienced through the approrpiate sensedoor. This makes a great deal of sense, since it helps us to understand conditions. We read in the “Paììhåna” (Analytical Exposition, 8) as to the dependence-condition for conascent phenomena: <....5. The four Great Elements condition the derived rúpas by dependence-condition. “ As to the fifth class, the four great Elements condition the derived rúpas (upåda rúpas, the rúpas other than the four great Elements) by way of dependence-condition, but the opposite does not apply. Odour is a derived rúpa. It cannot arise by itself, it needs solidity, cohesion, heat and motion. When odour is experienced through the nose, only odour appears, the other rúpas which arise together with it in one group are not experienced. Visible object which is experienced through the eyes and sound which is experienced through the ears need the four great Elements as a foundation, they are conditioned by them by way of dependence.> The sense object that is experienced at a given moment, does not arise solitarily, it needs the four Great Elements and also the other rupas included in the eight inseparable rupas. It is conditioned by them by way of dependence-condition, nissaya paccaya. This helps us to understand that colour, sound etc. are of a great variety, they never are quite similar. There are different combinations of the rupa elements they arise together with. Hardness is of different intensities, so is heat, and this bears on the other rupas they arise together with in a group. Some people may look for a neutral sound and they think that they can be aware of such a sound. But knowing that there is a great variety of sounds, high or low, loud or soft, helps one to be aware in a natural way. The object of awareness is anything that appears naturally in daily life. As to the sutta, this is not relevant here. ---------- > H: In the Kalaka Sutta the Buddha taught "Thus, monks, the > Tathagata, when > seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He > doesn't > construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He > doesn't > construe a seer." ------ Ang II, 24. This sutta states that the Buddha has no wrong view and no conceit as to the objects that are experienced. He does not cling to 'I know, I see." I shall now close off my Email, and if you like we can continue in two weeks. Nina. > > #84554 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 1:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) nilovg Hi TG, Op 1-apr-2008, om 18:09 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > Therefore, "thinking," which is essentially using the imagination, > is a > VITAL aspect of insight and crucial in cultivating the mental > states that lead to > liberation. ------- N: Intellectual understanding of paramattha dhammas is essential for the development of insight. But this understanding is different from the moments of insight that arise. After these have fallen away, intellectual understanding also continues and alternates with direct awareness. I do not think of imagination, that is not safe, since we are so ignorant. Indispensable to also inlude the Abhidhamma. Not merely the suttas which we, without the commentaries are bound to misinterprete. -------- > > TG: What you wrote below I did not find very coherent in relation > to this topic, > but it seems to follow the same old line that ignores the > compelling and > overwhelming evidence that is contained in the Suttas. ------ N: See above. I am closing off my Email. See you in two weeks. Nina. #84555 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 1:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Hi Larry, Op 2-apr-2008, om 6:07 heeft LBIDD@... het volgende geschreven: > Larry: I still don't understand what experience is. I am using > "experience" as a noun in the sense of a phenomenon and you are > using it > as a verb as interacting with another phenomenon. Is interacting > really > an ultimate reality or even a condition? > > Let's take the case of thirst (tanha). Does thirst experience its > object? Let's say no. It is unsatisfied. But there is still the > experience that is thirst. ------- N: Tanhaa is nama, thus, it experiences something. It craves for any possible object. I do not make a distinction between: experiencing and experience. It is nama, not rupa. -------- > > L: Apparently hearing, like sound, can only be experienced as > object but > thirsting can be experienced as object or it can be an experience with > an object. That seems irregular to me. It doesn't flow. Something is > wrong here. ------- N: Nama can be experienced by another nama. Of course nama has an object. When nama is the object of another nama, that (last mentioned) nama does not experience the object of that nama. Only one object at a time is cognized. -------- > > L: I would rather say hearing is the experience of sound (not hearing > experiences sound). ------- N: It is the same. -------- > L: Then both hearing and thirsting and all > consciousnesses can be experiences. That is much smoother, more even, > regular. All consciousnesses are the same. They are experiences about > objects. Like thirst is an experience about a glass of water. ------- N: All cittas are nama, correct. Cittas are the same in as far as they clearly know an object. Citta is the chief ion knowing an object. Thirst used here is not a synonym for tanha? Thirst and glass of water are concepts. When we say that we are thirsty there may be lobha for a concept. See you later, Nina. #84556 From: han tun Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 1:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: ecard from the desert hantun1 Dear Sarah, > > Han: So, the question is: (i) if you practice loving-kindness there will be no ill will, > Sarah: Unless ill will has been eradicated, it is bound to arise even if metta has been developed to the stage of jhana. In between moments of samatha, it is bound to arise again. Han: Right. Well-taken. ------------------------------ > > or Han: (ii) to escape from ill will you must practice loving-kindness, > Sarah: The development of metta in samatha only suppresses ill-will but never is an escape or eradication of ill-will on its own. As you know, there is no rule about what dhamma will arise next and no self to practice anything:-) Han: (The development of metta in samatha only suppresses ill-will but never is an escape or eradication of ill-will) is well taken. But if you don’t mind, I have had enough of (there is no rule about what dhamma will arise next and no self to practice anything) stuff :>)) ------------------------------ > > Han: or (iii) any other interpretation which I miss? > Sarah: I think that whatever our different accumulations, whilst ill-will, doubts, attachment and ignorance arise, there is not a full liberation or escape. So when the path has been fully followed, the development of the brahma viharas are not followed by ill-will. Han: Right. Well-taken. ------------------------------ > Sarah: Another topic for the firing squad? Han: I believe there will be a lot of people on that day (being Nina’s birthday). So my turn to face the firing squad may not come at all, hopefully! Respectfully, Han #84557 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 11:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/1/2008 10:53:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi Howard, Howard: "In the Kalaka Sutta the Buddha taught "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer." " Larry: This seems to hinge on what is meant by "construe". It can be interpreted in a "mind-only" way but I don't think it clearly points to that view. It definitely sets the Buddha's experience apart from everyone else's. The most unambiguous message I can get from it is: no views (ditthi). ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree that it is vague. Do you happen to know what the Pali is, and what might be standard, alternative English translations of that Pali. I have taken 'construe' to mean "concoct" or "imagine" or "hypothesize" or "presume" or "postulate" or "conceive of." I personally think the choice of 'construe' is a poor choice, with multiple meanings different from the Latin source. (The word 'construe' comes from the Latin 'construere', meaning "to construct.") I think that 'concoct' might be the best: "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't concoct a seen. He doesn't concoct an unseen. He doesn't concoct a to-be-seen. He doesn't concoct a seer." ------------------------------------------------------ "Whatever is seen or heard or sensed and fastened onto as true by others, One who is Such -- among the self-fettered -- wouldn't further claim to be true or even false. "Having seen well in advance that arrow where generations are fastened & hung -- 'I know, I see, that's just how it is!' -- there's nothing of the Tathagata fastened." http://myweb.ncku.edu.tw/~lausinan/AccessToInsight/html/canon/sutta/anguttara/ an04-024.html Larry ============================== With metta, Howard #84558 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 11:17 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Seeing present moment. 11 surefire things for Liberation. Jhana upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Alex) - In a message dated 4/2/2008 2:06:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (& Alex), We were discussing whether sense objects can appear to jhana cittas. Back to #83826 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > With the abandoning of pleasure & pain â€" as with the earlier disappearance > of elation & distress â€" I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of > equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. > "When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of > defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I > directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my > manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two... five, ten... fifty, a hundred, a > thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of > cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: .... S: (sorry, I've somehow cut out the context and ref.) Here there are different kinds of wisdom at different moments with the rapidly changing processes of cittas. Because of the enlightenment, the jhana cittas can condition the kamavacara cittas to perform different functions such as dibbacakkhu nana and so on. The recollections occur after the jhana and lokuttara cittas have fallen away. ... > But even if, despite the foregoing, it is concluded that no rupas are > observable directly via the mind door during jhanas, investigation of namas > clearly *is* doable within jhanas. This is clear from that sutta, and also it > is clear from the Anupada Sutta that the jhanas are not states of mindless > absorption, but ones in which mental operations and factors needed for > investigation of dhammas regularly function - operations and factors such as "the > contact, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness; the enthusiasm, > decision, energy, mindfulness, equanimity, and attention." ... S: Yes, all these cetasikas arise with jhana cittas, but the object of the jhana cittas can only ever be one of the objects (kammathaana) specified. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't think so. That is not what the Buddha appears to say in the suttas. -------------------------------------------------- There is no investigation or reflection in jhana. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Not if by this you mean thinking - but that is not what I understand the Buddha to have meant by 'investigation'. -------------------------------------------------- The jhana cittas are absorbed in the object with these accompaning factors. The jhana cittas 'burn' the sense objects. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think the burning is a burning of the hindrances. ----------------------------------------------------- .... >Though there is the > received belief that investigation of dhammas is carried out only upon exiting > from the jhanas, that is not at all implied in the suttas that I have seen. In > the Anupada Sutta, in particular, with regard to each jhana other than the 8th > & 9th, Sariputta related the following, indicating investigation of > dhammas, namas precisely, while still in the jhana, as follows: > > ***************************** > ... these states were defined by him ONE BY ONE, AS THEY OCCURRED [emphasis > mine]; known to him they arose, known they were present, known they > disappeared. He understood thus: ‘So indeed, these states, not having been, come into > being; having been, they vanish’. ... S: This was the highly developed insight, the insight that led to arahantship! It occurred in between the jhana cittas. I think the commentary clarifies this. