#87400 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. egberdina Hi Tep, 2008/6/23 Tep : > > Dear Herman and Jon, - > > Herman, you gave the following remark. It is fair and reasonable. > > T: IMO You are lucky to talk to Jon. If you had asked other members, > you might find it very difficult to get them to agree with you on > pa~n~naa, or anything, even when it is directly from the suttas. I > know it very well myself as I had several lengthy discussions with > them before. > > Let me repectfully propose to you both that the discussion be based > on the Buddha's original definition of pa~n~naa, not on commentaries > or words that deviate from the Buddha's. Of course, you have the > right to do whatever you want. ;-) > > In Pa~n~naa Sutta, AN 8.2, pa~n~naa(discernment) that is basic to the > Holy Life (direct knowledge is a part of the Holy Life too) is > supported by eight requisite conditions defined by the Buddha. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.002.than.html > Thank you for your kind words, and the reference to Pa~n~naa Sutta. I really do wonder how anyone could think that a commentary is needed to make this Sutta clearer. Cheers Herman #87401 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 7:40 pm Subject: Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching philofillet Hi Connie Gaargh! Posted something long and lost it. Well, nevermind. THanks. I do want to keep in touch with Abhidhamma, as you posted below. And yes, defnitely, the dry grass is in our heads, of course. It is not the sparks that are dangerous in and of themselves, it is our minds desire to burn...as the wonderfully controversial TB once said. I asked my question about whether you were downplaying or dismissing the similes found in suttas because Ken H has made comments about "homilies" and I thought you were up to the same thing with your reference to folkore. The similies found in suttas are of course not folklore. OK, over and out. Looking forward to your Sundries series. Metta, Phil --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Dear Phil, > > I see you've already reposted about the fire simile you had in mind and stated that nothing more need be said about it. Nevertheless, your earlier mention of it reminded me that the real thickets, flames and straw / dry grass are not anywhere 'out there' but carried on / in our heads. > #87402 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:00 pm Subject: Re: Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? kenhowardau Hi Alex, I had intended not to respond to your post. I thought you and I had made our positions clear enough. However, I now feel compelled to assure you that James's allegations are entirely unfounded. I have no ill feelings towards you - just as I have no ill feelings towards Ven Thanissaro. As far as I am concerned the differences between us are of opinion only. I might add here that the purpose behind my post to Howard was to express surprise that he should be so impressed by what you had written. I thought that all your points of contention had already been dealt with very thoroughly, many times, on DSG. My joke about "don't read this before your operation, it will only depress you" was with regard to a long standing relationship between Howard and myself in which we constantly ruffle each other's feathers. Nothing sinister! :-) ------- <. . .> Alex: > Perception of Anatta IS to be developed and realized through DIRECT perception if it is to be of any use. ------- OK, I won't argue this time. ------------- <. . .> KH: > > They both believe nibbana to be the destination of our eternal souls. >>> A: > No. -------------- I am glad to hear that, but it does contradict something I thought you said very recently. Do you agree that parinibbana is the final cessation of all the khandhas - including consciousness? I'll leave the rest of our Dhamma-disagreements for now. Unless there is something you think especially needs further discussion. Ken H #87403 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:08 pm Subject: Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching philofillet Hi again Since Ken is himself being very good about expressing care with things he has said, I should do the same. > I asked my question about whether you were downplaying or > dismissing the similes found in suttas because Ken H has made > comments about "homilies" Maybe he didn't say "homilies" but I think he did. And I think he used the word "homespun" or something like that. And he wasn't referring to a specific sutta or simile, but was just, in general, dismissing the Buddha's conventional teaching is not all about "presently arisen realities." Good in the beginning, good in the middle, good in the end! Metta, Phil #87404 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:13 pm Subject: Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching philofillet Hi again > but was just, in general, > dismissing the Buddha's conventional teaching is not all > about "presently arisen realities." should be "which is not all about presently arisen realities." And man oh man, is it ever *not* all about presently arisen realities. Today I was reading a sutta in AN telling people about how they should use their hard-earned wealth! It was like a financial consultant's talk! Lots of practical advice from the Buddha about how to live in the world, conventionally. And of course living in a wholesome way, conventionally, helps give rise to conditions to see better into the paramattha. THe A.S insistence that every word in the tipitaka is about presently arisen realities is incorrect, clearly. One day one of her students will come out and admit that! Metta, Phil #87405 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:20 pm Subject: Re: Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? truth_aerator Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > I am glad to hear that, but it does contradict something I thought > you said very recently. Do you agree that parinibbana is the final > cessation of all the khandhas - including consciousness? > > I'll leave the rest of our Dhamma-disagreements for now. Unless > there is something you think especially needs further discussion. > > Ken H > Its Nirodha of 5 aggregates and 6 sense consciousnesses. Best wishes, Alex #87406 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 4:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 6/23/2008 7:08:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, Best of luck with your knee operation. ---------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks, Ken! :-) ------------------------------------------ Quite seriously, I suggest you don't read the following post from me until you have recovered from the op. It will only depress you. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Ah, well - I'll take a chance. ;-) --------------------------------------------- Bookmark here: or maybe just delete now. :-) ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Oh, geez - now I'm really getting nervous! ;-) ------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------- <. . .> H: > I'll just say that I do very much like this post of yours, Alex. :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- KH: I wonder why you liked it. There was nothing in it that appealed to me in the least. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Hmm, I guess that shows that our perspectives aren't the same. :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------- As far as I can tell Alex is not interested in the same Dhamma that I am interested in. --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Or that he has a different take on the same Dhamma? --------------------------------------------------------- He is of the Thanissaro persuasion except he actually goes a step further. ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Oh, my! The dreaded name, 'Thanissaro', scourge of all true Theravadins! LOL! --------------------------------------------------------- They both say the Buddha did not intend us to take anatta literally, but whereas Thanissaro says the Buddha taught anatta as a strategy (to stop us thinking when we should be meditating) Alex says the Buddha taught anatta as a joke.* ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that Ven T's "anatta strategy" business is bull, but I haven't detected such in Alex. ---------------------------------------------------------- They both believe nibbana to be the destination of our eternal souls. And good luck to them! But how could anyone even begin to discuss the true Dhamma with people who are thinking in such a way? ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Man, I must know a different Alex! Where did you get this from, Ken? ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------- <. . .> KH: > > > In other words, the Eigthfold Path can (and should) be understood entirely in terms of fleeting paramattha dhammas. >>> Alex: > > a) Sutta quotes please. ------------- KH: Howard, why do you like that response from Alex so much? Hasn't this been the subject of countless DSG discussions? Haven't people written copiously on this subject to show that references to the Path (magga-citta), when read in the light of the Tipitaka as a whole, refer to fleeting paramattha dhammas? --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, I'm afraid that you think you KNOW rather than believe. You are clinging to belief. You seem to think that your understanding of the Dhamma IS the Dhamma. I think that this is ego. -------------------------------------------------------- I'm not asking anyone to agree with those explanations but is it fair to ask for sutta quotes, and then to be given them in great detail, only to ask again shortly afterwards (as if nothing had happened), "Sutta quotes please?" -------------------- Alex: > > b) Do you have DIRECT VISION AND KNOWLEDGE thus: "the N8P can and should be understood entirely in terms of fleeting paramattha dhammas" ? --------------------- KH: Again: why do you like this so much? As I understand it, Alex is saying "If you know so much then you must be an arahant: congratulations, I am very happy for you!" ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I find that Alex is taking exception to the confusing of believing with knowing and also to according no reality at all to aggregations. ----------------------------------------------------------- I hope I am not misrepresenting Alex: I may be confusing him with Elaine who used to say the same thing. As far as I can see, his question is just supercilious sarcasm and not worthy of any reply at all. ----------------------------- <. . .> Alex: > > In which suttas did the Buddha talk about "pamattha" explanations to be better than "conventional" one. ------------------------------- Can you answer that question Howard? Isn't it the whole point of the Dhamma - that it teaches us worldlings a way of seeing the world that was previously unknown to us: a way knowable only to those with little dust in their eyes (etc)? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, my way of understanding the Dhamma is neither that of Alex's nor of yours. I've presented my understanding for years at this point, so I won't go into my take on ultimacy any futher. ----------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Alex: > > Regarding ditthi, views. Why isn't a view of "72 Dhammas & 24 Conditioned relations" a view? -------------------------------------------- Sheesh! Howard, why are you so delighted by these questions? Hasn't Alex been patiently informed on many, many occasions on DSG that right (correct) views are *not* an obstacle to the Path? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, views are views. We all have the Buddha's teaching as our basis, but we don't all interpret it in exactly the same way. I think we ought to be very relaxed of hand in holding onto our views, and pay more attention to what we find actually arising in the moment. I think that, with the Buddha's guidance, we would do best to let reality speak for itself, rather than have our views speak for reality. (Of course, I could be wrong! ;-) --------------------------------------------------- --------------------- Alex: > > In Bahiya and other similiar suttas we hear this anti- metaphysical/speculative statement --------------------- In the true Thanissaro tradition, Alex interprets suttas such as this one to be saying that nothing really exists (that there are ultimately no conditioned dhammas). ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Emptiness of dhammas is a matter not of nonexistence but of contingent existence. I don't think Alex is nihilist, and I certainly don't think Ven Thanissaro is. If anything, I think he tends towards the opposite, erroneous extreme. ----------------------------------------------------- I think you have as similar pet theory, Howard. You have said that, upon enlightenment, we will realise samsara was actually nibbana all along. In other words (to use my words), the teaching of conditioned dhammas was just a strategy to get us through a difficult period. ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I never deny the existence of dhammas, fleeting and contingent though that existence may be. But I emphasize the interdependence of dhammas, their non-separateness. I think that there is but one reality, not two. I think that with the removal of our blinders, the removal of our ignorance, that one reality will no longer be seen as samsara, the appearance realm of separate things, but as nibbana, a vibrant, multifaceted but seamless, pristine, unconditioned perfection. (BTW, I don't talk strategies. I prefer to speak of "truth." I just don't claim to KNOW the truth - not yet, anyway.) ---------------------------------------------------------- I couldn't agree less! (But then you know that.) :-) Ken H PS: *I hope I got that right (about anatta being meant as a joke). When I read the paragraph involved I more or less switched off and skimmed to the end of the post. But I saw Sarah refer to it later and, from what she wrote, I think my first impression was correct. -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I seem to have missed what you are talking about. Could you please clarify? ----------------------------------------------------------- But if I have got it all wrong I will be only too happy to apologise. =============================== With metta, Howard #87407 From: "Tep" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:48 pm Subject: Re: Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? dhammanusarin Dear Alex and all, - In my long years of the Suttanta-pitaka study I only came across the prefix 'abhi' (higher) in the terms such as abhi~n~naa (six higher powers) and abhisankhaara (kamma formation). But I have not seen 'abhidhamma' even once in the suttas. Someone else might have seen it, I do not know. >Alex: Considering the fact that many other Buddhist traditions had different abhidhammas, with different Dhammas, different enumerations of various relations and so on, this casts the subjectivist shadow on these enterprises. >I have suspicion that if the views are based on inference, on adding onto the experiences, then any Abh or speculative metaphysics is on the same footing -> inference. ................. With regard to the three higher trainings(sikkhaa), they are higher virtue(adhisiila), higher cognizance(adhicitta) and higher understanding(adhipa~n~naa). But there is no 'abhidhamma' in the higher trainings. Or, is 'abhidhamma' equivalent to adhisiila + adhicitta + adhipa~n~naa ? The term 'paramattha' is rendered as 'ultimate meaning' in the Patism; however, no 'paramattha dhamma' or 'ultimate realities' can be found in this book. Thus it is questionable why the Chief Disciple Sariputta, who received the first-hand lecture of the so-called Abhidhamma from the Buddha, did not even mention it in the Patisambhidamagga, which is his most important discourse. The ultimate meaning is explained in Patism XX, 26 as follows. What is voidness in the ultimate meaning of all kinds of voidness, which is the terminating of occurrence in [the Arahant], who is fully aware? Here [in what remains of this same life] through renunciation one who is fully aware terminates the occurrence of zeal for sensual desires; through non-ill-will he terminates the occurrence of ill- will; through perception of light ... [and so on] ... through the arahant path he terminates all defilements. Or else, through the nibbana principle (nibbana dhatu) without [result of past] clinging left, in one who is fully aware this occurrence of eye ends and no further occurrence of eye arises; this occurrence of ear ... of nose ... of tongue ... of body .... this occurrence of mind ends and no further occurrence of mind arises. This is voidness in the ultimate meaning of all kinds of voidness, which is the terminating of occurrence in [the Arahant], who is fully aware. [Treatise on voidness] [Endquote] Tep === #87408 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Brief Thoughts on Translating 'Vi~n~nanam Anidassana' upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 6/23/2008 10:32:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/6/23 : > Hi, all - > > There are various renderings of 'anidassana' in 'vi~n~nanam anidassana', > including "unmanifestive," "featureless," "signless, and "boundless." > The word 'nidassana' suggests a delimiting, pointing out, or > delineating. Accordingly, the way I like to think of 'anidassana' is as meaning > "non-delimiting" or "seamless," so that instead of translating 'vi~n~nanam > anidassana' by 'boundless consciousness', I would sooner choose 'seamless > consciousness', though I would actually prefer 'presence' to 'consciousness' there, > because I identify the phrase with nibbana, and I consider the seamlessness to > put it beyond both subject and object, as no more a knowing than a known, and > utterly beyond ordinary, sense-media consciousness. Thus, my preferred > translation of the phrase 'vi~n~nanam anidassana' is 'seamless presence'. I'd like to wish you well with the impending surgery, and a speedy recovery. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks! :-) ----------------------------------------------------- With regard to vi~n~nanam anidassana, could I ask you to post one or two references to where the term is used in the texts. I looked only briefly under jhanas and couldn't find anything there. Thanks in advance ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, here are two cases, Herman: From DN 11, there is the following: "'Your question should not be phrased in this way: Where do these four great elements — the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property — cease without remainder? Instead, it should be phrased like this: Where do water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing? Where are long & short, coarse & fine, fair & foul, name & form brought to an end? "'And the answer to that is: Consciousness without feature,without end, luminous all around: Here water, earth, fire, & wind have no footing. Here long & short coarse & fine fair & foul name & form are all brought to an end. With the cessation of [the activity of] consciousness each is here brought to an end.'" From MN 49, there is the following (with the Buddha speaking in the 1st & 3rd paragraphs): "'Having directly known the all as the all, and having directly known the extent of what has not been experiencedthrough the allness of the all, I wasn't the all, I wasn't in the all, I wasn't coming forth from the all, I wasn't "The all is mine." I didn't affirm the all. Thus I am not your mere equal in terms of direct knowing, so how could I be inferior? I am actually superior to you.' "'If, good sir, you have directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the allness of the all, may it not turn out to be actually vain and void for you.' "'Consciousness without surface, endless, radiant all around, has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all.'------------------------------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman ============================== With metta, Howard #87409 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi James, > > --------- > <. . .> > J: > > > And your attacks of Alex are unjustified as well. All you do is > > lump him with Thanissaro and then proclaim them, and all of their > > kind, to be evil and destroying the Dhamma. Well, do you have any > > specifics? How could anyone respond to such vehement innuendo? > > This is what what I would refer to as wrong speech, > --------- > > I assume you are referring to my post #87388. The subject heading is > the same, but I can't see any similarities between what you are > accusing me of and what I actually wrote. Okay, since you can't see what I am talking about I will spell it out for you. Here are the offending comments: There was nothing in it that appealed to me in the least. He is of the Thanissaro persuasion except he actually goes a step further. And good luck to them! As far as I can see, his question is just supercilious sarcasm and not worthy of any reply at all. Sheesh! Howard, why are you so delighted by these questions? In the true Thanissaro tradition, Alex interprets suttas such as this James: Ken, your deep hatred of Thanissaro is obvious in many posts, including this one. If you can't admit that, then you need to practice more of the introspection that the Buddha taught. Here, you extend that hatred over to Alex as you lump them together as that "Thanissaro persuasion". Sorry, that is wrong speech. If you can't see it, that's something you should work on. Metta, James #87410 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:14 pm Subject: Another farewell (haha) philofillet Hi all You've heard endlessly about my fighting my addiction to the internet, which I feel sucks a lot of energy out of my life. I feel so listless today that I have sent an e-mail to my brother begging out of the fantasy basbeall league we are in together, and will do so here today at DSG. It really is time for me to get off the internet once and for all. So I am signing off here, yet again. (You know what that means...see you in about 3 weeks.) But you never know...one of these days, months, years it might stick. I used to do so much more writing and studying before I got online. I'm sure it doesn't effect everyone in this way, but it does me. If only I could just stick to Dhamma discussion, but for now at least that isn't the case, and I getted sucked into baseball, and news, and Youtube and porn and on and on... So off I go...wishing you well. I'll still have to be on e-mail, of course, so if anyone is ever coming to Japan, please drop me a line! Metta, Phil #87411 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 9:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - revised and corrected edition egberdina Hi KenH (and Howard), 2008/6/23 : > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 6/23/2008 6:01:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > ------------ > > They preclude it at the intellectual level, don't they? When we > understand intellectually that there are only namas and rupas (all of > them anicca, dukkha and anatta) we also understand intellectually > that any form of craving, conceit or self view would be absurdly out > of place. What Howard says below cannot be stressed enough. Craving is not a reasonable proposition. Sensuous craving is not a reasonable thing to do. Craving for being is not reasonable. Understanding that doesn't change a thing though, does it? But I'd like to suggest to you that it is not possible to "intellectually understand" that namas and rupas are anicca and/or anatta. You realise it or you don't. And for anyone who doesn't realise it, but believes they have or are getting an "intellectual understanding" of it, they can have no idea of how wrong they have been, until they realise it. And there is a way to realise it, and it doesn't depend on the absurd belief that it is possible to have an "intellectual understanding" of what isn't understood. Happily, the Noble 8 Fold Path has been well taught for anyone who realises the Truth of dukkha, which is hopefully what brings us to dsg, and not intellectual curiousity (read craving) :-) > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > There is no desiring at the "intellectual level" no matter what. There > may be evaluation of whether desire makes sense or not, and that may slightly > impact the degree of desire, but, for the most part, desire by its very > nature is emotional. But yes, we may certainly, by adoption of proper view, be > aware that certain desire is inappropriate and harmful and painful, and that > will serve as motivation. > ----------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman #87412 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 10:11 pm Subject: Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching kenhowardau Hi all, I've just gone to all the trouble of writing a message to Phil, only to find that he has nicked off again. Rather than waste it I am going to send it anyway. Someone else might find it relevant: Hi Phil (and Connie), Ph: > I asked my question about whether you were downplaying or > dismissing the similes found in suttas because Ken H has made > comments about "homilies" Maybe he didn't say "homilies" but I think he did. And I think he used the word "homespun" or something like that. -------------- I've just Googled homilies; it's a good word and I wish I had used it. :-) As for homespun, I may have used that word in a post to James some time ago. I said something like "You want to believe the Buddha taught ordinary, homespun commonsense." --------------------------- Ph: > And he wasn't referring to a specific sutta or simile, but was just, in general, dismissing the Buddha's conventional teaching is not all about "presently arisen realities." --------------------------- There's a typo in there somewhere. But, I was not dismissing any part of the Buddha's teaching. I would never knowingly do that. My point has always been that the Buddha's teaching was *not* conventional. The Dhamma must always be seen as relating to the presently arisen realities. Ken H PS: Sometimes it's a bit of a stretch, but I think every single thing in the Tipitaka ultimately teaches us about the presently arisen paramattha dhammas (satipatthana). KH PPS: Phil, if you can think of something in the Tipitaka that can't possibly be interpreted as "present moment related" just ask me. I will refer it straight on to Connie or some other DSG dinosaur. :-) #87413 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching nilovg Dear Ken, Op 24-jun-2008, om 7:11 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > PS: Sometimes it's a bit of a stretch, but I think every single thing > in the Tipitaka ultimately teaches us about the presently arisen > paramattha dhammas (satipatthana). > KH -------- N:HEAR, HEAR. Nina. #87414 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:07 pm Subject: Re: response to hate mail etc - revised and corrected edition kenhowardau Hi Herman (and Howard), ---------- KH: > > > > They preclude it at the intellectual level, don't they? When we > understand intellectually that there are only namas and rupas (all of > them anicca, dukkha and anatta) we also understand intellectually > that any form of craving, conceit or self view would be absurdly out > of place. Herman: > What Howard says below cannot be stressed enough. ---------- KH: OK, but before we look at that, what do you think about what I said [above]? When we accept one proposition in theory we often automatically accept related propositions in theory also, don't we? That's all I was saying. If we accept (in theory) that there are only dhammas then we will also accept (in theory) that there is no logical reason for craving, conceit or self view. ---------------------- Herman: > Craving is not a reasonable proposition. Sensuous craving is not a reasonable thing to do. Craving for being is not reasonable. ---------------------- Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the universe was different from the way the Buddha described it. Suppose there did exist an eternal (or lasting) soul. Wouldn't craving for happiness (etc) be reasonable then? Wouldn't identification with certain things be reasonable? It would be perfectly reasonable to regard the eternal soul as the eternal soul. ----------------------------------- Herman: > Understanding that doesn't change a thing though, does it? ------------------------------------ You know I hate to disagree with you, Herman, but I have to on this occasion. :-) When the citta is kusala (as it is with right understanding) there cannot possibly be akusala of any kind. Admittedly, I am talking about momentary reality, but then so was the Buddha! You like to talk about conventional reality in which a good person can also be bad peson (or in which a person who sees can also hear (etc)) but I am not talking about conventional reality. ------------------- Herman: > But I'd like to suggest to you that it is not possible to "intellectually understand" that namas and rupas are anicca and/or anatta. You realise it or you don't. And for anyone who doesn't realise it, but believes they have or are getting an "intellectual understanding" of it, they can have no idea of how wrong they have been, until they realise it. And there is a way to realise it, and it doesn't depend on the absurd belief that it is possible to have an "intellectual understanding" of what isn't understood. Happily, the Noble 8 Fold Path has been well taught for anyone who realises the Truth of dukkha, which is hopefully what brings us to dsg, and not intellectual curiousity (read craving) :-) --------------------- Sorry, but that's a load of rubbish. I hope James didn't hear that! :-) There is such a thing as pariyatti (right intellectual understanding). That is to say, *according to the texts* there is such a thing as pariyatti. And it's the texts that I am interested in. (Thanks all the same.) :-) Ken H #87415 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jun 23, 2008 11:53 pm Subject: Re: Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? kenhowardau Hi James, I think I can honestly say I have never sent an ill-mannered, abusive post to DSG. There have been many times when someone has got me riled up, but writing is always a slow business for me, and I have always (so far) had time to calm down and think better before clicking the send button. I have a bit of a reputation for occasionally stirring up the formal meditators. But, allowing for a bit of give-and-take, I have never said anything that a well adjusted adult couldn't take in good spirit. ------------- <. . .> J: > Okay, since you can't see what I am talking about I will spell it out for you. Here are the offending comments: There was nothing in it that appealed to me in the least. He is of the Thanissaro persuasion except he actually goes a step further. And good luck to them! ------------------------ I have no regrets about any of that. We are all adults, we can take a bit of straight talking. When I say "and good luck to them" I mean it quite literally. I have no objection to anyone believing whatever he/she wants to believe. I bear them no ill will. And at the same time I reserve the right to disagree as strongly as I like. --------------------------------------------- J (quoting): > As far as I can see, his question is just supercilious sarcasm and not worthy of any reply at all. ---------------------------------------------- I was just stating the facts, James. When someone says "Oh if you know that then you must be an arahant; congratulations, I am so happy for you!" I call that sarcasm. And I think he person who said it would agree with me, don't you? I think (not entirely sure) I correctly identified the offending party. One thing I am entirely sure of is it has been said several times on DSG. (With variations: sometimes it has been "you must be at least a Stream Enterer. . . ") That's OK. If someone wants to use a little sarcasm to make their point they are welcome. I am sure they will be prepared to cop a little criticism in return. -------------------------- J: > Sheesh! Howard, why are you so delighted by these questions? In the true Thanissaro tradition, Alex interprets suttas such as this James: Ken, your deep hatred of Thanissaro is obvious in many posts, including this one. If you can't admit that, then you need to practice more of the introspection that the Buddha taught. Here, you extend that hatred over to Alex as you lump them together as that "Thanissaro persuasion". Sorry, that is wrong speech. If you can't see it, that's something you should work on. --------------------------- You are welcome to your opinions, James, but I don't agree with you. Thanks all the same. Ken H #87416 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching sukinderpal Hi Phil (and Sarah), =========== > Sukin: This is an example of what I see as your projecting your own past experiences and misunderstanding on to us. Ph: Yes, you're right. I do this. I acknowledged as much in a post to Nina or Sarah or someone. But as I feel myself akin to people, kindred to people, I tend to feel the same processes are at work in others here. I personally can't believe that anyone comes to the Dhamma from anything but mortal fear, a desire for happiness, a desire for liberation from suffering in very basic forms. S: Yes you have discussed this with Sarah, but you were not convinced by her. I agree that most if not all start off with some level of fear / attachment to self. But what else could be expected given that we do come in with “ignorance” of the Dhamma! However to say that we are motivated to continue with the kind of fear, this would suggest a hopeless situation wouldn’t it? Wisdom seeks wisdom and tanha finds what it seeks. If there were not any wisdom and kusala chanda involved and we are left with only tanha, how can there then be any progress let alone escape? I think that you should believe Sarah when she said that she does not study the Dhamma with desire for happiness and not dismiss it, otherwise you continue justifying an approach to the Dhamma with ‘self’ at the root. =========== Phil: I simply can't beleive that so I tend to downplay or denigrate others' claims to any other motive other than the above. I can't say I'm sorry I do that, no harm intended. I keep thinking a day will come when I just stick to studying the texts, but I guess it won't since people will other make denigrating comments but each other's approaches to Dhamma here, even if they are kindly toned. S: Or you can remember what you say here, namely that you mean no harm in making your comments, therefore when others comment about “your approach”, that they too have no bad intentions. ;-) =========== Phil: And I don't have the maturity not to take the bait. But I'm glad to say I don't feel any hostility towards you. S: Thanks. But perhaps you should not judge other people’s comment as being ‘bait’, even though you don’t feel that you can convince them or that you are ready to argue in support of your own position? I think there is no better situation than ‘discussion’ whereby one’s views can become clear to oneself. If indeed what you believe is “right”, then even if others argue against it, this should not affect your confidence in a way that deter you from taking part in any discussion, I think. Will go to your other post now. Metta, Sukin #87417 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 12:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching sukinderpal Hi Phil (Robert K, Ken H and Sarah), ============= > Sukin: All I can say is that if you fail to read the Abhidhamma with the > understanding about its application to your moment to moment > experiences, I think that you might as well not study it. There is no > virtue in reading just for the sake of acquiring `information’ Ph: In one of my notebooks I came across a very good quote from Robert K about the importance of theory, about the way people tend to underappreciate theory, or dismiss it or something, and that if one doesn't have a very firm and broad base of theory, one's understanding will go wrong, and therefore one will go the wrong way or something. For me, I like to approach Abhidhamma as theory, sorry. I think it represents very, very deep degrees of understanding that can only be appreciated by us as theory. When we try to make it our own, and say "Abhidhamma is not in the book, it is all about daily life, the present moment" it is just a great big gushing of lobha and desire for premature deepening of understanding. I'm sorry, that's how I see it. When I do study Abhidhamma I feel a kind of awe at the depth of the understanding laid out in it, but I personally do not aspire to it. So no point in studying it? I don't know, I think there is, but for me, at least for now, I want it to be as theory. I do not aspire to taking it off the page and pulling it here and there with lobha. Again, yes, that's the way I see it. S: I think this is related to your understanding about ‘approaching the Dhamma with the idea of seeking happiness’. What I mean by “application” is different to what this means when referring to ‘conventional / conceptual knowledge’ about everything else. Here “concepts” are applied to other concepts and with no consideration whether there is a ‘self’ who applies. Therefore “theory” in relation to the Dhamma is not theory in the usual sense of the word either. Rather Dhamma namely Pariyatti, works in directing one’s attention to the present moment where the problem is not lack of accumulated ‘information’, but the continuing arising of Avijja. This avijja accompanies much of our thinking and if we don’t see this, it will influence also our thoughts about the Dhamma. It is not enough that we have read about ‘ultimate realities’, this remains abstract theory if never seen as being about the present moment. This applies to the Suttas just as it does the Abhidhamma. One needs to arrive at an understanding as Ken H so often reminds us about, namely that “there are only Dhammas”. Once this is understood, it does not matter what one is reading about, the attention can be drawn to which ever reality happens to appear with understanding of it as being a “dhamma”. On the other hand, failing to appreciate this, but with ideas about ‘applying’ whether this be to ‘daily life’ or to so called ‘meditation’, the point continues to be missed. When Robert suggested to you about the need to have firm and broad theory, I think he means ‘hearing and considering extensively’ enough to then arriving at the kind of understanding I refer to here. It does not matter that much in contained in the Texts, we hear what we hear and read what we read, but this should not be with an idea of ‘self’. And even if we were to only hear about the same basic things time and again, the understanding should be of the need to come back to the present moment instead of being carried away to acquiring more ‘concepts’. Vijja is growing in understanding and is opposite not to lack of information, but to ignorance. Moreover when one thinks to apply any knowledge in the future, one continues failing to see that this moment itself is a dhamma to be known and therefore indirectly encourages not only ignorance, but also ‘self view’, i.e. someone who applies. I think that it is because of this that you fail to appreciate Sarah’s suggestion about ‘not seeking happiness in the Dhamma’. You keep projecting into the future your ideas about theory and practice. Were you to instead come to appreciate the fact of this very moment being a dhamma arisen beyond control, I believe that you would see no need to then think in terms of the future especially when it comes to the development of understanding. And this is the “application” which I mean. It arises by conditions and falls away immediately. And I’ll add that this means that it does not matter what arises, including avijja and other akusala, and when instead intellectual understanding arises, certainly there is no reason to then seek anything including following any wrong practice with desire for more. And if any deeper level of understanding is to arise, it won’t be as a result of ideas about the future but of the kind of attitude got from and in line with, pariyatti. ========== Ph: As I said, I don't reject Abhidhamma. S: But for the ‘Abhidhamma’ to be meaningful, it must be seen as referring to one’s moment to moment experience, do you see it this way? ========== Ph: I don't undestand some things in your guys approach to the Suttanta, saying that every sutta is about understanding of presently arisen realities or whatever. No, that really can't be right, sorry. Again, studying AN would bring you across many suttas which you would have to think otherwise. But you guys might possibly be right, I don't want to shut the door on that possibility, as I have said quite often here. I don't want to shut the door on the possibility of coming back to seeing things as you guys do. S: The Suttas are in the form of ‘people and situations’. When not seen in the light of paramattha dhammas, the different stories *can* condition calm / samatha. However instead of this, most people wrongly perceive in the Suttas a ‘recommendation’ to imitate in behavior the activities of the people involved. But let us not forget that *their* understanding must have been about their moment to moment experiences otherwise how could they then have experienced vipassana. The Buddha talked about causes and conditions, but when doing this even with conventional referents, wouldn’t this in fact be about paramattha dhammas? So if he talked about conditions leading to heaven and such, could this not be interpreted as being about conditioned realities? And can’t it be that his direct audience understood his words not in the way people of this day and age would do? Today people go on to see cause and effect in the Suttas in a way that is no different from what they might from any other conventional teaching, i.e. in terms of self and situations. It is as if they have not heard the Dhamma but only something which confirms what they already know to be more or less the case. ================ Phil: Oh, dear Sukin, I always get pooped out half way through your posts. I am happy to write long rambling posts, but lack the diligence to bear down and read others posts that have been written with such good intent. I'm really sorry about that. No my extrication from this kind of thread is complete. S: No problem at all. I like it too that I don’t have to write these posts. ;-) Metta, Sukin #87418 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 1:43 am Subject: Metta, Ch 9, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, If one is afraid of revenge one should abstain from the five kinds of akusala kamma which cause a fivefold guilty dread, namely: killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying and the taking of intoxicants. One should abstain from these akusala kammas. The Buddha said that people who only fear those things which should be feared are no fools, whereas people who only fear what should not be feared are fools. Those who put the Dhamma into practice should fear the committing of akusala kamma, they should not be afraid of a person who could take revenge and control their destiny. Someone asked whether one, if one develops samådhi (concentration), could see an image of the person who wants to take revenge. There are misunderstandings about the development of samådhi, and therefore I will explain what it is. There are two kinds of samådhi, namely sammå-samådhi, right concentration, and micchå-samådhi, wrong concentration. There is sammå-samådhi with the development of samatha, tranquil meditation. This is the development of kusala citta which is established in wholesome calm so that there is more and more freedom from lobha, attachment, dosa, aversion, and moha, ignorance. Thus in samatha there must be kusala citta with sati sampajañña, paññå arising with sati, which is mindful time and again of the dhammas (realities) which condition the citta to be free from akusala and to attain true calm. Calm can be developed with meditation subjects such as the excellent qualities of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. Or one can think of other people with mettå, karuùå (compassion), muditå (sympathetic joy) and upekkhå (equanimity). One can recollect dåna (generosity) and síla (good moral conduct) one has performed, or one can recollect death. When the citta has advanced in kusala it becomes more established in calm, in freedom from akusala. Then the characteristic of calm which goes together with concentration, samådhi, appears more clearly. Calm can become firmer when sati sampajañña performs its function, and this has nothing to do with the seeing of extraordinary things or strange experiences. ****** Nina. #87419 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility sukinderpal Hi Herman (and Tep), Tep has responded with reference to the 4NT which I liked. ============== Herman: I'm just wondering what benefit you see in believing or understanding the Dhamma to be the *only* expression of Truth. S: The statement itself adds nothing. The thinking involved may be with tanha or with understanding. The one can’t ever be good but the other if it is say, an instance of reflection on the Dhamma, this must be good surely? ============== Herman: All around the world all sorts of people believe and understand all sorts of things. S: And if it is not kusala with or without panna, it is blameworthy. And what good can my stating this achieve? I believe that if you or someone else were to reflect on this with understanding, then it must be good! ;-) ============== Herman: I do not see anything in the way the peoples that have been Theravadan for centuries live their lives that makes me think they are freer of suffering than elsewhere. S: I think that this is a wrong approach. I think a correct understanding of the Dhamma, rather then leading us to look for results, would condition an interest in “causes”, and where else to understand this but one’s own citta? This being the case would we then seek to judge the value of the Teachings in the behavior of others? ============== Herman: I would sooner think the opposite. It makes no sense to me to believe that by persevering to do as has always been done, that things are going to be any different in the future. S: And were one to even have a glimpse of what it means for the present citta being conditioned and already fallen away without control and perhaps begin to see how much avijja there is, this would discourage us from making judgments in term of “selves” as you seem to be doing here. It is idealistic thinking which is what you seem to be involved in, and a misunderstanding of the Path. ============= Herman: If the Dhamma is the *only* expression of Truth, and Buddhagosa's 3 P's is the way to realise this Truth, then it is hardly unreasonable for me to ask to see something to show for it , is there? S: Your perception is that the commentators have had a negative influence on later day Theravada. However I’d suggest that even if they were not around, with the kind of outlook that you have shown here, you’ll reject gradually more and more of what is attributed to the Buddha himself. This is the nature of wrong view. Unquestioned, it will grow to disagree with all aspects of Right View. But of course, this is not how it appears to you. ;-) ============= Herman: But it is not worth arguing over, and I am a happy for you to believe whatever you want :-) S: I’m happy with your decision. But there is an older post which I have yet to respond to. :-/ Metta, Sukin #87420 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:03 am Subject: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. nilovg Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. Then the Lord spoke to the Mallas on Dhamma til far into the night, instructing, inspiring, firing and delighting them. ------ Atha kho bhagavaa paaveyyake malle bahudeva ratti.m dhammiyaa kathaaya sandassetvaa samaadapetvaa samuttejetvaa sampaha.msetvaa uyyojesi - --------- N: This passage is also found elsewhere. He spoke to them so that they would have courage and gladness, seeing the value of the Dhamma. ------- 1.5 As soon as the Mallas had gone the Lord, surveying the monks sitting silently all about, said to the Venerable Saariputta: 'The monks are free from sloth-and-torpor, *1016 Saariputta. -------- Co: They were sitting silently. In whichever direction the Buddha looked, they were silent. The Co states that he surveyed the monks with his physical eye (ma.msa cakkhunaa) and with his clearvoyance (dibba-cakkhunaa). With his physical eye he looked at their outward appearance, their postures, and he saw that there wasn’t one monk who had unseemly conduct as to their hands and feet, they did not lift up their heads, they did not talk, nor were they asleep while sitting. ------- N: When wriggling and moving hands and feet one does not listen intently and with respect. They did not lift up their heads, looking around. We should listen to the Dhamma intently and with great respect, with the sole purpose of having more understanding of realities. --------- Co: All of them, trained in the three kinds of training, sat motionless, like the flame of a light not moved by wind. Thus he looked at their postures with his physical eye. He looked with his divine eye after having increased his clearvoyance, and saw their heartbase (hadaya ruupa), he looked at their siila that was inside, within their hearts. He saw the siila of several hundreds of monks that had reached the level of arahatship, like a light that shines inside a vessel. These monks had accomplished vipassanaa. When he had seen here their siila, he thought: “these monks are pleasing to me and I am pleasing to them.” We read that after he had surveyed the Order of the monks he addressed the Venerble Saariputta. We read: “ My back aches”, why did it ache? The Lord had strong bodily pain after having greatly exerted himself during six rainy seasons. ------ N: If we look at the Buddha’s daily routine we see that he hardly took any sleep since he thought of other people’s wellfare, explaining the Dhamma to monks and laypeople who visited him. We also read that he since former times suffered from his back and from winds inside. The Subco states that he suffered pain because of former kamma he had committed. --------- Text Sutta: ‘You think of a discourse on Dhamma to give to them. My back aches, I want to stretch it.' 