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: There's no basis for this in the suttas themselves. --------------------------------------------------- The object of jhana cittas is never the impermanence of dhammas. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The plain reading of the suttas indicates otherwise. I do not believe that the jhanas taught by the Buddha were the fully absorptive states of his teachers. ------------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ========================= With metta, Howard #84559 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Apr 1, 2008 11:51 pm Subject: The Buddha's Jhanas upasaka_howard Hi, all - As a child, the Buddha sat under a rose-apple tree engaging in a natural meditation unique to him. As an adult, after attaining and being dissatisfied with the highest absorptive jhanas taught to him by Brahman teachers, he recalled his childhood meditation, he resumed that practice, and he went on to attain full awakening. His recollection and resumption of his childhood meditation is related in MN 36, to be found at _http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036x.than.html_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036x.than.html) . With metta, Howard #84560 From: "Judy Simon" Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 3:17 am Subject: new member judyleesimon hello everyone, my name is Judy and this is my first post. Thank you for the opportunity for community and discussion. I am looking forward to learning what you are talking about. #84561 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 1:14 am Subject: Re: The Buddha's Jhanas upasaka_howard Hi again, all - Here is the part of MN 36 pertaining to the Buddha's meditative path to awakening, coming after the part that indicates the Buddha's dissatisfaction with the jhana attainments taught by his teachers, that I consider of greatest importance: ___________________________________ Could there be another path to Awakening?' "I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then, following on that memory, came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?' I thought: 'I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities, but it is not easy to achieve that pleasure with a body so extremely emaciated. Suppose I were to take some solid food: some rice & porridge.' So I took some solid food: some rice & porridge. Now five monks had been attending on me, thinking, 'If Gotama, our contemplative, achieves some higher state, he will tell us.' But when they saw me taking some solid food — some rice & porridge — they were disgusted and left me, thinking, 'Gotama the contemplative is living luxuriously. He has abandoned his exertion and is backsliding into abundance.' "So when I had taken solid food and regained strength, then — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, I entered & remained in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of composure, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the fading of rapture I remained in equanimity, mindful & alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure. I entered & remained in the third jhana, of which the Noble Ones declare, 'Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasurable abiding.' But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. "When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. ... I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. ... I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I discerned, as it had come to be, that 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress... These are fermentations... This is the origination of fermentations... This is the cessation of fermentations... This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.' My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, 'Released.' I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.' With metta, Howard #84562 From: "icarofranca" Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 6:05 am Subject: Re: The Buddha's Jhanas icarofranca Hi Howard! > His recollection and resumption of his childhood > meditation is related in MN 36, to be found at > > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036x.than.html) Excelent, Howard!!! The Maha-Saccaya-Sutta is wonderful! It´s a very detailed report of Gotama´s masters doctrines and meditation techniques...and the single, direct, totally efficient approach on Jhana and beyond, put on gears by Him! Buddha´s Mind gearings on action!!! A very refreshing reading!!! Mettaya, Ícaro #84563 From: "Walter Horn" Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 7:13 am Subject: Re: The Buddha's Jhanas walterhorn Hi, Howard. I enjoyed reading that. (Now if I can just get the enjoyment not to remain!) Thanks! Walto #84564 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 7:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: 16th & 18th Feb Bangkok: sharing some thoughts truth_aerator Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > What about the development of wisdom or the path factors, is this done by> 5 khandhas? Are you sure rupas develop anything for a start? > .... No. Rupas do not develop anything. Nama does (using or not rupa) develop 37 factors of Awakening. As I understand it: sanna/vedana/vinnana are passive "knowing", rupa is known, And sankhara khanda is what actually "wills" (but this willing is conditioned of course and isn't a self). You are free to disagree. Best wishes, Alex #84565 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 4:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... Hi Scott Did you miss this post that had this article? Link below. Please read the article that clearly demonstrates the Suttas use Panna in regard to thinking. In fact, three levels of understanding are shown to be associated with Panna. If you still object to Panna having the comprehensive reach to incorporate both thinking and direct experiencing/knowing, I'd be interested to know why? (BTW, still working on previous post reply but won't be ready for awhile.) _Relevance of Vedana to Bhavana-maya Panna_ (http://www.vri.dhamma.org/research/90sem/vedana5.html) TG In a message dated 4/1/2008 8:44:25 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, Further regarding: TG: "I seem to recall you acting like I must be loco to think that panna could refer to anything along the lines of inferential thinking? You said I must mean something else like yonisa-manasikara.Y Scott: The characteristic of pa~n~naa is not 'inferential thinking'. Sincerely, Scott. #84566 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 5:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Buddha's Jhanas upasaka_howard Hi, Walto - In a message dated 4/2/2008 10:14:31 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, calhorn@... writes: Hi, Howard. I enjoyed reading that. (Now if I can just get the enjoyment not to remain!) --------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! No problem: the enjoyment arose, so it will cease. ;-) -------------------------------------------- Thanks! Walto ========================== With metta, Howard #84567 From: "colette" Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 12:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) ksheri3 Hi TG, You can, at any time, suggest that I do not but in to your conversations or discussions but I reached a point here today where I said to myself, "time to but in", jokingly. > > The point I've been making is that insight incorporates aspects of thinking, > reflecting, contemplating, as well as direct experience. These insight > terms -- suta-maya-panna, cinta-maya-panna and bhavana-maya-panna, using the Pali > "panna," come from the Suttas. > > > Insight is built up gradually with study, analyzing, reflecting, > contemplating the conditionality qualities of nature. This, combined with and > culminating with direct knowing of "internal" experience, leads to freedom. colette: that's the word that got my motor runnin', "freedom", where I specifically questioned myself: "freedom from what" and "freedom to what"? That's a rather odd word don't you think, "freedom"? <....> gotta Go, but what is freedom? Where is Freedom? How do I get Freedom? etc. toodles, colette #84568 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 1:16 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/2/2008 5:58:47 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: colette: that's the word that got my motor runnin', "freedom", where I specifically questioned myself: "freedom from what" and "freedom to what"? That's a rather odd word don't you think, "freedom"? <....> gotta Go, but what is freedom? Where is Freedom? How do I get Freedom? etc. toodles, colette .................................. Hi Colette Freedom from suffering. Freedom from ignorance. I'm surprised that word was a "sticking point" for you. TG #84569 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 5:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? buddhatrue Hi Colette, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "colette" wrote: > > I like your argument that they misinterpret what the sutta was/is > about. Could you give me the name of the sutta so that I can work on > it? > > thanx. > > toodles, > colette It is the Sabba Sutta "The All": "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html Metta, James #84570 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 5:43 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: the present moment ... ? .. Jhana requires panna! - II buddhatrue Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > I don't understand what kind of "contrary analysis" you could have in > mind. You yourself concede that there is no actual mention of jhana in > the sutta passage. So its supposed role is something that is assumed or > imputed by you. So how could the passage possibly substantiate the role > of jhana as a general proposition? James: Because we have to determine what it is that made the Buddha describe his two former jhana teachers as "those with little dust in their eyes." What is it about them that would give them that appellation by the Buddha? Did they wear the best loincloths? Did they eat the best diet? Could they recite the most Vedic texts? What is it about them??? I believe that it is safe to assume that what it was about them was their achievement in jhana. That is the most outstanding feature those two teachers had. Jon, you don't provide any alternative theory. You just state that the sutta doesn't specifically state jhana so it can't be jhana. That is really thick-headed and closeminded. Jon, start thinking outside of the box and offer an alternative theory or admit that mine is the most likely one. > > > > ... just this pompous statement! > > > > Spoken like a true debater (if one's case has no merit, make a few > personal comments to divert attention ;-)). James: And what are you doing by calling me a "true debater"??? I just said that your comment was pompous, nothing about you personally. It was pompous because I offered a detailed explanation of my theory, with quotes, and you just dismissed it without so much as one line of explanation. That, sir, is very pompous! (However, I would like to know what happened to the "Nice Jon" from a couple of years back; the nice Jon who was affected by an incident in Thailand; that nice Jon seems to have disappeared. Now instead of Nice Jon we have Ice Jon ;-)) > > >> Is there any other sutta you can cite in support of your general > >> proposition? > >> > > James: Actually, there are many but I won't post them for you. As > > they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink! :-) > > > > Well, there may be other horses following the discussion who are not as > stubborn this old nag and who'd be interested to see these (alleged) > suttas ;-)). James: I am just conversing with you. I am not on a soapbox preaching about jhana to all members. If other members want to learn about jhana they should do some reseach. As for you, I see that you are going to be obstinate about the subject so I won't discuss it anymore with you (unless, of course, you change your attitude). > > Jon > Metta, James #84571 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 5:52 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? buddhatrue Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi James, > > --- buddhatrue wrote: > > >S: 1b. There are no people, there are only namas and rupas. > > > > James: Really, what are people if not namas and rupas (in the process > > of DO)? Isn't this just a semantic word play? > ... > S: If we just discuss and understand more about namas and rupas, then it > doesn't matter what they're called or not called. We can refer to people > with or without wrong view. Only right understanding can tell! James: Okay, then I don't know where is the argument. If you say that namas and rupas exist then you have to say that people exist. > ... > > >S: 2b. There are no people, there are only namas and rupas. Rebirth > > does not > > > refer to rebirth of people but to rebirth of namas (cittas and > > cetasikas). > > > > James: Again, this is just semantics. How is it that people are > > really any different than namas and rupas? > .... > S: If it's clear that when we refer to people we are really referring to > namas and rupas, then there's no difference, as you say. However, if we > have the idea that Sarah or James is reborn, as opposed to cittas and > cetasikas, then it's wrong. Just like now - only ever a succession of > cittas, not a succession of Sarahs or Jameses! James: Whoever said otherwise?? > ... > >>S: again in an ultimate sense, what we take > > for our > > > parents are again namas and rupas, particular streams of > > accumulations. > > > > James: Do you take your parents for beings with minds and bodies? I > > do. How is this any different than namas and rupas? > ... > S: When you hear your parents, what is really heard? When you see your > parents, what is really seen? When you think about your parents, what is > conceived? What exactly are the minds and bodies? Yes, only namas and > rupas. It all depends on what is understood when you refer to your > parents, their minds and bodies. James: My parents are sensed throught the five senses and cognized through the mind. I don't know what else you may mean. > .... > >>S: Again, in an ultimate sense, the Buddha > > > does not/did not exist as discussed at length, but the namas and rupas > > > referred to as the Buddha definitely did. > > > > James: So you believe that the Buddha did not exist? Then why do you > > believe in Buddhism? > .... > S: Read again what I said. I believe in the truth as taught by the dhammas > we refer to as the Buddha. James: The Buddha cannot be identified with even the dhammas. > ... > > > > > ["In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to > > > be found", Yamaka Sutta, SN 22:85] > > > > James: What is "Tathaagata"? It means "one who has thus gone". So, > > someone or something that is gone cannot be identified with the mind > > or the body. Did the Buddha say this same sort of thing about the > > ordinary worldling (mother, father, etc.)? > .... > S: A good point and a good question. He taught that no self, no atta is to > be found anywhere. There are just 5 khandhas, that's all. The rest are > concepts, inc. any ideas about mother, father or ordinary worldling. James: No, this is not an answer. He did not equate himself with ordinary worldlings. People can be identified with nama and rupa and they can be traced from lifetime to lifetime, but the Buddha cannot. What he said about himself doesn't apply to others. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======== > Metta, James #84572 From: "colette" Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) ksheri3 Hi TG, Glad you didn't take offense. Me? Have sticking points? Esspecially on "freedom". I've noticed that I, in my practices, cannot release the suffering of others since these or those "others" have taken my "self" for themselves and use it for their own personal gratification, which is why I see myself in everybody else i.e. people show different characteristics that I have that I know I have and so they show me my self which is also how I reflcect and meditate a lot on the actions of others, on my way to the roots of those actions. Freedom from "ignorance" and freedom from "suffering". Those are rather grandeous thoughts to have, don't you think? How can any person be free from the ignorance of others or the suffering of others? <....>Don't you think that the safety of the athletes to compete is more important than the travesty of the communist Chinese government trying to control the actions of a discruntled peoples much like the behavior found in Burma, Myanmar? The occupation of Tibet has gone on for decades and people did fine ignoring it but now we have the safety of Olympic athletes in danger yet that is quietly ignored. My isn't that the suffering of IGNORANCE when the entire world ignores the environment their athletes will be competing in? We can get into the suffering and human rights abuses concerning the Chinese in their effort to satiate the addiction that middle-class americans possess/are possessed by through the distribution of cheap products on the shelves at stores, but that's a different story and I'd relish having the chance to lay down some tracks for a "mix down" on that song. thanx for considering the prevalence of both IGNORANCE and SUFFERING. toodles, colette <....> #84573 From: "colette" Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 5:54 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? ksheri3 Thanx James, The sutta is short and sweet but Thanisarro is known for his footnotes on the Pali he translates. I'll look into it when I have time to actually contemplate the sutta and the notes THEN place my interpretation into that volley you are having with some people, Nina, et al, knowing that I'm already predisposed to taking your position that the "others" you're rationalizing with are off the mark and misinterpreting the point of the sutta. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: ><...> > It is the Sabba Sutta "The All": > > "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I > will speak." > > "As you say, lord," the monks responded. > > The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear > & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile > sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. 1 > Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe > another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his > statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put > to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html #84574 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 8:07 pm Subject: Re: Asoka, Ch 6, no 6. sarahprocter... Hi Dieter, We haven't heard from you for a long time and there was a post of yours which I didn't get round to replying to. It was #82713 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > Sarah: ....Yes, I understand bhavana (meditation) always has to be at this moment. When > there is any idea of doing anything for understanding at another moment, we forget about anatta. > > D: not so clear to me .. .... S: Would you let me know which aspect is not clear and elaborate on anything which doesn't make sense to you. ... > > I stumbled recently upon following statement: > ' Man is not responsible for the process of to unchangeable determination of all process and development there is no way to modify the world by acting but for the state of consciousness.' > Do you agree with it? ... S: I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense to me. Do you agree with it? What does it mean? ... > > Sarah : (D: Besides that the canonical guidelines for the training are questioned , the gradual progress of detachment ( from self identification) is neglected. > > You'd have to elaborate on this Dieter. > > D: I would have to quote . ... S: Can you try to elaborate in your own words (or just using brief references)?. ..... > Sarah: (D: We need to work with what is available to us..with the described strategy towards the ultimate truth..) > Again, you'd have to elaborate on this and what you mean here by 'we' and 'strategy'. > > D: we, the Dhamma students and strategy refering to the best possible translation of the Noble Path ( mundane and supermundane) in our daily life. .... S: Doesn't this all suggest an idea of someone, (Dieter, Sarah, Dhamma students) doing something? Where does anatta fit in here? Metta, Sarah ======= #84576 From: LBIDD@... Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 9:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Howard, AN 4.24: "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer." " Larry: Regarding "construe" in the Kalaka Sutta (An 4.24) B. ~Naanananda uses "conceive" in his translation in "The Magic of the Mind" and he has this note: "Na ma~n~nati: Ma~n~nanaa marks that stage in sense perception when one egoistically imagines or fancies a perceived 'thing' to be out there in its own right. It is a fissure in the perceptual situation which results in a subject-object dichotomy perpetuating the conceit: 'I' and 'mine'." Larry: B. ~Naa.namoli in his translation of MN also uses "conceive" for "ma~n~nana". An example is MN 1.3: "Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, he conceives [himself as] earth, he conceives [himself] in earth, he conceives [himself apart] from earth, he conceives earth to be 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say." Larry: B. Bodhi has this note regarding the above: "The Pali verb "conceives" (ma~n~nati), from the root 'man', "to think," is often used in the Pali suttas to mean distortional thinking -- thought that ascribes to its object characteristics and a significance derived not from the object itself, but from its own subjective imaginings. The cognitive distortion introduced by conceiving consists, in brief, in the intrusion of the egocentric perspective into the experience already slightly distorted by spontaneous perception [comy. notes that "perceives earth as earth" in this context is a perversion of perception, L.]. According to the commentaries, the activity of conceiving is governed by three defilements, which accounts for the different ways it comes to manifestation -- craving (ta.nhaa), conceit (maana), and views (di.t.thi). "MA paraphrases this text thus: "Having perceived earth with a perverted perception, the ordinary person afterwards conceives it -- construes or discriminates it -- through the gross proliferating tendencies (papa~nca) of craving, conceit, and views, which are here called 'conceivings.' ...He apprehends it in diverse ways contrary [to reality]." "The four ways of conceiving (ma~n~nanaa): The Buddha shows that the conceiving of any object may occur in any of the four ways, expressed by the text as a fourfold linguistic pattern: accusative, locative, ablative, and appropriative. The primary significance of this modal pattern -- enigmatic in the Pali as well -- seems to be ontological. I take the pattern to represent the diverse ways in which the ordinary person attempts to give positive being to his imagined sense of egohood by positing, below the threshold of reflection, a relationship between himself as the subject of cognition and the perceived phenomenon as its object. According to the fourfold pattern given, this relationship may be one either of direct perception ("he conceives X"), or of inherence ("he conceives in X"), or of contrast or derivation ("he conceives from X"), or of simple appropriation ("he conceives X to be 'mine' "). But care is needed in interpreting these phrases. The Pali does not supply any direct object for the second and third modes, and this suggests that the process at work in conceiving proceeds from a deeper and more general level than that involved in the forming of an explicit view of self, as described for example at MN 2.8 or MN 44.7. The activity of conceiving thus seems to comprise the entire range of subjectively tinged cognition, from impulses and thoughts in which sense of personal identity is still inchoate to elaborate intellectual structures in which it has been fully explicated. "~Nm, however, understands the implicit object of conceiving to be the percept of earth itself, and accordingly translates "having had from earth a percept of earth, he conceives [that to be] earth, he conceives [that to be] in earth, he conceives [that to be apart] from earth," etc. "The fifth phrase, "he delights in X," explicitly connects conceiving with craving, which is elsewhere said to "delight here and there." This, moreover, hints at the danger in the worldling's thought processes, since craving is pointed to by the Buddha as the origin of suffering. "MA gives prolific examples illustrating all the different modes of conceiving, and these clearly establish that the intended object of conceiving is the misplaced sense of egoity." Larry: We might compare the four modes of conceiving found in MN 1.3 with the four modes of conceiving found in the Kalaka Sutta. I couldn't follow B. ~Naanaanda's notes in "The Magic of the Mind", but maybe you can sort it out. Larry #84577 From: TGrand458@... Date: Wed Apr 2, 2008 7:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) TGrand458@... In a message dated 4/2/2008 8:45:14 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, ksheri3@... writes: Hi TG, Glad you didn't take offense. Me? Have sticking points? Esspecially on "freedom". I've noticed that I, in my practices, cannot release the suffering of others since these or those "others" have taken my "self" for themselves and use it for their own personal gratification, which is why I see myself in everybody else i.e. people show different characteristics that I have that I know I have and so they show me my self which is also how I reflcect and meditate a lot on the actions of others, on my way to the roots of those actions. Freedom from "ignorance" and freedom from "suffering". Those are rather grandiose thoughts to have, don't you think? How can any person be free from the ignorance of others or the suffering of others? <....