'Very good, Lord', replied Saariputta. Then the Lord, having folded his robe in four, lay down on his right side in the lion-posture, *1017 with one foot on the other, mindful and clearly aware, and bearing in mind the time to arise. ------- Paali text Co: Co: 300.Tu.nhiibhuuta.m tu.nhiibhuutanti ya.m ya.m disa.m anuviloketi, tattha tattha tu.nhiibhuutameva. Anuviloketvaati ma.msacakkhunaa dibbacakkhunaati dviihi cakkhuuhi tato tato viloketvaa. Ma.msacakkhunaa hi nesa.m bahiddhaa iriyaapatha.m pariggahesi. Tattha ekabhikkhussaapi neva hatthakukkucca.m na paadakukkucca.m ahosi, na koci siisamukkhipi, na katha.m kathesi, na niddaayanto nisiidi. Sabbepi tiihi sikkhaahi sikkhitaa nivaate padiipasikhaa viya niccalaa nisiidi.msu. Iti nesa.m ima.m iriyaapatha.m ma.msacakkhunaa pariggahesi. AAloka.m pana va.d.dhayitvaa dibbacakkhunaa hadayaruupa.m disvaa abbhantaragata.m siila.m olokesi. So anekasataana.m bhikkhuuna.m antokumbhiya.m jalamaana.m padiipa.m viya arahattupaga.m siila.m addasa. AAraddhavipassakaa hi te bhikkhuu. Iti nesa.m siila.m disvaa ‘‘imepi bhikkhuu mayha.m anucchavikaa, ahampi imesa.m anucchaviko’’ti cakkhutalesu nimitta.m .thapetvaa bhikkhusa"ngha.m oloketvaa aayasmanta.m saariputta.m aamantesi ‘‘pi.t.thi me aagilaayatii’’ti. Kasmaa aagilaayati? Bhagavato hi chabbassaani mahaapadhaana.m padahantassa mahanta.m kaayadukkha.m ahosi. Athassa aparabhaage mahallakakaale pi.t.thivaato uppajji. --------- Nina. #87421 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:19 am Subject: Re: Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? buddhatrue Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi James, > > I think I can honestly say I have never sent an ill-mannered, abusive > post to DSG. Okay, if you're sure. I could be wrong. After all, I'm not as absolutely perfect as you are. :-) Metta, James #87422 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:47 am Subject: Re: response to hate mail etc - revised and corrected edition buddhatrue Hi Ken H., --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Sorry, but that's a load of rubbish. > > I hope James didn't hear that! :-) Yes, I did hear that...and I'm taking notes, Mr. Perfect. :-) Metta, James #87423 From: "Tep" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:16 am Subject: Re: Another farewell (haha) dhammanusarin Hi Phil, - >Phil : It really is time for me to get off the > internet once and for all. So I am signing off here, yet again. (You > know what that means...see you in about 3 weeks.) T: I guess maybe it is not the Internet that causes addiction; it is the lonesome mind, that cannot resist the temptation to get in touch and get involved with people, that should be blamed. :-) Tep === #87424 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:17 am Subject: Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thank you for adding the commentary: N: "...The Co states that he surveyed the monks with his physical eye (ma.msa cakkhunaa) and with his clearvoyance (dibba-cakkhunaa). He looked with his divine eye after having increased his clearvoyance, and saw their heartbase (hadaya ruupa)..." Scott: I see where dibba-cakkhu = yathaa-kammuupaga-~aa.na or cutuupapaata-~naa.na (Nyanatiloka). It is noted that dibba-cakkhu sees "beings vanishing and reappearing, low and noble ones, beautiful and ugly ones...how beings are reappearing according to their actions." Is it explained anywhere what is the object of dibba-cakkhu? In the above it seems that it is hadaya ruupa. There seems to be a suggested link between posture and hadaya ruupa. Is this clarified anywhere? Sincerely, Scott. #87425 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - revised and corrected edition egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/6/24 kenhowardau : > Hi Herman (and Howard), > > ---------- > KH: > > > >> They preclude it at the intellectual level, don't they? When we >> understand intellectually that there are only namas and rupas (all > of >> them anicca, dukkha and anatta) we also understand intellectually >> that any form of craving, conceit or self view would be absurdly out >> of place. > > Herman: > What Howard says below cannot be stressed enough. > ---------- > > KH: OK, but before we look at that, what do you think about what I > said [above]? An intellectual understanding that there are only namas and rupas (all of them anicca, dukkha and anatta) excludes nibbana. Such an understanding is not worth jacksh*t :-) > > When we accept one proposition in theory we often automatically > accept related propositions in theory also, don't we? That's all I > was saying. If we accept (in theory) that there are only dhammas then > we will also accept (in theory) that there is no logical reason for > craving, conceit or self view. I have already agreed with you that there is no logical reason for craving, conceit or self view, and I will not tire of agreeing with that again and again. There is no logical reason for it, KenH, absolutely none, and it is good to point that out. (But there are causes for it- which is another matter. As is the possibility of the absence of causes) > > ---------------------- > Herman: > Craving is not a > reasonable proposition. Sensuous craving is not a reasonable thing to > do. Craving for being is not reasonable. > ---------------------- > > Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the universe was different > from the way the Buddha described it. Suppose there did exist an > eternal (or lasting) soul. Wouldn't craving for happiness (etc) be > reasonable then? Wouldn't identification with certain things be > reasonable? It would be perfectly reasonable to regard the eternal > soul as the eternal soul. If all intentions were realisable, then it would be perfectable reasonable to intend. And if failure to reach intended goals was not dukkha, then there would be no impediment to intending forever. The problem is not so much conceiving of a soul, whether eternal or temporary, but having to acknowledge it's impotence, however conceived. > > ----------------------------------- > Herman: > Understanding that doesn't change a thing though, does it? > ------------------------------------ > > You know I hate to disagree with you, Herman, but I have to on this > occasion. :-) When the citta is kusala (as it is with right > understanding) there cannot possibly be akusala of any kind. > Admittedly, I am talking about momentary reality, but then so was the > Buddha! > > You like to talk about conventional reality in which a good person > can also be bad peson (or in which a person who sees can also hear > (etc)) but I am not talking about conventional reality. > Reality is not simple. It is not stating a truth to say that reality is only this, or only that. The only reality there is is very complex, and it is whatever is being attended to, in the context of whatever is not being attended to, given the possibility of not-attending. Surf on that, Pam Burridge :-) > ------------------- > Herman: > But I'd like to suggest to you that it is not possible to > "intellectually understand" that namas and rupas are anicca and/or > anatta. You realise it or you don't. And for anyone who doesn't > realise it, but believes they have or are getting an "intellectual > understanding" of it, they can have no idea of how wrong they have > been, until they realise it. And there is a way to realise it, and it > doesn't depend on the absurd belief that it is possible to have an > "intellectual understanding" of what isn't understood. Happily, the > Noble 8 Fold Path has been well taught for anyone who realises the > Truth of dukkha, which is hopefully what brings us to dsg, and not > intellectual curiousity (read craving) :-) > --------------------- > > Sorry, but that's a load of rubbish. > > I hope James didn't hear that! :-) > > There is such a thing as pariyatti (right intellectual > understanding). That is to say, *according to the texts* there is > such a thing as pariyatti. Any understanding that "understands" that there is only a present moment, denies anicca. And anyone who "understands" accumulation, the spectre that animates pariyatti, denies anatta. I'm in the company of freaking geniuses :-) > > And it's the texts that I am interested in. (Thanks all the same.) > :-) No, you can do better than that, I'm sure. There are some texts you attend to, in the context of other texts you do not attend to, given the possibility of not attending to any texts. That is your complex reality, KenH, and I for one am glad to know you :-) Cheers Herman #87426 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. nilovg Dear Scott, Op 24-jun-2008, om 14:17 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > I see where dibba-cakkhu = yathaa-kammuupaga-~aa.na or > cutuupapaata-~naa.na (Nyanatiloka). It is noted that dibba-cakkhu > sees "beings vanishing and reappearing, low and noble ones, beautiful > and ugly ones...how beings are reappearing according to their > actions." > > Is it explained anywhere what is the object of dibba-cakkhu? In the > above it seems that it is hadaya ruupa. There seems to be a suggested > link between posture and hadaya ruupa. Is this clarified anywhere? -------- N: As I understand from the context, he had clearvoyance of what was going on in their hearts, that is inwardly. This in addition to outward behaviour. I do not know other texts about this. But it seems a paralel to clear audience, where one can hear sounds far off. Vis. XIII, 124: It is explained that a limited object is materiality. ... As to external object: seeing another's materiality. This is only about ruupa, but we see that it is not only as to beings vanishing and reappearing. Nina. #87427 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:15 am Subject: Re: response to hate mail etc - revised and corrected edition truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > KH: > When we accept one proposition in theory we often automatically > accept related propositions in theory also, don't we? >>>> Not always and not in all circumstances. Buddha or his disciples said many true things such as Anicca-Dukkha-Anatta. However some concepts like geocentric cosmology crept it. Must we accept geocentric cosmology? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we accept (in theory) that there are only dhammas >>>>>>>>>>>>>> :Putting aside conviction... preference... tradition... reasoning through analogies... an agreement through pondering views," - sn 12.68 do you have truly personal knowledge that "there are only dhammas"? >>>> then we will also accept (in theory) that there is no logical reason for craving, conceit or self view. >>> Look. Craving is NOT logical, same with conceit or self view! Just like saying to a long time "2 packs a day" smoker that "smoking is bad" it will NOT make him drop his addiction. Same is here. While definately the study is a good START, it should show the actual PATH of PRACTICE to break the addiction... If it was as easy as saying to a smoker: "There are heavy cigars, there are light cigars, there are medium cigars. There is this amount of nicotene and that. There are filtered and unfiltered cigars. Its just nicotene man! No need to smoke it!". But that doesn't work. Addiction is NOT rational. If addiction, cravings, views, self preservation were logical problems, then scholars and logicians would be Arahats par excellence. > > Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the universe was different > from the way the Buddha described it. Suppose there did exist an > eternal (or lasting) soul. Wouldn't craving for happiness (etc) be > reasonable then? Wouldn't identification with certain things be > reasonable? It would be perfectly reasonable to regard the eternal > soul as the eternal soul. > Not necesserily reasonable. From POV of modern biology, craving for existence is simply a natural mechanism to pass on the genes. Even if there was an eternal existence, it would be eternal unhappiness since the craving would never make one fully happy and content. > ----------------------------------- > Herman: > Understanding that doesn't change a thing though, does it? > ------------------------------------ > > You know I hate to disagree with you, Herman, but I have to on this > occasion. :-) When the citta is kusala (as it is with right > understanding) there cannot possibly be akusala of any kind. >>>> IF one is Arahant, sure. But anyone below Arahatship has fetters (which are akusala) to break. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Admittedly, I am talking about momentary reality, but then so was the Buddha! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "It would be better for the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person to hold to the body composed of he four great elements, rather than the mind, as the self. Why is that? Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.061.than.html > > There is such a thing as pariyatti (right intellectual > understanding). That is to say, *according to the texts* there is > such a thing as pariyatti. > > And it's the texts that I am interested in. (Thanks all the same.) > :-) > > Ken H > And there is patipatti. I would LOVE to: "Putting aside conviction... preference... tradition... reasoning through analogies... an agreement through pondering views,...have truly personal knowledge that" -> XYZ Best wishes, Alex #87428 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [was Vism.XVII,270] .. FNTs and N8FP moellerdieter Hi Tep ( and Howard), you wrote: ': Yes, I agree if you allow me to interpret "surrounding" as a means of reaching a goal, or as supporting condition. ' D: fine .. I only tried to be close to the simile .. Tep: Seeing DO as "a detailed explanation of the 2nd N.T." overlooks the dependent cessation of the D.O. (i.e. Forward Exposition on Cessation, MN 38) that connects to the 3rd N.T.. Seeing that "the 2nd N.T. includes the profound law of causes and effects called Paticc. or D.O." overlooks the 1st N.T. and the 3rd N.T. that are included in the D.O.. D: though of course there is a relation between D.O. and the 1st,2nd and 3rd NT. , as stated before as well, Nyanatiloka and P.A. Payuttho are correct when refering to the 2nd N.T. , pls compare with e.g. A.N. III 62 : ..and what is the truth of the orgination of suffering ? By ignorance is conditioned volitional activities.. etc. etc. By S.N. XII 65 the interrelation D.O. and 4 N.T. are shown . 'I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path.' Howard made a good point here: 'I see as an apparent identification by the Buddha of the the 8-fold path (the 4th noble truth) for the realization of nibbana with the unraveling phase of D. O., which also pertains to the realization of nibbana. The 8-fold path of practice uproots ignorance, which then engenders, like the falling over of a row of dominoes, the undoing of all the other factors of dependent origination. Tep: I think the 4th noble truth is not in the D.O. principle; the latter as the "path to Awakening" leads to the former, the noble eightfold path, that was discovered only by direct knowledge [Nagara Sutta]. D: I think it is the former leading to the latter , comparing with ' 'I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging &..etc. ' But I believe , you want to say, that the Path is not included within D.O. , don't you? Confirmed by e.g. S.N. XII 57 '.. and the path leading to the ceasing of consciousness is this 8fold N.P.') We need to have in mind that different aspects are involved.. the 8fold N.T. describes what has to be done (for/ during travelling) , the D.O. refers to the knowledge discovered at the journey, don't you think so too? with Metta Dieter #87429 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility moellerdieter Hi James (and others) you wrote: 'Very true. This is because, I believe, Theravada as a whole is a poor expression of the Buddha's truth. Theravada emphasizes panna over compassion; book learning over direct realization (meditation); and arrogance over humility. This isn't the fault of the Buddha's truth, this is the fault of the Theravada tradition. Those who follow the Theravada tradition to the letter really miss the point and barely resemble what the Buddha taught.' D.: I do not know how to take your comment .. As you know , Theravada as a whole is understood to be represented by the Pali Canon, so are you saying that the Tipitaka is a poor expression of the Buddha's truth? Panna has a broad meaning, but of course it is first of all concerning the (penetration into) 4 Noble Truths , in particular the Noble Path, isn't it? Did I miss to see you in the Mahayana camp ? with Metta Dieter #87430 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility truth_aerator Hi Dieter and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Hi James (and others) > > you wrote: > > 'Very true. This is because, I believe, Theravada as a whole is a poor expression of the Buddha's truth. Theravada emphasizes panna over compassion; book learning over direct realization (meditation); and arrogance over humility. > This isn't the fault of the Buddha's truth, this is the fault of the Theravada tradition. Those who follow the Theravada tradition to the letter really miss the point and barely resemble what the Buddha taught.' > > > D.: I do not know how to take your comment .. > As you know , Theravada as a whole is understood to be represented by the Pali Canon, so are you saying that the Tipitaka is a poor expression of the Buddha's truth? > Panna has a broad meaning, but of course it is first of all concerning the (penetration into) > 4 Noble Truths , in particular the Noble Path, isn't it? > IMHO, as I understand it, James (or Herman) is talking about Abh, the commentaries and VsM - being a certain sectarian take. The core suttas and ideas are the BEST! Buddha is the BEST there was, is and ever will be! Best wishes, Alex #87431 From: Dieter Möller Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility moellerdieter Hi Alex and all, you wrote: ' IMHO, as I understand it, James (or Herman) is talking about Abh, the commentaries and VsM - being a certain sectarian take.' I would have thought so too, but it was stated: : ' Theravada as a whole..' , which initiated request for clarification.. Alex: 'The core suttas and ideas are the BEST! Buddha is the BEST there was, is and ever will be!' D: no doubt about it ;-) The core represented by Sutta and Vinaya Pitaka .. Abhidhamma respected and commentaries , like Vis M , as well as sub commentaries maybe useful for further understanding. I believe we agree on that .. with Metta Dieter #87432 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? nilovg Hi Howard and Alex, Howard, best wishes with your surgery. Yes, only nama and rupa, don't forget! Op 23-jun-2008, om 22:51 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: Alex: > please come > out and help me to gain more faith in "There are only 72 paramattha > Dhammas and 24 conditioned relations". ------- N: If you would only begin to understand what paramattha dhamma, or, in other words, what reality is, you are well on your way. Begin with only one or two, such as seeing that sees only colour, hardness that impinges on the bodysense but that is not a person, it helps to gain more faith. Do not mind any names or terms, like paramattha dhamma, it is the reality that can be understood, it has a characteristic. If you only understand one or two conditions, it is valuable. Object- condition: without sound there could never be any hearing. Sound is object-condition for hearing. Nina. #87433 From: "Tep" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:29 pm Subject: Re: [was Vism.XVII,270] .. FNTs and N8FP dhammanusarin Hi Dieter (Howard, Herman, Alex, Han) - There are a few questions you have raised for further discussion. >Dieter: > >Tep: I think the 4th noble truth is not in the D.O. principle; the latter as the "path to Awakening" leads to the former, the noble eightfold path, that was discovered only by direct knowledge [Nagara Sutta]. >D: I think it is the former leading to the latter , comparing with ' 'I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging &..etc. ' But I believe , you want to say, that the Path is not included within D.O. , don't you? Confirmed by e.g. S.N. XII 57 '.. and the path leading to the ceasing of consciousness is this 8fold N.P.') T: I understand the Nagara Sutta as follows. While the Bodhisatta was "following" the noble eightfold path ('an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times..'), he attained the 44 direct knowledges(~naana) of the 4 noble truths being applied to the 11 links of D.O. (i.e. aging & death, birth, becoming, clinging, craving, feeling, contact, six sense media, name-&-form, consciousness, and fabrications). These 44 direct knowledges came after he had attained vision, clear knowing, discernment, knowledge, illumination with regard to things never heard before, i.e. the "origination of this entire mass of stress" and the "cessation of this entire mass of stress" through his contemplation of D.O. (which he called "path to Awakening"). That's why I said earlier that the "path to Awakening" led to the noble eightfold path. ..................... >D: We need to have in mind that different aspects are involved.. the 8fold N.T. describes what has to be done (for/ during travelling) , the D.O. refers to the knowledge discovered at the journey, don't you think so too? T: As I elaborated above, the 44 direct knowledges arose in the mind of the Bodhisatta while he was applying the 4NTs over each of the 11 links (ageing & death , ..., fabrications). The 4th Noble Truth is of course the path of cessation of dukkha (each link of the D.O. is the 1st truth), the origination (2nd truth) and cessation of dukkha (the 3rd truth). The D.O. "knowledge" pertaining to the "path to Awakening" occurred prior to his N8FP "journey" to full Awakening, I believe. I shall be glad to be corrected by anyone. Thanks. Tep === #87434 From: "Tep" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:42 pm Subject: Re: [was Vism.XVII,270] .. FNTs and N8FP dhammanusarin Hi Dieter and all, - I re-read the answer to your 2nd question and like to change it as follows. Before Correction: >T: As I elaborated above, the 44 direct knowledges arose in the mind of the Bodhisatta while he was applying the 4NTs over each of the 11 links (ageing & death , ..., fabrications). The 4th Noble Truth is of course the path of cessation of dukkha (each link of the D.O. is the 1st truth), the origination (2nd truth) and cessation of dukkha (the 3rd truth). The D.O. "knowledge" pertaining to the "path to Awakening" occurred prior to his N8FP "journey" to full Awakening, I believe. Corrected version: As I elaborated above, the 44 direct knowledges arose in the mind of the Bodhisatta while he was applying the 4NTs over each of the 11 links (ageing & death , ..., fabrications). The 4th Noble Truth is of course the path of cessation of dukkha. Each link of the D.O. is the 1st truth, the origination of dukkha is the 2nd truth, and the cessation of dukkha is the 3rd truth; thus, they go together for each application over a given link. The D.O. "knowledge" pertaining to the "path to Awakening", however, already occurred prior to his N8FP "journey" to full Awakening, I believe. Thank you very much. Tep === #87435 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:38 pm Subject: Re: Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? truth_aerator Dear Nina, Howard and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > Hi Howard and Alex, > Howard, best wishes with your surgery. Yes, only nama and rupa, don't forget! > Op 23-jun-2008, om 22:51 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Alex: > > please come out and help me to gain more faith in "There are only 72 paramattha Dhammas and 24 conditioned relations". > ------- > N: If you would only begin to understand what paramattha dhamma, or, in other words, what reality is, you are well on your way. >>>> Philosophers AND BUDDHISTS tried that for thousands of years at this question and have not been answered and couldn't find a single convinvicing answer. >>>>>>>>> Begin with only one or two, such as seeing that sees only colour, hardness that impinges on the bodysense but that is not a person, it helps to gain more faith. >>> This isn't different from modern materialistic science that preaches no-self, no soul. Best wishes, Alex #87436 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:01 pm Subject: Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility buddhatrue Hi Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > D.: I do not know how to take your comment .. > As you know , Theravada as a whole is understood to be represented by the Pali Canon, so are you saying that the Tipitaka is a poor expression of the Buddha's truth? > Panna has a broad meaning, but of course it is first of all concerning the (penetration into) > 4 Noble Truths , in particular the Noble Path, isn't it? > > > Did I miss to see you in the Mahayana camp ? What I mean is that Theravada as a whole is a poor expression of the Buddha's truth (Mahayana also is a poor expression, but that is a different subject). By "Theravada as a whole" I mean the Theravada texts and the expression of Theravada in the real world. Remember, there used to be many different schools of Buddhism to chose from, now there are just three: Theravada, Mahayana, and Tibetan. Personally, I don't really like any of them. They are all lacking. Theravada is supposed to be the Buddha's original teaching; well, the Tipitaka, pound for pound, is not the Buddha's original teaching. Seven books of the Abhidhamma, he didn't teach; commentaries, including Vism., he didn't teach; commentaries to the Vinaya, he didn't teach. Most of what is in the Tipitaka the Buddha didn't teach. When you read just the suttas, and then read the commentaries, they are like two different worlds. It is ridiculous to cling to everything in the Tipitaka because monks at the Third Buddhist Council declared it all to be the Buddha's word. Most of what is in the Tipitaka was motivated by politics between different Buddhist sects and governments, not wisdom. The expression of Theravada in the real world is also lacking. Most of the Thervada monks in the world have no real interest in being monks; they are just monks because of tradition or to make a livelihood. While the same could be said for the Buddha's time, in the Buddha's time they were the minority but now they are the majority. And most Theravada laypeople give dana to the Sangha out of tradition and to earn merit, not to learn the Dhamma. Corruption in the Buddhist Sangha is now the norm, not the exception; and laypeople turn a blind eye to what is happening because they are not supposed to object. It is a sham and a travesty of what the Buddha intended. Metta, James #87437 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:03 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina (and Alex) - In a message dated 6/24/2008 2:47:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard and Alex, Howard, best wishes with your surgery. Yes, only nama and rupa, don't forget! ============================== Thanks, Nina! I just returned from the hospital, almost 7 hours after our arrival there today. The surgery, per se, took only about an hour, the preparation and especially the waiting for the spinal anaesthesia to wear off taking most of the time. It seems to have gone very well, as I'm in close to no discomfort. It turns out, the surgeon told us, that the damage to my knee was far greater than the MRI indicated. He marveled, in fact, at how I've been able to tolerate it. In any case, it's good to know that the surgery was very much called for. As for thinking about namas and rupas, that didn't "do it" for me. Simply having done what was needed to be done and then letting things be as they would be worked well for me. Whatever works for each person is what s/he should go for, I'd say. With metta, Howard #87438 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Nina (and Alex) - > > In a message dated 6/24/2008 2:47:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > Hi Howard and Alex, > Howard, best wishes with your surgery. Yes, only nama and rupa, don't > forget! > ============================== > Thanks, Nina! I just returned from the hospital, almost 7 hours after > our arrival there today. The surgery, per se, took only about an hour, the > preparation and especially the waiting for the spinal anaesthesia to wear off > taking most of the time. It seems to have gone very well, as I'm in close to no > discomfort. It turns out, the surgeon told us, that the damage to my knee was > far greater than the MRI indicated. He marveled, in fact, at how I've been > able to tolerate it. In any case, it's good to know that the surgery was very > much called for. My best wishes on a speedy recovery! I hope your damaged knee doesn't interfere with your meditation practice. :-( Metta, James #87439 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:18 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 6/24/2008 9:15:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Nina (and Alex) - > > In a message dated 6/24/2008 2:47:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > Hi Howard and Alex, > Howard, best wishes with your surgery. Yes, only nama and rupa, don't > forget! > ============================== > Thanks, Nina! I just returned from the hospital, almost 7 hours after > our arrival there today. The surgery, per se, took only about an hour, the > preparation and especially the waiting for the spinal anaesthesia to wear off > taking most of the time. It seems to have gone very well, as I'm in close to no > discomfort. It turns out, the surgeon told us, that the damage to my knee was > far greater than the MRI indicated. He marveled, in fact, at how I've been > able to tolerate it. In any case, it's good to know that the surgery was very > much called for. My best wishes on a speedy recovery! ---------------------------------------------- Thanks, James! :-) -------------------------------------------- I hope your damaged knee doesn't interfere with your meditation practice. :-( ------------------------------------------- It won't. I use my mind for meditation, not my legs. ;-)) ------------------------------------------ Metta, James ======================== With metta, Howard #87440 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 6:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > I hope your damaged knee > doesn't interfere with your meditation practice. :-( > ------------------------------------------- > It won't. I use my mind for meditation, not my legs. ;-)) > ------------------------------------------ LOL! I meant the sitting crosslegged, silly. A painful knee could make that very difficult. Of course you could sit in a chair; but I never find that nearly as effective as sitting on the ground. Of course you can walk, stand, or lie, but those all will make the knee hurt as well. Anyway, meditation is a whole body experience, not just the mind. :-) Metta, James #87441 From: han tun Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 7:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? hantun1 Dear Howard, Howard: I just returned from the hospital, almost 7 hours after our arrival there today. The surgery, per se, took only about an hour, the preparation and especially the waiting for the spinal anaesthesia to wear off taking most of the time. It seems to have gone very well, as I'm in close to no discomfort. It turns out, the surgeon told us, that the damage to my knee was far greater than the MRI indicated. He marveled, in fact, at how I've been able to tolerate it. In any case, it's good to know that the surgery was very much called for. Han: I am very happy to know that the surgery has been successful, and that you are close to no discomfort. It was your very wise decision to undergo surgery. Respectfully, Han #87442 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:20 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for the reply: N: "As I understand from the context, he had clearvoyance of what was going on in their hearts, that is inwardly. This in addition to outward behaviour...Vis. XIII, 124: It is explained that a limited object is materiality. ... As to external object: seeing another's materiality. This is only about ruupa, but we see that it is not only as to beings vanishing and reappearing." Scott: Check out Sammohavinodanii (Vol. II, pp 146-147): "2019. ...these ten powers should be understood as set forth successively as follows because (1) in the first place the Tathaagata sees with the knowledge of the possible and the impossible the absence of obstruction by defilement which is the possibility (reason) for the attaining or the impossibility (non-reason) for the non-attaining of the destruction of the cankers by teachable beings; this is owing to seeing the possibility (.thaana) for mundune right view and owing to seeing the absence of possibility for assured wrong view. (2) Then with the knowledge of kamma result he sees the absence in them of obstruction by kamma result; this is owing to seeing a rebirth-linking with three root causes. (3) With the knowledge of ways wheresoever going, he sees the absence of obstruction by kamma; this is owing to seeing the absence of kamma with immediate effect. (4) With the knowledge of the numerous and varying elements, he sees the specific habit (temperament) of those who are thus free from obstructions for the purpose of teaching of the Law suitable [to their habitat]; this is owing to seeing the diversity of the elements. (5) Then with the knowledge of different resolves, he sees their resolves; this is for the purpose of teaching the Law according to their disposition even if they have not accepted the means. (6) Then, in order to teach the Law according to the ability and capacity of those whose resolves have been seen in the way, with the knowledge of the disposition of the faculties, he sees the disposition of the faculties, this owing to showing the keen and dull state of faith, etc. (7) But owing to disposition of the faculties being fully understood thus, if they are far off then owing to mastery of the first jhaana, etc., he quickly goes to them by means of his distinction in miraculous power; and having gone, seeing (8) the state of their former lives with the knowledge of the recollection of former lives, and *(9) the present distinction of consciousness with the knowledge of the penetration of other's minds to be reached owing to the power of the Divine Eye;* (10) with the power of the knowledge of destruction of the cankers, he teaches the Law for the destruction of the cankers owing to being rid of delusion about the way that leads to the destruction of the cankers. Therefore it should be understood that these ten powers were referred to in this sequence..." Sincerely, Scott. #87443 From: LBIDD@... Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:39 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,272 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 272. And when there is no birth, neither ageing and death nor states beginning with sorrow come about; but when there is birth, then ageing and death come about, and also the states beginning with sorrow, which are either bound up with ageing and death in a fool who is affected by the painful states called ageing and death, or which are not so bound up in one who is affected by some painful state or other; therefore this birth is a condition for ageing and death and also for sorrow and so on. But it is a condition in one way, as decisive-support type. This is the detailed explanation of the clause 'With becoming as condition, birth'. ************************** 272. yasmaa ca asati jaatiyaa jaraamara.na.m naama, sokaadayo vaa dhammaa na honti. jaatiyaa pana sati jaraamara.na~nceva, jaraamara.nasa"nkhaatadukkhadhammaphu.t.thassa ca baalajanassa jaraamara.naabhisambandhaa vaa tena tena dukkhadhammena phu.t.thassa anabhisambandhaa vaa sokaadayo ca dhammaa honti. tasmaa ayampi jaati jaraamara.nassa ceva sokaadiina~nca paccayo hotiiti veditabbaa. saa pana upanissayako.tiyaa ekadhaava paccayo hotiiti. aya.m bhavapaccayaa jaatiitiaadiisu vitthaarakathaa. #87444 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 6/24/2008 9:49:29 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > I hope your damaged knee > doesn't interfere with your meditation practice. :-( > ------------------------------------------- > It won't. I use my mind for meditation, not my legs. ;-)) > ------------------------------------------ LOL! I meant the sitting crosslegged, silly. A painful knee could make that very difficult. Of course you could sit in a chair; but I never find that nearly as effective as sitting on the ground. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I knew what you meant. ;-) Actually, because of the knee trouble and also back trouble which calls out for back support, I stopped cross-legged sitting a good while ago. I usually sit erect in an easy chair, and I do quite fine with that. Also, at times I do walking (and standing) meditation instead, making me less vulnerable to a sloth & torpor attack, which is my main hindrance. -------------------------------------------- Of course you can walk, stand, or lie, but those all will make the knee hurt as well. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I'm already doing a bit of walking, and it's not too bad. I suspect that I'll have little to no knee trouble very soon. The surgery went very smoothly today, and I'm in very little discomfort. This is a really good surgeon! -------------------------------------------- Anyway, meditation is a whole body experience, not just the mind. :-) -------------------------------------------- Howard: What I attend to while meditating, though centered on the body, is all of "the all". But, of course, it is mind that does the attending. ------------------------------------------ Metta, James ======================= With metta, Howard #87445 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? upasaka_howard Hi, Han - In a message dated 6/24/2008 10:58:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hantun1@... writes: Han: I am very happy to know that the surgery has been successful, and that you are close to no discomfort. It was your very wise decision to undergo surgery. ======================== Thanks! :-) It does seem to have been a good decision. With metta, Howard #87446 From: "connie" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:22 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,272 nichiconn Path of Purity, p.693 And because when there is no birth, there is no old age and death, nor states such as old age, death and sorrow, but when there is birth there are old age-and-death and states beginning with sorrow, which are bound with old age and death, in the case of a foolish person who has been touched by painful states called old age and death, and which are not bound therewith in the case of one who has been touched by this and that painful state {such as a loss of relatives and so on}, therefore, this birth should be known as the cause of old age and death and sorrow and so on. It however constitutes a single cause by way of the point {The Tiikaa explains this to be such as is not found in the Pa.t.thaana but is found in the Suttanta methods of exposition.} of sufficing condition. This is the detailed discourse on "Conditioned by becoming, birth comes to pass" and so on. #87447 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - revised and corrected edition kenhowardau Hi Herman, I am finding this hard to follow. Let's go one step at a time. -------------- <. . .> H: > I have already agreed with you that there is no logical reason for craving, conceit or self view, and I will not tire of agreeing with that again and again. There is no logical reason for it, KenH, absolutely none, and it is good to point that out. ------------- So you know there is no logical reason for those things. How do you know? (Isn't it from your intellectual understanding of the Dhamma?) Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi KenH, > > 2008/6/24 kenhowardau : > > Hi Herman (and Howard), > > > > ---------- > > KH: > > > > >> They preclude it at the intellectual level, don't they? When we > >> understand intellectually that there are only namas and rupas (all > > of > >> them anicca, dukkha and anatta) we also understand intellectually > >> that any form of craving, conceit or self view would be absurdly out > >> of place. > #87448 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts. akusala cetasika - ditthi egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/6/24 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear Lukas, > > Can a chair be experienced through the bodysense? We think that we > can touch a chair, but what is actually experienced? Hardness or > softness can be directly experienced. A chair cannot be directly > experienced, it is only an idea we form up in our minds. Chair is a word that refers to a range of experiences across multiple sense modalities in an extended moment. There are many different experiences that all qualify for being referred to as chair. Of course we can experience chair. Thinking can > think of many objects, it can think of realities and also of concepts > which are not real. When we think that we see a person, it is not > seeing, but it is thinking of a concept. Only visible object can be > experineced through the eyesense. When we touch what we take for a > person, what appears? Hardness, softness, heat or cold can be > directly experienced through the bodysense, not a person. When certain combinations of sights, sounds, feelings, smells etc arise in an extended moment, we use the word person to refer that. The Buddha > taught that there is no person, no self. The Buddha taught there is no soul, he certainly didn't teach there were no persons, if by that you mean beings. Cheers Herman #87449 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? nilovg Hi Howard, I am glad all went well. Op 25-jun-2008, om 3:03 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > In any case, it's good to know that the surgery was very > much called for. > As for thinking about namas and rupas, that didn't "do it" for me. > Simply having done what was needed to be done and then letting > things be as they > would be worked well for me. Whatever works for each person is what > s/he > should go for, I'd say. -------- N: Sometimes it is good to be reminded as we read in today's posting of the Visuddhimagga: <272. And when there is no birth, neither ageing and death nor states beginning with sorrow come about; but when there is birth, then ageing and death come about, and also the states beginning with sorrow...> It is natural that we enjoy the good things of life, we have not eradicated this clinging. But when we have pain we forget that it all is a consequence of being born, of being in the cycle. It reminds us of the disadvantage of being in the cycle. Thinking of nama and rupa is not sufficient. But whatever we experience can be understood as a conditioned phenomenon. Painful feeling is not mine, although we tend to think of our pain. It is really hard not to think in that way, I know. It has no possessor, it is an element, a nama. So long as we are in the cycle we cannot escape nama and rupa, whether we like to think of them or not. Nina. #87450 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. egberdina Hi Scott, 2008/6/25 Scott Duncan : > Dear Nina, > > Scott: Check out Sammohavinodanii (Vol. II, pp 146-147): > The significance of the Sammohavinodanii quote is lost on me, I'm afraid. Your quote refers to how the Buddha discerns what message would be most effective to a given audience. And here in DN33, the Buddha discerns that the audience is free of sloth and torpor. But it was Sariputta who delivers the discourse here, one of his own choosing. Or are you suggesting that your above quote applies to Sariputta? Cheers Herman #87451 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/6/24 Nina van Gorkom : > Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. > > > We read that after he had surveyed the Order of the monks he > addressed the Venerble Saariputta. > > We read: " My back aches", why did it ache? The Lord had strong > bodily pain after having greatly exerted himself during six rainy > seasons. Does that make the great exertion akusula? Cheers Herman #87452 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - revised and corrected edition egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/6/25 kenhowardau : > Hi Herman, > > I am finding this hard to follow. Let's go one step at a time. > > -------------- > <. . .> > H: > I have already agreed with you that there is no logical reason > for craving, conceit or self view, and I will not tire of agreeing > with that again and again. There is no logical reason for it, KenH, > absolutely none, and it is good to point that out. > ------------- > > So you know there is no logical reason for those things. How do you > know? > > (Isn't it from your intellectual understanding of the Dhamma?) > I'm happy to be corrected, but I don't think there is anything in the Tipitaka that says anything vaguely like "craving, conceit or self-view are not logical." So that can't have been my source. But it is the experience of daily life that shows that there is no logic in choosing what is wanted or desired or craved. Logic is only used in going about getting what is wanted, not in choosing what is wanted. Cheers Herman #87453 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:56 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 6/25/2008 6:29:39 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Howard, I am glad all went well. ========================== Thank you, Nina. With regard to your other comments, I do agree that thinking about the way things actually are, especially at difficult times, is helpful. With metta, Howard #87454 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:02 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. scottduncan2 Dear Herman, H: "The significance of the Sammohavinodanii quote is lost on me, I'm afraid..." S: No worries, Herman. Sincerely, Scott. #87455 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - revised and corrected edition upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Ken) - In a message dated 6/25/2008 6:46:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Logic is only used in going about getting what is wanted, not in choosing what is wanted. ========================== I agree that logic is not used in directly choosing what is wanted, that emotional "choosing" being ignorance-conditioned reaction to pleasant feeling. But in addition to logic being used in pursuing what is wanted, it may also be used to determine what is not useful to pursue, despite desire to the contrary. And following reason that points in the right direction, our mental inclinations can be gradually reconstructed to bring our emotional responses more in line with what is useful. That is largely what the four right endeavors are about. With metta, Howard #87456 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:16 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility egberdina Hi Sukinder, 2008/6/24 Sukinder : > Hi Herman (and Tep), > > > Tep has responded with reference to the 4NT which I liked. > ============== > Herman: > I'm just wondering what benefit you see in believing or understanding > the Dhamma to be the *only* expression of Truth. > > S: The statement itself adds nothing. The thinking involved may be with > tanha or with understanding. The one can't ever be good but the other if > it is say, an instance of reflection on the Dhamma, this must be good > surely? No, not at all. Where have you read that statements like "only this view is true, anything else is wrong" received praise from the Buddha? > > ============== > Herman: > All around the world all sorts of people believe and understand all > sorts of things. > > S: And if it is not kusala with or without panna, it is blameworthy. And > what good can my stating this achieve? I believe that if you or someone > else were to reflect on this with understanding, then it must be good! ;-) > And did you think that saying "only this is true, anything else is wrong" would prompt wholesome reflection? Is that why you express your belief in the superiority of Theravada? > ============== > Herman: > I do not see anything in the way the peoples that have been Theravadan > for centuries live their lives that makes me think they are freer of > suffering than elsewhere. > > S: I think that this is a wrong approach. I think a correct > understanding of the Dhamma, rather then leading us to look for results, > would condition an interest in "causes", and where else to understand > this but one's own citta? This being the case would we then seek to > judge the value of the Teachings in the behavior of others? > A wrong approach for what? If you are not looking for results, then no approach is required. And that is why the Theravadan tradition is as resilient as it it. It seeks to achieve nothing but its own mindless perpetuation, and achieves this every day. If you believe what you say with reference to judging, then why do you judge your tradition to be superior to any other? > ============== > Herman: > I would sooner think the opposite. It makes no sense to me to believe > that by persevering to do as has always been done, that things are going > to be any different in the future. > > S: And were one to even have a glimpse of what it means for the present > citta being conditioned and already fallen away without control and > perhaps begin to see how much avijja there is, this would discourage us > from making judgments in term of "selves" as you seem to be doing here. > It is idealistic thinking which is what you seem to be involved in, and > a misunderstanding of the Path. It seems to me you already know the Path perfectly. Pariyatti has a lot to answer for :-) Cheers Herman #87457 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:25 am Subject: Metta, Ch 9, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, When calm has been developed with a meditation subject and calm has become more established, one can experience an image, nimitta, but this is not the case with all meditation subjects. The development of the following meditation subjects is dependant on the experience of a nimitta: the kasi.nas (disks), the meditations on corpses, mindfulness of breath (ånåpåna sati) and mindfulness with regard to the body (kåyagatå sati). When someone develops the earth kasi.na he contemplates earth in order that the citta becomes calm, free of akusala; he is dependant on an image in the form of a circle, which can help him to subdue akusala citta. When someone develops the other kasi.nas, namely the kasi.nas of fire and wind, of the colours of blue, yellow, red and white, of light and air, the same procedure is followed. The meditations on foulness (asubha) are meditations on corpses in different stages of decay. As regards mindfulness of breath (ånåpåna sati), this is mindfulness of breath where it appears on the tip of the nose or upper lip. Kåyagatå sati is contemplation of the foulness of the body in each part, such as hair of the head, hair of the body, nails, teeth, skin. One is dependant on a “nimitta”, a mental image, only when one develops calm with the above mentioned meditation subjects. Of each of these subjects a mental image can appear. Citta contemplates this image in order to attain a higher degree of calm. Citta contemplates a specific nimitta in the case of each of these subjects and it does not “see” other nimittas such as hells, heavens, devas, ghosts or the person one calls the avenger or controller of one’s fate. The development of samatha and the development of vipassanå are intricate and difficult. For both ways of development paññå is needed but paññå in samatha and paññå in vipassanå are of different levels. Paññå in samatha can temporarily subdue defilements but it cannot eradicate them. In vipassanå paññå is developed which knows the reality which appears as it is, as anattå, non-self, and this kind of paññå can eradicate defilements completely. People should not mistakenly think that they develop samatha or vipassanå by way of concentration, by trying to focus for a long time on one object. ******* Nina. #87458 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. nilovg Hi Herman, Op 25-jun-2008, om 12:36 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > Does that make the great exertion akusula? ----- The Paali states: mahaa-padhaana, and this is in the case of the Buddha with mahaa-kiriyacitta. As I mentioned: look at his daily routine, when he exhorted the bhikkhus and preached to laypeople who came to visit him. Nina. #87460 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Logic & Desire. Which is the cause of which? Papanca... truth_aerator Hi Ken, Herman and all, > > Ken: So you know there is no logical reason for those things. How do you know? (Isn't it from your intellectual understanding of the Dhamma?) > > MN18 (internal + external object = consciousness) = contact -> feeling -> perception -> thinking -> the perceptions & categories of papañca perception > the categories of papañca perception > name & form > contact > appealing & unappealing > desire > dear-&-not-dear > stinginess/divisiveness/quarrels/disputes (does the second flowchart explains in more details what papanca is? Thinking about Nama-Rupa?!) Interesting... SN 4.11 ========================================================== The analysis starts out in an impersonal tone: Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises [similarly with the rest of the six senses]. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. Starting with feeling, the notion of an "agent" — in this case, the feeler — acting on "objects," is introduced: What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one "papañcizes." Through the process of papañca, the agent then becomes a victim of his/her own patterns of thinking: Based on what a person papañcizes, the perceptions & categories of papañca assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye [as with the remaining senses]. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.018.than.html ===================================================================== As you see, feeling & perceptions are more basic than thinking and especially more basic than full blown logic. Of course when papanca arises, so does the intellectual self view and intellectual desires. However these have more basic "building blocks". Best wishes, Alex #87461 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:53 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. nilovg Dear Herman and Scott, Op 25-jun-2008, om 12:34 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > The significance of the Sammohavinodanii quote is lost on me, I'm > afraid. Your quote refers to how the Buddha discerns what message > would be most effective to a given audience. And here in DN33, the > Buddha discerns that the audience is free of sloth and torpor. But it > was Sariputta who delivers the discourse here, one of his own > choosing. Or are you suggesting that your above quote applies to > Sariputta? ------- N: The quote is very good, it is about the Buddha's penetration of others' minds, as you see. Herman, I understand, there are many details about what can be obstructions for receiving the Dhamma, such as being born with two hetus, that is, without pa~n~naa, or kamma with immediate effect, anantariya kamma, when one has murdered a parent. Many of these points are explained elsewhere, it takes time now to explain them all. I like very much the description of how silent the monks were: tu.nhii-bhuuta.m, as still and immovable as the flame of a lamp inside a vessel, where it cannot be moved by the wind. There heads were not lifted up, they did not look this way or that way, they did not move at all. It is an example of listening with reverence to the Dhamma, really wanting to listen and consider. Good for us. The Buddha was satisfied with the monks and he knew that he could ask Saariputta to give a discourse. Why Saariputta? He was the general of the Dhamma, he was the person who systematizised the Abhidhamma teaching. What follows are short formulas : the Ones, the Twos, etc. But you will find some of it in the Boys Questions, Minor Sayings, Khuddaka Patha, and this also is elaborated on in its Commentary (Minor Readings and Illustrator, PTS). Nina. #87462 From: "connie" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:23 am Subject: Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. nichiconn Dear Scott, Nina, Ud-a, Masefield [201] << For devataas have a sensitive ear-element that is heavenly, that comes into being through deeds of good conduct, that is unimpeded by bile, phlegm and blood and so on, {snip} obtained by way of a heavenly abiding and also on account of its own dependence upon a heavenly abiding.>> Even when a certain one is hit on the head one moonlit night and the yakkha (straight-to-hell) knows "I'm burning, I'm burning", the stories come down to the nama and rupa of the present -- objects of limited understanding, for sure. peace, connie > Is it explained anywhere what is the object of dibba-cakkhu? In the > above it seems that it is hadaya ruupa. There seems to be a suggested > link between posture and hadaya ruupa. Is this clarified anywhere? -------- N: As I understand from the context, he had clearvoyance of what was going on in their hearts, that is inwardly. This in addition to outward behaviour. I do not know other texts about this. But it seems a paralel to clear audience, where one can hear sounds far off. Vis. XIII, 124: It is explained that a limited object is materiality. ... As to external object: seeing another's materiality. This is only about ruupa, but we see that it is not only as to beings vanishing and reappearing. #87463 From: Dieter Möller Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility moellerdieter Hi James ( Alex and all), you wrote: 'What I mean is that Theravada as a whole is a poor expression of the Buddha's truth (Mahayana also is a poor expression, but that is a different subject). By "Theravada as a whole" I mean the Theravada texts and the expression of Theravada in the real world. Remember, there used to be many different schools of Buddhism to chose from, now there are just three: Theravada, Mahayana, and Tibetan. Personally, I don't really like any of them. They are all lacking. D: well , that means the Triple Gem as you include the Sangha by ' expression of Theravada', i.e. by monks and laity) Since the Parinibbana of the Buddha the Teaching became the Teacher, which for those sticking to the teaching of the elders , Theravada, is presented by the Tipitaka . Without these orginal texts of 'poor expression' as you call it , you wouldn't even know about the Buddha . James: Theravada is supposed to be the Buddha's original teaching; well, the Tipitaka, pound for pound, is not the Buddha's original teaching. D: pound for pound is supposed to be closest to the teaching ( unfortunately Ananda and others did not know stenography), so it is all what we have ..thanks to the thousands of monks who memorized it (for generations ). James: Seven books of the Abhidhamma, he didn't teach; commentaries, including Vism., he didn't teach; commentaries to the Vinaya, he didn't teach. Most of what is in the Tipitaka the Buddha didn't teach. D: whether or what part of Abhidhamma the Buddha taught, is difficult to say . But it is consens in Theravada Buddhism to respect it as third basket , besides sutta and vinaya pitaka. For those in doubt the rule of the Four Great References apply (i.e. counter check with sutta/vinaya as judge). Commentaries are commentaries , not Tipitaka James: When you read just the suttas, and then read the commentaries, they are like two different worlds. D: but nothing commits us to read the commentaries ..they are just a wellmeant support to help one's understanding, even if misunderstood in that function by some James: It is ridiculous to cling to everything in the Tipitaka because monks at the Third Buddhist Council declared it all to be the Buddha's word. D: it is not ridiculous , without a consensus what should be taken as the Buddha's word, no writing in one work..no efforts to keep this treasure for more than 2000 years till today! James:Most of what is in the Tipitaka was motivated by politics between different Buddhist sects and governments, not wisdom. D: Most of what is in the Tipitaka : please provide evidence , especially to justify your claim of 'most ' , your claim is without credibility James: The expression of Theravada in the real world is also lacking. Most of the Thervada monks in the world have no real interest in being monks; they are just monks because of tradition or to make a livelihood. D: how do you know that? Do you have profound knowledge about the Sanghas of the several Theravada countries to support this kind of generalization? The media reports usually only what goes wrong .. James: While the same could be said for the Buddha's time, in the Buddha's time they were the minority but now they are the majority. And most Theravada laypeople give dana to the Sangha out of tradition and to earn merit, not to learn the Dhamma. Corruption in the Buddhist Sangha is now the norm, not the exception; and laypeople turn a blind eye to what is happening because they are not supposed to object. It is a sham and a travesty of what the Buddha intended. D: to learn the Dhamma has been always a kind of special privilege ..the mass of lay people may rightfully hope that by dana they can earn merit for that.. What are you doing to change the situation for the better? Frankly speaking , James, I have enjoyed reading some of good postings from you in the past .. but this one disappoints me very much! with Metta Dieter #87464 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:43 am Subject: Re:Q. [dsg] Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. nilovg Dear Connie, Op 25-jun-2008, om 18:23 heeft connie het volgende geschreven: > Even when a certain one is hit on the head one moonlit night and > the yakkha (straight-to-hell) knows "I'm burning, I'm burning", the > stories come down to the nama and rupa of the present -- objects of > limited understanding, for sure. -------- N: All these monks knew that the stories come down to the nama and rupa of the present; they were accomplished in vipassanaa as the Co stated: aaraddha vipassanaa te bhikkhuu. Aaraddha implies viriya, they had applied right effort. And now we are going to listen to the Ones, the Twos, etc. , remembering that whatever is explained here pertains to nama and rupa now. Nina. #87465 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? nilovg Hi Alex, Op 25-jun-2008, om 2:38 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > N: If you would only begin to understand what paramattha dhamma, > or, in other words, what reality is, you are well on your way. > >>>> > > Philosophers AND BUDDHISTS tried that for thousands of years at this > question and have not been answered and couldn't find a single > convinvicing answer. ------ N: Did they forget that the key is being mindful of nama or rupa appearing now? BTW, speaking of nama and rupa, I thought that you some time ago studied the Manual of Abhidhamma. Still continuing? ----- > > >>>>>>>>> > A: Begin with only one or two, such as seeing that sees only colour, > hardness that impinges on the bodysense but that is not a person, it > helps to gain more faith. > >>> > > This isn't different from modern materialistic science that preaches > no-self, no soul. ------- N: You have a point. But do they know that also materiality is not "mine", that it has no possessor? Scientists could not help us to have more detachment from the idea of self. They did not show the way leading to the end of all clinging, I am sure you agree. Nina. #87466 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts. akusala cetasika - ditthi nilovg Hi Herman, Op 25-jun-2008, om 12:22 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > Chair is a word that refers to a range of experiences across multiple > sense modalities in an extended moment. There are many different > experiences that all qualify for being referred to as chair. Of course > we can experience chair. ------- N: Let us say: we can think of the concept chair, but it is not a reality that can be directly experienced. I was typing Sri Lanka and thought of you, when coming to this: < Seeing is a mental phenomenon, it experiences visible object. Visible object is that which is seen, which is experienced through the eyesense. We can call it visible object or colour, it does not matter how we call it, but its characteristic can be known when it appears through the eyes. When we pay attention to the shape and form of what we see, when we perceive a person or a particular thing, it is not seeing. Because of remembrance of past experiences we form up concepts such as “person” or “chair”. It seems that there is a long moment of seeing and that seeing sees people and things, but seeing falls away immediately and it is succeeded by other types of cittas. Cittas succeed one another very rapidly.> ------- N: It seems that thinking is one moment and it has as object chair. In fact there are many moments of thinking accompanied by remembrance which plays an important part. ------- > H: Thinking can > > think of many objects, it can think of realities and also of > concepts > > which are not real. When we think that we see a person, it is not > > seeing, but it is thinking of a concept. Only visible object can be > > experineced through the eyesense. When we touch what we take for a > > person, what appears? Hardness, softness, heat or cold can be > > directly experienced through the bodysense, not a person. > > When certain combinations of sights, sounds, feelings, smells etc > arise in an extended moment, we use the word person to refer that. ------- N: Agreed. ------- > > H: quotes N: The Buddha > > taught that there is no person, no self. > > The Buddha taught there is no soul, he certainly didn't teach there > were no persons, if by that you mean beings. ------- Kindred Sayings I, Suttas of Sisters, § 10 Vajira: Mara visited Sister Vajira and asked; She explained that a being are the five khandhas, and that it is dukkha that arises and ceases. Suppose, you generously give something away to someone who is poor. It is not you, only a moment of generosity. It does not stay, how can it be you. But I, in my turn, can appreciate that quality that appeared 'in you'. Nina. #87467 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? truth_aerator Hi Nina and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Alex, > Op 25-jun-2008, om 2:38 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > > > N: If you would only begin to understand what paramattha dhamma, > > or, in other words, what reality is, you are well on your way. > > >>>> Philosophers AND BUDDHISTS tried that for thousands of years at this question and have not been answered and couldn't find a single convinvicing answer. > ------ > N: Did they forget that the key is being mindful of nama or rupa > appearing now? >>>> Maybe they didn't forget sati. Most, if not ALL, Buddhist schools teach about mindfulness & nama-rupa (although the precise terminology or way of describing may not always match). > BTW, speaking of nama and rupa, I thought that you some time ago studied the Manual of Abhidhamma. Still continuing? >----- > > I am not really continuing studiyng CMA. I did try to read Dhammasangani & Puggalapannati - although I found Dhs to be of a style that I have disagreements with. Furthermore I am concerned that I may engage in Papanca and may not be able to break through to magga- phala if I study Abh. > > >>>>>>>>> > > A: Begin with only one or two, such as seeing that sees only colour, > > hardness that impinges on the bodysense but that is not a person, it > > helps to gain more faith. > > >>> > > > > This isn't different from modern materialistic science that preaches > > no-self, no soul. > ------- > N: You have a point. But do they know that also materiality is not > "mine", that it has no possessor? >>> That is what their results show and those scientists who would look deeper into their results would see that. Again, no-self no-soul isn't exclusively Buddhist. ===================== Mereological nihilism (also called compositional nihilism, or what some philosophers just call nihilism) is the position that objects with proper parts do not exist (not only objects in space, but also objects existing in time do not have any temporal parts), and only basic building blocks without parts exist (e.g., electrons, quarks), and thus the world we see and experience full of objects with parts is a product of human misperception (if we could see clearly, we'd not see compositive objects). One philosopher who has contended in favor of something close to pure mereological nihilism is Peter Unger, in his papers "There Are No Ordinary Things," and "I Do Not Exist." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereological_Nihilism =================== Metaphysical nihilism is a philosophical term that refers to the theory that there are no objects or that objects do not exist. This position has been attributed to philosophers such as Parmenides, Buddha, Advaita Vedantins, and Immanuel Kant (according to some interpretations of his transcendental idealism). Blob theory is also considered very closely aligned with mereological nihilism (the position that there are no parts and wholes). Obviously if metaphysical nihilism, in this sense, is correct, empirical reality is an illusion. Among philosophers today, the term is more commonly used to refer to the doctrine that there might have been no objects at all, i.e. that there is a possible world in which there are no objects at all. Or, even more commonly, it is used to refer to the weaker doctrine that there might have been no concrete objects at all, so even if every possible world contains some objects, there is at least one that contains only abstract objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_nihilism ========================================================= >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Scientists could not help us to have more detachment from the idea of self. They did not show the way leading to the end of all clinging, I am sure you agree. > Nina. > Bulls eye Nina! That is what I like about Buddhism. It has a METHOD, a PRACTICE, a PATH, MEDITATION (call it as you will)! Best wishes, Alex #87468 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 12:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? nilovg Hi Alex, Op 25-jun-2008, om 21:09 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > I found Dhs to be of a > style that I have disagreements with. Furthermore I am concerned that > I may engage in Papanca and may not be able to break through to magga- > phala if I study Abh. ------- N: It depends in what way you study Abhidhamma. If you carefully check with your daily life while you study it will sure help you on your way. You may find Dhs too concise in style, and understandably it may cause you trouble. That is why perhaps the CMA easier to begin with, but nothing is really easy. If that were so, we would all attain enlightenment now. Nina. #87472 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:18 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none?! truth_aerator Hi Nina and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Hi Alex, > Op 25-jun-2008, om 21:09 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > > > I found Dhs to be of a > > style that I have disagreements with. Furthermore I am concerned that I may engage in Papanca and may not be able to break through to magga-phala if I study Abh. > ------- > N: It depends in what way you study Abhidhamma. If you carefully > check with your daily life while you study it will sure help you on > your way. >>>> Ok. How do I know that each citta last 1/36 billionth (or something like that) of a second? How do I know that it has sabhava rather than being a "phenomenon without noumenon" ? How can one know that there is only 1 citta happening at the time rather than there being possibility of two different cittas (ex: eye and mind citta) happening simulteneously? How do I know that there are 72, not 71 not 73 Dhammas? What about 24 conditions, almost half of which are identical in function & different in name? Why 24 not 23 or 25? How do I know that unwholesome states of mind are always neutral or unpleasant? How do I know that wholesome states of mind are always pleasant or neutral? Ex: Abstinence from Sex maybe very painful for a horny young guy. Or Abstinence from Killing (fishing) for a very addicted fisherman... Or Abstinence from taking drugs for a drug user hooked on drugs... Theoretically these are supposed to be a wholesome states with neutral (or pleasant feeling) for a worldling. Of course for an Ariya, especially an Anagamin, things change... But I am not there. But reality flies to the contrary of some Abhidhammic concepts! Furthermore the ridiculous idea that (eye, ear, nose, tongue) only percieve neutral/equinimity flies in the face of experience. Hasn't anyone seen a painfully intense light (ex try to stare at the sun)? Please no identification of "sense organs" and the body being one. In the suttas the salayatana is listed separate from kaya. Please no adding of unverifiable moment of equinimity before body consciousness arises. =========== Ajahn Sujato ======================= A similar point can be made with reference to the abhidhamma's strange analysis of the kinds of feeling associated with the six kinds of sense cognition. Feelings associated with the eye, ear, nose, and tongue are said to be neutral only. This seems to entail thatflowers are beautiful and food tasty only because they make you happy. Has no abhidhammika eaten a mango while depressed and still found it tasty? Or smelt sewage while happy and still found it unpleasant? Again, the fact that this doctrine contradicts the suttas (which speak of `the feeling born of eye-stimulus, whether pleasant, painful, or neutral…') is not as worrying as the fact that it flies in the face of the living experience ofthe abhidhammikas, every moment of every day. Neither verifiable nor falsifiable, the theory of moments inhabits an epistemological no-man's-land, drifting like a lost albatross over the trackless seas of paradox, seeking but never finding a place to land. ======================= Mystique of Abhidhamma========== >>>>>>>>>>> You may find Dhs too concise in style, and understandably it may cause you trouble. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't find it as informative, original and readable as the suttas. Furthermore while the suttas are considered to be historic records of Buddha speaking, Abh is shrouded in such a ridiculous and superstitious mythology going against Buddha's teaching that I wonder what sort of people couldbelive the mystical aspects of this. By comparison the Ressurection appears to be pure science! >>> That is why perhaps the CMA easier to begin with, >>> I like its format better. >>>>> > but nothing is really easy. If that were so, we would all attain > enlightenment now. > Nina. > Lack of dry intellectual knowledge may not be a factor in ariyahood. Best wishes, Alex #87473 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? kenhowardau Hi Howard and Alex, Glad to have you back, Howard - alive *and* kicking. :-) This post of yours contains a lot of the same old material that we have already gone over and over (and over) and which needs going over several more times. :-) But I will limit my reply to just one or two points: ---------- KH: > > I wonder why you liked it. There was nothing in it that appealed to me in the least. Howard: > Hmm, I guess that shows that our perspectives aren't the same. :-) ---------- True. (Although I still wonder why you liked it so much.) ------------------------------------ KK: > > As far as I can tell Alex is not interested in the same Dhamma that I am interested in. Howard: > Or that he has a different take on the same Dhamma? KH: > > He is of the Thanissaro persuasion except he actually goes a step further. Howard: > Oh, my! The dreaded name, 'Thanissaro', scourge of all true Theravadins! LOL! KH: > > They both say the Buddha did not intend us to take anatta literally, but whereas Thanissaro says the Buddha taught anatta as a strategy (to stop us thinking when we should be meditating) Alex says the Buddha taught anatta as a joke.* Howard: > Man, I must know a different Alex! Where did you get this from, Ken? KH: > > PS: *I hope I got that right (about anatta being meant as a joke).When I read the paragraph involved I more or less switched off and skimmed to the end of the post. But I saw Sarah refer to it later and, from what she wrote, I think my first impression was correct. Howard: > I seem to have missed what you are talking about. Could you please clarify? ------------------------------------- OK, I have tracked it down; post #86853 (Although I have still not read it carefully.) IMHO, this post from Alex reveals a sorry tale of someone who has been tragically misled by Ven Thanissaro. When someone sees the Dhamma as just another eternalist dogma, and they happily study that wrong interpretation, it's hard to see any point in discussion. Well I don't really mean that . . It's difficult to say . . If only we could all get to that basic starting point where we understand there are only dhammas! :-) Ken H PS: ** 86853 contains quite a long quote (from a.t.i. I think) that is full of what I would call wrong views, but even so the reason I have not read carefully is a bit of a mystery. I am still going through that strange phase that stops me getting on with my Visuddhimagga thread. It's just a stubborn resistance to doing today anything that can be put off until tomorrow. It's the story of my life, really! :-) KH #87474 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:37 pm Subject: Re: response to hate mail etc - revised and corrected edition kenhowardau Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > . . . > > > I'm happy to be corrected, but I don't think there is anything in the > Tipitaka that says anything vaguely like "craving, conceit or > self-view are not logical." You're a hard man to pin down, Herman. What if I used the word "inappropriate?" Do you know that lobha, mana and sakkaya-ditthi are inappropriate? If so, how do you know? Wouldn't it be from your having heard and considered the Dhamma? Ken H #87475 From: Sukinder Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 6:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching sukinderpal Hi Herman, Sorry for the delay in responding. ============= > Suk: I wouldn't put it exactly this way, for something to appear > different to what it really is, likely involves several mental factors. > We also have perversion of consciousness, perception and view to > consider. I think ignorance simply blinds, obscures, though this would > then make it the "root" of the problem, I guess. Herman: You're going to love this :-) What you say is basically the same idea that St Paul of the Christians is expressing when he says in 1 Cor13:12 "Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very clearly. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me." No doubt you will have good reasons why your version is better than St Paul, but I agree with neither of you :-) You both seem to agree that there is some sort of conflict happening between the entities known as ignorance and wisdom. You're both eternalists, I'm here to tell you. S: I don’t understand the quote. But taking clues from what you wrote elsewhere, I think your basic premise is that what is perceived is what is perceived and *that* is the truth. So when I distinguish perceptions rooted in ignorance from those that are not and those that are particularly conditioned by wisdom, you think that this is unnecessary value judgment which *denies* the truth. Is this it? If so further comments follow: Ignorance does not know the truth, including that it is what it is. When ignorance is accompanied by ‘wrong view’, it supports the latter to in fact take for real that which is not. Wisdom on the other hand, sees whatever appears as it is, including that it is conditioned, anicca, dukkha and anatta. Ignorance must be necessarily accompanied by the perception of permanence, self, satisfactoriness or beauty. If what you are saying is that ‘whatever the reality, that is the reality’, I would have no argument with you. But what I understand you to be saying is to the effect that ‘whatever the unreality, that is the reality’. In other words, you are not saying that ignorance is ignorance, but that the perception accompanying ignorance is equally acceptable as is the perception accompanying wisdom. But I possibly misrepresented you in which case please clarify and also explain why you think that my stated position is that of an eternalist. ================ > Suk: :-) You mean that all these years you did not take the mention of > 'patipatti' or 'satipatthana' to be 'mindfulness' of the present moment? > And do you agree with my above statement about the necessity of hearing > the Dhamma being pre-requisite for the kind of mindfulness? But of > course, our understanding of mindfulness is quite different, isn't it? Herman: I don't make a habit of agreeing with propositions about the world that do not rely on observation. And that is the difference between our views. S: Yes, that is one difference. When it comes to the Dhamma, I am very happy with people who admit to having only ‘intellectual understanding’ and who refer back to the texts with the understanding that their own experiences are not as reliable. ================= Herman: IMO, it perverts the meaning of "to understand" if whatever is supposedly being understood has no referent in the world. Was it you or someone else that had the very good example of understanding Father Christmas? S: I don’t have any regard for the worldling’s power of observation and any conclusions he then makes, particularly when he has yet to appreciate the Dhamma. Upon the arising of any of the sense door experiences, the uninstructed worldling “conceives” immediately in terms of me, mine or I. This is why even when pointed out the fact of for example, seeing, sound, thinking ‘now’ and so on, and that these can be known, few are interested, let alone are able to immediately see the truth to any extent. Instead he proliferates to ideas about ‘doings’ with no due consideration of the fact of craving and view arising in the moment. Even if the proliferation is of the concept of ‘meditation’ which he understands to be a chance for direct observation of the way things are, will not this then also be due to failure at recognizing these same realities at work? Which is why the test of one’s understanding is always “now”, i.e. in relation to the realities of the moment. And when this and the fact of the moment being conditioned and anatta is understood in principle, it then does not matter if the level of understanding is only intellectual. The reference point is rightly the present moment reality! On the other hand if what you mean by the “world” refers to concepts / conventional reality, this taken seriously is more dangerous than belief in Father Christmas which is a concept that can’t be taken seriously beyond a certain age. ;-) ================= Herman: It is exactly the same with your theories of mindfulness. S: Perhaps your objection comes from your own misunderstanding about mindfulness. I’m saying simply that mindfulness is mindfulness of a reality and like all realities it too is conditioned, impermanent, unsatisfactory and non-self. What is wrong with this? ================= Herman: As to practice, it simply is whatever you do, and no dsg'er is not in the business of satisfying their cravings. S: Some of us make the distinction and understand ‘practice’ as in ‘patipatti’ to be a conditioned reality which arises taking a characteristic of another reality as object, and this would include craving as well. ================== > Suk: The present moment has already fallen away, what is, is. Between > wrong view and right view for example, which ever was the 'reality' of > the present moment, this would have been accumulated and added to the > tendency for the same. Both of these are 'causes' which means that the > 'mindfulness' that you are referring to would condition not only > vipakka, but also adds to the possibility of the same arising in the > future. > > That in fact it has arisen now, points to the fact of it having arisen > in the past and this is evidence of 'conditionality'. Conditioned too > are the moments preceding the mindfulness and the one which follows. > Indeed there is *no* moment which is not conditioned. Herman: I could accept this if you could point to any condition, or cluster of conditions, which is making it necessary that you do whatever you do when mindful. I accept that when people are on autopilot, action is conditioned. But no amount of conditionality is sufficient to explain mindful kamma. S: You seem not to be talking about momentary and conditioned realities. Your mindfulness is something which lasts while other realities arise and fall away! I hope I have misread you. =============== > Suk: The conditions I assert refer to those between paramattha dhammas. > These perform functions and have characteristics individual and general. > Fleeting though they are, the citta accompanied by certain mental > factors can condition verbal and bodily actions. Therefore I do not deny > action, including that some are useful while others are not. Herman: Fascinating stuff. Cittas have bodies, do they? S: How do you infer this from what I wrote? =============== > What I do deny are views that fail to take into account such facts and instead > believe in the need for certain conventional activities to be followed > and which then gives 'intention' an overriding role it does not have. > The result is an insistence on a view of conditionality lying outside of > paramattha dhammas and instead be in the realm of concepts. Sitting in a > particular pose in order to develop mindfulness by anchoring on breath > is one example, and also your own ideas regarding 'social influence' and > the need thereby to be physically removed from that. Herman: At least the authors of the paramattha dhamma scheme realised that kamma could no longer be action if they wanted to make sense, it had to be limited to intention. If you want to maintain that you do not deny action, you might like to explain the difference between action and intention, and how action can possibly come from intention. S: Verbal and bodily intimation are rupas conditioned by citta. All cittas are conditioned by intention amongst other mental factors. Action which is “kamma” can be mental, verbal and bodily. Intention performs two functions, of coordinating and of willing. It is the latter which qualifies it as kamma. Does this answer your question? ================= > Suk: I don't know the details of conditions involved, I don't even > really know "one" condition directly. What I know is mostly with > suttamaya and cintamaya panna. However even at this level, I am > confident enough to know that you or anyone else won't be able to > persuade me to change my mind about this, that mindfulness and every > other moment gone before and which follows are *conditioned* realities. Herman: I don't doubt that you are able to completely close your "mind". That is your action, and it is not explainable by conditions. S: If by open-minded means being open to the possibility of wrong view being right, I’d say this must be due to doubt and / or lack of saddha. Metta, Sukin #87476 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:01 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none?! upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/25/2008 5:12:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Furthermore the ridiculous idea that (eye, ear, nose, tongue) only percieve neutral/equinimity flies in the face of experience. Hasn't anyone seen a painfully intense light (ex try to stare at the sun)? ============================= It isn't a sight/visible object that is painful, but the resultant bodily sensation. (The iris rapidly contracts in the presence of bright light, and that is painful.) With metta, Howard #87477 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:12 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/6/25 : > > Hi, Nina (and Alex) - > > In a message dated 6/24/2008 2:47:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > Hi Howard and Alex, > Howard, best wishes with your surgery. Yes, only nama and rupa, don't > forget! > ============================== > Thanks, Nina! I just returned from the hospital, almost 7 hours after > our arrival there today. The surgery, per se, took only about an hour, the > preparation and especially the waiting for the spinal anaesthesia to wear off > taking most of the time. It seems to have gone very well, as I'm in close to no > discomfort. It turns out, the surgeon told us, that the damage to my knee was > far greater than the MRI indicated. He marveled, in fact, at how I've been > able to tolerate it. In any case, it's good to know that the surgery was very > much called for. > As for thinking about namas and rupas, that didn't "do it" for me. > Simply having done what was needed to be done and then letting things be as they > would be worked well for me. Whatever works for each person is what s/he > should go for, I'd say. I'm glad that things went well for you with the surgery. Anaesthetic really is amazing stuff, isn't it? It, and the workings of intoxicants of all kinds, are some key reasons why I assume a materialist perspective vis a vis mentality Cheers Herman #87478 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 7:30 pm Subject: Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility buddhatrue Hi Dieter, Dieter: Frankly speaking , James, I have enjoyed reading some of good postings from you in the past .. but this one disappoints me very much! James: Well, thank you for saying that you have enjoyed reading some of my posts from the past. That¡¦s the first nice thing anyone has said to me in this group for a long time! I¡¦m sorry that this post disappoints you, but I am just trying to be realistic. It may seem like I am being overly negative, but these are the honest-to- goodness faults I see within Theravada. And I am not the first person to express these opinions. You can check out these writers: Clearing the Path by Nanavira Thera: http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/ctp_intro.htm Broken Buddha by Ven. Dhammika http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ But, I will respond your other comments to hopefully clear up certain issues. Dieter: Since the Parinibbana of the Buddha the Teaching became the Teacher, which forthose sticking to the teaching of the elders , Theravada, is presented by the Tipitaka . Without these orginal texts of 'poor expression' as you call it , you wouldn't even know about the Buddha . James: You are making the mistake that most Theravadins make: you are equating the Buddha¡¦s teaching with Theravada. They are two different things. The Buddha was not a Theravadin. The Buddha gave teachings and his followers memorized them. These followers were called the ¡§Sons of Sakayan¡¨ (or something to that effect). After the parinibbana of the Buddha, these followers split up into different schools, but they each had the Buddha¡¦s teachings as their core. Theravada added other texts; Mahayana added other texts; and Tibetan added other texts. Just because I take refuge in the Triple Gem that doesn¡¦t mean I own any allegiance to Theravada. I could have learned the Buddha¡¦s teaching with or without Theravada. Of course, I lean more toward Theravada in my beliefs, but I don¡¦t completely accept everything within Theravada- even thought I completely accept what the Buddha taught. Dieter: whether or what part of Abhidhamma the Buddha taught, is difficult to say . But it is consens in Theravada Buddhism to respect it as third basket , besides sutta and vinaya pitaka. For those in doubt the rule of the Four Great References apply (i.e.counter check with sutta/vinaya as judge). James: I consider it dogmatic belief, and clinging to rites and rituals, to respect the Abhidhamma as the third basket of the Buddha¡¦ s teachings just because it is tradition in Theravada Buddhism. It is obvious to me that the Buddha didn¡¦t teach the Abhidhamma. If you think he did, then you are entitled to your beliefs. But I don¡¦ t have to believe that just because it is tradition. Dieter: Commentaries are commentaries , not Tipitaka James: I disagree; the commentaries as just as much a part of the "Tipitaka" as the Suttas, Vinaya, or Abhidhamma. The commentaries dictate how the suttas are to be read and interpreted in light of the Abhidhamma and Vinaya. This is what makes Theravada Theravada. ¡§Thera¡¨ means ¡§elder¡¨, so it is the words of the ¡§elders¡¨ which determine the meaning. (And, BTW, I disagree with K. Sujin not because she is Theravada, but because she puts forth ideas not found in the texts, anywhere.) Now, for those who call themselves Theravada but don¡¦t believe in the Abhidhamma and don¡¦t believe in the commentaries, then they are not really Theravada. They are just Buddhist; but they have nowhere else to go so they call themselves Theravada. Dieter: Most of what is in the Tipitaka : please provide evidence , especially to justify your claim of 'most ' , your claim is without credibility James: The Abhidhamma, being seven books, takes up most of the Tipitaka. The Abhidhamma was accepted at the Third Buddhist Council due to rifts between the various schools and the influence of the government of Asoka. The source of the Tipitaka was politics! You would have to do research into the history of the Abhidhamma and the Third Buddhist Council: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Buddhist_Council Dieter: how do you know that? Do you have profound knowledge about the Sanghas of the several Theravada countries to support this kind of generalization? The media reports usually only what goes wrong .. James: Yes, it is a generalization, but this whole discussion is about a generalization (i.e. "Theravada as a whole"). But I think it is a fair generalization. I have had numerous personal experiences with Theravada monks from and in Thailand. I have also corresponded extensively with an influential Theravada monk in Sri Lanka (editor BPS). You could also read the above article ¡§Broken Buddha¡¨ I referenced. I wouldn¡¦t make such an assertion unless I was very confident about it. Dieter: What are you doing to change the situation for the better? James: I am doing what everyone should be doing: talking openly about it! The situation within the Theravada Shanga is only allowed to continue and worsen because very few people talk about it. They want to pretend that everything is okay. Well, reform is not possible if people won¡¦t talk about what is wrong. I don¡¦t think reform is impossible; but I do think that reform is impossible if people refuse to talk about what is wrong. Metta, James #87479 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts. akusala cetasika - ditthi egberdina Hi Toni, 2008/6/26 Nina van Gorkom : > Hi Herman, > Op 25-jun-2008, om 12:22 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > >> Chair is a word that refers to a range of experiences across multiple >> sense modalities in an extended moment. There are many different >> experiences that all qualify for being referred to as chair. Of course >> we can experience chair. > ------- > N: Let us say: we can think of the concept chair, but it is not a > reality that can be directly experienced. > I was typing Sri Lanka and thought of you, when coming to this: Yeah, but, yeah, but ....... :-) So, do you mean that you were thinking of typing, or were you typing? >> >> H: quotes N: The Buddha >> > taught that there is no person, no self. >> >> The Buddha taught there is no soul, he certainly didn't teach there >> were no persons, if by that you mean beings. > ------- > Kindred Sayings I, Suttas of Sisters, § 10 Vajira: Mara visited > Sister Vajira and asked; > Who makes him? Whence does a being rise? > Where does the being cease and pass away? > > Sister Vajira answered: > 'Mong false opinions has thou strayed. > Mere bundle of condiitoned factors this. > No 'being' can be here discerned to be....> > She explained that a being are the five khandhas, and that it is > dukkha that arises and ceases. Sister Vajira hears something, she identifies it, she reacts to it, she replies to it. I'm sorry, Nina, it makes absolutely no sense to me for Sister Vajira to have a conversation with Mara, and in that conversation deny that she is having that conversation. > Suppose, you generously give something away to someone who is poor. > It is not you, only a moment of generosity. It does not stay, how can > it be you. But I, in my turn, can appreciate that quality that > appeared 'in you'. Sorry again, Nina, but following on from what you say here, there is also not someone who is poor, nor a you who can appreciate my generosity. I get the feeling that Dhamma in daily life for you is to deny everything that you experience in daily life, and explain it afterwards in terms of unexperienced elements. What I experience in daily life is what I experience in daily life. What I experience when meditating, is what I experience in meditating. I do not confuse the two. I do not meet poor people when I am meditating, or give gifts, or DO anything. At most there is intention, but not action. When I am meditative, I do not act. Likewise, in a social situation I attend to that social situation, and am aware of that situation, and act in it as it is, not as it might be if I was in a different state of mind, or elsewhere..... Cheers Herman #87480 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 8:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts. akusala cetasika - ditthi egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/6/26 Herman Hofman : > Hi Toni, > I was speaking to someone else when I called you Toni. I was actually speaking to Toni. See what happens when one doesn't pay attention to what one is doing? :-) Cheers Herman #87481 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:48 pm Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 272 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, 272 Intro: The following section elaborates on the fact that becoming conditions birth and that conditioned by birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair come into being. -------- Text Vis. 272: And when there is no birth, neither ageing and death nor states beginning with sorrow come about; but when there is birth, then ageing and death come about, and also the states beginning with sorrow, which are either bound up with ageing and death in a fool who is affected by the painful states called ageing and death, or which are not so bound up in one who is affected by some painful state or other; ------- N: The Tiika explains that there are other sorrows different from old age and death, namely, the loss of relatives that cause sorrow. Sorrow is bound up with old age and death, but there are also other kinds of sorrow the Tiika repeats. -------- Text Vis. : therefore this birth is a condition for ageing and death and also for sorrow and so on. But it is a condition in one way, as decisive-support type. This is the detailed explanation of the clause 'With becoming as condition, birth'. ---------- N: As we read: < And when there is no birth, neither ageing and death nor states beginning with sorrow come about; but when there is birth, then ageing and death come about..> The Tiika explains that birth as a single cause by way of decisive- support is not found in the Patthaana, but only in the Suttanta method of Exposition. The Tiika explains that decisive support is a condition covering truly a wide field. In the following sections the Tiika explains that birth is not entirely the conditon for sorrow and so on, but that also ignorance is a condition. -------- Conclusion; We read about the fool, baalajana, who is affected by the painful states called ageing and death. An ordinary person who is not an ariyan is called a fool. A person who has become an ariyan knows that he is on the way to freedom from all dukkha that is inherent in the cycle of birth and death. We read in the SN 20(10) Conditions (Paccaya (paccayuppanna) sutta.m): "...And what, bhikkhus, is dependent origination? 'With birth as condition, aging-and-death [comes to be]: whether there is an arising of Tathaagatas or no arising of Tathaagatas, that element still persists, the stableness of the Dhamma, the fixed course of the Dhamma, specific conditionality." "...Katamo ca bhikkhave, pa.ticcasamuppaado? Jaatipaccayaa bhikkhave jaraamara.na.m uppaadaa vaa tathaagataana.m anuppaadaa vaa tathaagataana.m .thitaava saa dhaatu dhamma.t.thitataa dhammaniyaamataa idapaccayataa." ------- Nina. #87482 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Visuddhimagga thread. nilovg Dear Ken H, Op 26-jun-2008, om 1:13 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > I am still going > through that strange phase that stops me getting on with my > Visuddhimagga thread. It's just a stubborn resistance to doing > today anything that can be put off until tomorrow. It's the > story of my life, really! :-) ------- N: I wonder how I can encourage you. Just out your fingers on the keyboard, will that help? It is kusala to continue. Larry once said that he saw the typing out of all these posts he did as a kind of bhaavanaa. I think that is very nice. If you just think of kusala, you will be motivated. Patience, courage and good cheer, Nina. #87483 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:33 am Subject: Metta Ch 9. no 6. nilovg Dear friends, If someone tries to concentrate with the expectation to see special things he concentrates with lobha. This is not the development of true calm which is freedom from lobha, dosa and moha. He does not develop calm, because there is lobha, not paññå. There is no sati sampajañña which knows how citta can become calm, free from defilements. Sati sampajañña knows correctly how citta should contemplate a particular meditation subject in order to attain true calm. When there is no right understanding of the development of calm and one concentrates in order to have special experiences or to see extraordinary things, there is no sammå-samådhi, right concentration, but micchå- samådhi, wrong concentration. When there is micchå-samådhi, the citta is akusala, there is citta with attachment. There is clinging, one wants to concentrate, to focus for a long time on one object. When there is micchå-samådhi different mental images may appear because citta thinks of them without realizing that there is only thinking. It is the same situation as when people are dreaming, and they do not realize that the images in their dream appear only because they are thinking of them. When there is micchå-samådhi and someone sees an image he takes for the controller of his fate or an avenger, it is only a thought, an imagination, it is not right understanding which clearly realizes what is true. The Buddha said that in the cycle of birth and death which is endlessly long we all were related to each other as family members, friends, husband and wife, parents and children, or as enemies. Even Devadatta who tried to kill the Buddha was in a former life his father. People should not extend merit to a person who could revenge himself because of a bad deed they did towards him, to a person they do not even know, since people cannot remember which bad deeds they committed to one another. Instead, we should from now on develop mettå towards each being, each person we meet in this life, in order to subdue the inclination to commit evil deeds. When people lack mettå there will be suffering. The Buddha said that mettå is the dhamma which is the foundation of the world, it is kusala dhamma which supports beings in the world so that they can live free from danger, free from the sorrow resulting from akusala citta which is without mettå. (The end) ********* Nina. #87484 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - revised and corrected edition egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/6/26 kenhowardau : > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: >> >> >> I'm happy to be corrected, but I don't think there is anything in > the >> Tipitaka that says anything vaguely like "craving, conceit or >> self-view are not logical." > > > You're a hard man to pin down, Herman. What if I used the > word "inappropriate?" Do you know that lobha, mana and sakkaya-ditthi > are inappropriate? If so, how do you know? Wouldn't it be from your > having heard and considered the Dhamma? I'm not deliberately trying to be difficult, honest :-) I know that lobha, mana and sakkaya-ditthi are taught as being inappropriate in the Dhamma. With regards to lobha and mana, I know as a matter of intellectual understanding that life, as a human being in society, is not possible without them. Having said that, I'm certainly not aversive to being led to discover that I am wrong in that understanding. With regards to sakkya-ditthi, if by that is meant belief in a soul, or a self, that persists and/or controls what goes on, I do not doubt that such a soul or self doesn't exist. I can't, in all honesty, say what caused me to realise it. I was familiar with Buddhism before I realised it, but was not at all interested in Buddhism when I did. And I can't frankly remember what my intellectual understanding was before I realised it. Hope that gives you something to aim at :-) Cheers Herman #87485 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? egberdina Hi KenH, (Howard and Alex), 2008/6/26 kenhowardau : > Hi Howard and Alex, > Sorry for butting in here, Howard and Alex. > > If only we could all get to that basic starting point where we > understand there are only dhammas! :-) > I am happy to understand that there are only dhammas if you mean that about experience, in the way a physicist might say that there are only elementary particles, in relation to matter. What next :-)? Cheers Herman Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (145) #87486 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:26 am Subject: Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. scottduncan2 Dear connie, Nina, Regarding: "Ud-a, Masefield [201] << For devataas have a sensitive ear-element that is heavenly, that comes into being through deeds of good conduct, that is unimpeded by bile, phlegm and blood and so on, {snip} obtained by way of a heavenly abiding and also on account of its own dependence upon a heavenly abiding.>> "...the stories come down to the nama and rupa of the present -- objects of limited understanding, for sure." Scott: Here, it seems, the point is that it is in the nature of hearing as a devataa, due to the sort of 'sensitive ear element', which arises in a given realm. And this sort of hearing is result of 'deeds of good conduct' (kusala kamma). This would be down to ruupa, then - or a certain quality of 'hearing' as vipaaka. The deva hears differently than the human, given the different realms and the different sort of kamma which leads to arising in a given realm. The ruupa differs according to realm. Perhaps this applies in some way to a Buddha, who, by way of the fifth jhaana (I think?), experiences visible object from the 'fine material' perspective and in this way is able to 'see' and discern hadaya ruupa. Again, from Samohavinodanii (vol II, p. 67), in discussing how 'such a bhikkhu sees the slightests faults as faults': "1689...Herein a paramaa.nu ('fundamental particle') as a portion of space does not come into focus of the physical eye; it only comes into that of the divine eye..." Scott: Divine eye, like divine ear, 'sees' deeper... Sincerely, Scott. #87487 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 6/25/2008 10:12:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/6/25 : > > Hi, Nina (and Alex) - > > In a message dated 6/24/2008 2:47:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > vangorko@... writes: > > Hi Howard and Alex, > Howard, best wishes with your surgery. Yes, only nama and rupa, don't > forget! > ============================== > Thanks, Nina! I just returned from the hospital, almost 7 hours after > our arrival there today. The surgery, per se, took only about an hour, the > preparation and especially the waiting for the spinal anaesthesia to wear off > taking most of the time. It seems to have gone very well, as I'm in close to no > discomfort. It turns out, the surgeon told us, that the damage to my knee was > far greater than the MRI indicated. He marveled, in fact, at how I've been > able to tolerate it. In any case, it's good to know that the surgery was very > much called for. > As for thinking about namas and rupas, that didn't "do it" for me. > Simply having done what was needed to be done and then letting things be as they > would be worked well for me. Whatever works for each person is what s/he > should go for, I'd say. I'm glad that things went well for you with the surgery. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Thanks. :-) ------------------------------------------------ Anaesthetic really is amazing stuff, isn't it? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, wonderful. The sedation alone put me to sleep so that I wasn't even aware of their then having done the spinal, and seeming moments after falling asleep it was all over. Then I had to wait for 2 hrs for the spinal to wear off. It turns out, I found out, that it wears off from the feet upwards, and when I questioned a very specific aspect of the (lack of) resumption of sensation, one of the nurses told me "It's a little joke on the men!" LOLOL! -------------------------------------------------- It, and the workings of intoxicants of all kinds, are some key reasons why I assume a materialist perspective vis a vis mentality --------------------------------------------------- Howard: There are alternative perspectives one could take. One is yours. Another, that of Jon's, I believe, is that rupas are mind-independent realities, which together can affect perception. Yet another, mine, is that rupas are specific sorts of elements of experience that, together, condition other elements of experience. Whatever one's take, it is a matter of conditionality, and I think there is no doubt that the physical conditions both physical and mental, and that the mental conditions both physical and mental, however one interprets the terms 'physical' and 'mental'. --------------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman =========================== With metta, Howard #87488 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. nilovg Dear Scott, Op 26-jun-2008, om 13:26 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > Divine eye, like divine ear, 'sees' deeper... ------- N: Especially the Buddha-eye. We read in the suttas that the Buddha surveyed the world with his Buddha-eye to see who was ready to receive his teaching. For example, Perfections, Ch 6: < In the morning before Pukkusåti went to stay in the potter’s workshop, the Buddha investigated the world and saw the son of a prominent family, Pukkusåti. He considered, ‘This son of a prominent family left his kingdom as soon as he had read the official letter that his friend sent him. He went forth and dedicated himself specifically to me, and he travelled all of the hundred and twentynone leagues to the city of Råjagaha. If I do not go there he will not realize the fruits of a recluse (he will not realize the four noble Truths); he will not realize the three fruits of a recluse, that is, he will not attain the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the non-returner (anågåmí). He will die without any refuge after he has dwelt there just for one night. When I have gone there he will realize the three fruits of a recluse. Since I have developed all the perfections during four incalculable periods and a hundred thousand aeons only for the benefit and support of people, I shall help the son of a prominent family, Pukkusåti.’> Nina. #87489 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:39 am Subject: Linguistics in the world & The Buddha truth_aerator Dear Ken and Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Howard and Alex, > PS: ** 86853 contains quite a long quote (from a.t.i. I think) that > is full of what I would call wrong views, but even so the reason I > have not read carefully is a bit of a mystery. I am still going > through that strange phase that stops me getting on with my > Visuddhimagga thread. It's just a stubborn resistance to doing > today anything that can be put off until tomorrow. It's the > story of my life, really! :-) > KH > Keep reading. Tell me exactly what you find so disagreeable there. Most of the post was about linguistics and reification. =========================================================== A monk whose mind is thus released does not take sides with anyone, does not dispute with anyone. He words things by means of what is said in the world but without grasping at it." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.074.than.html ============================================================ these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping to them http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.09.0.than.html#t-10 ============================================================= Do the above quotes affirm "ultimate ways of speaking" or refute it? Most certainly they say that Buddha and Arahants considered ALL words and meanings to be conventional. Furthermore the "...does not take sides with anyone, does not dispute with anyone..." implies that an Arahant doesn't have standpoint or views of "Only this is true, everything else is false." Best wishes, Alex #87490 From: "R. K. Wijayaratne" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:04 am Subject: The Great Discourse on the Lion's Roar - VIII * rwijayaratne  Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammâ Sambuddhassa!   Sakyamuni Sambuddha Vihara ~ Dhamma Message ~ Ven. Soma Dhamma Home SSV Home Events Donate Maha Piritha Chanting Join Dhamma Leave Dhamma Join a Friend Questions/Feedback ________________________________ Please feel free to distribute this message among your friends, colleagues and relatives. ________________________________ Taken from AccessToInsight.org1 Translated from Pali by Ñanamoli Thera & Bhikkhu Bodhi THE GREAT DISCOURSE ON THE LION'S ROAR - VII Majjhima Nikâya 12 - Maha-sihanada Sutta2 The Five Destinations and Nibbâna — In DetailContinued from previous instalment Commentary: The Lord Buddha explains in detail how a Samma-Sambuddha is able to see and understand the five destinations and Nibbâna and the path and way leading to these five destinations and Nibbâna.   37. (1) "By encompassing mind with mind I understand a certain person thus: 'This person so behaves, so conducts himself, has taken such a path that on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.' And then later on, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I see that on the dissolution of the body, after death, he has reappeared in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, and is experiencing extremely painful, racking, piercing feelings. Suppose there were a charcoal pit deeper than a man's height full of glowing coals without flame or smoke; and then a man scorched and exhausted by hot weather, weary, parched and thirsty, came by a path going in one way only and directed to that same charcoal pit. Then a man with good sight on seeing him would say: 'This person so behaves, so conducts himself, has taken such a path, that he will come to this same charcoal pit'; and then later on he sees that he has fallen into that charcoal pit and is experiencing extremely painful, racking, piercing feelings. So too, by encompassing mind with mind... piercing feelings. Explanation: The Lord Buddha says that he understands by reading a person's mind that s/he acts in such and such a way, has taken such and such a ( unskilful/bad) path ( practices and habits performed with thoughts, words and deeds) and ( because of that) on the break-up of the body, after death they will be reborn in a state of loss, in a miserable place, in hell. Later on, the Lord Buddha sees with his divine eye, which is pure and is capable of seeing past the human, that that same being has indeed been reborn in a state of loss, in a miserable place, in hell following the break-up of their body and death and is suffering extremely painful, racking and piercing feelings. The Lord Buddha says he sees/understands this in the same way as when ( simile follows) a man who is scorched and tired from hot weather, tired, very dry and thirsty was going only in one direction and were to be directed to a charcoal pit deeper than a man's height, full of burning and glowing coals without flames or smoke, and another person with good eye-sight on seeing this man would say 'This person behaves, conducts himself in such a way and has taken such a path/direction that would cause him to come to that same charcoal pit ( in the same way that the Lord Buddha is able to understand and see by reading another's mind that their ( unskilful/bad) actions and the ( unskilful/bad) path they have taken would cause them to be reborn in hell after death). Then later this person sees that that man has indeed fallen into the charcoal pit ( as earlier predicted) and is suffering extremely painful, racking, piercing feelings ( in the same way that the Lord Buddha is able to see with his divine eye a being reborn in hell (as previously foreseen by the Lord Buddha) and now suffering terribly).3   38. (2) "By encompassing mind with mind I understand a certain person thus: 'This person so behaves, so conducts himself, has taken such a path that on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in the animal realm.' And then later on, with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, I see that on the dissolution of the body, after death, he has reappeared in the animal realm and is experiencing painful, racking, piercing feelings. Suppose there were a cesspit deeper than a man's height full of filth; and then a man [75] scorched and exhausted by hot weather, weary, parched and thirsty, came by a path going in one way only and directed to that same cesspit. Then a man with good sight on seeing him would say: 'This person so behaves... that he will come to this same cesspit'; and then later on he sees that he has fallen into that cesspit and is experiencing painful, racking, piercing feelings. So too, by encompassing mind with mind... piercing feelings. Explanation: The Lord Buddha says that he understands by reading a person's mind that s/he acts in such and such a way, has taken such and such a ( unskilful/bad) path ( practices and habits performed with thoughts, words and deeds) and ( because of that) on the break-up of the body, after death they will be reborn in the animal realm ( as an animal; this is one of the hells). Later on, the Lord Buddha sees with his divine eye, which is pure and is capable of seeing past the human, that that same being has indeed been reborn in the animal realm following the break-up of their body and death and is suffering extremely painful, racking and piercing feelings. The Lord Buddha says he sees/understands this in the same way as when ( simile follows) a man who is scorched and tired from hot weather, tired, very dry and thirsty was going only in one direction and were to be directed to a cesspit deeper than a man's height, full of filth, and another person with good eye-sight on seeing this man would say 'This person behaves, conducts himself in such a way and has taken such a path/direction that would cause him to come to that same cesspit. Then later this person sees that that man has indeed fallen into the cesspit ( as earlier predicted) and is suffering extremely painful, racking, piercing feelings.   39. (3) "By encompassing mind with mind I understand a certain person thus: 'This person so behaves, so conducts himself, has taken such a path that on the dissolution of the body, after death, he will reappear in the realm of ghosts.' And then later on... I see that... he has reappeared in the realm of ghosts and is experiencing much painful feeling. Suppose there were a tree growing on uneven ground with scanty foliage casting a dappled shade; and then a man scorched and exhausted by hot weather, weary, parched and thirsty, came by a path going in one way only and directed to that same tree. Then a man with good sight on seeing him would say: 'This person so behaves... that he will come to this same tree'; and then later on he sees that he is sitting or lying in the shade of that tree experiencing much painful feeling. So too, by encompassing mind with mind... much painful feeling. Explanation: The Lord Buddha says that he understands by reading a person's mind that s/he acts in such and such a way, has taken such and such a ( unskilful/bad) path ( practices and habits performed with thoughts, words and deeds) and ( because of that) on the break-up of the body, after death they will be reborn in the ghost realm ( as a ghost; this is one of the hells). Later on, the Lord Buddha sees with his divine eye, which is pure and is capable of seeing past the human, that that same being has indeed been reborn in the ghost realm following the break-up of their body and death and is suffering very painful feelings. The Lord Buddha says he sees/understands this in the same way as when ( simile follows) a man who is scorched and tired from hot weather, tired, very dry and thirsty was going only in one direction and were to be directed to a tree on uneven ground, with a scanty foliage of leaves, providing little shade and another person with good eye-sight on seeing this man would say 'This person behaves, conducts himself in such a way and has taken such a path/direction that would cause him to come to that same tree. Then later this other person sees that that man is indeed sitting or lying under the ( very little) shade of that tree ( as earlier predicted) and is suffering very painful feelings. Series History: Instalment 1 of this series can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma/message/1411 Instalment 2 of this series can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma/message/1418 Instalment 3 of this series can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma/message/1419 Instalment 4 of this series can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma/message/1420 Instalment 5 of this series can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma/message/1423 Instalment 6 of this series can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma/message/1424 Instalment 7 of this series can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhamma/message/1426 Source: This sutta (discourse) can be found in full here http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.012.ntbb.html and an alternate translation of this sutta can be found here http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/012-ma\ hasihanada-sutta-e1.html   To be continued... #87491 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:53 am Subject: How does rebirth happen? cuticitta--> - ? --> patisandhicitta truth_aerator Hello all, "it depends on the kamma which produces the patisandhi-citta (rebirth- consciousness) after the cuti-citta (dying-consciousness) has fallen away. " - http://www.vipassana.info/nina-abhi-20.htm Can someone explain in detail how the last moment of citta conditions the first moment of new life? After all, no citta can be without 4 aggregates and what connects two different sets of 5 aggregates (if the rebirth is in kama loka? "Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.054.than.html What and HOW makes sure that there is only "one" patisandhi citta that appears after death cuticitta has ceased? Why does patisandhi citta has to rearise? I know I know you gonna say "Kamma", but what is the precise process between last moment of this life and first moment of next life? death --- ??? ---> birth What about Arahant's parinibbana? If there is no self, even in the meaning of a temporary "storehouse accumulations" , then what keeps in check that Arahant doesn't fall off Nibbana and new 5 Khandas don't rearise?? Thank you all, With Metta, best wishes, Alex #87492 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:58 am Subject: Re: Sundries: DN33 1.1-5 (plus mini e-Card from Lauterbrunnen, Switzerland) jonoabb Hi Connie and Scott (and Nina) Delighted to see this series, and looking forward to further instalments. Thanks to Nina also for the commentary translations. Jon PS Apologies to you and all for the recent silence from me, and the shortness of these few posts. Lack of even a dial-up connection in our present accommodation has made internet life difficult (although we have managed to keep up with reading messages by downloading once a day). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Dear Friends, > This week's installment of the Sangiiti Sutta: > > CSCD > 296. Eva.m me suta.m - eka.m samaya.m bhagavaa mallesu caarika.m caramaano mahataa bhikkhusa'nghena saddhi.m pa~ncamattehi bhikkhusatehi yena paavaa naama mallaana.m nagara.m tadavasari. Tatra suda.m bhagavaa paavaaya.m viharati cundassa kammaaraputtassa ambavane. > Walshe > DN 33.1.1 [iii 207] THUS HAVE I HEARD. Once the Lord was touring in the Malla country with a large company of about five hundred monks. Arrived at Paavaa, the Maallas' capital, he stayed in the mango-grove of Cunda the smith. *1012 #87493 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [was Vism.XVII,270] .. FNTs and N8FP moellerdieter Hi Tep (Howard and others) , you wrote: ' There are a few questions you have raised for further discussion' D: sorry, there may be confusion on my side. Tep: I think the 4th noble truth is not in the D.O. principle; the latter as the "path to Awakening" leads to the former, the noble eightfold path, that was discovered only by direct knowledge [Nagara Sutta]. D: I think you are right : the latter leads to to the former.. re-reading the Narada Sutta text : Dwelling at Savatthi... "Monks, before my Awakening, when I was just an unawakened Bodhisatta, the realization came to me: 'How this world has fallen on difficulty! It is born, it ages, it dies, it falls away & rearises, but it does not discern the escape from this stress, from this aging & death. O when will it discern the escape from this stress, from this aging & death?'"Then the thought occurred to me, 'Aging & death exist when what exists? ..snip Recognizing suffering (ageing and death..1st N.T. ) the Prince considered its origin and its conditions (2nd N.T.) and the cessation of its conditions . 'The thought occurred to me, 'I have attained this path to Awakening, i.e., from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. '.... 