>Don't you think that the safety of the athletes to compete is more important than the travesty of the communist Chinese government trying to control the actions of a discruntled peoples much like the behavior found in Burma, Myanmar? The occupation of Tibet has gone on for decades and people did fine ignoring it but now we have the safety of Olympic athletes in danger yet that is quietly ignored. My isn't that the suffering of IGNORANCE when the entire world ignores the environment their athletes will be competing in? We can get into the suffering and human rights abuses concerning the Chinese in their effort to satiate the addiction that middle-class americans possess/are possessed by through the distribution of cheap products on the shelves at stores, but that's a different story and I'd relish having the chance to lay down some tracks for a "mix down" on that song. thanx for considering the prevalence of both IGNORANCE and SUFFERING. toodles, colette ...................................... Hi Colette Although I'm concerned about the things you wrote, I'm not equipped to lead social movements. All that garbage is unfolding according to conditions and unfortunately, the conditions aren't what we'd necessarily like. Remember, Samsara is afflicting/suffering, it always will be, which is a good reason to try to escape it. Buddhism isn't designed to solve the social ills of the world. THAT would be grandiose in its own way. By purifying our own minds as much as possible, we become better influences that can impact others and hopefully helpfully. If we are trapped in the quagmire of ignorance, then who are we to say what is good or bad...because we wouldn't really know. IMO, people will never be purified from the outside in. It works the other way...from the inside out. Yet there are good people the try to solve problems from either or both directions. Buddhism is the only thing I do where I figure I might do some higher good for others, even if just a couple of others. Throughout most of society, its not recognized as something that is important, but for myself, I think its THE most important thing for both myself and others. So I do that... i.e., try to cultivate those things the Buddha taught should be cultivated. (Not as much as I should though.) I think the destination of the Buddha's teaching is reachable...if a sufficient effort and perseverance is applied. That's all I have to say on that other than... "freedom" is a good word with multiple applications. It is attachment that causes suffering. TG #84578 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Apr 3, 2008 5:40 am Subject: Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive scottduncan2 Dear TG, Thanks for the link: TG: "Did you miss this post that had this article? Link below. Please read the article that clearly demonstrates the Suttas use Panna in regard to thinking. In fact, three levels of understanding are shown to be associated with Panna. If you still object to Panna having the comprehensive reach to incorporate both thinking and direct experiencing/knowing, I'd be interested to know why?" Scott: While I object to the author's bias (he is advertising for his own 'method of meditation') and to his erroneous assumption that one can direct pa~n~naa at will, and disagree that vedanaa has any more relevance than any other conditioned dhamma when it comes to being an object of pa~n~naa, I can remark on suta-maya-pa~n~naa, cinta-maya-pa~n~naa, and bhaavaana-maya-pa~n~naa. Sammohavinodanii (p. 158): "2076. Parato asutvaa pa.tililabhati ('he obtains without hearing from another'): he obtains by thinking out himself only, without hearing from another's words of instruction. Ayam vuccati ('this is called') i.e. this is called understanding made by ratiocination. But this [understanding] does not arise in just anyone; it arises only in very well-known great beings. And herein, the knowledge in conformity with truth arises only in the two kinds of Bodhisatta [i.e. for Sammaasambuddhas and Paccekabuddhas]. The remaining understanding arises in all those of great understanding who have fulfilled the perfections; it should be understood in this way. "2077. Parato sutvaa pa.tililabhati ('he obtains by hearing from another'): here all that has been obtained by seeing spheres of work being done by another or having been done, and by hearing anybody's words being spoken, and by learning under a teacher, should be understood as 'obtained by hearing from another'. "2078. Samaapannassa ('of one who has attained'): the meaning is, the understanding which occurs during an attainment in one who is possessed of an attainment is bhaavanaamayaa pa~n~naa ('understanding made by development')." Scott: According to the Commentaries, cinta-maya-pa~n~naa is not for us, while suta-maya-pa~n~naa may be. Bhaavanaa-maya-pa~n~naa appears to be in reference to higher levels of pa~n~naa. I'm not sure what 'attainment' refers to in the above. It may refer to actual moments when pa~n~naa penetrates dhammas (lokiya pa~n~naa) or to path moments (lokuttara pa~n~naa). At any rate, do you differentiate between thinking and understanding? In other words do you recognise that pa~n~naa does not think? TG: "(BTW, still working on previous post reply but won't be ready for awhile.)" Scott: No rush, TG. Thanks. Sincerely, Scott. #84579 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Apr 3, 2008 3:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' upasaka_howard Hi, Larry - Thank you very much for the following detailed post! You end it by writing " We might compare the four modes of conceiving found in MN 1.3 with the four modes of conceiving found in the Kalaka Sutta. I couldn't follow B. ~Naanaanda's notes in "The Magic of the Mind", but maybe you can sort it out." I think this is actually quite a project/task, but likely worth engaging in. Right now I'm a drop too busy with several things, especially some (hopeful) work for the Family Promise organization that I've mentioned previously. But I do hope to come to it soon. :-) In a message dated 4/3/2008 12:01:30 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@... writes: Hi Howard, AN 4.24: "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer." " Larry: Regarding "construe" in the Kalaka Sutta (An 4.24) B. ~Naanananda uses "conceive" in his translation in "The Magic of the Mind" and he has this note: "Na ma~n~nati: Ma~n~nanaa marks that stage in sense perception when one egoistically imagines or fancies a perceived 'thing' to be out there in its own right. It is a fissure in the perceptual situation which results in a subject-object dichotomy perpetuating the conceit: 'I' and 'mine'." --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, well, I believe that Ven ~Nanananda has a phenomenalist perspective close to mine. This is part of the reason I so love that work of his. ------------------------------------------------- Larry: B. ~Naa.namoli in his translation of MN also uses "conceive" for "ma~n~nana". An example is MN 1.3: "Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, perceives earth as earth. Having perceived earth as earth, he conceives [himself as] earth, he conceives [himself] in earth, he conceives [himself apart] from earth, he conceives earth to be 'mine,' he delights in earth. Why is that? Because he has not fully understood it, I say." Larry: B. Bodhi has this note regarding the above: "The Pali verb "conceives" (ma~n~nati), from the root 'man', "to think," is often used in the Pali suttas to mean distortional thinking -- thought that ascribes to its object characteristics and a significance derived not from the object itself, but from its own subjective imaginings. The cognitive distortion introduced by conceiving consists, in brief, in the intrusion of the egocentric perspective into the experience already slightly distorted by spontaneous perception [comy. notes that "perceives earth as earth" in this context is a perversion of perception, L.]. According to the commentaries, the activity of conceiving is governed by three defilements, which accounts for the different ways it comes to manifestation -- craving (ta.nhaa), conceit (maana), and views (di.t.thi). "MA paraphrases this text thus: "Having perceived earth with a perverted perception, the ordinary person afterwards conceives it -- construes or discriminates it -- through the gross proliferating tendencies (papa~nca) of craving, conceit, and views, which are here called 'conceivings.' ...He apprehends it in diverse ways contrary [to reality]." "The four ways of conceiving (ma~n~nanaa): The Buddha shows that the conceiving of any object may occur in any of the four ways, expressed by the text as a fourfold linguistic pattern: accusative, locative, ablative, and appropriative. The primary significance of this modal pattern -- enigmatic in the Pali as well -- seems to be ontological. I take the pattern to represent the diverse ways in which the ordinary person attempts to give positive being to his imagined sense of egohood by positing, below the threshold of reflection, a relationship between himself as the subject of cognition and the perceived phenomenon as its object. According to the fourfold pattern given, this relationship may be one either of direct perception ("he conceives X"), or of inherence ("he conceives in X"), or of contrast or derivation ("he conceives from X"), or of simple appropriation ("he conceives X to be 'mine' "). But care is needed in interpreting these phrases. The Pali does not supply any direct object for the second and third modes, and this suggests that the process at work in conceiving proceeds from a deeper and more general level than that involved in the forming of an explicit view of self, as described for example at MN 2.8 or MN 44.7. The activity of conceiving thus seems to comprise the entire range of subjectively tinged cognition, from impulses and thoughts in which sense of personal identity is still inchoate to elaborate intellectual structures in which it has been fully explicated. "~Nm, however, understands the implicit object of conceiving to be the percept of earth itself, and accordingly translates "having had from earth a percept of earth, he conceives [that to be] earth, he conceives [that to be] in earth, he conceives [that to be apart] from earth," etc. "The fifth phrase, "he delights in X," explicitly connects conceiving with craving, which is elsewhere said to "delight here and there." This, moreover, hints at the danger in the worldling's thought processes, since craving is pointed to by the Buddha as the origin of suffering. "MA gives prolific examples illustrating all the different modes of conceiving, and these clearly establish that the intended object of conceiving is the misplaced sense of egoity." Larry: We might compare the four modes of conceiving found in MN 1.3 with the four modes of conceiving found in the Kalaka Sutta. I couldn't follow B. ~Naanaanda's notes in "The Magic of the Mind", but maybe you can sort it out. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I do hope we can get to that soon. Sorry that it isn't convenient for me right now. All of a sudden a number of things have come up making me very busy. --------------------------------------------- Larry ======================= With metta, Howard #84581 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Apr 3, 2008 5:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive TGrand458@... Hi Scott Since you seem to view commentaries to be superior to Suttas, and discount the Suttas based on commentaries, what more can be said? In a sense, then, I guess you are saying that your views are superior to what is recorded as the Buddha's views. (At least I only claimed to think my views were better than some commentaries. LOL) I've backed my points with Sutta quotes, when those weren't good enough, I backed them with Pali references. Then that wasn't good enough because the way panna is used in the Suttas doesn't agree with the your view of what the commentaries mean by panna. Hence the folks dealing with the Pali, as it is dealt with in the Suttas, are deemed biased. Well, maybe the "bias" is from the commentarial point of view. I know a Sri Lankan monk who has been a monk for 52 years, did his Masters Thesis on "panna" and incorporated the 3 types of panna in that thesis, written some 35 years ago. His understanding of the way panna is used in the Suttas matched the understanding of the article you claim is biased. I'm not interested in bickering. I'm interested in the truth. The truth is not in Pali, the truth is not in English, its not in the commentaries, its not even in the Suttas. But for me, I'll take the Suttas as the best guide to discover the truth. I'll consider them the highest written authority, and continue to point out the inconsistencies and errors that commentarial extrapolation has generated. Some of those errors are profound. There's no point in going further in our discussions because they become a never ending series of sidestepping the prime issues that I raise, IMO. I think you're blinded by the commentaries. And cannot be dissuaded from them no matter what evidence you are faced with. You're not alone though. (This doesn't mean I might not critique some of your posts or that I totally wish to cut off correspondence.) My recommendation for you is spending at least 3 solid years reading and rereading the 4 Great Nikayas, reading them cover to cover at least 6 times...immerse yourself in them...contemplate the heck out of them...and then study commentaries and see what you think. (I'd recommend this to anybody that has'nt read the 4 Great Nikayas at least 10 times through...with thorough contemplation.) But best of luck to you! TG In a message dated 4/3/2008 6:41:02 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear TG, Thanks for the link: TG: "Did you miss this post that had this article? Link below. Please read the article that clearly demonstrates the Suttas use Panna in regard to thinking. In fact, three levels of understanding are shown to be associated with Panna. If you still object to Panna having the comprehensive reach to incorporate both thinking and direct experiencing/experiencing/knowing, I'd be interested Scott: While I object to the author's bias (he is advertising for his own 'method of meditation') and to his erroneous assumption that one can direct pa~n~naa at will, and disagree that vedanaa has any more relevance than any other conditioned dhamma when it comes to being an object of pa~n~naa, I can remark on suta-maya-pa~object cinta-maya-pa~cinta-maya-pa~n~naa, and cinta-may Sammohavinodanii (p. 158): "2076. Parato asutvaa pa.tililabhati ('he obtains without hearing from another'): he obtains by thinking out himself only, without hearing from another's words of instruction. Ayam vuccati ('this is called') i.e. this is called understanding made by ratiocination. But this [understanding] does not arise in just anyone; it arises only in very well-known great beings. And herein, the knowledge in conformity with truth arises only in the two kinds of Bodhisatta [i.e. for Sammaasambuddhas and Paccekabuddhas]Sammaasambuddhas and Paccekabuddh arises in all those of great understanding who have fulfilled the perfections; it should be understood in this way. "2077. Parato sutvaa pa.tililabhati ('he obtains by hearing from another'): here all that has been obtained by seeing spheres of work being done by another or having been done, and by hearing anybody's words being spoken, and by learning under a teacher, should be understood as 'obtained by hearing from another'. "2078. Samaapannassa ('of one who has attained'): the meaning is, the understanding which occurs during an attainment in one who is possessed of an attainment is bhaavanaamayaa pa~n~naa ('understanding made by development'mad Scott: According to the Commentaries, cinta-maya-pa~Scott: According us, while suta-maya-pa~us, while suta-maya-pa~ Date: Thu Apr 3, 2008 12:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] 3 Types of INSIGHT (panna) ksheri3 Hi TG, > Although I'm concerned about the things you wrote, I'm not equipped to lead > social movements. colette: who is equipped or could be equipped, to lead social movements such as that? ----------------------------------- All that garbage is unfolding according to conditions and > unfortunately, the conditions aren't what we'd necessarily like. colette: in certain aspects the garbage is unfolding in accordance with conditions where AWARENESS or maybe it actually is that state of being that the entire Bush family wants to control, CONSCIOUSNESS, or maybe it's simply COGNITION, those aspects of each and every individual, awareness, consciousness, and cognition, are part of the individual and the parts tend to make up the whole but unlike James, in this case, I'm not suggesting that we view the whole and disregard the parts, I'm saying that each part needs to activate a consciousness or conscious action towards these negative aspects of "life". In so doing, creating a consciousness there will exist a magnetic field associated with that consciousness -- now I'm getting into my theories on Karma being nothing more that an electromagnetic field or force out their in the void we call space and when certain negative electromagnetic fields find "like electromagnetic fields" then the negativity is attracted to the person emminating the negative field, but that's a different subject -- and the more people become conscious of the existing problem then the greater a force can become to solve the problem; (pregnant pause) STARTING WITH THE INDIVIDUAL (the part) of the whole society. You also point to, in ethical circles, THE "What is" and how it conflicts with THE "What ought to be". Again, a completely different subject. ----------------------------- Remember, > Samsara is afflicting/suffering, it always will be, which is a good reason to > try to escape it. > colette: are you saying that you want your cake and you want to eat it too? Escape from where? To where? Now it seems we're getting into that oldest of conflicts between: THE HAVES and THE HAVE NOTS. I don't care what you say, Samsara, to me, is empty, is valueless, is not required or desired for life. ------------------------ > > Buddhism isn't designed to solve the social ills of the world. colette: I differ! The Buddha himself created the condition where an aspirant will not rest in Nirvana (nudge nudge, samsara) until all sentient beings are enlightened, see Bodhisatva vows. I'm saying that Buddhism is very well equipped to make sense out of the lunacy that society is facing here in the USA since those middle- class parents, since the 70s, have been so self-absorbed that they have no time to concern themselves with their own children or any matter that does not directly gratify their sick/pathetic emotional voids. We both can, in our own ways, enlighten others to the wisdom found in many different Buddhist Schools, even Tibetan Schools that promote the Bon traditions (see Padmasambaba, Tibetan Book Of The Dead). ------------------- THAT would > be grandiose in its own way. colette: naw, delusions of granduer don't come from falsehoods they basically are nurtured in the cosmic nursery of MISS REPRESENTATION or MISS INTERPRETATION. ------------ By purifying our own minds as much as possible, > we become better influences that can impact others and hopefully helpfully. colette: that is an action plan. You haven't quite gotten the hang of properly identifying the problem yet you are going with a tired ole boy network action plan. ------------------- > If we are trapped in the quagmire of ignorance, then who are we to say what > is good or bad...because we wouldn't really know. colette: "quagmire of ignorance" WHAT? <....> -------------------------- IMO, people will never be > purified from the outside in. It works the other way...from the inside out. colette: <....>that's like trying to make water into wine or transmute lead into gold. Anyway, it's a proven fact that if you give anything to the white middle-class they will turn it into useless garbage which means that to give them anything in the first place was a fairly good indicator of the mental illness inside that microprocessor. ------------------------ > Yet there are good people the try to solve problems from either or both > directions. > > colette: hope springs eternal, doesn't it? ------------------------ > Buddhism is the only thing I do where I figure I might do some higher good > for others, even if just a couple of others. colette: now you're talkin'. All we can do is try, hindsight will always be 20-20 and give us nothing but recriminations but there's that Buddha pointing his finger and saying "clinging, no?" not saying "I told you so". Throughout most of society, its > not recognized as something that is important, but for myself, I think its > THE most important thing for both myself and others. colette: EXACTLY. I can do the most good studying and practicing these esoteric truths, realities, no matter how corrupt the status quo is and how much they torture me. This stuff is the only thing I've had since 1978, I can't walk away from it. ------------------ Sorry, I've gotta go. Time's up here at home. toodles, colette <.....> #84583 From: "connie" Date: Thu Apr 3, 2008 3:56 pm Subject: Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) nichiconn sarahprocter... Hi Connie, I wonder if you can elaborate on the following at all in your own simple words: connie: Hey Ice Queen! I hope the frozen hip's doing better. If you hear the laughter behind that, know it's because when I'd read about that, my complaint had been a stoved up knee & my bemusement at our both using heat related words to relate a seeming lack of wind... the earth is crumbling! I'm to drag the old carcass into the body shop Monday so they can throw it on the 'scope & fix it up. I expect I'll still be moving like an old meditator a wee bit afterwards, but who cares? I'll be having my bike and riding it, too. So much for my akusala aspirations. I read where James ordained Jon a member of the coldheart club, btw. Sweet. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "L G SAGE" > Part 48 > 16. Mahaanipaato > Conclusion > This is what is said in the commentary: "He said to me, he ordered me, 'Come, Bhaddaa! Go to the residence of the bhikkhuniis and in the presence of the bhikkhuniis go forth and be fully ordained.' Because the Teacher's order to me was the cause of my full ordination, it became my full ordination." It is to be understood that the meaning in the verse in the Apadaana is also explained in the sameway. > Let me simply say "There are no buddhist nuns". There were never any nuns fully ordained in the same way as there were "come, monk"s. Bhaddaa was fully ordained in both orders once the nuns had accepted her because Buddha himself had already accepted her for the monk side. That's what I think. The exceptional thing about her full ordination was the order of the acceptance by both sides. > > Evampi bhikkhunivibha"nge ehi bhikkhuniiti ida.m kathanti? Ehibhikkhunibhaavena bhikkhuniina.m upasampadaaya asabhaavajotanavacana.m tathaa upasampadaaya bhikkhuniina.m abhaavato. > > Even so, the expression "Come, bhikkhunii" occurs in the Bhikkhunii-vibha"nga.* How is that? It is not an expression that makes clear the independent existence of full ordination of bhikkhuniis by [the formula] "Come, bhikkhunii" because there are no bhikkhuniis [admitted to] full ordination in this way. > > *Vin IV 214 (BD III 160). > Translation for Vin IV 214 (pali also there) from: http://santifm1.0.googlepages.com/bhikkhunisintheravada#_ednref55 : 'Bhikkhuni' means: 'she is an alms-food eater' - thus she is a bhikkhuni; 'she has entered the life of alms-food'- thus she is a bhikkhuni; 'she wears the patched robes'- thus she is a bhikkhuni; 'by designation'- thus she is a bhikkhuni; 'by her acknowledgement'- thus she is a bhikkhuni; '[by saying:] come bhikkhuni!' - thus she is a bhikkhuni; 'she is accepted by going for the three refuges'- thus she is a bhikkhuni; 'she is auspicious'- thus she is a bhikkhuni; 'she is the essence'- thus she is a bhikkhuni; 'she is a trainee'- thus she is a bhikkhuni; 'she is an adept' - thus she is a bhikkhuni; 'she is accepted in harmony by both Sanghas with a formal Act with a motion and three announcements which is unshakeable and fit to stand'- thus she is a bhikkhuni. Herein, whatever bhikkhuni is accepted in harmony by both Sanghas by a formal Act with a motion and three announcements which is unshakeable and fit to stand, this is what is meant by 'bhikkhuni' in this context.' > Yadi eva.m, katha.m ehibhikkhuniiti vibha"nge niddeso katoti? Desanaanayasotapatitabhaavena. Aya~nhi sotapatitataa naama katthaci labbhamaanassaapi anaaha.ta.m hoti. > > If that is so, whay is the designation "Come, bhikkhunii" in the [Bhikkhunii-]vibha"nga? It is because [the expression] is carried along in the stream of the discourse method. For something that is not possible may not be mentioned on some occasions due to being swept [away] in the stream [of the discourse]. .. S: I've read it a couple of times and am still not quite clear. Looking forward to your further commentary. C: No one is accepted anymore by going for the three refuges, either, but it stays in the texts. Whatever is swept away is another lost relic. Don't know whether my rambling's helpful. peace, connie #84584 From: "nichiconn" Date: Thu Apr 3, 2008 5:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nichiconn > > Hi Howard, > > P. S. What sense does an unseen sight make to you? It makes none to > > me. > ------ buttinsky: the sound of one hand clapping & a falling tree, those koans are the same as that. my opinion. > N: As said, colour or visible object arises together with each group > of rupas, and only one of these at a time can be experienced through > the approrpiate sensedoor. This makes a great deal of sense, since it > helps us to understand conditions. > c: agreed. best, connie > We read in the "Paììhåna" (Analytical Exposition, 8) as to the > dependence-condition for conascent phenomena: > <....5. The four Great Elements condition the derived rúpas by > dependence-condition. " > As to the fifth class, the four great Elements condition the derived > rúpas (upåda rúpas, the rúpas other than the four great Elements) by > way of dependence-condition, but the opposite does not apply. Odour > is a derived rúpa. It cannot arise by itself, it needs solidity, > cohesion, heat and motion. When odour is experienced through the > nose, only odour appears, the other rúpas which arise together with > it in one group are not experienced. Visible object which is > experienced through the eyes and sound which is experienced through > the ears need the four great Elements as a foundation, they are > conditioned by them by way of dependence.