'From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Thus is the cessation of this entire mass of stress. Cessation, cessation.' Vision arose, clear knowing arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before."It is just as if a man, traveling along a wilderness track, were to see an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by people of former times. He would follow it. " I think we can say here ' this path to Awakening' serves as the 'blueprint ', a map of the ancient path to be travelled . Following it, he would see an ancient city, an ancient capital inhabited by people of former times, complete with parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful. He would go to address the king or the king's minister, saying, 'Sire, you should know that while traveling along a wilderness track I saw an ancient path... I followed it... I saw an ancient city, an ancient capital... complete with parks, groves, & ponds, walled, delightful. Sire, rebuild that city!' The king or king's minister would rebuild the city, so that at a later date the city would become powerful, rich, & well-populated, fully grown & prosperous."In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path..." The 8fold N.P describes the different passages of the journey before the city can be reached ( i.e. awakening / 3rd N.T.) " That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings." Only here , after following the 8fold N.P. , the direct knowledge of fabrications, its orgination and cessation appear , leaving it to the student to conclude that it is meant herewith the journey ended , the city reached .. the ignorance fully abolished ,. isn't it? I wonder in which other suttas D.O. is presented this way.. with Metta Dieter #87494 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:08 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Blind and the Cripple /Lame jonoabb Hi Dieter (and Howard) ****************** > There is a language problem (. e.g. we talk about absent minded, but of course still conscious) and -as far as I know - no generally accepted defintion for consciousness and mind exists, not to talk about differences of translation Pali -English -- English -German. > The quotation gives evidence that at least part of the philosopher's discussion assumes mind to cover consciousness.. not vice versa as I think ****************** But the philosophers' discussion is not of much relevance to an understanding of these Pali terms, and may just tend to confuse the picture (in my view). ****************** > To my understanding, in the Abhidhamma context, nama encompasses both > citta and cetasika, whereas citta means citta only (i.e., without > including cetasikas, even though the one never arises without the other). > > D: you mean , the Ven. is too general with his statement, isn't it? ****************** Yes, as it stands (although it's possible to read his statement in a way that would then not be too general, so I don't want to be categorical about it). ****************** > D: between ..there is another point I have difficulties in understanding: > it is said that all dhammas are impermanent, isn't it ? Hence how can nibbana be classified under dhammas?? ****************** I think Howard covered this in his post. All conditioned dhammas are described as being impermanent, dukkha and not-self. But there is one unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, and that dhamma is described as being dukkha and not-self (but not as being impermanent). ****************** > D: in D.O. vinnaya conditions nama and rupa , why is it/should it be limited to the that context .. isn't D.O. the Law .. which provides the rule for other uses ? ****************** Yes, the principles of DO apply uniformly and comprehensively. But in the teachings, the use of terminology varies according to context. To give just one example, the term "sankhara dhamma" has a number of meanings depending on the context. In DO, the terms used for the links tend to have a context-specific meaning which is not always readily apparent from a mere reading of the 12 links. See the entry in Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary for a full explanation of the meanings of the various links. ****************** > Jon : > The simile of the blind man and the cripple makes sense if nama is taken to mean citta and cetasikas, as in the above description. The meaning of nama as in the compound term "namarupa" in DO is limited to that context, as far as I know. > > D: citta and cetasikas? please compare with Visuddhi-Magga (chap. xviii.). > Name has no power of its own, nor can it go on of its own impulse, either to eat, or to drink, or to utter sounds, or to make a movement. Form also is without power and cannot > go on of its own impulse. It has no desire to eat, or to drink, or to utter sounds, or to make a movement. But Form goes on when supported by Name, and Name when supported by Form. When Name has a desire to eat, or to drink, or to utter sounds, or to make a movement, then Form eats, drinks, utters sounds, makes a movement. ****************** When there is the desire (nama) to eat or drink, it is the body (rupa) that eats or drinks. Without the other, one on its own could not act. Each depends on the other, like the blind man and the cripple. ****************** > Better to leave Jhana states out for now in order to limit the extend of possible confusion.. ****************** It's a good suggestion to leave jhana states out for now! Jon #87495 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:12 am Subject: Re: Jhana Meditation. Again. jonoabb Hi Alex > In the suttas we have, the Buddha has stressed Jhana for Anag/Arh > stage. I'm somewhat confused as to what you are saying here. Are you now backing away from the position that jhana is a *necessary prerequisite* for the attainment of Anagami stage of enlightenment? > It does appear that *at least* a momentary Jhana (up to 4th or > higher) happens right before one becomes a stream-enterer. Interesting. Can you give a sutta/text reference for this, please? > Lets not forget the difference between attaining and mastering Jhana. > A sotapanna CAN reach Jhana, but the mastery of Jhana is required for > Anag and Arh levels. Can you give a sutta/text reference for this, please? > > As I pointed out, MN52 refers to jhana consciousness being seen as > > "fabricated & intended. ... inconstant & subject to cessation", > > followed by the reaching of the ending of the mental fermentations. > > This appears to be a standard description of insight into presently > > arisen dhammas. > > > > Here we have attainment + mastery of Jhana PLUS insight based on it. But suttas describing how insight with jhana citta as basis may lead to the attainment of insight (and there are many, many such suttas) cannot be taking as establishing that jhana is *necessary* for the attainment of enlightenment. The reason there were many such suttas is that there were many disciples at that time who were potentially capable of that very high attainment. On the other hand, there are also many, many suttas describing the development of insight and attainment of enlightenment that do not mention jhana as part of that development or attainment. > > Perhaps you have other sutta passages that relate more directly to > the point about jhana as a prerequisite to the attainment of > enlightenment at the stage of anagami? > > In one of the AN suttas, there is the passage that Sotapanna > perfects Sila, Anag perfects Samadhi, Arh perfects Panna. Yes. The Sotapanna has perfected sila because he has eradicated all latent tendencies for any act that amounts to a breach of the precepts. The Anagami has perfected samadhi because he has eradicated all attachment to sense-door objects, which means that experiences through the sense-doors are no longer a condition for the arising of akusala. > As you know, Anagamis are reborn in 4th Rupa Jhana plane. > Requirements for that is 4th Jhana. Furthermore in many suttas (mn64) > when Jhanas + Panna are mentioned, the promised result is either Arh > or Anag (if some clinging is present). > (AN 3.85 & 9.12) How does this establish jhana as a *prerequisite* for insight/enlightenment. > In some Udana suttas a person become a Sotapanna while listening to a > sutta and getting to momentary Jhanic (or close to that) level. > However it is an open questions re: how much PREVIOUS Jhanic > development there was in this or previous lives. Sure, it's always possible to speculate ;-)) Jon #87496 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:15 am Subject: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. jonoabb Hi Herman > It would help me if you could give some examples of what is known when > an individual dhamma is directly known by panna. I'll wait to hear > from you before I go any further, because we seem to have moved from > knowing to direct knowing, and we have introduced panna as the > whatever it is that is doing this direct knowing, without first having > established the means whereby it can be known that panna is doing > whatever it is doing :-) Well I thought when you talked about knowing you were referring to direct knowing. To my understanding, direct knowing refers to insight into a presently arisen dhamma. I feel we're in danger of losing sight of the point under discussion. Come to think of it, what was the point? Something to do with kamma and your statement that only conditions internal to a stream of consciousness can influence that stream. Perhaps you could re-state the point so that we can approach it afresh. On your question to me regarding panna and dhammas, it is my understanding that the development of the path occurs when consciousness accompanied by panna of the requisite level takes a dhamma as its object (that is to say, multiple moments of the same dhamma). This is also referred to as insight or direct knowing. Jon #87497 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How does rebirth happen? cuticitta--> - ? --> patisandhicitta moellerdieter Hi Alex, you wrote: 'I know I know you gonna say "Kamma", but what is the precise process between last moment of this life and first moment of next life? death --- ??? ---> birth' D: I remember having read a statement by the Buddha, that nobody knows what happens between ..probably A.N. but not sure.. with Metta Dieter #87498 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Blind and the Cripple /Lame upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Dieter) - In a message dated 6/26/2008 1:08:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: I think Howard covered this in his post. All conditioned dhammas are described as being impermanent, dukkha and not-self. But there is one unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, and that dhamma is described as being dukkha and not-self (but not as being impermanent). ========================== No, not dukkha, Jon. Just anatta. With metta, Howard #87499 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:18 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Views re self & the world DN2 jonoabb Hi Herman > I thought that this would be relevant in the thread on 'streams of > consciousness" so I have picked it out separately. Are accumulation > and latency conventional designations, and how are they knowable? Latent tendencies (aka 'accumulations') are, by definition, not directly knowable as part of the development of the path because they are not currently arising. Both terms refer to mental qualities that have arisen in the past and are thus 'accumulated' (usually refers to akusala mental qualities). Jon #87500 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:24 am Subject: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. jonoabb Hi Tep > Let me repectfully propose to you both that the discussion be based > on the Buddha's original definition of pa~n~naa, not on commentaries > or words that deviate from the Buddha's. Of course, you have the > right to do whatever you want. ;-) > > In Pa~n~naa Sutta, AN 8.2, pa~n~naa(discernment) that is basic to the > Holy Life (direct knowledge is a part of the Holy Life too) is > supported by eight requisite conditions defined by the Buddha. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.002.than.html Thanks for this suggestion. I agree that use of Pali terms should be consistent with how they are used in the texts. My only comment would be that the description contained in the Panna Sutta does not tell us *everything* there is to know about panna, and it may be helpful to supplement this information with information found in other parts of the texts. Jon #87501 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:25 am Subject: Impermanence and Loss upasaka_howard Hi, all - We just got word of the death of a contemporary of ours - a good friend, a good person, and whose husband is one of the dearest and sweetest men we know. Though we knew that her illness would eventually claim her, it still comes as a shock and a great sadness. Among other things, I find this a reminder to love those around us and to let them know how much they are loved, and a reminder to do what is of greater value and not lesser. With metta, my friends, Howard #87502 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:30 am Subject: Anatta a strategy. truth_aerator Hi Jon, Dieter and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Dieter (and Howard) > > ****************** > > D: between ..there is another point I have difficulties in > understanding: it is said that all dhammas are impermanent, isn't it ? Hence how can nibbana be classified under dhammas?? > ****************** All conditioned dhammas are described as being impermanent, dukkha and not-self. But there is one unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, and that dhamma is described as being dukkha and not-self (but not as being impermanent). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Nibbana being a Dhamma is a bit controversial: In some suttas the Buddha has said that ================================================= ...there are many other discourses in the Canon specifically stating that nibbana lies beyond the range of the six senses and their objects. Sn 5.6, for instance, indicates that a person who has attained nibbana has gone beyond all phenomena (sabbe dhamma), and therefore cannot be described. MN 49 discusses a "consciousness without feature" (viññanam anidassanam) that does not partake of the "Allness of the All." Furthermore, the following discourse (SN 35.24) says that the "All" is to be abandoned. At no point does the Canon say that nibbana is to be abandoned. Nibbana follows on cessation (nirodha), which is to be realized. Once nibbana is realized, there are no further tasks to be done. Thus it seems more this discourse's discussion of "All" is meant to limit the use of the word "all" throughout the Buddha's teachings to the six sense spheres and their objects. As the following discourse shows, this would also include the consciousness, contact, and feelings connected with the sense spheres and their objects. Nibbana would lie outside of the word, "all." This would fit in with another point made several times in the Canon: that dispassion is the highest of all dhammas (Iti 90), while the arahant has gone beyond even dispassion (Sn 4.6; Sn 4.10). This raises the question, if the word "all" does not include nibbana, does that mean that one may infer from the statement, "all phenomena are not-self" that nibbana is self? The answer is no. As AN 4.174 states, to even ask if there is anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres is to differentiate what is by nature undifferentiated (or to complicate the uncomplicated — see the Introduction to MN 18). The range of differentiation goes only as far as the "All." Perceptions of self or not-self, which would count as differentiation, would not apply beyond the "All." When the cessation of the "All" is experienced, all differentiation is allayed. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html ==================================================== Thus it is far to simplistic to say that Buddha has said that Nibbana is not-self. If samsara is absence of Self, then Nibbana is absence of not self ( 5 khandas). Does absence of not-self implies a self? Logically: not (not-x) = x (not not-Self = Self) The suttas have said that we should not speculate as this is outside of our range. AN 4.174 So I guess the sad fact is that one needs to become an Arahant first... ========================== 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 ==== The above doesn't go against the Advaita Vedanta atman teaching. I wonder what "it" that lies beyond range? Anattalakkhana CAN be reinterpreted as affirmation of this Upanishadic Atman (which lies outside of describable range and can only be semi-described through Upanishadic negative statements not- this, which Buddha probably was well familiar with.) So I have possible disagreement with Ven. TB regarding Anatta. Maybe there IS Atta, which is indescribable and must be experienced though Anatta-strategy (not unfamiliar to Upanishads and Hindu beliefs). Best wishes, Alex #87503 From: "jonoabb" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:31 am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Blind and the Cripple /Lame jonoabb Hi Howard and Dieter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Jon (and Dieter) - > > In a message dated 6/26/2008 1:08:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > jonabbott@... writes: > > I think Howard covered this in his post. All conditioned dhammas are > described as being impermanent, dukkha and not-self. But there is one > unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, and that dhamma is described as being > dukkha and not-self (but not as being impermanent). > ========================== > No, not dukkha, Jon. Just anatta. Yes, correct. Thanks for picking up this mistake, Howard. Jon PS Howard, glad to hear you came through the knee op successfully and are making a quick recovery (followed the messages, but no chance to come in). #87504 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Blind and the Cripple /Lame upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 6/26/2008 1:31:20 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: PS Howard, glad to hear you came through the knee op successfully and are making a quick recovery (followed the messages, but no chance to come in). ============================= Thank you, Jon. :-) With metta, Howard #87505 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:45 am Subject: Re: Letter from Lukas nilovg Dear Lukas, Thank you for your kind letter and I answer this in dsg, since you have a good question on thinking. Interesting, your Polish translation, perhaps you can help others. Op 26-jun-2008, om 8:09 heeft Lukas Szmidt het volgende geschreven: Now I have read a one chapter from Ajahn Sujin book. It's realy great. > I make a Polish translation of your book "Abhidhamma in daily > life", but just for myself. I just thougt that i have to read this > book not once but more, so I will make a translation. It will be > easier for me. > > Just one question: > Thinking thinks about anything. And you said that can be many > objects of thinking? But how pannati(concept) can be object of > thinking. I've considered a thinking as a many mental fenomena and > each of them has his own object - a reality. But pannati is consist > of so many different moments, am I wrong? -------- N: Let me give an example. Heat impinges on the body-consciousness and it is experienced by the citta that is body-consciousness. Heat is a rupa, a realty. Bodyconsciousness is a citta, nama, it is real. It does not think, it just experiences heat. It arises in a process of cittas which, all of them, experience heat in a sense-door process of cittas. Later on cittas arising in a mind-door process may think: the wheather is warm and it is a good time for walking. That is quite a story, involving many cittas arising in different mind-door processes. Cittas think of concepts about people walking, going out. Thus, countless cittas are involved, thinking of all kinds of pa~n~nattis. But we should not worry about how many cittas and how many pa~n~nattis. Just know the difference: when one nama or one rupa through one of the six doorways at a time is cognized, the citta cognizes a reality. When there is as object a person, a table, a story, many cittas think of concepts. Nina. #87506 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts. akusala cetasika - ditthi nilovg Hi Herman, Op 26-jun-2008, om 5:08 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > N: Let us say: we can think of the concept chair, but it is not a > > reality that can be directly experienced. > > I was typing Sri Lanka and thought of you, when coming to this: > > Yeah, but, yeah, but ....... :-) > > So, do you mean that you were thinking of typing, or were you typing? ------ N: This shows that there are many cittas arising and falling away so fast: thinking of the dhamma I type, thinking of you, Herman, thinking how can I explain paramattha dhammas to him, but yes, what I type now may help. It also depends on the way he receives it. ------- > > >> > >> H: quotes N: The Buddha > >> > taught that there is no person, no self. > >> > >> The Buddha taught there is no soul, he certainly didn't teach there > >> were no persons, if by that you mean beings. > > ------- > > Kindred Sayings I, Suttas of Sisters, § 10 Vajira: Mara visited > > Sister Vajira -------- N: As you know many suttas teach: no self, but since you seem to have doubts about no being, I chose this sutta. It is O.K. if you do not like it. > > H: > Suppose, you generously give something away to someone who is > poor. > > It is not you, only a moment of generosity. It does not stay, how > can > > it be you. But I, in my turn, can appreciate that quality that > > appeared 'in you'. > > Sorry again, Nina, but following on from what you say here, there is > also not someone who is poor, nor a you who can appreciate my > generosity. I get the feeling that Dhamma in daily life for you is to > deny everything that you experience in daily life, and explain it > afterwards in terms of unexperienced elements. ------- N: Speaking in conventional terms: also 'I' appreciating is only a citta, that is all. What we take for me and you are fleeting phenomena, but if you do not agree, so be it. --------- > > H: What I experience in daily life is what I experience in daily life. > What I experience when meditating, is what I experience in meditating. > I do not confuse the two. I do not meet poor people when I am > meditating, or give gifts, or DO anything. At most there is intention, > but not action. When I am meditative, I do not act. Likewise, in a > social situation I attend to that social situation, and am aware of > that situation, and act in it as it is, not as it might be if I was in > a different state of mind, or elsewhere..... ------- N: This point was often discussed, paramattha dhammas and social life. No contradiction. See the end of today's metta posting: ------- Nina. #87507 From: TGrand458@... Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta a strategy. TGrand458@... D: between ..there is another point I have difficulties in > understanding: it is said that all dhammas are impermanent, isn't it ? Hence how can nibbana be classified under dhammas?? > ****************** All conditioned dhammas are described as being impermanent, dukkha and not-self. But there is one unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, and that dhamma is described as being dukkha and not-self (but not as being impermanent). Hi All concerned. Just to correct the above. Nibbana is NOT described as being "dukkha." It IS considered as included as being described as "nonself." Nonself simply means there is no-self. It does not imply or entail that this means there is something else in regards to it. The Buddha has also said that Nibbana is the ending of feeling, perception and consciousness...and that nothing else arises in its place. TG PS, I'm at a public library computer, away from home, and may not be able to respond to follow-ups. (Lucky for you!) #87508 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Paramattha one, multiple, or ultimately none? nilovg Hi Alex, Op 25-jun-2008, om 22:26 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > Furthermore the ridiculous idea that (eye, ear, nose, tongue) only > percieve neutral/equinimity flies in the face of experience. > > Hasn't anyone seen a painful light (ex try to star at the sun)? > Please no correlation of "sense organ" and the body. -------- N: Howard answered this one very well. We have to distinguish what is experienced through the eyesense and through the bodysense. Different cittas, different sensebases, different objects. You quote Ajahn Sujato. Much of what is said stems from wrong understanding of what is taught in the Abhidhamma. I cannot say anything, he is not here. You are here. ------ A: Abh is shrouded in such a ridiculous mythology going against Buddha's teaching that I wonder what sort of people could belive the mystical aspects of this. ---------- N: If you are interested to know more I am delighted to help, but I do not want to intrude on you. I can only answer one point at a time, and I am not a debater, I am disinclined to argue about this or that. Just giving some info, that is what I am inclined to do. Nina. #87509 From: Dieter Möller Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta a strategy. moellerdieter Hi Alex ( all), you wrote: 'The Nibbana being a Dhamma is a bit controversial: In some suttas the Buddha has said that' I need to study your posting in detail .. but what you state above is the reason why I still have difficulties to digest that in Abh. Nibbana is grouped (besides the khandas /conditioned dhammas) under the category of Paramattha Dhamma ( dhamma in nibbana ). with Metta dieter #87510 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How does rebirth happen? cuticitta--> - ? --> patisandhicitta nilovg Hi Alex, Op 26-jun-2008, om 18:53 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > "it depends on the kamma which produces the patisandhi-citta (rebirth- > consciousness) after the cuti-citta (dying-consciousness) has fallen > away. " - http://www.vipassana.info/nina-abhi-20.htm > > Can someone explain in detail how the last moment of citta conditions > the first moment of new life? After all, no citta can be without 4 > aggregates and what connects two different sets of 5 aggregates (if > the rebirth is in kama loka? ------- N: It is like this moment: one cittas arises, passes away and is succeeded by the next one. Citta is always accompanied by the other three nama-khandhas: feeling, perception, the habitual tendencies (sankhaarakkhandha). after the dying-consciousness has fallen away, rupa also falls away. But at the following moment, the moment of rebirth-consciousness that is result of kamma, also rupa arises, produced by kamma, if there is rebirth in a five khandha plane. > ------- > > A: What and HOW makes sure that there is only "one" patisandhi citta > that appears after death cuticitta has ceased? Why does patisandhi > citta has to rearise? ------- N: at this moment there is only one citta, not more than one, and so it is at rebirth. So long as we are in the cycle, there will be rebirth-consciousness again and again and again. ------- > > A:I know I know you gonna say "Kamma", but what is the precise process > between last moment of this life and first moment of next life? ------- N: The last process has usually five javanacittas conditioned by kamma, and if kusala kamma will produce rebirth they are kusala cittas experiencing a pleasant object. If akusala kamma will produce rebirth they are akusala cittas experiencing an unpleasant object. They fall away, and then cuticitta arises which is the last bhavanga- citta of that life experiencing the same object as all bhavangacittas of that life, and this is immediately followed by the rebirth- consciousness. ------ > > A: What about Arahant's parinibbana? If there is no self, even in the > meaning of a temporary "storehouse accumulations" , then what keeps > in check that Arahant doesn't fall off Nibbana and new 5 Khandas > don't rearise?? ------ N: For the arahat also cuticitta arises, but then no more rebirth. That is the end of the cycle. I never read about falling off nibbaana. Nina. #87511 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:58 pm Subject: Re: Jhana Meditation. Again. truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex > > > In the suttas we have, the Buddha has stressed Jhana for Anag/Arh > > stage. > > I'm somewhat confused as to what you are saying here. Are you now > backing away from the position that jhana is a *necessary > prerequisite* for the attainment of Anagami stage of enlightenment? > For Anagami stage Jhana is 100% required. No Jhana = no possibility for Anag and higher. > > It does appear that *at least* a momentary Jhana (up to 4th or > > higher) happens right before one becomes a stream-enterer. > > Interesting. Can you give a sutta/text reference for this, please? > I did that before. I post it again, ... See things regarding stream entry: ...Then when he saw that Suppabuddha the leper's mind was ready, malleable, free from hindrances, elated, & bright" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.03.than.html The above is quick description of Jhana, perhaps up to 4th. Furthermore Samadhi isn't only a part of N8P, it is part of 7 factors of Awakening and a counterbalance to 5 Hindrances. > > Lets not forget the difference between attaining and mastering Jhana. > > A sotapanna CAN reach Jhana, but the mastery of Jhana is required for > > Anag and Arh levels. > > Can you give a sutta/text reference for this, please? > "In Anguttara Nikaya Suttas 3.85 & 9.12, the Buddha said that Sotapanna and Sakadagamin (first and second stage Ariyas) have Perfect Sila (morality). The third stage Anagamin has Perfect Sila and Perfect Samadhi (concentration). The fourth stage Arahant has Perfect Sila, Perfect Samadhi and Perfect Panna (wisdom). These 2 Suttas indicate that the attainment of the Anagamin and the Arahant stages must have Perfect Concentraion, which is always defined as the 4 jhanas or one-pointedness of mind by the Buddha in the Suttas (e.g. Samyutta Nikaya Suttas 45.1.8 & 45.3.8). This is why most Anagamins are reborn in the 4th jhana plane. Some, however, are reborn in the arupa jhana plane (Anguttara Nikaya Sutta 4.172), which shows that Anagamins generally have the 4 jhanas or more, as do all Arahants. http://zencomp.com/greatwisdom/ebud/ebdha163.htm > > > As I pointed out, MN52 refers to jhana consciousness being seen as > > > "fabricated & intended. ... inconstant & subject to cessation", > > > followed by the reaching of the ending of the mental fermentations. > > > This appears to be a standard description of insight into presently > > > arisen dhammas. > > > > > > > Here we have attainment + mastery of Jhana PLUS insight based on it. > > But suttas describing how insight with jhana citta as basis may lead > to the attainment of insight (and there are many, many such suttas) > cannot be taking as establishing that jhana is *necessary* for the > attainment of enlightenment. > Jhana removes hindrances, brightens the mind, etc so that insight can wipe the floor with ignorance. Trying to deal with ignorance hands on is like trying to remove the mountain with a cotton ball. > The reason there were many such suttas is that there were many > disciples at that time who were potentially capable of that very high > attainment. > > On the other hand, there are also many, many suttas describing the > development of insight and attainment of enlightenment that do not > mention jhana as part of that development or attainment. > Please don't mention the Susima sutta which is probably what you have in mind. 1) It doesn't refute Jhana, it refutes ARUPA + superpower attainments 2) You've read that sutta and many others, and are you an Arahant? A sotapanna? If not, then YOU may need Jhana in this lifetimes. Obviously the cases of hearing and becoming an Arahant do not work today. > > > Perhaps you have other sutta passages that relate more directly to > > the point about jhana as a prerequisite to the attainment of > > enlightenment at the stage of anagami? > > > > In one of the AN suttas, there is the passage that Sotapanna > > perfects Sila, Anag perfects Samadhi, Arh perfects Panna. > > Yes. The Sotapanna has perfected sila because he has eradicated all > latent tendencies for any act that amounts to a breach of the precepts. > > The Anagami has perfected samadhi because he has eradicated all > attachment to sense-door objects, which means that experiences through the sense-doors are no longer a condition for the arising of akusala. >>> Thus Anag has NO problem entering 1st Jhana at will and remaining there (barring any strong kammic hindrance, and even then attainment of Jhana has to happen. Remember that Ariyas are triple rooted, thus Jhana is possible.) > > > As you know, Anagamis are reborn in 4th Rupa Jhana plane. > > Requirements for that is 4th Jhana. Furthermore in many suttas (mn64) > > when Jhanas + Panna are mentioned, the promised result is either Arh > > or Anag (if some clinging is present). > > (AN 3.85 & 9.12) > > How does this establish jhana as a *prerequisite* for > insight/enlightenment. > As I've said above. Jhana strengthens the mind, it removes the hindrances, it clears the way for Insight. Best wishes, Alex #87512 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 1:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta a strategy. truth_aerator Hi TG and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@... wrote: > D: between ..there is another point I have difficulties in > > understanding: it is said that all dhammas are impermanent, isn't > it ? Hence how can nibbana be classified under dhammas?? > > ****************** > All conditioned dhammas are described as being impermanent, dukkha > and not-self. But there is one unconditioned dhamma, nibbana, and > that dhamma is described as being dukkha and not-self (but not as > being impermanent). > > > > Hi All concerned. > > Just to correct the above. Nibbana is NOT described as being "dukkha." It IS considered as included as being described as "nonself." Nonself simply means there is no-self. It does not imply or entail that this means there is something else in regards to it. > Please tell me where in the main Nikayas did the Buddha say that Nibbana is anatta? As far as I know, the Buddha has only stated that 5 khandas are anatta (and they trully are anatta). >>> The Buddha has also said that Nibbana is the ending of feeling, perception and consciousness...and that nothing else arises in its place. >>>>>>> "If a monk abandons passion for the property of consciousness, then owing to the abandonment of passion, the support is cut off, and there is no base for consciousness. Consciousness, thus unestablished, not proliferating, not performing any function, is released. Owing to its release, it is steady. Owing to its steadiness, it is contented. Owing to its contentment, it is not agitated. Not agitated, he (the monk) is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.054.than.html "If one doesn't intend and doesn't arrange, but one still obsesses [about something], this is a support for the stationing of consciousness. There being a support, there is a landing of consciousness. When that consciousness lands and grows, there is the production of renewed becoming in the future. When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. Such [too] is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress. "But when one doesn't intend, arrange, or obsess [about anything], there is no support for the stationing of consciousness. There being no support, there is no landing of consciousness. When that consciousness doesn't land & grow, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.038.than.html Maybe the unestablished consciousness (which isn't bhava or vibhava) "exists" (although not in phenomenal way) ?! Same with Atta. In some Upanishads, the Atta isn't part of phenomenal world of 5 Aggregates - thus Anattalakkhana sutta doesn't refute it. Quite the opposite by saying that ABCDEF is not X and without denying X (anywhere, indescribable & beyond phenomena) it *may* mean that X is, although it can't be described with words. Its not surprising that Adi Sankara who taught Hindu philosophy withing Vedanta with Atman is Brahman, was attacked as being a hidden Buddhist in Hindu garb, by his opponents in India . How could he with "Atman is Brahman" be mistaken as trying to sneak Buddhism into Hinduism is ridiculous to think, if these concepts were so against Buddhist teachings. It is gross misinterpretation that all Hindu and Upanishadic thinkers thought that any of the 5 khandas were Atman. BULL! Maybe some naive Hindus in Buddha's time did think so, but not all. And lets remember that Patanjali's yoga practices (withing Hindu framework) all taught citta-vritti-nirodha. Yet this didn't refute Atman. Buddha was raised a Hindu, he taught the Hindus, he used the same terminology and he didn't contradict certain advanced Hindu (Upanishadic) concepts of Atman, Kamma and such. ... Best wishes, Alex #87513 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta a strategy. Nibbana isn't comalike blank nothingness. truth_aerator Hi Dieter, Ken, Scott, Nina and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > > Hi Alex ( all), > > you wrote: > > 'The Nibbana being a Dhamma is a bit controversial: In some suttas the Buddha has said that' > > I need to study your posting in detail .. but what you state above is the reason why I still have difficulties to digest that in Abh. Nibbana is grouped (besides the khandas /conditioned dhammas) under the category of Paramattha Dhamma ( dhamma in nibbana ). > > with Metta dieter > Please find me where it says that: Nibbana = anatta. and especially the -> Nibbana is cessation of existence for an Arahant. There isn't an indescribable non-khandic Atman. ============================Nibbana====================== The Buddha:] As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind goes to an end that cannot be classified, so the sage free from naming activity goes to an end that cannot be classified. [Upasiva:] He who has reached the end: Does he not exist, or is he for eternity free from dis-ease? Please, sage, declare this to me as this phenomenon has been known by you. [The Buddha:] One who has reached the end has no criterion by which anyone would say that — for him it doesn't exist. When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.5.06.than.html Austere and sober unreflecting Theravadins love to quote the Nibbana is the end of 5 Khandas, which is true. What they conviniently forget is that Parinibbana cannot be classified as extinction! Remember, that "Arahant doesn't exist after death" is a wrong view and remember how much Buddha opposed Anihilationists. Attributing Atta to 5 Khandas is wrong view and thus a purified "being" isn't "found" in 5 aggregates. "Freed, dissociated, & released from ten things, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness, Bahuna. Which ten? Freed, dissociated, & released from form … feeling … perception … processes … consciousness … birth …aging … death … stress … deŽ lement, he dwells with unrestricted awareness. Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering to it, in the same way the Tathagata – freed, dissociated, & released from these ten things – dwells with unrestricted awareness " AN X.81 (not sure who is translator) =========== For those not yet convinced: 1) What did Buddha say was the fate of Anihhilationists? 2) How is Theravadin belief in Arahats parinibbana (cessation of 5 Khandas) different from Anihhilationist belief in cessation of 5 Khandas? Best wishes, Alex #87514 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta a strategy. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/26/2008 4:36:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Please tell me where in the main Nikayas did the Buddha say that Nibbana is anatta? As far as I know, the Buddha has only stated that 5 khandas are anatta (and they trully are anatta). ============================ The tilakkhana: Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta. (That 3rd one includes nibbana.) With metta, Howard #87515 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 2:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta a strategy. truth_aerator Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 6/26/2008 4:36:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Please tell me where in the main Nikayas did the Buddha say that > Nibbana is anatta? As far as I know, the Buddha has only stated that 5 khandas are anatta (and they trully are anatta). > ============================ > The tilakkhana: Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe > dhamma anatta. (That 3rd one includes nibbana.) > > > With metta, > Howard > In which suttas did the Buddha call Nibbana a "Dhamma"? Please no commentarial definitions of Nibbana=Dhamma. I'd like to know what suttas have to say. Didn't he said that dispassion is the highest Dhamma? (see one of my posts) Best wishes, Alex #87516 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta a strategy. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/26/2008 5:13:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 6/26/2008 4:36:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Please tell me where in the main Nikayas did the Buddha say that > Nibbana is anatta? As far as I know, the Buddha has only stated that 5 khandas are anatta (and they trully are anatta). > ============================ > The tilakkhana: Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe > dhamma anatta. (That 3rd one includes nibbana.) > > > With metta, > Howard > In which suttas did the Buddha call Nibbana a "Dhamma"? Please no commentarial definitions of Nibbana=Dhamma. I'd like to know what suttas have to say. Didn't he said that dispassion is the highest Dhamma? (see one of my posts) Best wishes, Alex ============================== In the suttas, the Buddha uses 'dhamma' informally as we would use 'thing'. I have always understood the tilakkhana to say: "All conditions are impermanent. All conditions are unsatisfying. All things are not-self." I see no other reason for switching from 'sankhara' to 'dhamma', for, of course, nibbana is neither impermanent nor unsatisfying. With metta, Howard #87517 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 3:54 pm Subject: Re: response to hate mail etc - revised and corrected edition kenhowardau Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > . . . > > > > You're a hard man to pin down, Herman. What if I used the > > word "inappropriate?" Do you know that lobha, mana and sakkaya- ditthi > > are inappropriate? If so, how do you know? Wouldn't it be from your > > having heard and considered the Dhamma? > > I'm not deliberately trying to be difficult, honest :-) > > I know that lobha, mana and sakkaya-ditthi are taught as being > inappropriate in the Dhamma. > Excellent! (You weren't being difficult at all!) :-) And why are they taught as being inappropriate? It is because there are only dhammas. Since there are only fleeting, soulless conditioned dhammas there can be nothing worth desiring or worth identifying with. And for whose benefit would anything be desired anyway - when there is no one there? ----------------------- H: > With regards to lobha and mana, I know as a matter of intellectual understanding that life, as a human being in society, is not possible without them. ----------------------- Yes, that sort of thinking is inevitable. Even though there is no one - no selves - there is still thinking in terms of selves. ----------- H: > Having said that, I'm certainly not aversive to being led to discover that I am wrong in that understanding. ---------- Good, because that understanding it is not right understanding (as taught by the Buddha), is it? It is just conventional thinking. ---------------- H: > With regards to sakkya-ditthi, if by that is meant belief in a soul, or a self, that persists and/or controls what goes on, I do not doubt that such a soul or self doesn't exist. ---------------- Actually, that is only part of the meaning of sakkaya-ditthi. It is not enough to understand there is no self that controls what goes on; we must also understand the ultimate meaning of "what goes on." We wouldn't say, for example, there was no control over motor-car driving. We have to see that, ultimately, there is no car and no driving; there are only namas and rupas. *Then* we can say there is no control - over those namas and rupas. --------------------- <. . .> H: > Hope that gives you something to aim at :-) --------------------- Thank you, you have been the perfect sitting duck. :-) Ken H #87518 From: "Raymond Hendrickson" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta a strategy. Nibbana isn't comalike blank nothingness. bitakarma Hi Alex, let me add my 2 cents worth :) Alex says: >>Please find me where it says that: >>>Nibbana = anatta. >>>and especially the -> >>>Nibbana is cessation of existence for an Arahant. >>>There isn't an indescribable non-khandic Atman These quotes certainly seem to point away from any form of existence that establishes itself in Nibbana..... and I have found no Sutta that talks about any form of eternal existence that is somehow released upon death of an Arahant. Then the Blessed one took up a little lump of cowdung in his hand and said to that bhikkhu: "Bhikkhu, there is not even this much individual existence that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. If there was t his much individual existence t hat was permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering could not be discerned. But because there is not even this much individual existence that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, this living of the holy life for the complete destruction of suffering is discerned." SN I (10) Connected discourses page 230 The bhikkhuni Vajira speaking, "Why now do you assume 'a being'? Mara, is that y our speculative view? This is a heap of sheer formations: Here no being is found. "Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word 'chariot' is used, So, when the aggregates exist, There is the convention 'a being' "It's only suffering that comes to be, Suffering that stands and falls away. Nothing but suffering comes to be, noting but suffering ceases." SN 12 (35) Connected Discourses page 574 Buddha speaking "...If there is the view, "The soul and the body are the same; there is no living of the holy life; if there is the views, "The soul is one thing, the body is another,' there is no living of the holy life. Without verring towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: "with birth as condition, aging-and-death." In MN 1 when speaking of the an Arahant the Buddha says........ "He directly knows Nibbana as Nibbana. Having directly known Nibbana as Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself as] Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself] in Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself apart] from Nibbana, he should not conceive Nibbana to be 'mine,' he should not delight in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has fully understood it, I say." Alex Says: >>For those not yet convinced: 1) What did Buddha say was the fate of Anihhilationists? 2) How is Theravadin belief in Arahats parinibbana (cessation of 5 Khandas) different from Anihhilationist belief in cessation of 5 Khandas? >> You cannot anihhhilate something that does not exist. Anihhilationists hold wrong view since they hold there is a self to anihhilate. Alex says: \>>>If samsara is absence of Self, then Nibbana is absence of not self ( 5 khandas). >>> If samsara is absence of Self it does not logically follow that Nibbana is absence of not self. I assume you got this from the fact that since samsara is impermanent and associated with suffering and since Nibbana is not impermanent and not associated with suffering that the same connection is assumed with absence of self. You can assume that but it is not a logical connection. Just knowing that A possess X,Y and Z and knowing that B possess not-X and not-Y, logically does not tell you anything about the relation between B and Z. As far as I have read there is nothing in the Nikayas saying that Nibbana is absence of not self. ..........Ray #87519 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:06 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta a strategy. Nibbana isn't a "thing truth_aerator Dear Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 6/26/2008 5:13:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Dear Howard, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > > > > In a message dated 6/26/2008 4:36:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > truth_aerator@ writes: > > > > Please tell me where in the main Nikayas did the Buddha say that > > Nibbana is anatta? As far as I know, the Buddha has only stated > that 5 khandas are anatta (and they trully are anatta). > > ============================ > > The tilakkhana: Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, > sabbe > > dhamma anatta. (That 3rd one includes nibbana.) > > > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > > In which suttas did the Buddha call Nibbana a "Dhamma"? > > Please no commentarial definitions of Nibbana=Dhamma. I'd like to > know what suttas have to say. > > Didn't he said that dispassion is the highest Dhamma? (see one of my > posts) > > > Best wishes, > > > Alex > ============================== In the suttas, the Buddha uses 'dhamma' informally as we would use 'thing'. I have always understood the tilakkhana to say: "All conditions are impermanent. All conditions are unsatisfying. All things are not-self." I see no other reason for switching from 'sankhara' to 'dhamma', for, of course, nibbana is neither impermanent nor unsatisfying. >>>>>>>>>>> Nibbana isn't a "thing". Its not found within 5 Khandas or Phenomenal world. Thus 3 characteristics of the "world" do NOT apply to it. Best wishes, Alex #87520 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:28 pm Subject: Re: Anatta a strategy. Nibbana isn't comalike blank nothingness. truth_aerator Hi Raymond and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Raymond Hendrickson" wrote: > Hi Alex, let me add my 2 cents worth :) > > These quotes certainly seem to point away from any form of existence that> establishes itself in Nibbana..... and I have found no Sutta that talks about any form of eternal existence that is somehow released upon death of > an Arahant. >>> Nibbana certainly isn't a "becoming" as in a process. We must be very clear about the "eternal existence" part. None of the Khandas have unchanging existence. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the Blessed one took up a little lump of cowdung in his hand and said to that bhikkhu: "Bhikkhu, there is not even this much individual existence that is permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change, and that will remain the same just like eternity itself. >>>> Key word, "induvidial" and misinterpreted meaning of "existence" (bhava, becoming I presume). This doesn't deny unexplainable (lets call it freed citta) outside of 5 Khandas which isn't induvidial. > > SN I (10) Connected discourses page 230 > > The bhikkhuni Vajira speaking, > > "Why now do you assume 'a being'? > Mara, is that y our speculative view? > This is a heap of sheer formations: > Here no being is found. > "Just as, with an assemblage of parts, > The word 'chariot' is used, > So, when the aggregates exist, > There is the convention 'a being' > > "It's only suffering that comes to be, > Suffering that stands and falls away. > Nothing but suffering comes to be, > noting but suffering ceases." > If I remember correctly, by "being" the word "satta" is used. Not Atman, not the one that is outside of 5 Khandas. Furthermore Atman doesn't have a begging nor end, thus it doesn't "come to be" or "ceases" in a conventional Samsaric way. > > SN 12 (35) Connected Discourses page 574 > > Buddha speaking > > "...If there is the view, "The soul and the body are the same; there is no living of the holy life; if there is the views, "The soul is one thing, the body is another,' there is no living of the holy life. Without verring towards either of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by the middle: "with birth as condition, aging-and-death." >>>>> This is more difficult. Again, the thing is "what is meant" by soul in this case? This may be a denial of a) Jiva as animator b) Jiva being some little man. Atman outside of 5 Khandas is neither. >>>>>> In MN 1 when speaking of the an Arahant the Buddha says........ "He directly knows Nibbana as Nibbana. Having directly known Nibbana as Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself as] Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself] in Nibbana, he should not conceive [himself apart] from Nibbana, he should not conceive Nibbana to be 'mine,' he should not delight in Nibbana. Why is that? Because he has fully understood it, I say." >>>>>> Another challenging quote. Few things: A) If Nibbana is cessation of consciousness, then how can it be an object of direct knowledge? It is impossible for consciousness to directly cognize the absence of cognition. Thus the quote implies that Nibbana isn't a mere blank comatose state. Howard and those who were under deep full anasthesia probably have inferred (upon emerging, only then) that absence of consciousness isn't felt to have ANYTHING or ANY DURATION. One moment you feel being injected with anasthesia, and the next moment you wonder "exactly when am I going to see blank nothingness and they will operate" only to find out that operation is done. The fully unconscious gap isn't felt and it can't be used as an object of the mind. You forgot to quote MN2 and MN22. Thing about attanuditthi is that The Atman can't be speculated on. It has to be directly felt. It is heresy to think !ABOUT! Atman with 5 aggregates, which are Mara, Satanic. > Alex Says: > >>For those not yet convinced: > 1) What did Buddha say was the fate of Anihhilationists? > > 2) How is Theravadin belief in Arahats parinibbana (cessation of 5 > Khandas) different from Anihhilationist belief in cessation of 5 > Khandas? > >> > You cannot anihhhilate something that does not exist. Anihhilationists hold wrong view since they hold there is a self to anihhilate. >>> Nihilists don't believe in a soul, and some philosophers have refuted self as well. So the difference is subtle. Furthermore in one sutta the Buddha has refused to say that "Self Doesn't Exist" to Ananda and Vacchagotta as this would side with Annihilationists. So this isn't a very convincing answer that I am waiting for. > > Alex says: > \>>>If samsara is absence of Self, then Nibbana is absence of not self ( > 5 khandas). > >>> > If samsara is absence of Self it does not logically follow that Nibbana is absence of not self. I assume you got this from the fact that since samsara is impermanent and associated with suffering and since Nibbana is not impermanent and not associated with suffering that the same connection is assumed with absence of self. >>>> 5 Aggregates are anatta. Nibbana doesn't have 5 aggregates (Anatta). What remains and realizes Nibbana is freed Cittam (citta vimutti) or Atman. Please don't reify words "remains" and "realizes" , they are merely for conventional speech. Thank you for challenging quotes, Best wishes, Alex #87521 From: "Tep" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 5:45 pm Subject: Re: [was Vism.XVII,270] .. FNTs and N8FP dhammanusarin Dear Dieter (Howard, Alex, Herman), - Thank you very much for the re-reading of the Nagara Sutta. I also benefited from your review. Re-reading of exceptional suttas like this one always yields a better understanding than the last reading. It all began with the Bodhisatta's critical investigation: 'How this world has fallen on difficulty! It is born, it ages, it dies, it falls away & rearises, but it does not discern the escape from this stress, from this aging & death. O when will it discern the escape from this stress, from this aging & death?' "Then the thought occurred to me, 'Aging & death exist when what exists? ..snip >Dieter: Recognizing suffering (ageing and death..1st N.T. ) the Prince considered its origin and its conditions (2nd N.T.) and the cessation of its conditions . T: Exactly. It is the same kind of analysis and critical thinking that great scientists employ to research a new problem. Then, Eureka! ' Vision arose, clear knowing arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before.' . ............................. The Buddha: Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. >Dieter: Only here, after following the 8fold N.P. , the direct knowledge of fabrications, its orgination and cessation appear , leaving it to the student to conclude that it is meant herewith the journey ended , the city reached .. the ignorance fully abolished ,. isn't it? T: I think there are several knowledges(~naana) in between the direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths and the cutting off of cankers (fermentation or 'asavas'); only that last ~naana uproots ignorance. An explanation is given in the Sekha-patipada Sutta [MN 53]. "When the disciple of the noble ones has arrived at this purity of equanimity & mindfulness, he enters & remains in the fermentation- free awareness-release & discernment-release, having directly known & realized them for himself right in the here & now. [5] This is his third breaking out, like that of the hen's chicks from their shells." Translator's note [5]: This completes the training, and so one becomes an asekha: one no longer in training. In other words, one is an arahant. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html T: Another sutta, MN 117, states that beyond the N8FP are Right Knowledge (samma ~naana) and Right Release(samma vimutti). This shows that there are vijjaa and vimutti beyond the N8FP. In other words, the N8FP is the path for the sekha (lerners). "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right release comes into being. Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the Arahant with ten." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.117.than.html ................ >D: I wonder in which other suttas D.O. is presented this way.. T: That is a very good question of a true student of Buddhism. I think MN 38 : Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (from "the Majjhima Nikaya: Middle Length Sayings" by Bhikkhu Bodhi and Bhikkhu Nanamoli) may be close to what you are asking. Other good ones I can recall are: SN 12.23, AN 10.92. Best wishes, Tep === #87522 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:27 pm Subject: KEN, Path and Not Path lbidd2 Hi Ken, I have already made a suggestion on how we might make this thread easier by just touching on the high points, but maybe you missed that email. Also, I think you have gone beyond what you agreed to do. However, accurate typing is good mindfulness practice. Mindfulness comes first, then understanding. Keep up the good work! Larry #87523 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:36 pm Subject: Re: Impermanence and Loss buddhatrue Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, all - > > We just got word of the death of a contemporary of ours - a good friend, > a good person, and whose husband is one of the dearest and sweetest men we > know. Though we knew that her illness would eventually claim her, it still > comes as a shock and a great sadness. Among other things, I find this a reminder > to love those around us and to let them know how much they are loved, and a > reminder to do what is of greater value and not lesser. So sorry for your loss. Your reminders are very good and thoughtful as well. Metta, James #87524 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/6/27 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear Scott, > Op 26-jun-2008, om 13:26 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > >> Divine eye, like divine ear, 'sees' deeper... > ------- > N: Especially the Buddha-eye. We read in the suttas that the Buddha > surveyed the world with his Buddha-eye to see who was ready to > receive his teaching. For example, Perfections, Ch 6: < In the > morning before Pukkusåti went to stay in the potter's workshop, the > Buddha investigated the world and saw the son of a prominent family, > Pukkusåti. He considered, 'This son of a prominent family left his > kingdom as soon as he had read the official letter that his friend > sent him. He went forth and dedicated himself specifically to me, and > he travelled all of the hundred and twentynone leagues to the city of > Råjagaha. > If I do not go there he will not realize the fruits of a recluse (he > will not realize the four noble Truths); he will not realize the > three fruits of a recluse, that is, he will not attain the third > stage of enlightenment, the stage of the non-returner (anågåmí). He > will die without any refuge after he has dwelt there just for one > night. When I have gone there he will realize the three fruits of a > recluse. Since I have developed all the perfections during four > incalculable periods and a hundred thousand aeons only for the > benefit and support of people, I shall help the son of a prominent > family, Pukkusåti.'> This is NOT in the suttas. This is in Buddhagosa's commentary to the Dhatuvibhanga sutta. It is a source of amusement to me that the discussion on DN33, so far, has revolved around things that are not even mentioned in it. I recommend that for the sake of the integrity of the discussion, we should put aside all pretense, and just acknowledge that this was never going to be a discussion about DN33. Cheers Herman #87525 From: "Tep" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:44 pm Subject: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. dhammanusarin Dear Jon (Herman), - Your comment, as simple as it may sound, can lead to a long discussion. :-) >Jon: My only comment would be that the description contained in the Panna Sutta does not tell us *everything* there is to know about panna, and it may be helpful to supplement this information with information found in other parts of the texts. T: Of course it is always helpful to include what the Buddha said about pa~n~naa in other suttas, although it is not necessary in my opinion. Thus I am curious as to what information this Pa~n~naa Sutta tells you, and what information about pa~n~naa is missing. Imo, the sutta tells everything about pa~n~naa development, which the Buddha approved, in a learner(sekha). Thanks, Tep === #87526 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for the reply: N: "Especially the Buddha-eye. We read in the suttas that the Buddha surveyed the world with his Buddha-eye to see who was ready to receive his teaching..." Scott: I like how, even in the preliminary, narrative section of the sutta - before we even get to the 'hard-core' Dhamma - there are interesting points to consider. I like how one can range widely in discussing these points, looking into different texts as needs be. Regarding divine-eye and Buddha-eye, is it correct to state that these are related to the function of pa~n~naa? If so, in what way? If not, what is the particular dhamma responsible for this sort of view? Sincerely, Scott. #87527 From: "Raymond Hendrickson" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:08 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta a strategy. Nibbana isn't comalike blank nothingness. bitakarma Hi again Alex, You said: >>Nihilists don't believe in a soul, and some philosophers have refuted self as well. So the difference is subtle. Furthermore in one sutta the Buddha has refused to say that "Self Doesn't Exist" to Ananda and Vacchagotta as this would side with Annihilationists. So this isn't a very convincing answer that I am waiting for. >> This quote is often used to support the idea of some sort of Atman, but when the entire answer to Ananda is given it is plain to see he is did not refuse to answer because he supported any notion of there being a Self....here is the reply to Ananda in full: "If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, 'Is there a self?' I had answered, 'There is a self,' this would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. And if, when I was asked by him, 'Is there no self??' I had answered, 'There is no self,' this would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. "If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, 'Is there a self?' I had answered, 'There is a self.' would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that 'all phenomena are nonself'?" "No, venerable sir." "And if, when I was asked by him, 'Is there no self?' I had answered, 'There is no self,' the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, "it seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.'" " #87528 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:59 pm Subject: Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' kenhowardau Hi all, Here are few more paragraphs (better late than never). I have to admit to being completely out of my depth this time. If you have forgotten the explanations of the various 'decads' and 'octads' (so long ago now) you might have a bit of trouble too. (Thanks, Nina and Larry, for your encouragement and amazing patience.) Ken H "[(a) KAMMA-BORN MATERIALITY] 27. Herein [as regards kamma-born materiality] the analysis should be understood thus: (1) kamma, (2) what is originated by kamma, (3) what has kamma as its condition, (4) what is originated by consciousness that has kamma as its condition, (5) what is originated by nutriment that has kamma as its condition, (6) what is originated by temperature that has kamma as its condition (cf. Ch.XV,para111- 114). 28. Herein, (1) 'kamma' is profitable and unprofitable volition. (2) 'What is originated by kamma' is the kamma-resultant aggregates and the seventy instances of materiality beginning with the eye decad. (3) 'What has kamma as its condition' is the same [as the last] since kamma is the condition that upholds what is originated by kamma. 29. (4) 'What is originated by consciousness that has kamma as its condition' is materiality originated by kamma-resultant consciousness. (5) 'What is originated by nutriment that has kamma as its condition' is so called since the nutritive-essence that has reached presence in the instances of materiality originated by kamma originates a further octad-with-nutritive-essence-as-eighth, and the nutritive essence there that has reached presence also originates a further one, and so it links up four or five occurrences of octads. (6) 'What is originated by temperature that has kamma as its condition' is so called because the kamma-born fire element that has reached presence originates an octad-with-nutritive-essence-as- eighth, which is temperature originated, and the temperature in that originates a further octad-with-nutritive-essence-as-eighth, and so it links up four or five occurrences of octads. This is how the generation of kamma-born materiality in the first place should be seen [615]." #87529 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Impermanence and Loss egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/6/27 : > Hi, all - > > We just got word of the death of a contemporary of ours - a good friend, > a good person, and whose husband is one of the dearest and sweetest men we > know. Though we knew that her illness would eventually claim her, it still > comes as a shock and a great sadness. Among other things, I find this a reminder > to love those around us and to let them know how much they are loved, and a > reminder to do what is of greater value and not lesser. > I'm sorry to read of your sad news. And how right you are in reminding us to use our time wisely. Cheers Herman #87530 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta a strategy. Nibbana isn't a "thing upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/26/2008 8:06:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Nibbana isn't a "thing". Its not found within 5 Khandas or Phenomenal world. Thus 3 characteristics of the "world" do NOT apply to it. =========================== In Udana 8.1, the Buddha was speaking of nibbana when he wrote the following: __________________________ I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time the Blessed One was instructing urging, rousing, and encouraging the monks with Dhamma-talk concerned with Unbinding. The monks — receptive, attentive, focusing their entire awareness, lending ear — listened to the Dhamma. Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed: There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support (mental object)._1_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html#n-1) This, just this, is the end of stress. ------------------------------------------ Also, he was speaking of nibbana when he wrote in several places of vi~n~nana anidassanam, for example in MN 49, where he said the following: ________________________ 'Consciousness without surface, endless, radiant all around, has not been experienced through the earthness of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the windiness of wind ... the allness of the all. --------------------------------------- In each of these cases he is speaking of something but not an ordinary something. He is speaking of the one and only asankhata dhamma. With metta, Howard #87531 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Impermanence and Loss upasaka_howard Hi, James - In a message dated 6/26/2008 9:36:39 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@... writes: So sorry for your loss. Your reminders are very good and thoughtful as well. =========================== Thank you! Good friends like you are a joy. With metta, Howard #87532 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 4:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Impermanence and Loss upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and all) - In a message dated 6/26/2008 11:02:26 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: I'm sorry to read of your sad news. And how right you are in reminding us to use our time wisely. ============================= Thanks so much. What I said to James applies to you as well, of course. With metta, Howard P. S. Everyone, I know that we all here on DSG care greatly about each other, and I accept the kind posts already received as from all of you! :-) #87533 From: "connie" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:03 pm Subject: Re: Sangiiti Intro nichiconn Dear Herman, Herman: I think it is very useful to have the three translations side by side as you have them, it becomes clear that some translators are happy to summarise at one time, and gloss over certain things at other times connie: I guess we'd have to ask them about their happiness, but yeah, the words don't always come out the same and it's all grist for the mill. BTW, I emailed a thanks and invitation to Mike Olds stop by sometime but it bounced. "Once upon a time". Hey, that's my phrase, what's he doing with it? [PW] " time " = (m.) kaala; samaya; avasara; vaara. (f.) velaa. (v.t.) kaala.m niyameti or mi.naati. (pp.) niyamitakaala. Masefield's Ud-a, pp.39-40: << samaya is time (kaalo), since it is herein that a being, or a thing having an own nature, is occasioned (sameti), or thereby runs in parallel (sa.mgacchati) with (the sub-moments of) arising (and so on) or with the co-nascents and so forth - for although non-real (abhuuto) in the sense that there is (really) merely the occurrence of dhammas, time is depicted, through conformity with that established by a mere thought-construct, as the locus of that occurrence of dhammas, and as though it were the activity associated with them; samaya is collection (samuuho), since it is the course (ayana.m), occurrence, persistence, either equally (sama.m) or jointly (saha), of constituent parts, as with a collective (samudaayo), for the joint persistence of constituent parts is itself a collection (samuuho); >> peace, connie #87534 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' lbidd2 Hi Ken, Here we are doing an in-depth study of rupa by way of its origin. Materiality is produced by kamma, consciousness, temperature, and nutriment. Kamma born materiality includes materiality that is produced by kamma, by kamma resultant consciousness (excluding sense consciousness and rebirth consciousness), by nutriment that is consumed because of kamma, and materiality that is produced by the burning of that nutriment. Consciousness, temperature, and nutriment produced materiality will also be discussed separately. Then there will be a similar discussion of mentality (nama). You might wonder, where does your foot come from? Start with kamma, but don't forget breakfast. Larry #87535 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:05 pm Subject: Re: Letter from Lukas szmicio --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Lukas, > Thank you for your kind letter and I answer this in dsg, since you > have a good question on thinking. > Interesting, your Polish translation, perhaps you can help others. > Op 26-jun-2008, om 8:09 heeft Lukas Szmidt het volgende geschreven: > > Now I have read a one chapter from Ajahn Sujin book. It's realy great. > > I make a Polish translation of your book "Abhidhamma in daily > > life", but just for myself. I just thougt that i have to read this > > book not once but more, so I will make a translation. It will be > > easier for me. > > > > Just one question: > > Thinking thinks about anything. And you said that can be many > > objects of thinking? But how pannati(concept) can be object of > > thinking. I've considered a thinking as a many mental fenomena and > > each of them has his own object - a reality. But pannati is consist > > of so many different moments, am I wrong? > -------- > N: Let me give an example. Heat impinges on the body-consciousness > and it is experienced by the citta that is body-consciousness. Heat > is a rupa, a realty. Bodyconsciousness is a citta, nama, it is real. > It does not think, it just experiences heat. It arises in a process > of cittas which, all of them, experience heat in a sense-door process > of cittas. Later on cittas arising in a mind-door process may think: > the wheather is warm and it is a good time for walking. That is quite > a story, involving many cittas arising in different mind-door > processes. Cittas think of concepts about people walking, going out. > Thus, countless cittas are involved, thinking of all kinds of > pa~n~nattis. But we should not worry about how many cittas and how > many pa~n~nattis. Just know the difference: when one nama or one rupa > through one of the six doorways at a time is cognized, the citta > cognizes a reality. When there is as object a person, a table, a > story, many cittas think of concepts. > Nina. Now it's clear. There is a phassa(contact) of 3 elements: the body element, body-sense and body-consciousness. Can there be more than one body element come in contact with body-sense at the same time? Can there be heat and motion at the same moment? What is a diffrence between sense-door-process and mind-door-process? bye Lukas #87536 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How does rebirth happen? cuticitta--> - ? --> patisandhicitta egberdina Hi Alex, 2008/6/27 Alex : > Hello all, > > "it depends on the kamma which produces the patisandhi-citta (rebirth- > consciousness) after the cuti-citta (dying-consciousness) has fallen > away. " - http://www.vipassana.info/nina-abhi-20.htm > > Can someone explain in detail how the last moment of citta conditions > the first moment of new life? No-one can explain this, because it doesn't happen. What made you think that it does happen? Cheers Herman #87537 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concepts. akusala cetasika - ditthi egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/6/27 Nina van Gorkom : > Hi Herman, >> >> So, do you mean that you were thinking of typing, or were you typing? > ------ > N: This shows that there are many cittas arising and falling away so > fast: thinking of the dhamma I type, thinking of you, Herman, > thinking how can I explain paramattha dhammas to him, but yes, what I > type now may help. It also depends on the way he receives it. > ------- Yes. > -------- > N: As you know many suttas teach: no self, but since you seem to have > doubts about no being, I chose this sutta. It is O.K. if you do not > like it. It is not a matter of me liking or disliking it. There is nothing to understand in a story in which a nun has a conversation with Mara, telling him that it isn't happening. >> >> H: > Suppose, you generously give something away to someone who is >> poor. >> > It is not you, only a moment of generosity. It does not stay, how >> can >> > it be you. But I, in my turn, can appreciate that quality that >> > appeared 'in you'. >> >> Sorry again, Nina, but following on from what you say here, there is >> also not someone who is poor, nor a you who can appreciate my >> generosity. I get the feeling that Dhamma in daily life for you is to >> deny everything that you experience in daily life, and explain it >> afterwards in terms of unexperienced elements. > ------- > N: Speaking in conventional terms: also 'I' appreciating is only a > citta, that is all. What we take for me and you are fleeting > phenomena, but if you do not agree, so be it. --------- There is nothing to agree or disagree with. You are writing words but saying you are not writing words. There is no meaning here to understand or agree or disagree with. If I were to say that Tuesday is loud, would you agree or disagree with that? Of course you could do neither, because what I said was meaningless. When you communicate with me and tell me you are not communicating with me, that is not something that you or I can understand. > --------- >> >> H: What I experience in daily life is what I experience in daily life. >> What I experience when meditating, is what I experience in meditating. >> I do not confuse the two. I do not meet poor people when I am >> meditating, or give gifts, or DO anything. At most there is intention, >> but not action. When I am meditative, I do not act. Likewise, in a >> social situation I attend to that social situation, and am aware of >> that situation, and act in it as it is, not as it might be if I was in >> a different state of mind, or elsewhere..... > ------- > N: This point was often discussed, paramattha dhammas and social > life. No contradiction. See the end of today's metta posting: > should from now on develop mettå towards each being, each person we meet > in this life, in order to subdue the inclination to commit evil > deeds. When > people lack mettå there will be suffering. The Buddha said that mettå > is the > dhamma which is the foundation of the world, it is kusala dhamma which > supports beings in the world so that they can live free from danger, > free from > the sorrow resulting from akusala citta which is without mettå.> > As you do in just about every post you write, you contradict yourself here again, and render all you say meaningless. You write to me there are no beings, and if I don't like it, that is OK, but then you conclude that we should develop metta towards each being. I'd like to thank you, but you haven't given me anything. Sorry :-) Cheers Herman #87538 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:14 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Re: Vism XX, 'Knowledge of What is/is not the Path' nilovg Dear Ken, perhaps I can add something. Op 27-jun-2008, om 4:59 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > 28. Herein, (1) 'kamma' is profitable and unprofitable volition. > (2) 'What is originated by kamma' is the kamma-resultant aggregates > and the seventy instances of materiality beginning with the eye > decad. (3) 'What has kamma as its condition' is the same [as the > last] since kamma is the condition that upholds what is originated by > kamma. ----------- N: rupas arise in groups and when produced by kamma, there are at least nine, a nonad: the eight inseparable rupas (four great elements + colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence). Eyesense arises in a decad: the afore-mentioned nine + eyesense. > There are five decads that include the senses. One decad with > hearbase, one decad with sex. Thus, seven decads are produced by > kamma. In the case of human birth, kamma produces three decads: one > with bodysense, one with the heartbase and one with sex. The other > sensebases arise later on. --------- > > Text Vis 29. (4) 'What is originated by consciousness that has > kamma as its > condition' is materiality originated by kamma-resultant > consciousness. ------- N: As Larry indicated, some vipaakacittas also produce bodily rupas, but not the five sense-cognitions. ------- > Text: (5) 'What is originated by nutriment that has kamma as > its condition' is so called since the nutritive-essence that has > reached presence in the instances of materiality originated by kamma > originates a further octad-with-nutritive-essence-as-eighth, and the > nutritive essence there that has reached presence also originates a > further one, and so it links up four or five occurrences of octads. ------- N: At birth kamma produces three decads in the case of humans as we have seen. In each of these there is nutritive essence that is among the eight inseparable rupas. We read, 'that has reached presence'. Rupa lasts for seventeen moments of citta, it has one moment of arising, fifteen moments of presence and then it falls away. At its arising moment it is too weak to produce other rupas. The nutritive essence present in the body can produce new groups of rúpas, consisting of the eight inseparable rúpas. Nutritive essence present in such an octad can in its turn produce another group of eight “inseparable rúpas” (an octad). In this way several octads produced by nutrition will arise one after the other, and thus, nutriment which has been taken can be sufficient for some time afterwards. -------- > Text: (6) 'What is originated by temperature that has kamma as its > condition' is so called because the kamma-born fire element that has > reached presence originates an octad-with-nutritive-essence-as- > eighth, which is temperature originated, and the temperature in that > originates a further octad-with-nutritive-essence-as-eighth, and so > it links up four or five occurrences of octads. > This is how the generation of kamma-born materiality in the first > place should be seen [615]." ------ N: What is said above also applies to the heat-element that is one of the eight inseparable rupas. Conclusion: this is an indepth study of the intricacy of different conditions. It helps us to see more and more that bodily rupas are uncontrollable, that they have no possessor. Nina. #87539 From: Sukinder Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility sukinderpal Hi Herman, Before I go on I want to say that I believe that I did misrepresent you in my last letter, judging from what I read in a post to Ken H. But I’ll wait for you to write more on it. ============ > Herman: > I'm just wondering what benefit you see in believing or understanding > the Dhamma to be the *only* expression of Truth. > > S: The statement itself adds nothing. The thinking involved may be with > tanha or with understanding. The one can't ever be good but the other if > it is say, an instance of reflection on the Dhamma, this must be good surely? Herman: No, not at all. Where have you read that statements like "only this view is true, anything else is wrong" received praise from the Buddha? Sukin: I’m sure you’ve heard that there is “Dhamma” as one of the 40 objects of samatha development. Depending on accumulated understanding and other conditions, the word Dhamma could condition reflection on any aspect of the Teachings. Those who have penetrated the Four Noble Truths will benefit the most, those who haven’t will reflect on what they do understand and experience kusala / calm as per the corresponding level. My impression is that the 4NTs, one of which is the N8FP, is the *only* statement of the way things are. So I wouldn’t even say that the Dhamma is ‘superior’ compared to other teachings, but in fact not comparable. Every other pursuit of knowledge and understanding is based purely on ‘concepts’ being a result of the worldling’s conceiving. As regards the Buddha’s objection to “view” as you have stated here and in the raft simile which is often cited, it has been discussed a few times on dsg and pointed out that this is about “wrong view” only. I have read many people suggesting that the Buddha included “right view” when he suggested the giving up of views. But then I think I understand why people come to the conclusion; the Dhamma is being approached by them in terms of what ‘self’ needs to do. It suggests a ‘self’ who decides to observe, understand and detach. The failure is in seeing that it is Right View which performs the function of understanding and is accompanied by alobha which is detachment. Therefore if indeed these are function of the particular dhammas, that which conditions the ‘thinking’ about right view needing to be given up must be something else wouldn’t you say? Otherwise we are faced with the absurd position of suggesting the need to have ‘right understanding’ that right understanding is not needed? To me the kind of proposition must come only from ‘attachment’ and ‘wrong view’! Odd isn’t it? And the general sentiment seems to reflect lack of respect for the Buddha’s Teachings. That said, I’ll admit that there indeed is great attachment accumulated and for the worldling, this can follow and have as object a moment of right understanding. But this is not the fault of the right view itself but that of the attachment which follows. Right view is always accompanied with detachment and this includes at the level of pariyatti. So indeed far from needed to be given up, it is the *only* dhamma which can lead to attachment being known for what it is and finally eradicated. ============== > S: And if it is not kusala with or without panna, it is blameworthy. And > what good can my stating this achieve? I believe that if you or someone > else were to reflect on this with understanding, then it must be good! ;-) Herman: And did you think that saying "only this is true, anything else is wrong" would prompt wholesome reflection? Is that why you express your belief in the superiority of Theravada? Sukin: As I said, it depends on the understanding. Also it is not about “superiority of Theravada”. The concept does not come in the picture as far as I’m concerned. I’m talking about ‘right view’ as against ‘wrong view’. So in fact this is neither about the Dhamma being superior, but being the only teaching that talks about the Truth. And I’ll even add that it is crucial that anyone who wishes to follow the Buddha’s teachings, that he come to understand this at some point. ============== > Herman: > I do not see anything in the way the peoples that have been Theravadan > for centuries live their lives that makes me think they are freer of > suffering than elsewhere. > > S: I think that this is a wrong approach. I think a correct > understanding of the Dhamma, rather then leading us to look for results, > would condition an interest in "causes", and where else to understand > this but one's own citta? This being the case would we then seek to > judge the value of the Teachings in the behavior of others? Herman: A wrong approach for what? If you are not looking for results, then no approach is required. Sukin: Sure in the beginning we are “looking” with the aim for some kind of result. However I think that when the Dhamma is understood as it should be, even at pariyatti, one can’t help but see that right results can come only from right causes. The interest then grows to wanting to understand better and better what theses causes are, at which point it could be said that there is interest in the development of understanding for its own sake. The aim is not that some result could be got, but one will in fact see that “thinking about result” is itself *not* a right cause. =============== Herman: And that is why the Theravadan tradition is as resilient as it it. It seeks to achieve nothing but its own mindless perpetuation, and achieves this every day. Sukin: You seem to be having a good time attacking this concept, Theravada. But come to think of it, perhaps you are arguing this because you perceive me as identifying with and talking in support of Theravada? If so, you can give up your crusade now. ;-) =============== Herman: If you believe what you say with reference to judging, then why do you judge your tradition to be superior to any other? Sukin: No Theravada and no “my” tradition to protect and cheer. As I said, it is about Right View vs. Wrong View. This when applied to ‘people’, I see as being reference to a momentary conditioned reality. Only the Arahat has developed right view to the level whereby all akusala are eradicated. A Sotapanna and Sakadagami still experience attachment and aversion to sense objects. A normal putthujana, while gradually developing ‘understanding’ should not be expected to be without much akusala. You seemed not to be taking into account this and instead spoke with unreasonable expectation that someone who follows the Buddha’s teachings must show visible results. And I’m saying not only this is not the way to judge the value of the Dhamma, but in fact not to be looking for results at all. ============== > S: And were one to even have a glimpse of what it means for the present > citta being conditioned and already fallen away without control and > perhaps begin to see how much avijja there is, this would discourage us > from making judgments in term of "selves" as you seem to be doing here. > It is idealistic thinking which is what you seem to be involved in, and > a misunderstanding of the Path. Herman: It seems to me you already know the Path perfectly. Pariyatti has a lot to answer for :-) Sukin: Pariyatti is only the beginning level. When faced with the understanding got from much patipatti and especially that which is pativedha, pariyatti is indeed puny. However when it comes to communicating the understanding, the concepts used in all three cases will be more or less the same. Indeed, they all must agree in principle. Metta, Sukin #87540 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. nilovg Hi Herman, Op 27-jun-2008, om 3:37 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > It is a source of amusement to me that the discussion on DN33, so far, > has revolved around things that are not even mentioned in it. I > recommend that for the sake of the integrity of the discussion, we > should put aside all pretense, and just acknowledge that this was > never going to be a discussion about DN33. ------- N: Have patience, we shall discuss the sutta. But sometimes it is so compact, that extra info is desirable. Co. gives that info, but leave aside what you do not wish to read. Another method: cross references to other suttas, and herein you can help us. Nina. #87541 From: "colette" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:31 am Subject: Re: Letter from Lukas ksheri3 Hi Nina and "szmicio", > > N: Let me give an example. Heat impinges on the body- consciousness > > and it is experienced by the citta that is body-consciousness. Heat > > is a rupa, a realty. colette: I DIFFER! Heat is a Nama. It is not tangible using the common scientific definitions of tangibility. Heat is real, no question, just ask any tummo practioner. From out perspective of grasping at linear concepts that give our minds solice in their reasoning, heat is non-existant and is not tangible: it is a characteristic of consciousness, such as colors are characteristics for the eye. --------------------------- "N: Bodyconsciousness is a citta, nama, it is real. > > It does not think, ..." colette: true, bodyconsciousness is a nama, as well as being a pure concept. While the bodyconsciousness does not think it conditions that which does think; it influences that which thinks; it plays as if it were Maya creating Illusions. Sorry, it's late and I make so much noise typing. I'll try again at the library tomorrow. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "szmicio" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom > wrote: > > > > Dear Lukas, "Lukas", This is very good! I would love to tackle this tomorrow when I can type freely. > Now it's clear. > There is a phassa(contact) of 3 elements: the body element, body- sense > and body-consciousness. Can there be more than one body element come > in contact with body-sense at the same time? Can there be heat and > motion at the same moment? > What is a diffrence between sense-door-process and mind-door- process? toodles, colette #87542 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letter from Lukas nilovg Dear Colette, Op 27-jun-2008, om 9:31 heeft colette het volgende geschreven: > colette: true, bodyconsciousness is a nama, as well as being a pure > concept. ------- N: A nama is not a concept at the same time. It is just nama. Heat is rupa, it does not know anything, it does not know that it impinges on the bodysense. Nina. #87543 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:41 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Views re self & the world DN2 jonoabb Hi Herman Thanks for the sutta quote (MN100). Before I comment on it, I'd like to check the translation, as I find it difficult to understand as given. For example, I can see no difference between the explanation of the first and the second 'comparison' similes. Both are explained in terms of (a) the recluse who is *not bodily secluded from sensuality*, and (b) sensual interest etc [that is] *not well turned out internally* (whatever that means). It seems to me there should be some difference between these 2 explanations, to reflect the fact that in the first comparison the log of wood is in the water while in the second it is out of the water and on dry land. Do you have access to another translation (preferably the Bhikkhu Bodhi one)? Jon > > To my understanding (but speaking as someone who does not claim to > > have personally read them all), the suttas are consistent in that, > > while praising the monk's life properly lived, they do not make that > > assertion. > > MN100 > > Bhàradvvja, three comparisons occurred to me never heard before. Just > as a man would come with an over cover to a wet, sappy log of wood put > in the water saying, I will make fire out of this. Bhàradvàja, would > he be able to make fire rubbing on that wet sappy log of wood? No, > good Gotama. What is the reason? That wet, sappy log of wood put in > the waterwhen rubbed with the over cover, will not produce fire. That > man will reap only fatigue. In the same way, when recluses or > brahmins, abide not even bodily secluded from sensuality the sensual > interest, sensual need, sensual stupor, sensual thirst, sensual > burning not well turned out internally. They experience sharp rough > unpleasant feelings and it is not possible that they should realize > knowledge and vision and noble enlightenment...Even if these good > recluses and brahmins do not feel sharp rough unpleasant feelings it > is not possible that they should realize knowledge and vision and > noble enlightenment. This is the first comparison that came to me not > heard before. Bhàradvàja, then another comparison came to me never > heard before. A man would come with an over cover to a sappy log of > wood put on dry land, far away from water saying I will make fire out > of this. Bhàradvàja, would he be able to make fire rubbing that sappy > log of wood put on dry land far away from water? Good Gotama, that > sappy log of wood, however far it may be from water, rubbed with the > over cover would not produce fire. That man will reap only fatigue. In > the same way, recluses and brahmins that abide not even bodily > secluded from sensuality that sensual interest, sensual need, sensual > stupor, sensual thirst, sensual burning not well turned out > internally, experience sharp rough unpleasant feelings. It is not > possible that they should realize knowledge and vision and noble > enlightenment. Even if these good recluses and brahmins do not feel > sharp rough unpleasant feelings, it is not possible that they should > realize knowledge and vision and noble enlightenment This is the > second comparison that came to me not heard before. ... > Cheers > > Herman #87544 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:47 am Subject: Re: How to handle suttas, path to awakening, mere speculations jonoabb Hi Alex > KenH, Scott, Nina, Sukinder, Sarah, Jon > > "Putting aside conviction... preference... tradition... reasoning > through analogies... an agreement through pondering views" do you > have truly personal knowledge that, N8P is momentary cetasikas? 