> > > The sense object that is experienced at a given moment, does not > arise solitarily, it needs the four Great Elements and also the other > rupas included in the eight inseparable rupas. It is conditioned by > them by way of dependence-condition, nissaya paccaya. > This helps us to understand that colour, sound etc. are of a great > variety, they never are quite similar. There are different > combinations of the rupa elements they arise together with. Hardness > is of different intensities, so is heat, and this bears on the other > rupas they arise together with in a group. > Some people may look for a neutral sound and they think that they can > be aware of such a sound. But knowing that there is a great variety > of sounds, high or low, loud or soft, helps one to be aware in a > natural way. The object of awareness is anything that appears > naturally in daily life. > #84585 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Apr 3, 2008 6:50 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive scottduncan2 Dear TG, Thanks for the reply: TG: "Since you seem to view commentaries to be superior to Suttas, and discount the Suttas based on commentaries, what more can be said? In a sense, then, I guess you are saying that your views are superior to what is recorded as the Buddha's views. (At least I only claimed to think my views were better than some commentaries. LOL)" Scott: There are many assumption made in the above. I'd prefer to steer clear of the ad hominem, if you don't mind. TG: "I've backed my points with Sutta quotes, when those weren't good enough, I backed them with Pali references. Then that wasn't good enough because the way panna is used in the Suttas doesn't agree with the your view of what the commentaries mean by panna. Hence the folks dealing with the Pali, as it is dealt with in the Suttas, are deemed biased. Well, maybe the "bias" is from the commentarial point of view..." Scott: I asked you whether you had the opinion that pa~n~naa thinks. Can you respond to this question? I think this fairly addresses the heart of your thesis. Why? Because since pa~n~naa doesn't 'think' we would need to look at the dhammas that do, and then look at how these might interact in a moment of consciousness with pa~n~naa. Vitakka and vicaara would be present and functioning according to their characteristics. I think this is on topic. TG: "I know a Sri Lankan monk who has been a monk for 52 years, did his Masters Thesis on "panna" and incorporated the 3 types of panna in that thesis, written some 35 years ago. His understanding of the way panna is used in the Suttas matched the understanding of the article you claim is biased..." Scott: There is no problem with cinta-maya-pa~n~naa. The author of the brief essay quoted Visuddhimagga - a commentary. I was using Sammohavinodanii to clarify what was said about cinta-maya-pa~n~naa. I fail to see how adding a second commentarial clarification to the one given in the reference constitutes some egregious problem in our ongoing discussion. You might wish to show where the three types of pa~n~naa are mentioned in the suttas. I'm assuming they are since you have used them to discuss your thesis regarding thinking and understanding. Just because the commentary suggests that cinta-maya-pa~n~naa is the purview of Sammaasambuddhas and Paccekabuddhas doesn't mean we can't delve into the mechanics of it - the relation between thinking and understanding ought to still be demonstrable. If the commentarial stance is correct, then this would render cinta-maya-pa~n~naa somewhat irrelevant except for theoretical value, since we would never be able to think our way to understanding. 'Hearing' appears to be a different matter. Please continue if you wish to discuss, stop if you don't. I plan to continue slowly and carefully, patiently not taking anyone's word for anything but searching and studying as the material demands. Sincerely, Scott. #84586 From: "connie" Date: Thu Apr 3, 2008 7:03 pm Subject: Perfections Corner (117) nichiconn Dear Friends, Just adding a comment after: > The result of his efforts manifests itself in the citta of the listener who is thus better able to develop his understanding further and to apply the Dhamma. Summary & Exposition: << The helping of beings is twofold as intention and practice. Wishing for the welfare of even those who are against him, such as Devadata, and waiting until the faculties of those whose faculties are not ripe are ripe is called intention. The teaching to other beings of the Dhamma that leads away from all suffering by way of the three vehicles by one whose mind is without thought of gain or honour is called practice. >> c: The 3 vehicles being? Emptiness, signlessness & desirelessness? But I think those are doors and the vehicles might be 'contemplation' of same. peace, connie #84587 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 2:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Theriigaathaa - Sisters (73) sarahprocter... Hi Connie, --- connie wrote: > connie: > Hey Ice Queen! .... > I hope the frozen hip's doing better. If you hear the laughter behind > that, know it's because when I'd read about that, my complaint had been > a stoved up knee & my bemusement at our both using heat related words to > relate a seeming lack of wind... the earth is crumbling! I'm to drag > the old carcass into the body shop Monday so they can throw it on the > 'scope & fix it up. ... S: Hey Hot Chick! Well, let's hope they have more success with your old carcass... I had an MRI on one of the two days we touched base (3hrs at the clinic), only to find out there was a hip fracture and secondary osteo-arthritis. Names and labels and more concepts to cling to/have aversion about:-). Anyway, the Bangkok heat we've arrived into is doing a great de-frosting job. We'll be meeting up with everyone tomorrow, so look forward to more discussions about crumbling worlds then... .... >I expect I'll still be moving like an old meditator > a wee bit afterwards, but who cares? I'll be having my bike and riding > it, too. So much for my akusala aspirations. .... S: Yes, some of the old meditators pay quite a price with their knees. I think Ven P referred to this. Mine are pretty creeky too and that indicates how these body parts get identified as belonging to oneself. .... > > I read where James ordained Jon a member of the coldheart club, btw. > Sweet. .... S: If that was the worst James ordained him with, it sounds like they were getting on fine:-). James also referred to his having been affected by sth in Thailand before. I couldn't recall what that was.... Neither the coldheart or the affected clubs (or the pompous one) sound much like Jon's, but then it's all in the eye of the beholder or rather the conceiver.... In any case, I'm enjoying the dialogue between the two of them:). Down to business: .... > --- In > dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "L G SAGE" > > Part 48 > > 16. Mahaanipaato > > Conclusion > > This is what is said in the commentary: "He said to me, he ordered > me, 'Come, Bhaddaa! Go to the residence of the bhikkhuniis and in the > presence of the bhikkhuniis go forth and be fully ordained.' Because > the Teacher's order to me was the cause of my full ordination, it > became my full ordination." It is to be understood that the meaning > in the verse in the Apadaana is also explained in the sameway. > > > > Let me simply say "There are no buddhist nuns". There were never any > nuns fully ordained in the same way as there were "come, monk"s. .... S: Yes, the words were said, but it was not an ordination or carrying the same significance as for the monks. .... > Bhaddaa was fully ordained in both orders once the nuns had accepted her > because Buddha himself had already accepted her for the monk side. > That's what I think. The exceptional thing about her full ordination > was the order of the acceptance by both sides. .... S: Er...What do you mean when you say the Buddha had already accepted her for the monk side?? ... > > Evampi bhikkhunivibha"nge ehi bhikkhuniiti ida.m kathanti? > Ehibhikkhunibhaavena bhikkhuniina.m upasampadaaya > asabhaavajotanavacana.m tathaa upasampadaaya bhikkhuniina.m > abhaavato. > > > > Even so, the expression "Come, bhikkhunii" occurs in the > Bhikkhunii-vibha"nga.* How is that? It is not an expression that > makes clear the independent existence of full ordination of > bhikkhuniis by [the formula] "Come, bhikkhunii" because there are no > bhikkhuniis [admitted to] full ordination in this way. .... S: Exactly, so actually the words are of no special significance, surely? ... <..> > C: No one is accepted anymore by going for the three refuges, either, > but it stays in the texts. Whatever is swept away is another lost > relic. .... S: Yes, and all will be swept away until there's just the token robe of the bhikkhu .....no bhikkhu even if there isn't a development of the path and thereby keen observance of the Patimokkha.... Look f/w to more rambles... Metta, Sarah ========== #84588 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 3:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] new member sarahprocter... Dear JUdy, --- Judy Simon wrote: > hello everyone, my name is Judy and this is my first post. Thank you > for the opportunity for community and discussion. I am looking forward > to learning what you are talking about. ... S: Welcome to DSG and thanks for letting us know of your presence. Pls do ask any questions or for any clarifications. If you'd care to tell us a little about your background and interest in the Dhamma, that would help too. Where do you live? Metta, Sarah ============ #84589 From: Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 3:17 am Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (1) jonoabb Hi Alex No, I haven't forgotten this (and the other) post addressed to me and sent to the list just before my recent trip to Australia. Now managing to find a few moments to catch up with my backlog of replies ;-)) > > It is a widely held view that a person who has attained jhana > would, on hearing the teachings, be able to see dhammas as they truly > are. But I think this is a misconception. > >>>> > > If person has fixed wrong view, then it is true that hearing a > Buddha's discourse would probably not change one mind. But if the > person does NOT have obstructions, then a person COULD become a > sotapanna or higher. You say, "If a person has fixed wrong view ...". Well, that is everyone who is not yet a sotapanna. And fixed wrong view can only be attenuated by the development of insight. So it all comes down to the understanding of presently arisen dhammas, rather than to the development of jhana. This is not to question in any way the value of samatha, but to question only the idea that the development of jhana in and of itself makes more likely the arising of insight. > No doubt, there are instances in the suttas of persons skilled in > jhana who did become enlightened on hearing the teachings, but these > do not support this as a general proposition. > >>>> > > Are we following N8P or Noble 7 fold path (or Noble 7.5 fold path) ? I think you are equating developed samatha with the path factor of samma-samadhi. To my understanding, however, samma-samadhi of the NEP is the concentration that accompanies the path moment; it is jhana in a different sense, namely, in that it is equivalent in strength to the samadhi of jhana. > While it is true that for lower levels Samadhi doesn't need to be > perfected, for anagami it DOES have to be perfected. What the texts say on this is that the anagami *is* (not, *has to be*) perfected in concentration. Similarly, the sotapanna is perfected in sila. In either case, it is because the necessary insight has been developed that eradicates a certain level of akusala, meaning that the particular perfection is attained. So it is not a case of the worldling having to develop perfect sila in order to become a sotapanna, or the sotapanna having to develop jhana in order to become an anagami. Snipping the rest of your post here, as there are many more points to come. Will respond on the rest separately. Jon #84590 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 3:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, I understand what you've been saying about 'sight', but would like to add a few comments from my understanding of the Abhidhamma. --- upasaka@... wrote: > Is rupa as experience different from rupa itself? > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I think that is an important question, Larry, that I do not see > explicitly addressed, i.e., without requiring interpretation, in the > Tipitaka. As I > interpret the Bahiya Sutta, and more so, the Kalaka Sutta, the > experienced > rupa and "the rupa itself" are one and the same. The sight seen *is* > the > eye-door rupa, the sole one. .... S: This is a recurring topic, I know. I think that 'sight' for visible object or colour may lead to this conclusion. Yes, it's true that the only visible object (sight) seen is the one experienced through the eye-door by seeing consciousness. However, the Abhidhamma makes it very clear that colour is one of the 8 rupas that arises with every single kalapa of rupas. So take the rupas of a rock which are not experienced now. All the kalapas of rupas which make up that so-called rock rise and fall away all the time and all have colour as an essential ingredient. .... >The terminology of "visible object" makes > the opposite > view easier to hold, but I still find it absurd, for there can be no > sight > independent of eye and seeing - there can be no unseen sight. .... S: Sight suggests what is seen. However, there can be and are an infinitesimal number of kapapas of rupas including colour which are not seen. of course, they are not relevant to the path of direct understanding of what appears now. .... > This, however, does NOT identify what is seen with the seeing of > it. > When visual contact occurs, the visual object-content is the sight - > the > eye-door rupa, and its being seen (it's presence) is the consciousness > of it. The > seeing, the seen, and the eye-door (activation) are distinguishable but > > co-occurring, mutually dependent and inseparable players in a single > mental event: > visual contact. .... S: It's true that without the visible object (the eye-door rupa), the eye-base and the contact, there'd be no seeing consciousness. However, the visible object arises before the consciousness and contact and of course lasts for up to 17 moments of consciousness. It depends on past kamma (primarily) and other conditions as to which visible object is seen at any moment and whether the experience of a visible object occurs at a stage of the visible object when it can 'run its course', so to speak. You can find all these details in the 'Guide to Conditional Relations' by U Narada, under 'pre-nascence condition' and so on. I think it's an important topic to discuss and consider further. Metta, Sarah ========= #84591 From: Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 3:26 am Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (2) jonoabb Hi Alex (2) > > The panna that is developed with samatha is not the panna that > needs to > > be developed as insight knowledge. > > >>> > And as I think you agree, insight knowledge can be developed without > jhana first being attained. > >>>> > > When you say insight knowledge, exactly which knowledge do you refer > to? > > Anicca -> dukkha -> anatta in basic forms was basically known to > many other religions. Furthermore Buddha has practiced scrupulous > mindfulness which DID NOT WORK. Only when he remember that "Jhana IS > the path to enlightment" only then he made progress. Besides in too > many suttas there is mention that Jhana mastery (or at least > attainment) is required. In todays Kali Yuga, they are even MORE > important than before, when people were less egotistical and had less > sensuality. Here you make a number of assertions that I think are not found stated in the suttas, namely: - Anicca -> dukkha -> anatta in basic forms was basically known to many other religions - Buddha has practiced scrupulous mindfulness which DID NOT WORK - in many suttas there is mention that Jhana mastery (or at least attainment) is required - in this age jhana is even MORE important than at the time of the Buddha, when people were less egotistical and had less sensuality. If you have sutta passages to support any of the above assertions, I'd be interested to see them. Jon #84592 From: Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 3:37 am Subject: Re: Jhana requires panna! (3) jonoabb Hi Alex (3) > > Yes, all 8 jhanas are mundane, but the samma-samadhi that > accompanies the path-moment is also referred to in the texts as jhana > and is of course supra-mundane. > >>>> > > So were the 9 Jhanas that Buddha (and Sariputta) attained, just path > moments? I'm not sure if I've understood the question, but to my understanding only the magga and phala cittas are path-moments ¡V just 2 moments for each of the 4 stages of enlightenment. Moments of jhana consciousness cannot be supramundane path moments. > > But you've already agreed that jhana can be developed by a person > who has not heard the teaching of a Buddha. > >>>> > > True and that is why it may not lead to ariyahood. But a person who > doesn't have kammic obstruction and HAVE heard Buddha's teaching CAN > get awakened. I agree with the general idea that only the person who has heard the teachings may attain enlightenment. And it is precisely the teaching on the development of insight (rather than the development of jhana) that needs to be heard. > Seeing things as they are has a proximate cause of samadhi (Upanisa > sutta). > > What I have meant to say was that in order to meditate and try to let > go off the world is often due to a certain grain of wisdom > that "there is something higher than sensuality." Most people > aren't interested in Meditation, much less in leting go. Attachment can only be eradicated (as opposed to being temporarily suppressed) by developed panna. > Hindrances are seen with Sati, which is also translated as memory. > Past hindrances can be analyzed, but it is EXTREMELY hard to be > mindful of a hindrance as it is occuring because by definition, > hindrance hinder. Furthermore in the begining of satipatthana, there > is a pali phrase ("having overcome, in this world, covetousness and > grief" = Vineyya loke abhijjhadomanassam) . > , that may suggest that at least SOME hindrances must be let go off, > which is usually a result of previous Jhana attainment. The phrase from the Satipatthana Sutta "having overcome, in this world, covetousness and grief" (vineyya loke abhijjhadomanassam) is in the section on anapanasati, and does not apply generally to the other sections of the sutta. This is because the development of insight leading to enlightenment based on anapanasati, as described in that section, is available only to one who is already highly developed in both insight and anapanasati. > Also in plenty of suttas there is a passage that one needs to > overcome 5 hindrances for full Awakening, so that supports that 5 > hindrances ARE obstacles - especially if they are strong ones. All instances of akusala are obstacles, but the overcoming of the obstacle occurs by the (further) development of insight that knows dhammas, including the hindrances, as they truly are. Unless the hindrances themselves are the object of insight, they will continue to be taken for self, etc. The temporary suppression of the hindrances by jhana does not in itself conduce to the arising of insight. And certainly there is no suggestion in the texts that the development of insight should await the development of samatha. Jon #84593 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 3:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Direct knowledge and Inference are Mutually Supportive sarahprocter... Dear Scott & TG, --- Scott Duncan wrote: > TG: "#1 The Buddha does not call it 'presence.' The Buddha calls > it 'changing while persisting...Do you consider this a flaw in > Abhidhamma's presentation?" > > Scott: No, Abhidhamma, as has been oft stated, refers to arising, > presence, and ceasing as the 'moments' of a dhamma. Please show me > where 'changing while persisting' is stated in the suttas. .... S: This is a translation of the Pali phrase "thitassa a~n~athattam" I believe as in: "Tín'imaani bhikkhave sankhatassa sankhatalakkhanaani. Katamaani tiini. Uppaado pa~n~naayati, vayo pa~n~naayati, thitassa a~n~nathattam pa~n~naayati. Imaani kho bhikkhave tiini sankhatassa sankhatalakkhanaanii ti. Anguttara 3s,v,7 "There are, monks, these three determined-characteristics of conditioned phenomena. Which are the three? Arising (appearance) is manifest; disappearance is manifest; change while standing is manifest. These, monks, are the three determined-characteristics of conditioned phenomena." S: It is changing even whilst exisiting/persisting or 'standing'. Nina wrote the following before: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/42826 >N: PTS transl: Gradual Sayings, Book of the Threes (III, 5, §47) Conditioned(sankhata): < Monks, there are three condition-marks of that which is conditioned. What three? Its genesis (upada) is apparent, its passing away (vaya) is apparent, its changeability while it persists (jaraa) is apparent....> The Co. elaborates that of what is conditioned (sankhata), upada (genesis) appears when it arises, jaraa (decay) appears when it persists and vaya when it falls away. N: Co. adds: changeability. . Thus here we see the three submoments of citta.< ***** Metta, Sarah ========== #84594 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 3:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- upasaka@... wrote: In the Kalaka Sutta the Buddha taught "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, > when > seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. ... S: In other words, he understands that just the visible object or 'seen' is seen, nothing else. .... >He > doesn't > construe an unseen. .... S: There is no idea of any thing, any atta as being seen, such as a computer or person or tree. ... >He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He > doesn't > construe a seer." ... S: Only the seen, the visible object (ruupa) and the seeing consciousness. ... > P. S. What sense does an unseen sight make to you? It makes none to me. .... S: It makes a lot of sense to me that rupas are arising and falling away all the time and it's just a matter of conditions which one will appear at anytime. Regardless of whether you touch the hardness of what we call the computer, the rupas of hardness are arising and falling away. It's the same with the colour and the other 'ingredients'. Remember that colour is one of the 8 essential rupas in every kalapa. Metta, Sarah ======= #84595 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 5:21 am Subject: Re: Conditions, Ch17, no3. ...Some Comments... scottduncan2 Dear Sarah (and Tep), Sorry for the delay; thanks for the reply and the references: S: "The nama or rupa quality of realities is there to be known regardless of any designated name. When there is awareness of feeling, it doesn't matter at all what it is called or what language is used, but its characteristic can be known. For those with insight or understanding of nirutti patisambhida, when a word such as `vedanaa' is heard, immediately there is understanding of its meaning, of its quality as a nama, distinct from a rupa. This is why some like Sariputta could hear a few words and immediately penetrate the `essence' of the language." Scott: I tend to agree that awareness of feeling is directed at characteristic and not label. Some interesting clarifications I've since found in Sammohavinodanii: "1946. ...Thus this Discrimination of Language comes to have sound (words) as its object, not a concept as its object." "1947. Why? Because on hearing sound, one knows that this is the natural language, this is not the natural language..." "1977. ...Likewise the Discrimination of Language arises by making sound its object at the time of reviewing language..." "1981. ...since the Discrimination of Language makes only sound its object it has a limited object..." "1985. The Discrimination of Language, since it makes only present sound its object, has a present object..." "1986. The Discrimination of Language, because of having sound as its object, has an external object..." Scott: In 1946 above, I'm not sure whether the parenthetical '(words)' is in the original text or was an opinion added by the translator. There is a difference between 'sounds' and 'words', as I see it. Since there are sounds and not concepts as object, I'd say 'words' would be 'sound of word'. I don't know. It would seem that Paa.li terms have a significance that might be very difficult to render in another language. The above seems to suggest that this significance can be known with the arising of the Discrimination of Language. For some, just the sound of, say, the word Dhamma might lead to certain experiences - might be condition for the arising of moments of joy or calm - that not all would have. I'm not sure what this would 'be' exactly, if anything... Sincerely, Scott. #84596 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 5:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau Hi Dan, Sorry for the delay. I am in Bangkok for Nina's birthday celebrations. The hospitality here has been so wonderful that I haven't had time to read DSG, but Sukin told me about your message, and so here I am - ready to face the music. :-) -------- <. . .> D: > <. . .> you write, "They [including Dan] will accept that nama is the > experience (or he experiencing) of an object, but they will not > accept that nama 'experiences' an object." Ken, you cut me to the > quick! This is miles from what I said, meant, or believe. -------- Consider me duly chastised. I remember very well that you wrote excellent explanations of the no-control perspective, and they helped me (right from my early days at DSG) to get the hang of it. ------------------ D: > I do > remember discussing three common ways of conceptualizing citta > (#54662), viz. as agent ("that which cognizes an object [arammanam > cinteti ti cittam]"), as instrument ("that by means of which the > accompanying mental factors cognize the object [etena cintenti ti > cittam]"), and as an activity "citta is itself nothing other than the > process of cognizing the object [cintanamattam cittam]". After misconstruing what I wrote, you went on to some magical > mind-reading and imagined a [false] motive for me to say what I > didn't say. > <. . .> Second: "In real life, these are people who (IMHO) want to leave the > door open just a little. Dan wanted to leave the door open to the > possibility that other teachers and gods had found Nibbana (albeit by > another name)..." Ken, I was very clear in stating that I did not > (and do not) think there are other teachers or gods who have found > Nibbana. I want to leave that door firmly closed. I do think that > there is much wisdom to be found outside the dispensation but none > reaches even close to the depth required for perception of nibbana. > However, I do think that some practitioners in other traditions --------- A thousand apologies. I don't know how I got it so wrong. -------------------- D: > > However, I do think that some practitioners in other traditions > develop deeper insight and understanding of Dhamma than many who > study and discuss cittas and rupas and anatta for years and years and > sit in a corner with eyes closed and legs crossed for decades > (#46842). They attain that wisdom without having heard a whisper of > Buddha's teachings. Granted, their models of reality cannot take them > all the way to Nibbana, but that does not mean they have nothing to > offer. You don't need a PhD in mathematics to teach multiplication to > a third grader. --------------------- I'm not so sure about that, Dan. They might teach dana, sila and samatha, but they don't have the panna that knows paramattha dhammas. As you know, the doctrine of dependent origination lumps ordinary kusala in with akusala. Just as if there were no difference between them! That's because, without the panna of the NEP, they all lead to continued existence in samsara. Comparing the Buddha's teaching to ordinary dana, sila and samatha is like comparing cheese with chalk. So maybe that's what led my poor old memory to misconstrue your position so badly. What are your thoughts on that? Ken H > > Third: Those teachers "taught different paths to [Nibbana]." This is > complete misconstruing of what I have discussed at length. There is > only one path to Nibbana, and it is a four-fold Noble one. Only the > Buddha saw that path clearly enough to follow it all the way to > Nibbana, and only his teachings describe it clearly enough to guide > disciples all the way to Nibbana. But the Path is a reality, and not > just words. We must take great care to distinguish clearly between > the path itself and the words we use to describe the path. Outside > the dispensation, people get fuzzy glimpses of the reality of the > path, and then they describe what they see. The words are quite > different from those that the Buddha used but they do describe a real > vision of the real path. The vision is blurred, the description > insufficient, and the guidance is limited, but a brief and fuzzy but > true glimpse of reality is more valuable than memorizing the whole > sutta pitaka with no understanding. > > -Dan > #84597 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Q. Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 4/4/2008 6:22:57 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard & all, I understand what you've been saying about 'sight', but would like to add a few comments from my understanding of the Abhidhamma. --- upasaka@... wrote: > Is rupa as experience different from rupa itself? > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I think that is an important question, Larry, that I do not see > explicitly addressed, i.e., without requiring interpretation, in the > Tipitaka. As I > interpret the Bahiya Sutta, and more so, the Kalaka Sutta, the > experienced > rupa and "the rupa itself" are one and the same. The sight seen *is* > the > eye-door rupa, the sole one. .... S: This is a recurring topic, I know. I think that 'sight' for visible object or colour may lead to this conclusion. Yes, it's true that the only visible object (sight) seen is the one experienced through the eye-door by seeing consciousness. However, the Abhidhamma makes it very clear that colour is one of the 8 rupas that arises with every single kalapa of rupas. So take the rupas of a rock which are not experienced now. All the kalapas of rupas which make up that so-called rock rise and fall away all the time and all have colour as an essential ingredient. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: When we open our eyes and look, say at a field in which there is grass, and trees, and a rock, and the sky above, and birds in the trees, and we are attending in particular to the rock, we are not seeing the "rupas which make up the rock" - we are seeing *the entire scene*. It is that entire scene that is the eye-door rupa of the moment that is our object of consciousness. What we see, the visual content of consciousness, is the eye-door rupa we observe, and it does not exist other than in its being seen, and it is not a property of a rock. I any case, eye-door rupas are sights, with each being an object-content of consciousness and dependent on consciousness. When there is no seeing, there is no sight. There is no visible object (or sight) that is unseen. Unseen sights residing in some rupa repository are figments of the imagination. --------------------------------------------------- .... >The terminology of "visible object" makes > the opposite > view easier to hold, but I still find it absurd, for there can be no > sight > independent of eye and seeing - there can be no unseen sight. .... S: Sight suggests what is seen. However, there can be and are an infinitesimal number of kapapas of rupas including colour which are not seen. of course, they are not relevant to the path of direct understanding of what appears now. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't believe that there are unseen sights - I think that idea is incoherent nonsense. -------------------------------------------------------- .... > This, however, does NOT identify what is seen with the seeing of > it. > When visual contact occurs, the visual object-content is the sight - > the > eye-door rupa, and its being seen (it's presence) is the consciousness > of it. The > seeing, the seen, and the eye-door (activation) are distinguishable but > > co-occurring, mutually dependent and inseparable players in a single > mental event: > visual contact. .... S: It's true that without the visible object (the eye-door rupa), the eye-base and the contact, there'd be no seeing consciousness. However, the visible object arises before the consciousness and contact and of course lasts for up to 17 moments of consciousness. It depends on past kamma (primarily) and other conditions as to which visible object is seen at any moment and whether the experience of a visible object occurs at a stage of the visible object when it can 'run its course', so to speak. You can find all these details in the 'Guide to Conditional Relations' by U Narada, under 'pre-nascence condition' and so on. I think it's an important topic to discuss and consider further. Metta, Sarah ===================================== With metta, Howard #84598 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 5:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: 16th & 18th Feb Bangkok: sharing some thoughts sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- Alex wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott > wrote: > > What about the development of wisdom or the path factors, is this > done by> 5 khandhas? Are you sure rupas develop anything for a start? > > .... > >A: No. Rupas do not develop anything. Nama does (using or not rupa) > develop 37 factors of Awakening. ... S: OK. I'd say specific namas starting with samma-ditthi. .... > > As I understand it: sanna/vedana/vinnana are passive "knowing", ... S: What does this mean? Are the sanna and vedana accompanying a citta (vinnana) with anger passive? What about those accompanying lobha?. What about those accompanying the development of wisdom or the path factors? .... >rupa > is known, And sankhara khanda is what actually "wills" (but this > willing is conditioned of course and isn't a self). ... S: OK, not bad! What exactly do you understand sankhara khandha to refer to? Do all the cetasikas 'will'? .... > You are free to disagree. ... S: Likewise! Metta, Sarah ========== #84599 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Apr 4, 2008 6:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why is "there are no beings" part of wrong view? sarahprocter... Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > > S: If we just discuss and understand more about namas and rupas, > then it > > doesn't matter what they're called or not called. We can refer to > people > > with or without wrong view. Only right understanding can tell! > > James: Okay, then I don't know where is the argument. If you say > that namas and rupas exist then you have to say that people exist. .... S: Really? Why? .... > > S: If it's clear that when we refer to people we are really > referring to > > namas and rupas, then there's no difference, as you say. However, > if we > > have the idea that Sarah or James is reborn, as opposed to cittas > and > > cetasikas, then it's wrong. Just like now - only ever a succession > of > > cittas, not a succession of Sarahs or Jameses! > > James: Whoever said otherwise?? .... S: OK, so can we agree that now there are only a succession of cittas which we refer to as S. or J.? .... > James: My parents are sensed throught the five senses and cognized > through the mind. I don't know what else you may mean. .... S: And what exactly is sensed through each of those senses? And what exactly is cognized through the mind? ..... > > S: A good point and a good question. He taught that no self, no > atta is to > > be found anywhere. There are just 5 khandhas, that's all. The rest > are > > concepts, inc. any ideas about mother, father or ordinary > worldling. > > James: No, this is not an answer. He did not equate himself with > ordinary worldlings. People can be identified with nama and rupa > and they can be traced from lifetime to lifetime, but the Buddha > cannot. What he said about himself doesn't apply to others. ... S: What we refer to as the Buddha was also only namas and rupas. However, the particular namas, such as the great wisdom and other qualities, were very different from the namas of worldlings, of course. Metta, Sarah ==============