72 > rather than 71, 73, 75 or 100 Dhammas? 24, not 5 or 12 conditioned > relations? Jhana and all these meditation exercises not required for > Ariyahood? etc etc. Affirmative answers to the above or questions > found in MN9, Snp3.12, or on Dependent Origination - would signify > Ariyahood. Mere "conviction... preference... tradition... reasoning > through analogies... an agreement through pondering views" isn't > direct enough for full Ariyahood (stream & higher). Of course I do not have "truly personal knowledge" of the Noble Eightfold Path as being momentary cetasikas, or of the actual number of dhammas that may arise, or of the 24 conditions set out in the Patthana, etc. But I'm puzzled as to why you would think I *did* have. Surely those of us posting here are only setting out what we understand to be the case from a study of the texts (assisted by what little level of awareness development there may be). Is your own position any different from that? Jon #87545 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:48 am Subject: Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching jonoabb Hi Phil > Ph: Here is the sutta passage in question. It'S SN 14:12: > > > "Suppose, bhikkhus, a man would drop a blazing grass torch into a > thicket of dry grass. If he quickly extingioshes it with his hands and > feet, the creatures living in the grass and wood will not meet with > calamity and disaster. So too, if any ascetic or brahmin quickly > abandons, dispels, obliterates and annihilates the unrighteous > perceptions that have arisen in him, he dwells happily in this very > life, without vexation, despair and fever; and with the breakup of the > body, after death, a good destination may be expected for him." > > Nothing more need to be said about this passage as far as I'm > concerned. We do it (it happens) or we don't (or it doesn't.) That's > all. Agreed. It either happens or it doesn't. As you say, nothing more need be said about that. But there remains the question of whether or not it will happen. Would it not be useful to know what the suttas have to say on that? Jon #87546 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How does rebirth happen? cuticitta--> - ? --> patisandhicitta upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 6/27/2008 3:21:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Alex, 2008/6/27 Alex : > Hello all, > > "it depends on the kamma which produces the patisandhi-citta (rebirth- > consciousness) after the cuti-citta (dying-consciousness) has fallen > away. " - http://www.vipassana.info/nina-abhi-20.htm > > Can someone explain in detail how the last moment of citta conditions > the first moment of new life? No-one can explain this, because it doesn't happen. What made you think that it does happen? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: And you know that it doesn't happen exactly how, Herman? ;-) I neither *know* that nor the opposite, but I do *believe* that all moments of consciousness condition future moments, and in particular I believe in continuation of experience after death, with conditions occurring now having an impact on future-lifetime experience. I view rebirth as *possible* based on my experientialist/phenomenalist perspective, which doesn't make the transition from one "life" to another different in kind from change in experience from moment to moment during the same "lifetime." As I view it, the ongoing changes in experience within a lifetime are akin to the changes in observed events during a watched TV show with one show ending and another starting from time to time (taking a new job, or moving to a different city, or even just switching from taking a bite of stringbeans to eating some mashed potatoes, or more basically, switching from seeing to desiring to touching to tasting, to thinking, and so on), with a channel change (rebirth) being a more abrupt and dramatic transition but not different in kind. OTOH, were I a materialist who viewed materiality as "matter" and consciousness as a derivative function of matter, there is no way that I would believe in conditionality "across lifetimes," because I would find rebirth to be a pipe dream, there being no plausible physical mechanism for it. ----------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman ========================= With metta, Howard #87547 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta, Ch 9, no 2. jonoabb Hi Herman (and Nina) > I have no desire to argue with you, but I am always puzzled by the > idea that the victim of a crime is somehow responsible for being > harmed. The words frequently used in the suttas to explain the teaching on kamma are that a person is "heir to his deeds". I understand this to mean that: - a person who experiences unpleasant painful bodily feeling (if that is what is being postulated in your example) does so only to the extent that previous deeds within the same stream of consciousness will support, and - where a person causes harm to another, there will at some time in the future be the experience the fruits of that deed in terms of unpleasant experience through the sense-doors. But this does not mean that the person experiencing the results is "responsible for" those experiences. The experiences happen in accordance with the law of kamma (and not otherwise), that's all. > I wonder why there would be a precept against killing living > beings, if someone who is killed is only getting their just deserts? The commission of unwholesome deeds can bring results such as rebirth in planes where there is no access to the teachings and thus no chance to develop awareness and insight. As explained in the suttas, the prospects for later rebirth in the human realm (and access to the teachings) for one born in, say, the animal realm then diminish considerably. > Another question is this. It is strongly held in some quarters that > nothing outside of a "stream of consciousness" can affect it. But in > killing another being, is not the killer directly causing the arising > of cuti-citta in another stream? According to the teaching on kamma/vipaka, a would-be killer could not succeed in bringing about the death of his intended victim unless the latter's past deeds were such as to support death at that time and in that manner. In other posts you have emphasised the importance of "observable data/relationships". The idea, I think, is that only what can be empirically observed can be taken as verified. The problem with such a hypothesis is that it cannot accommodate the situation of conditions that have effect beyond the span of a single lifetime (in this respect it suffers from the same limitations as "scientific proof"). Jon #87548 From: "jonoabb" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta, Ch 9, no 2. jonoabb Hi Alex (and Herman) > > Another question is this. It is strongly held in some quarters that > > nothing outside of a "stream of consciousness" can affect it. But in > > killing another being, is not the killer directly causing the > arising > > of cuti-citta in another stream? > > > > Good observation. Is this what DSG Abhidhammikas believe? This is something raised by Herman and, as far as I know, not previously brought up on this list. (Perhaps Herman could share with us where the idea comes from.) What are your own views on this question, Alex? Jon #87549 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sangiitisutta corner. Commentary Part I. nilovg Dear Scott, Op 27-jun-2008, om 4:00 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > Regarding divine-eye and Buddha-eye, is it correct to state that these > are related to the function of pa~n~naa? If so, in what way? If not, > what is the particular dhamma responsible for this sort of view? -------- N: Absolutely, included in his omniscience. Now I am making a cross reference, to the Khuddaka Nikaaya, The Path of Discrimination, Patisambhidhaamagga, Treatise on Knowledge, Ch LXVIII, Pnetration of others' Faculties. It is knowledge not shared by Disciples. The terms åsaya and anusaya are joined together as åsayånusaya: biases and latent tendencies We read (Ch 69, 585): “Here the Perfect One knows beings’ biasses, he knows their underlying tendencies (åsayånusaya ñåùa), he knows their behaviour (carita), he knows their dispositions(adhimutti), he knows beings as capable and incapable. 586. What is the bias which is latent in beings? Beings are supported by the wrong view of existence or supported by the wrong view of non-existence 6 thus: ‘The world is eternal’ or ‘The world is not eternal’ or ‘The world is finite’ or ‘The world is infinite’ or ‘The soul and the body are the same’ or ‘The soul is one, the body another’ or ‘A Perfect One is not after death’ or “A Perfect One both is and is not after death’ or ‘A Perfect One neither is nor is not after death.’ Or else, avoiding these extremes, they have ‘acceptance in conformity’ with respect to dhammas that are dependently arisen through specific conditionality. He also knows them as pursuing sensual-desires thus: ‘This person gives importance to sensual desires, is biassed to sensual desires, is inclined to sensual desires. He also knows them as pursuing renunciation thus: This person gives importance to renunciation, is biassed to renunciation, is inclined to renunciation. He also knows them as pursuing ill-will thus: ‘This person gives importance to ill-will, is biassed to ill-will, is inclined to ill- will. He also knows them as pursuing non-ill-will thus: ‘This person gives importance to non-ill-will, is biassed to non-ill-will, is inclined to non-ill-will. He also knows them as pursuing stiffness- and-torpor thus: ‘This person gives importance to stiffness-and- torpor, is biassed to stiffness-and-torpor, is inclined to stiffness- and-torpor. He also knows them as pursuing perception of light thus: ‘This person gives importance to perception of light, is biassed to perception of light, is inclined to perception of light. These are the biasses (chanda) that become underlying tendencies in beings. 587. What are the defilements that are underlying tendencies in beings? There are seven underlying tendencies (anusaya): Underlying tendency to greed for sense-desire (kåma-råga), underlying tendency to aversion (paìigha), underlying tendency to conceit (måna), underlying tendency to wrong view (diììhi), underlying tendency to doubt (vicikicchå), underlying tendency to desire for becoming (continued existence, bhavaråga), and underlying tendency to ignorance (avijjå).” From the above quoted text we can see that behaviour, habits and defilements are accumulated and become dormant in the succession of cittas. ------- Nina. #87550 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:00 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta a strategy. Nibbana isn't comalike blank nothingness. truth_aerator Hi Raymond H, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Raymond Hendrickson" wrote: > Hi again Alex, > This quote is often used to support the idea of some sort of Atman, but when the entire answer to Ananda is given it is plain to see he is did not refuse to answer because he supported any notion of there being a Self....here is the reply to Ananda in full: "If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, 'Is there a self?' I had answered, 'There is a self,' this would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. And if, when I was asked by him, 'Is there no self??' I had answered, 'There is no self,' this would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists. "If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, 'Is there a self?' I had answered, 'There is a self.' would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that 'all phenomena are nonself'?" "No, venerable sir." "And if, when I was asked by him, 'Is there no self?' I had answered, 'There is no self,' the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, "it seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.'" " ????????????> Eternalists are misinterpreting Self to be one or more of the Khandas that partake of Becoming. Real Atman is outside of bhava (or viBhava) and it is outside of phenomenal (dhamma) world. It isn't a "dhamma" . In that quote He refuses to say that Self doesn't exist as this is siding with Anihhilationists. Best wishes, Alex #87551 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:09 am Subject: Re: Anatta a strategy. Nibbana isn't a "thing" of the world truth_aerator Hi Howard, thank you for the quotes. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 6/26/2008 8:06:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Nibbana isn't a "thing". Its not found within 5 Khandas or Phenomenal world. Thus 3 characteristics of the "world" do NOT apply to it. > =========================== > In Udana 8.1, the Buddha was speaking of nibbana when he wrote the > following: > > __________________________ > > There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, > nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the > infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of > neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, > nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor > staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without > support (mental object)._1_ > (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.8.01.than.html#n- 1) This, just this, is the end of stress. > ------------------------------------------ > Also, he was speaking of nibbana when he wrote in several places of > vi~n~nana anidassanam, for example in MN 49, where he said the following: > ________________________ > 'Consciousness without surface, > endless, radiant all around, has not been experienced through the earthness > of earth ... the liquidity of liquid ... the fieriness of fire ... the > windiness of wind ... the allness of the all. > --------------------------------------- > In each of these cases he is speaking of something but not an ordinary > something. He is speaking of the one and only asankhata dhamma. > With metta, > Howard > > 1st) In that Udana Passage is it the Nibbana WITH or without remainder? Nibbana during the life of an Arahat or after cessation of 5 aggregates? 2nd) The Udana passages basically refute Nibbana (especially Parinibbana) of being "something" of this world. Neither this nor that... "...neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support ... " 3rd) The vinnanan anidassanam quote is interesting as it suggest that "vinnana" of some sort is unestablished in 5 aggregates. Those quotes are too elaborate and descriptive to simply state "Vinnana ceases and doesn't exist". Best wishes, Alex #87552 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:24 am Subject: Re:How does rebirth happen? cuticitta-->-?--> patisandhicitta truth_aerator Hi Herman, Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > 2008/6/27 Alex : > > Hello all, > > > > "it depends on the kamma which produces the patisandhi-citta (rebirth- > > consciousness) after the cuti-citta (dying-consciousness) has fallen > > away. " - http://www.vipassana.info/nina-abhi-20.htm > > Can someone explain in detail how the last moment of citta conditions the first moment of new life? > > No-one can explain this, because it doesn't happen. What made you > think that it does happen? > > Cheers > > Herman > If I ask a certain question it doesn't always mean that I believe in its premises. I just ask the question. Furthermore, rebirth *MAY* be possible in a materialistic world. ===================================================== Modern science has emperically shown that at least some (if not all) aspects of personality are based on genes, brain, and firing of neurons - aka matter. Thus if this view is correct and there isn't a non epiphenomenal dualism of sorts, then if your body would be exactly duplicated - you would be exactly duplicated with consciousness and personality. The Buddha wasn't far away: "Were someone to say, 'I will describe a coming, a going, a passing away, an arising, a growth, an increase, or a proliferation of consciousness apart from form, from feeling, from perception, from fabrications,' that would be impossible http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.054.than.html In other words, consciousness depends on the 4 other aggregates. It can't exist without them. Thus how can consciousness itself transmigrate, or be reborn, unless it is carried over with Matter. Modern Astrophysics claims that Big Bang can come out from nothing (actually a quantum fluctuation in a vaccum or near vaccum state) and that when this universe suffers heat death, another universes may be formed from Big Bangs. These cycles could have went without a beginning, or at least can continue without end and if we have parallel universes, then we have a LOT of Big Bangs. After enough of Big Bangs, there may be universe formed EXACTLY like this one, with exactly the same conditions that have no freedom of will and everything will evolve as it has. This means, that your body (and thus your personality & consciousness) can arise again. Of course it may take trillions ^ trillions of big bangs (or the next one) for such a repeat. However, subjectively you will NOT feel that much time elapsed (you won't even feel anything, you wouldn't even know the gap was there). When your body (and consciousness has ceased) you will NOT feel the elapsed time (or space). So after the last conscious moment, the next one may be you being born yourself AGAIN. So if a person was born lets say in Jan 1st 1950, and died in 2030, the rebirth could be in... Jan 1st, 1950.... http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325904.400-new-universes- will-be-born-from-ours.html As someone has said: "What you do in life, echoes in Eternity!" This is terrible... Reliving one life over and over again... OR ========= Not a exactly the same return ========== If there will be some creature that is born with similiar consciousness as your last moment of consciousness, rebirth may happen. Of course this is Buddhist "anatta" rebirth without any soul going from one birth to another. Subjectively the gap (which may be millions of years and on other planets or universes) cannot be felt from "your" 1st person perspective. This isn't far fetched. 1 year old baby may be totally different from 25 year old's and so on. Yet this 1st person perspective goes on without percieved "gaps", as if there was one entity. Best wishes, Alex #87553 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta a strategy. Nibbana isn't comalike blank nothingness. upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/27/2008 10:01:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Real Atman is outside of bhava (or viBhava) and it is outside of phenomenal (dhamma) world. It isn't a "dhamma" . ============================== There is a sutta - I wish I had the reference - in which the Buddha denied a self in any of the khandhas, in any combination of them, AND *outside* them. The Buddha was the teacher of anatta. Nibbana is no world soul like the Hindu Atman/Brahman. It too is not-self. With metta, Howard #87554 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta, Ch 9, no 2. truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > > Hi Alex (and Herman) > > > > Another question is this. It is strongly held in some quarters that > > > nothing outside of a "stream of consciousness" can affect it. But in killing another being, is not the killer directly causing the > > arising of cuti-citta in another stream? > > > > > > > Good observation. Is this what DSG Abhidhammikas believe? > > This is something raised by Herman and, as far as I know, not > previously brought up on this list. (Perhaps Herman could share with us where the idea comes from.) > > What are your own views on this question, Alex? > > Jon > My "view" is that I would like to KNOW for certain and to percieve these things. Or better, to make all suffering and ignorance cease. Best wishes, With Metta, Alex #87555 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta a strategy. Nibbana isn't a "thing" of the world upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/27/2008 10:09:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: 1st) In that Udana Passage is it the Nibbana WITH or without remainder? Nibbana during the life of an Arahat or after cessation of 5 aggregates? ------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know, but I accept only one, unique nibbana, with the distinctions pertaining to the mode of realization of it. --------------------------------------------- 2nd) The Udana passages basically refute Nibbana (especially Parinibbana) of being "something" of this world. Neither this nor that... "...neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support ... " ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Certainly it is not something of this world of conditions. ---------------------------------------------- 3rd) The vinnanan anidassanam quote is interesting as it suggest that "vinnana" of some sort is unestablished in 5 aggregates. Those quotes are too elaborate and descriptive to simply state "Vinnana ceases and doesn't exist". ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with you on that. ======================== With metta, Howard #87556 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:21 am Subject: "Self" as a 1st person perspective - How to refute? truth_aerator Hello all, how could "Self" as a 1st person perspective be refuted? The Self is a 1st person perspective of Samsara or Nibbana from 1st person perspective. It is none of the 5 aggregates, it "witnesses" a particular causal line of aggregates arising and perishing. Thus anicca-dukkha-anatta of 5 aggregates don't touch it as it isn't any or all of the aggregates. Best wishes, Alex #87557 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:03 am Subject: Re:How does rebirth happen? cuticitta-->-?--> patisandhicitta abhidhammika Dear Alex, Nina, Howard, Herman, Scott D, Mike N and all How are you? Alex asked: "In other words, consciousness depends on the 4 other aggregates. It can't exist without them. Thus how can consciousness itself transmigrate, or be reborn, unless it is carried over with Matter." May I correct a few notions in Alex's above statement and question? Consciousness never exists. Consciousness can only happen depending on conditions including the 4 other aggregates. The Pali expression for this (correct) notion is cittuppaado (a mental arising or a mental event). Moreover, consciousness does not transmigrate. So the notion of a consciousness being carried over with Matter or non-matter is a pre- Buddhist concept, namely, a brahmanic belief . Only an existent thing may do so. But, consciousness is not an existent thing. Nor can we say that consciousness was reborn. That notion implies that consciousness is one thing while rebirth is another. Then, what is going on when we say rebirth? A new mental event with new other 4 aggregates merely happens when there are still conditions for them to arise. Is there any problem with that? With regards, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #87558 From: Dieter Möller Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility moellerdieter Hi James ( and all), you wrote: I¡¦m sorry that this post disappoints you, but I am just trying to be realistic. It may seem like I am being overly negative, but these are the honest-to-goodness faults I see within Theravada. And I am not the first person to express these opinions. D: my disappointment is due to the seemingly wrong assumption seeing you in the Theravada camp.. It is less your (generalized) critics of faults shown by the members from the sangha , monks and laity alike, which B.T.W. may apply to followers of all religions, but your negativity towards the Pali Canon, which I believe most of DSG members keep in highest respect too. James: You can check out these writers: Clearing the Path by Nanavira Thera: http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/ctp_intro.htm Broken Buddha by Ven. Dhammika http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ D: I will have a look soon...perhaps others may join and comment too James: (Dieter: Since the Parinibbana of the Buddha the Teaching became the Teacher, which forthose sticking to the teaching of the elders , Theravada, is presented by the Tipitaka . Without these orginal texts of 'poor expression' as you call it , you wouldn't even know about the Buddha .) You are making the mistake that most Theravadins make: you are equating the Buddha¡¦s teaching with Theravada. They are two different things. The Buddha was not a Theravadin. The Buddha gave teachings and his followers memorized them. These followers were called the ¡§Sons of Sakayan¡¨ (or something to that effect). After the parinibbana of the Buddha, these followers split up into different schools, but they each had the Buddha¡¦s teachings as their core. Theravada added other texts; Mahayana added other texts; and Tibetan added other texts. Just because I take refuge in the Triple Gem that doesn¡¦t mean I own any allegiance to Theravada. I could have learned the Buddha¡¦s teaching with or without Theravada. Of course, I lean more toward Theravada in my beliefs, but I don¡¦t completely accept everything within Theravada- even thought I completely accept what the Buddha taught. D: well, as I see it, Theravadins can rightfully claim , that was has been laid down in the Tipitaka, is the material closest to the teaching of the Buddha. Those involved , from the first to the third Council , are the Theras we refer to and without those , as I said before, you wouldn't even know about Buddha. It must be stressed that one is not supposed to completely accept the teaching , as the Buddha pointed out , that his words should be carefully examined , like a goldsmith is checking the genuity of silver and gold. James: (Dieter: whether or what part of Abhidhamma the Buddha taught, is difficult to say . But it is consens in Theravada Buddhism to respect it as third basket , besides sutta and vinaya pitaka. For those in doubt the rule of the Four Great References apply (i.e.counter check with sutta/vinaya as judge). James: I consider it dogmatic belief, and clinging to rites and rituals, to respect the Abhidhamma as the third basket of the Buddha¡¦s teachings just because it is tradition in Theravada Buddhism. It is obvious to me that the Buddha didn¡¦t teach the Abhidhamma. If you think he did, then you are entitled to your beliefs. But I don¡¦t have to believe that just because it is tradition. D: your definition of rites and rituals is a bit strange.. nevertheless , it was consens understanding of the Theras to add a third basket , obviously because it includes wisdom benefitial for understanding. That the 'intellectual' approach of the Abh.teaching isn't favored by everybody and actually not a must for enlightenment, should not hinder to respect its inclusion. Who are we to judge ? I am not really concerned whether to consider Abh. to be the original teaching by the Buddha or - what I believe- a refinement by Acariyas . If the Abh. can be of additional help for the goal , fine and if not stick only to the suttas . James: (Dieter: Commentaries are commentaries , not Tipitaka) I disagree; the commentaries as just as much a part of the "Tipitaka" as the Suttas, Vinaya, or Abhidhamma. The commentaries dictate how the suttas are to be read and interpreted in light of the Abhidhamma and Vinaya. This is what makes Theravada Theravada. ¡§Thera¡¨ means ¡§elder¡¨, so it is the words of the ¡§elders¡¨ which determine the meaning. D: you didn't get my point : in the Maha Parinibbana Sutta, the Buddha stated that all Dhamma teachings, regardless by whom should be checked by what has been said in suttas and vinaya.., i.e. for us the sutta and vinaya pitaka. That is valid too for all commentaries like Vis. M. or sub and sub-sub commentaries, or any other statements conc. the Buddha Dhamma. James: (And, BTW, I disagree with K. Sujin not because she is Theravada, but because she puts forth ideas not found in the texts, anywhere.) Now, for those who call themselves Theravada but don¡¦t believe in the Abhidhamma and don¡¦t believe in the commentaries, then they are not really Theravada. They are just Buddhist; but they have nowhere else to go so they call themselves Theravada. D: K. Sujin is a commentator /interpreter of the Dhamma and as any other teacher subject to the check mentioned above. So if there is anything which goes against suttas or vinaya the rule is to disregard that as being not part of the teaching. Major discussions of DSG are concerning this issue as you know. Criticize if you like but be sure about your base. Theravada is not what you seem to believe is expressed K.Sujin's students ..it is your freedom to rely on yourself and to rely on the dhamma . The consensus of Theravadins - which I share - is the dhamma of the Tipitaka. James: Dieter: Most of what is in the Tipitaka : please provide evidence , especially to justify your claim of 'most ' , your claim is without credibility James: The Abhidhamma, being seven books, takes up most of the Tipitaka. The Abhidhamma was accepted at the Third Buddhist Council due to rifts between the various schools and the influence of the government of Asoka. The source of the Tipitaka was politics! You would have to do research into the history of the Abhidhamma and the Third Buddhist Council: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Buddhist_Council D: I do not know whether the 7 books of Abhidhamma take up most of the 45 volumes published by PTS. As long as main parts - as far as I know - are totally in line with sutta/vinaya pitaka I do not mind about the Council 's decision.. and regard those which are found to be not , complain respectively disregard/ forget it.. B.T.W. of course Abh. may also be subject to wrong interpretations James: Dieter: how do you know that? Do you have profound knowledge about the Sanghas of the several Theravada countries to support this kind of generalization? The media reports usually only what goes wrong .. James: Yes, it is a generalization, but this whole discussion is about a generalization (i.e. "Theravada as a whole"). But I think it is a fair generalization. I have had numerous personal experiences with Theravada monks from and in Thailand. I have also corresponded extensively with an influential Theravada monk in Sri Lanka (editor BPS). You could also read the above article ¡§Broken Buddha¡¨ I referenced. I wouldn¡¦t make such an assertion unless I was very confident about it. D: I consider generalizations to be one of the most dangerous faults of society ( the German lesson...) Usually one selects /takes up what is fitting to one's opinion and therefore one needs to be aware /careful of one's conclusions ... B.T.W. , you are not alone to have had 'numerous personal experiences with Theravada monks from and in Thailand' James: (Dieter: What are you doing to change the situation for the better?) I am doing what everyone should be doing: talking openly about it! The situation within the Theravada Shanga is only allowed to continue and worsen because very few people talk about it. They want to pretend that everything is okay. Well, reform is not possible if people won¡¦t talk about what is wrong. I don¡¦t think reform is impossible; but I do think that reform is impossible if people refuse to talk about what is wrong. D: of course it is necessary to talk about the situation .. but a far better and positive approach is needed.. criticizing the fundament of Theravada ( Canon and Sangha as a whole) brings nothing , than a compassionate grin by those , you like to address as it appears to them that you lack credibility with Metta Dieter #87559 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Self" as a 1st person perspective - How to refute? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/27/2008 11:21:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all, how could "Self" as a 1st person perspective be refuted? The Self is a 1st person perspective of Samsara or Nibbana from 1st person perspective. It is none of the 5 aggregates, it "witnesses" a particular causal line of aggregates arising and perishing. Thus anicca-dukkha-anatta of 5 aggregates don't touch it as it isn't any or all of the aggregates. Best wishes, Alex ============================ The seeing of something "by you" is just a particular seeing that is intimately related to certain prior knowings. Consider for a moment this current seeing. It is what it is, occurring within a stream of related mind states. What is there to that seeing other than what it is? There isn't some other thing, some agent, that performs that seeing. There is just the seeing. Where is this "I" that you seem to want so much? What is that "1st person perspective" other than seemings and thinkings? What you are saying, Alex, it seems to me, is just that there really seems to be a "self." And I agree that there is a sense of self, and it is most persistent. It is the very last defilement to go, and not until arahantship. But there are foreshadowings of it, Alex. It *is* possible for sights, sounds, tastes, smells, feeling, emotions, thinking, and so on all to occur without any sense of self being present! There can be knowing without any sense of one who knows. With metta, Howard #87560 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:How does rebirth happen? cuticitta-->-?--> patisandhicitta upasaka_howard Hi, Suan (and all) - In a message dated 6/27/2008 12:03:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@... writes: Dear Alex, Nina, Howard, Herman, Scott D, Mike N and all How are you? Alex asked: "In other words, consciousness depends on the 4 other aggregates. It can't exist without them. Thus how can consciousness itself transmigrate, or be reborn, unless it is carried over with Matter." May I correct a few notions in Alex's above statement and question? Consciousness never exists. Consciousness can only happen depending on conditions including the 4 other aggregates. The Pali expression for this (correct) notion is cittuppaado (a mental arising or a mental event). Moreover, consciousness does not transmigrate. So the notion of a consciousness being carried over with Matter or non-matter is a pre- Buddhist concept, namely, a brahmanic belief . Only an existent thing may do so. But, consciousness is not an existent thing. Nor can we say that consciousness was reborn. That notion implies that consciousness is one thing while rebirth is another. Then, what is going on when we say rebirth? A new mental event with new other 4 aggregates merely happens when there are still conditions for them to arise. Is there any problem with that? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: None at all. I view matters just as you have described them. --------------------------------------------- With regards, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org ======================== With metta, Howard #87561 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Letter from Lukas nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 27-jun-2008, om 8:05 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > Now it's clear. > There is a phassa(contact) of 3 elements: the body element, body-sense > and body-consciousness. ------- N: Instead of body element I would use: tangible object, that is: hardness or softness (Earth element), heat or cold (Fire element), motion or pressure (Wind element). Phassa is a cetasika arising with each citta. It is mental, it 'contacts' the object so that citta can experience is. But we can say: when tangible object impinges on the bodysense and body- consciousness arises, it is evident that there is phassa. But we should not confuse it with physical contact. ------- > L: Can there be more than one body element come > in contact with body-sense at the same time? Can there be heat and > motion at the same moment? ------- N: only one tangible object at the time impinges on the bodysense so that citta can experience it. Although the four great Elements arise in a group of rupas only one of them can be the object experienced through the appropriate doorway. -------- > > L:What is a diffrence between sense-door-process and mind-door- > process? ------- N: There are five senses, namely, eyesense, earsense, nosesense, tonguesense and bodysense. When a sense-door process is about to begin, one of the sense objects impinges on a sense-door, and there is first the sense-door adverting-consciousness, and then follows one of the sense-cognitions (seeing, etc.) and in its train some more vipaakacittas, a kiriyacitta and javanacittas which are kusala cittas or akusala cittas. All of them experience the sense object, but each has its own function. After that the sense-object is experienced through the mind-door: the mind-door adverting-consciousness followed by javanacittas. There is no defining of the object yet, no thinking about it yet. After that there are other mind-door processes of cittas that think about the object, know what it is, build up stories about it. For more details, see my Abh in Daily life. Nina. #87562 From: "m_nease" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:43 am Subject: Re:How does rebirth happen? cuticitta-->-?--> patisandhicitta m_nease Hi Suan, A good explanation in my opinion, thanks. Great to hear from you. mike #87563 From: "Raymond Hendrickson" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:44 pm Subject: RE: [dsg] "Self" as a 1st person perspective - How to refute? bitakarma Hi Alex, enjoying the discussion, you said........ > > Hello all, > > how could "Self" as a 1st person perspective be refuted? > > The Self is a 1st person perspective of Samsara or Nibbana from 1st > person perspective. It is none of the 5 aggregates, it "witnesses" a > particular causal line of aggregates arising and perishing. > > Thus anicca-dukkha-anatta of 5 aggregates don't touch it as it isn't > any or all of the aggregates. > So you are saying that there is a eternal unconditioned Self that somehow "witnesses" the aggregates but is not touched by the aggregates yet is bound by the aggregates in Samsara due to ignorance? We know from DN 1 that the following views are incorrect. One cannot regard form as Self, cannot see Self as possessing form, cannot see form as in Self, or see Self as in form, and of course the same for the other aggregates. So being thus so detached from the aggregates how is it that this Self can "witnesses" the aggregates or be bound by them? I have not found the Sutta Howard mentioned that explicatively says there is no self outside the five aggregates, it is maddening to know of a Sutta and not be able to find it!! :) But I did find this one on the general topic. Buddha speaking "Bhkiihus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?" -- "No, venerable sir." -- "Good, bhikkhus, I too do not see ANY (my emphasis) doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it." Metta....Ray #87564 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:42 pm Subject: Re:How does rebirth happen? cuticitta-->-?--> patisandhicitta truth_aerator Dear Abhidhammika, Herman, and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > Dear Alex, Nina, Howard, Herman, Scott D, Mike N and all > > How are you? > > Alex asked: > > "In other words, consciousness depends on the 4 other aggregates. It > can't exist without them. Thus how can consciousness itself > transmigrate, or be reborn, unless it is carried over with Matter." > > May I correct a few notions in Alex's above statement and question? > > Consciousness never exists. > You stated it a bit bluntly and dogmatically. However the bigger problem is below: > Consciousness can only happen depending on conditions including the > 4 other aggregates. The Pali expression for this (correct) notion is > cittuppaado (a mental arising or a mental event). > > Moreover, consciousness does not transmigrate. So the notion of a > consciousness being carried over with Matter or non-matter is a pre- > Buddhist concept, namely, a brahmanic belief . Only an existent > thing may do so. But, consciousness is not an existent thing. > > Nor can we say that consciousness was reborn. That notion implies > that consciousness is one thing while rebirth is another. > > Then, what is going on when we say rebirth? > > A new mental event with new other 4 aggregates merely happens when > there are still conditions for them to arise. Is there any problem > with that? > > With regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > www.bodhiology.org > The above I could paraphrase thus: A new mental event (a birth citta) arises in a new material body that is similiar enough to the death citta of a previous being to "subjectively" feel as if being one same 1st person perspective. Since unconscious gap isn't subjectively felt, for that "1st person perspective" it is one block of experience. This can prove a rebirth without a soul that transmigrates. Furthermore we could say that if the last, death consciousness, has a negative quality, it will be the closest to a negative consciousness of a later being. The negative quality of consciousness and poor rebirth is all in the genes and bad material environment. So this somehow could explain proximate death Kamma without any storehouse kamma being transmigrated. BIG PROBLEM is with KAMMIC MEMORY. If no "being" transmigrates, but we simply have similiarity of consciousness - what prevents rebirth from happening? What prevents Arahat's last moment of consciousness being functionally similiar to some sort of consciousness of some being, "asannasattadeva", or something like that? If we assume a "Atman" that is in bondage and due to Avijja is in Samsara only to be freed, then we don't have logical problems of not self being reborn and achieving Nibbana. It is possible to say that Arahat don't have consciousness in our sense of that word, but I am not sure if this is valid statement. And even if the are "unconscious" (the accounts in pali suttas seem to reject this) automatons - then why doesn't "their" pre awakened consciousness continues somewhere in appropriate circumstances? I hope that you understood what I've tried to say. Best wishes, Alex #87565 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Self" as a 1st person perspective - How to refute? truth_aerator Hi Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 6/27/2008 11:21:52 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Hello all, > > how could "Self" as a 1st person perspective be refuted? The Self is a 1st person perspective of Samsara or Nibbana from 1st person perspective. It is none of the 5 aggregates, it "witnesses" a particular causal line of aggregates arising and perishing. Thus anicca-dukkha-anatta of 5 aggregates don't touch it as it isn't > any or all of the aggregates. > Alex > ============================ The seeing of something "by you" is just a particular seeing that is intimately related to certain prior knowings. >>> Of course we can say that there is "just the seeing, hearing cognizing and so on". But this seeing is different from that seeing. Ex: the bundle of aggregates that we call "John" is different from the bundle of aggregates we call "Jack" . When "John" accidentally walks into a furniture, John, not Jack experiences feeling in 1st person mode. Of course John & Jack are names attributed to two different 1st person perspectives of two different sets of 5 aggregates. This difference by which for John, "John" 5 aggregates is 1st person perspective and Jack's 5 aggregates is 3rd person. Of course the 1st person perspective isn't a Self like some imagine self to be. But then, when John achieves Parinibbana, John NOT Jack is parinibbana'ed. So this difference of 1st person perspectives is a qualitative difference between the two. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing. It is what it is, occurring within a stream of related mind states. What is there to that seeing other than what it is? There isn't some other thing, some agent, that performs that seeing. >>> 1st person perspective separates for 1st to 2nd or 3rd person perspective. >>>>> There is just the seeing. Where is this "I" that you seem to want so much? What is that "1st person perspective" other than seemings and thinkings? >>> The difference of "cognizing" this from that. >>>>>>>>> What you are saying, Alex, it seems to me, is just that there really seems to be a "self." >>>> If by a Self we mean unchanging Self, then none of the 5 aggregates count as one. But here is another stumbling block. Why does "Self" has to be unchanging and 100% powerful. Why can't Self be a) Changing b) Powerless in some or all things (those dictated by nature) and capable of some other things. 5 aggregates are not Self (in the assumptions that Self has to be permanent and in control) However, with all the impermanence and so on, there is a constant difference between sets of 5 aggregates in a sense of 1st person perspective. Thank you very much for your reply, it was very good. Wishing all the best, Alex #87566 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Self" as a 1st person perspective - How to refute? upasaka_howard Hi, Ray (and Alex) - In a message dated 6/27/2008 2:47:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, rhendrickson1@... writes: Hi Alex, enjoying the discussion, you said........ > > Hello all, > > how could "Self" as a 1st person perspective be refuted? > > The Self is a 1st person perspective of Samsara or Nibbana from 1st > person perspective. It is none of the 5 aggregates, it "witnesses" a > particular causal line of aggregates arising and perishing. > > Thus anicca-dukkha-anatta of 5 aggregates don't touch it as it isn't > any or all of the aggregates. > So you are saying that there is a eternal unconditioned Self that somehow "witnesses" the aggregates but is not touched by the aggregates yet is bound by the aggregates in Samsara due to ignorance? We know from DN 1 that the following views are incorrect. One cannot regard form as Self, cannot see Self as possessing form, cannot see form as in Self, or see Self as in form, and of course the same for the other aggregates. So being thus so detached from the aggregates how is it that this Self can "witnesses" the aggregates or be bound by them? I have not found the Sutta Howard mentioned that explicatively says there is no self outside the five aggregates, it is maddening to know of a Sutta and not be able to find it!! :) But I did find this one on the general topic. Buddha speaking "Bhkiihus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?" -- "No, venerable sir." -- "Good, bhikkhus, I too do not see ANY (my emphasis) doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it." Metta....Ray ================================= SN 22.89 is not the sutta I had in mind, but there is something in it that approximates what I was alluding to. In it, Ven Kemaka says " Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.' " So, though Khemaka admits not having uprooted all sense of self, still he does not assert "I am" (as a matter of belief) with regard to any of the khandhas OR TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN FORM, FEELING, PERCEPTION, FABRICATIONS, AND CONSCIOUSNESS. Also, in MN 1, the Buddha taught "He directly knows nibbana as nibbana. Directly knowing nibbana as nibbana, he does not conceive things about nibbana, does not conceive things in nibbana, does not conceive things coming out of nibbana, does not conceive nibbana as 'mine,' does not delight in nibbana. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you." Now, I particularly draw attention to the phrase "does not conceive nibbana as 'mine'," for this says, at the least, that nibbana is impersonal. Finally, the third of the tilakkhana ties the ribbon on the package, as far as I'm concerned. With metta, Howard #87567 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:49 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility buddhatrue Hi Dieter, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Dieter Möller wrote: > criticizing the fundament of Theravada ( Canon and Sangha as a whole) brings nothing , than a compassionate grin by those , you like to address as it appears to them that you lack credibility James: Well, that's a pretty low blow. :-( I noticed that you didn't read anything I referenced; you didn't even skim it; you just wrote another post repeating what you had written earlier. And, I don't care about members with condescending grins- I have lacked credibility with some members since day one and always will. Metta, James #87568 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:15 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Self" as a 1st person perspective - How to refute? truth_aerator Dear Raymond, Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Raymond Hendrickson" wrote: > Hi Alex, enjoying the discussion, you said........ So you are saying that there is a eternal unconditioned Self that somehow "witnesses" the aggregates but is not touched by the aggregates yet is > bound by the aggregates in Samsara due to ignorance? >>> I am talking about a 1st person perspective that either includes the aggregates (Samsara) or lack of them. >>>>>>> We know from DN 1 that the following views are incorrect. One cannot regard form as Self, cannot see Self as possessing form, cannot see form as in Self, or see Self as in form, and of course the same for the other aggregates. >>>> Thats something I kept in mind to rebuke the Self described here. However the thing is word "attached" . If we posit a Self that deluded (like a sun obscured by the clouds as seen from the earth) then does this negate the refutation at DN#1? >>>> So being thus so detached from the aggregates how is it that this Self can "witnesses" the aggregates or be bound by them? >>>> It witnesses but only through delusion is it "bound" by them. This attachment is Avijja. >>> > I have not found the Sutta Howard mentioned that explicatively says there is no self outside the five aggregates, it is maddening to know of a Sutta and not be able to find it!! :) But I did find this one on the general topic. >>> If someone finds it, please give me the link. I want to deal with this Self issue. > > Buddha speaking > > "Bhkiihus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?" -- "No, venerable sir." -- "Good, bhikkhus, I too do not see ANY (my emphasis) doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it." > > Metta....Ray > Thats MN22 I think. The sutta that I gave in one of my replies. Few things: Buddha is refuting a Doctrine (of Self) and !clinging! to it. Attanuditthi. What about Panna that directly knows that 5 aggregates are mara, anicca, dukkha, anatta and aren't my Self. But the "vinnana" becomes unestablished on what isn't Atman. It goes to its freedom. What about that? Best wishes, Alex #87569 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 4:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] "Self" as a 1st person perspective - How to refute? truth_aerator Hi Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Ray (and Alex) - > ================================= > SN 22.89 is not the sutta I had in mind, but there is something in it that approximates what I was alluding to. >>> Thank you very much. I guess that settles the self issue. If you find any other suttas, please post them. Best wishes, Alex #87570 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:19 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How does rebirth happen? cuticitta--> - ? --> patisandhicitta egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/6/27 : > Hi, Herman - > > > No-one can explain this, because it doesn't happen. What made you > think that it does happen? > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > And you know that it doesn't happen exactly how, Herman? ;-) I neither > *know* that nor the opposite, but I do *believe* that all moments of > consciousness condition future moments, and in particular I believe in continuation of > experience after death, with conditions occurring now having an impact on > future-lifetime experience. I view rebirth as *possible* based on my > experientialist/phenomenalist perspective, which doesn't make the transition from one > "life" to another different in kind from change in experience from moment to > moment during the same "lifetime." Typically, a person that dies, has at least three kinds of knowledge. They know facts. They know skills. And they know good and bad. All babies that are born always lack any knowledge of facts, skills and ethics. That is how I know that there is absolutely no transition between lives. Cheers Herman #87571 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:How does rebirth happen? cuticitta-->-?--> patisandhicitta egberdina Hi Alex, 2008/6/28 Alex : > Hi Herman, Howard and all, > >> > > If I ask a certain question it doesn't always mean that I believe in > its premises. I just ask the question. I appreciate that. I do the same. > Furthermore, rebirth *MAY* be possible in a materialistic world. I do like all your posts and quotes, and I appreciate that you seek a solid, scientific foundation for your outlook. > > ===================================================== > Modern science has emperically shown that at least some (if not all) > aspects of personality are based on genes, brain, and firing of > neurons - aka matter. Thus if this view is correct and there isn't a > non epiphenomenal dualism of sorts, then if your body would be > exactly duplicated - you would be exactly duplicated with > consciousness and personality. And here is the difficulty. The human brain is the single most complex piece of matter in the universe. In order to reproduce a stream of consciousness with all it's accumulations, one would have to have to duplicate a brain so that it was identically wired. We are talking 60 trillion synapses here. If that is not impossible enough, this copied brain would have to be in exactly the same environment as it's master. And that will always be impossible, because two objects can never occupy the same space. > > Modern Astrophysics claims that Big Bang can come out from nothing > (actually a quantum fluctuation in a vaccum or near vaccum state) > and that when this universe suffers heat death, another universes may > be formed from Big Bangs. These cycles could have went without a > beginning, or at least can continue without end and if we have > parallel universes, then we have a LOT of Big Bangs. After enough of > Big Bangs, there may be universe formed EXACTLY like this one, with > exactly the same conditions that have no freedom of will and > everything will evolve as it has. This means, that your body (and > thus your personality & consciousness) can arise again. Of course it > may take trillions ^ trillions of big bangs (or the next one) for > such a repeat. However, subjectively you will NOT feel that much time > elapsed (you won't even feel anything, you wouldn't even know the gap > was there). When your body (and consciousness has ceased) you will NOT > feel the elapsed time (or space). So after the last conscious moment, > the next one may be you being born yourself AGAIN. So if a person > was born lets say in Jan 1st 1950, and died in 2030, the rebirth > could be in... Jan 1st, 1950.... > > http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325904.400-new-universes- > will-be-born-from-ours.html > > > As someone has said: > "What you do in life, echoes in Eternity!" > > This is terrible... Reliving one life over and over again... I accept that the scenario of an infinite number of previous universes is possible. But there is no terror in it, because there can be no awareness of it. No-one can stand outside of the universe in order to see it die, and re-appear. The same with rebirth. There can be no consciousness of death, or birth. > OR > ========= Not a exactly the same return ========== > If there will be some creature that is born with similiar > consciousness as your last moment of consciousness, rebirth may > happen. Of course this is Buddhist "anatta" rebirth without any soul > going from one birth to another. Subjectively the gap (which may be > millions of years and on other planets or universes) cannot be felt > from "your" 1st person perspective. > > This isn't far fetched. 1 year old baby may be totally different > from 25 year old's and so on. Yet this 1st person perspective goes > on without percieved "gaps", as if there was one entity. > So what is actually happening is not a "rebirth" as an actual causal sequence, but the imagination of a rebirth. It is the construction of a fiction. And no matter how strongly believed in, it is still a fiction. And no matter how much anguish this fiction causes, it is still a fiction. What is missing from the fiction of rebirth is that it happens at all, and can be known to happen. Cheers Herman #87572 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:How does rebirth happen? cuticitta-->-?--> patisandhicitta egberdina Hi Suan, 2008/6/28 abhidhammika : > > > Dear Alex, Nina, Howard, Herman, Scott D, Mike N and all > > How are you? > It is good to see you around. > > Consciousness never exists. > I agree. > > Then, what is going on when we say rebirth? > > A new mental event with new other 4 aggregates merely happens when > there are still conditions for them to arise. Is there any problem > with that? > Not as a theoretical statement. What is required to make this relevant is a demonstration that there are such conditions. Otherwise we may as well be discussing the dynamics behind Harry Potter's skills. Cheers Herman #87573 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:27 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How does rebirth happen? cuticitta--> - ? --> patisandhicitta truth_aerator Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > Typically, a person that dies, has at least three kinds of knowledge. They know facts. They know skills. And they know good and bad. All babies that are born always lack any knowledge of facts, skills and ethics. That is how I know that there is absolutely no transition between lives. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have made a VERY interesting and very strong points. However a fellows materialistic objections to your strong points are these: a) If memories are stored only in physical body, then when body dies the specific memories are gone. However the sort of materialistic rebirth that I was talking about, may function even if at each rebirth there is a blank slate (this is what makes it terrible, for these things may go on without end as long as life anywhere is). The kammic results as it applies to the person may be gene and material based. b) Not all babies are created equal. Some are born in better, some worse circumstances. Some have better genes some not. c) The specific memories/skills/facts/ethics may for some reason be "deactivated" at certain stages in life and may underpin a person's "mental functions" not as specific memories but as inborn abilities. Just few thoughts, Best wishes, Alex #87574 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:46 pm Subject: [dsg] Re:How does rebirth happen? cuticitta-->-?--> patisandhicitta truth_aerator Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: Hi Alex, I do like all your posts and quotes, and I appreciate that you seek a solid, scientific foundation for your outlook. >> > Thank you very much for your kind words. > > ===================================================== > > Modern science has emperically shown that at least some (if not all) > > aspects of personality are based on genes, brain, and firing of > > neurons - aka matter. Thus if this view is correct and there isn't a > > non epiphenomenal dualism of sorts, then if your body would be > > exactly duplicated - you would be exactly duplicated with > > consciousness and personality. > > And here is the difficulty. The human brain is the single most complex piece of matter in the universe. In order to reproduce a stream of consciousness with all it's accumulations, one would have to have to duplicate a brain so that it was identically wired. We are talking 60 trillion synapses here. If that is not impossible enough, this copied brain would have to be in exactly the same environment as it's master. And that will always be impossible, because two objects can never occupy the same space. >>> Regarding the eternal rerun scenario, only the genes (that grow up into a being, especially if we take fixed mechanical & deterministic view) have to be duplicated. So the case is easier, especially if we take mechanical determinism. Furthermore, not even that. What would have to be duplicated would be the starting conditions for that sort of Big Bang that developed through hard going mechanical determinism into the fully physical universe we have now. > > OR > > ========= Not a exactly the same return ========== > > If there will be some creature that is born with similiar > > consciousness as your last moment of consciousness, rebirth may > > happen. Of course this is Buddhist "anatta" rebirth without any soul going from one birth to another. Subjectively the gap (which may be millions of years and on other planets or universes) cannot be felt from "your" 1st person perspective. This isn't far fetched. 1 year old baby may be totally different from 25 year old's and so on. Yet this 1st person perspective goes on without percieved "gaps", as if there was one entity. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > So what is actually happening is not a "rebirth" as an actual causal > sequence, but the imagination of a rebirth. Herman, do you accept the radical presentism, when every moment different particle arises? If so what connects the 1st person perspective from one moment to the next? The similiarity of two "particles" that make up the body and so on. Could the same happen at the time of death? The most similiar (or identical) brainwave of a newborn baby to that particular 1st person perspective makes the awareness (which is fully dependent on body and such) to carry through? Of course the specific memories bounded with the last body crumble to dust. Oh yeh, and often very old and senile people do act like children... Best wishes, Alex #87575 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:03 pm Subject: Buddhist texts 101 - prerequisite: an historical perspective egberdina Hi all, Recently, I was reading some material on the chronology of the Suttas and Vinaya, and I came across the following: "The fact that the Sutta, Vinaya, Abhidhamma, and Atthakatha exhibit in an increasing order the elements of exaggeration, supernatural marvels and legendary tales---goes further to support the same chronological order of these works." This struck a chord with me, given the recent discussions on Theravada, and the way that every sutta is read through Buddhagosa's glasses by the core membership of dsg. My aims in setting up this thread are to make it clearer that the teachings of the Buddha (Buddhism) and Theravada are not one and the same, that the connection between Buddhism and Theravada is only a loose one, and that Theravada interpretations of Buddhism are only that. I propose that this will become possible through a discussion on the chronology of the Buddhist texts, and the realisation that there is an arrow of time ie older texts can inspire newer ones, but not vice versa. Hopefully it will become apparent that the simplicity and elegance of the Dhamma as it was spoken 2500 years has not benefited from 1000 years of "exaggeration, supernatural marvels and legendary tales". The Dhamma as found in Sn5.4 [The Venerable Mettagu:] "I ask the Lord this question, may he tell me the answer to it. I know him to be a master of knowledge and a perfected being. From whence have arisen these many sufferings evident in the world?" [The Lord:] "You have asked me the source of suffering. Mettagu, I will tell it to you as it has been discerned by me. These many sufferings evident in the world have arisen from worldly attachments. Whoever ignorantly creates an attachment, that stupid person comes upon suffering again and again. Therefore a man of understanding should not create attachment, seeing it is the source of suffering." [Mettagu:] "What I did ask you have explained, now I ask another question. Come tell me this: how do the wise cross the flood, birth and old age, sorrow and grief? Explain it thoroughly to me, O sage, for this Dhamma has been understood by you." The Lord: "I will set forth the Dhamma, Mettagu, a teaching to be directly perceived, not something based on hearsay, by experiencing which and living mindfully one may pass beyond the entanglements of the world." Mettagu: "I rejoice in the thought of that highest Dhamma, great sage, by experiencing which and living mindfully one may pass beyond the entanglements of the world." [The Lord:] "Whatever you clearly comprehend, Mettagu, above, below, across and in between, get rid of delight in it. Rid yourself of habitual attitudes and (life affirming) consciousness. Do not continue in existence. Living thus, mindful and vigilant, a bhikkhu who has forsaken selfish attachments may, by understanding, abandon suffering, birth and old age, sorrow and grief, even here in this life." [Mettagu:] "I rejoice in the words of the great sage. Well explained, O Gotama, is the state of non-attachment. The Lord has surely abandoned suffering as this Dhamma has been realized by him. They will certainly abandon suffering who are constantly admonished by you, O Sage. Having understood, I venerate it, Noble One. May the Lord constantly admonish me also." [The Lord:] "Whom you know as a true brahmana, a master of knowledge, owning nothing, not attached to sensual (-realm) existence, he has certainly crossed this flood. Having crossed beyond he is untainted and freed from doubt. One who has discarded this clinging (leading) to renewal of existence is a man who has realized the highest knowledge. Free from craving, undistressed, desireless, he has crossed beyond birth and old age, I say." Cheers Herman #87576 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] How does rebirth happen? cuticitta--> - ? --> patisandhicitta upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 6/27/2008 8:19:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Typically, a person that dies, has at least three kinds of knowledge. They know facts. They know skills. And they know good and bad. All babies that are born always lack any knowledge of facts, skills and ethics. That is how I know that there is absolutely no transition between lives. ============================== Didja ever hear of forgetting? ;-) How much knowledge do you generally retain of went on in a dream after awakening? Not retaining knowledge to me is nothing more than not retaining knowledge. I see it as a forgetting. With metta, Howard #87577 From: "colette" Date: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:39 am Subject: IDENTIFICATION or labeling OR "Name and Form" ksheri3 Hi Group, Could somebody of a Western perspective help me out here: What does it mean when people simply ignore the substantial differences between: the day breaks and the sun sets? Does a tree grow high to feel greater heat? Did the heat come to the tree so that the tree could discriminate against the sensations of experiencing the heat or not, OR, did the tree simply grow because in the light there was heat? Nina was forwarding this halluncination, BTW Nina, are you American, since the hallucination you were establishing seems very closely related to an American Dream, that heat is a rupa when it is nothing more than a nama. Does heat exist in Ultimate Truth or Relative Truth? I have experience with death from an automobile accident in 1978 where I was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash but came back during the standard operating procedures of the EMTs and I can clearly make this easiest of realizations: THERE IS NO HEAT, after death, so how can Nina extend her hallucination of what heat is and more importantly what heat is not, when she is clearly defining that heat is tangible and therefore can be "man-made"? I certainly agree that I can torch any body of evidence and have it ignite (psst, I worked on the flight deck of an aircraft carrier, so I have a little knowledge of "flash points") and that BECAUSE I, a human, created the fire, it was man-made, but there is no way you will get me to even begin to suggest that there is a temperature quality after death. ... Does the sun really break? Does the day really set? how can these social norms be established as having any value in a society that clearly is marked by it's greed and vanity ... What is tangible Nina, a rupa or a nama? In my website at the UIC in 2001, when I knew I was going down, I played a magician's trick by asking my readers to "reach out in front of them and grab; then open their hands before their eyes and tell me what they grabbed; they could not have grabbed nothing since they grabbed air, and since they did grab air then they could show me the air they grabbed". This is very Dgozchen and very Yogacara since Nina certainly can't establish a premise for the Theravadans through the application of the tangibility of heat. Did Nina reach out and try to grab heat or did heat reach out and try to grab Nina? Is it the potential of a simple tangent and Nina's Miss Representation and/or Miss Identification of what heat is? Does Nina possess the Heat? Did Nina create the svabhava of the Heat so as to give creadence to a hallucination of a creator deity? gotta go. toodles, colette #87578 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How does rebirth happen? cuticitta--> - ? --> patisandhicitta egberdina Hi Alex, 2008/6/28 Alex : > Hi Herman, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > wrote: >> > > You have made a VERY interesting and very strong points. > > However a fellows materialistic objections to your strong points are > these: > > a) If memories are stored only in physical body, then when body dies > the specific memories are gone. However the sort of materialistic > rebirth that I was talking about, may function even if at each > rebirth there is a blank slate (this is what makes it terrible, for > these things may go on without end as long as life anywhere is). The > kammic results as it applies to the person may be gene and material > based. I'm not sure I have understood you correctly here. What are the kammic results you speak of? Are you proposing that the actions of a being in one lifetime will determine their genetic makeup in a future lifetime? > > b) Not all babies are created equal. Some are born in better, some > worse circumstances. Some have better genes some not. It depends what criteria you use. In a sexual act that leads to conception, 249,999,999 sperm do not make it. 1 does. If cessation is the goal of evolution, we have 249,999,999 success stories. If survival of the fittest is the goal, we have only 1. But I think you are already assuming that becoming is the goal. And in that case I agree that some are better able to survive in their inherited circumstance than others. But I do not see a connection with rebirth. > > c) The specific memories/skills/facts/ethics may for some reason > be "deactivated" at certain stages in life and may underpin a > person's "mental functions" not as specific memories but as inborn > abilities. > I think you are talking about Lamarckian evolution here. This is the folkloric belief (kamma) that characteristics acquired in a lifetime are passed on to the next generation. A giraffe, according to this view, gets its long neck because previous generations exerted themselves to reach leaves high up branches. Since Darwin published his theory of evolution, that species evolve through natural selection (anatta), Lamarck's theories have ended up in the dustbin. Please let me know what you think. Cheers Herman #87579 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How does rebirth happen? cuticitta--> - ? --> patisandhicitta egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/6/28 : > > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 6/27/2008 8:19:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > Typically, a person that dies, has at least three kinds of knowledge. > They know facts. They know skills. And they know good and bad. > All babies that are born always lack any knowledge of facts, skills > and ethics. That is how I know that there is absolutely no transition > between lives. > ============================== > Didja ever hear of forgetting? ;-) Yep, sure have, George :-) How much knowledge do you generally > retain of went on in a dream after awakening? Not retaining knowledge to me is > nothing more than not retaining knowledge. I see it as a forgetting. You are not talking about forgetting something. You are talking about forgetting everything. If everything accumulated in a lifetime is forgotten ( I prefer erased, because forgetting suggests the possibility of remembering), then what is the difference between rebirth and birth? Cheers Herman #87580 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:How does rebirth happen? cuticitta-->-?--> patisandhicitta egberdina Hi Alex, 2008/6/28 Alex : > Hi Herman, > > > Thank you very much for your kind words. > It is my pleasure :-) > > Herman, do you accept the radical presentism, when every moment > different particle arises? Not really, no. > > If so what connects the 1st person perspective from one moment to the > next? The similiarity of two "particles" that make up the body and so > on. > > Could the same happen at the time of death? The most similiar (or > identical) brainwave of a newborn baby to that particular 1st person > perspective makes the awareness (which is fully dependent on body and > such) to carry through? Of course the specific memories bounded with > the last body crumble to dust. > I do not believe that there can be such a thing as undifferentiated awareness. It would be awareness that is unaware [of anything], a conscious unconsciousness. Also, if all memories are erased, there is no information transmitted from one life to another, or one universe to another. Thus there is nothing that differentiates birth from rebirth, or one big bang from another, IMO. I have had meditative experiences where I was no longer what I had been previously, but I knew that while it was happening. And with hindsight, that makes sense. In order to know that you are now something else, you still have to be the same to be able to know that. And that being that you are now, IS your past. Erase your past, your memories, and you are gone, well and truly. Cheers Herman #87581 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching egberdina Hi Sukin, 2008/6/26 Sukinder : > Hi Herman, > > Sorry for the delay in responding. > No worries. > > "Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very > clearly. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete > knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me." > > > S: I don't understand the quote. But taking clues from what you wrote > elsewhere, I think your basic premise is that what is perceived is what > is perceived and *that* is the truth. So when I distinguish perceptions > rooted in ignorance from those that are not and those that are > particularly conditioned by wisdom, you think that this is unnecessary > value judgment which *denies* the truth. Is this it? If so further > comments follow: What is perceived is perceived. What is experienced is experienced. It is a confusion of levels to attribute truth or falsity to what is experienced. There is no such thing as a true or a false experience. Truth relates to knowledge or understanding, not to experience. > > Ignorance does not know the truth, including that it is what it is. When > ignorance is accompanied by 'wrong view', it supports the latter to in > fact take for real that which is not. Wisdom on the other hand, sees > whatever appears as it is, including that it is conditioned, anicca, > dukkha and anatta. Ignorance must be necessarily accompanied by the > perception of permanence, self, satisfactoriness or beauty. When I go to the cinema I do not perceive one frame at a time, I perceive continuity. When I watch TV, I do not see the screen refreshing 50 or 60 times per second. My understanding of what is happening should not be confused with what is being experienced. If I say that I see the screen refreshing 60 times a second, I do not know the difference between experience and understanding. But, and this is pivotal, it is not necessary to have an understanding in order to experience. Ask any stupid baby :-) > > If what you are saying is that 'whatever the reality, that is the > reality', I would have no argument with you. But what I understand you > to be saying is to the effect that 'whatever the unreality, that is the > reality'. In other words, you are not saying that ignorance is > ignorance, but that the perception accompanying ignorance is equally > acceptable as is the perception accompanying wisdom. > No, I am pointing out the difference between experience and understanding of that experience. The Dhamma is full of suggestions from the Buddha that the Path consists in part of not taking a view on whatever is experienced. It is not necessary to have an understanding in order for things to be what they are. But in taking a view, it becomes possible to confuse the view with reality. Go to the movies, Sukin, and enjoy whatever you see :-) > But I possibly misrepresented you in which case please clarify and also > explain why you think that my stated position is that of an eternalist. Well, anybody that believes that all experience can be neatly divided into categories like being rooted in ignorance or wisdom, implies that the categories pre-exist, and outlive the experience. This is a form of eternalism known as Platonism, but any name will do :-) > S: Yes, that is one difference. When it comes to the Dhamma, I am very > happy with people who admit to having only 'intellectual understanding' > and who refer back to the texts with the understanding that their own > experiences are not as reliable. What is there to doubt about experience? Do you doubt reading a text when you do it? It is views that may be doubted, but then again, the Buddha recommends to avoid views. > > ================= > Herman: > IMO, it perverts the meaning of "to understand" if whatever > is supposedly being understood has no referent in the world. Was it > you or someone else that had the very good example of understanding > Father Christmas? > > S: I don't have any regard for the worldling's power of observation and > any conclusions he then makes, particularly when he has yet to > appreciate the Dhamma. > > Upon the arising of any of the sense door experiences, the uninstructed > worldling "conceives" immediately in terms of me, mine or I. This is why > even when pointed out the fact of for example, seeing, sound, thinking > 'now' and so on, and that these can be known, few are interested, let > alone are able to immediately see the truth to any extent. Instead he > proliferates to ideas about 'doings' with no due consideration of the > fact of craving and view arising in the moment. Even if the > proliferation is of the concept of 'meditation' which he understands to > be a chance for direct observation of the way things are, will not this > then also be due to failure at recognizing these same realities at work? > > Which is why the test of one's understanding is always "now", i.e. in > relation to the realities of the moment. And when this and the fact of > the moment being conditioned and anatta is understood in principle, it > then does not matter if the level of understanding is only intellectual. > The reference point is rightly the present moment reality! On the other > hand if what you mean by the "world" refers to concepts / conventional > reality, this taken seriously is more dangerous than belief in Father > Christmas which is a concept that can't be taken seriously beyond a > certain age. ;-) I am starting a thread that will hopefully highlight the difference between Buddhism and Theravada. Please feel free to drop in, and comment. Cheers Herman #87582 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How does rebirth happen? cuticitta--> - ? --> patisandhicitta upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 6/28/2008 5:47:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: You are not talking about forgetting something. You are talking about forgetting everything. If everything accumulated in a lifetime is forgotten ( I prefer erased, because forgetting suggests the possibility of remembering), then what is the difference between rebirth and birth? =========================== For most people, though reports indicate not all, there is no conscious recollection at all. In any case, I think that subliminal memory traces and influences do remain - and from dreams as well as past-life experiences. BTW, in Jewish belief, it happens, just to get religiously intercultural, there is the story of an "angel of forgetting" who after great wisdom is instilled in the person to be born, but prior to his/her birth, sees to it that a forgetting comes upon the person. Just a story, of course, but reflective, I think, of an actual process. I think of it as a kind of emotional-protection mechanism, assuaging both grief and overload. And I prefer "forgetting" to "erased," because I do strongly believe that remembering is possible, even for ordinary persons. Evidently, the Buddha believed he recalled past lives. I do think those suttas aren't spurious ones, and I don't believe he lied in teaching those suttas or that he was was deluded. Of course, I don't KNOW that those aspects of those suttas weren't add-ons, and I don't KNOW that the Buddha wasn't just a liar or a lunatic. But I don't believe it. (If I *did* believe in any of that, it would be the spuriousness of the suttas and not such serious character flaws or cognitive flaws in the Buddha.) One more thing, though, that I will add to this discussion of continuation of experience after death is a pragmatic matter that I consider to be of extreme importance: In my opinion, given that, typically, relatively minimal progress towards awakening occurs in a single lifetime, if there were truly no continuation of experience beyond death, then death would be, unquestionably, an instantaneous and final nibbana, death would mark the end of dukkha, and the Dhamma would be *quite* an irrelevancy. With metta, Howard #87583 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 5:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death. egberdina Hi Jon, 2008/6/27 jonoabb : > Hi Herman > > I feel we're in danger of losing sight of the point under discussion. > Come to think of it, what was the point? Something to do with kamma > and your statement that only conditions internal to a stream of > consciousness can influence that stream. Perhaps you could re-state > the point so that we can approach it afresh. > Perhaps I remember incorrectly, but I think my initial point was that kamma and anatta are irreconcilable. If it is no problem for you, I would just as soon leave our discussion here. I think we have every right to congratulate ourselves and each other on an exemplary discussion. But be warned :-), if ever you should suggest that action is a consequence of conditions, I will ask you to substantiate that. Cheers Herman #87584 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - revised and corrected edition egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/6/27 kenhowardau : > Hi Herman, > >> >> I know that lobha, mana and sakkaya-ditthi are taught as being >> inappropriate in the Dhamma. >> > > Excellent! (You weren't being difficult at all!) :-) > > And why are they taught as being inappropriate? It is because there > are only dhammas. Since there are only fleeting, soulless conditioned > dhammas there can be nothing worth desiring or worth identifying > with. > > And for whose benefit would anything be desired anyway - when there > is no one there? > Well, desire, craving etc ARE some of those soulless dhammas of which you speak. It is not "I" that craves, it is craving that is "I". > ----------------------- > H: > With regards to lobha and mana, I know as a matter of > intellectual understanding that life, as a human being in society, is > not possible without them. > ----------------------- > > Yes, that sort of thinking is inevitable. Even though there is no > one - no selves - there is still thinking in terms of selves. Yes, but thinking in terms of selves is also only dhammas. > > ----------- > H: > Having said that, I'm certainly not aversive to being led to > discover that I am wrong in that understanding. > ---------- > > Good, because that understanding it is not right understanding (as > taught by the Buddha), is it? It is just conventional thinking. It ceases to be conventional thinking when there are dhammas that are not based in craving. And I would like to put it to you that only that when consciousness finds no hold anywhere, that there is no craving. Please feel free to report on craving-free existence any time you like :-) > > ---------------- > H: > With regards to sakkya-ditthi, if by that is meant belief in a > soul, or a self, that persists and/or controls what goes on, I do not > doubt that such a soul or self doesn't exist. > ---------------- > > Actually, that is only part of the meaning of sakkaya-ditthi. It is > not enough to understand there is no self that controls what goes on; > we must also understand the ultimate meaning of "what goes on." > > We wouldn't say, for example, there was no control over motor-car > driving. We have to see that, ultimately, there is no car and no > driving; there are only namas and rupas. *Then* we can say there is > no control - over those namas and rupas. Cars and driving are only shortcut words that refer to specific combinations of namas and rupas. And until there is knowledge of the relationships between specific namas and rupas, I do not think you are in a position to say anything about control. > --------------------- > <. . .> > H: > Hope that gives you something to aim at :-) > --------------------- > > > Thank you, you have been the perfect sitting duck. :-) > Through being a duck, one is a duck :-) Cheers Herman #87585 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Views re self & the world DN2 egberdina Hi Jon, 2008/6/27 jonoabb : > Hi Herman > Do you have access to another translation (preferably the Bhikkhu > Bodhi one)? > Sorry, Jon, I don't have any Buddhist texts as hardcopy. I only have access to whatever is on the Internet, and that is only the biggest library in the known universe :-) But I read the early Buddhist texts as people coming to the Buddha with specific questions and receiving specific answers. There is no need for you to do anything, Jon, if you have no specific need. Cheers Herman #87586 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:18 am Subject: Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility dhammanusarin Dear James & Dieter, - Thank you both for the discussion. First, I have some questions for you, James, to kindly consider whenever you are not too busy. After asking those questions, I also have a comment for you both. ....................................... >James : The Buddha was not a Theravadin. The Buddha gave teachings and his followers memorized them. These followers were called the "Sons of Sakayani" (or something to that effect). After the parinibbana of the Buddha, these followers split up into different schools, but they each had the Buddha's teachings as their core. ... Of course, I lean more toward Theravada in my beliefs, but I don't completely accept everything within Theravada- even thought I completely accept what the Buddha taught. T: I wonder how you know "what the Buddha taught" is truly what the Buddha taught. Have you ever compared these different schools' "core" teachings? And if you do, are these core teachings exactly the same or close enough? If they are, then at least you can use any one of these schools' teaching as the basis for your belief, I think. What if they are not the same or not "close enough", then how do you decide which school is good for you? Thank you in advance. ......................................... (Dieter: What are you doing to change the situation for the better?) >James: >I am doing what everyone should be doing: talking openly about it! The situation within the Theravada Shanga is only allowed to continue and worsen because very few people talk about it. They want to pretend that everything is okay. Well, reform is not possible if people won?Et talk about what is wrong. I don?Et think reform is impossible; but I do think that reform is impossible if people refuse to talk about what is wrong. >D: of course it is necessary to talk about the situation .. but a far better and positive approach is needed.. criticizing the fundament of Theravada ( Canon and Sangha as a whole) brings nothing , than a compassionate grin by those , you like to address as it appears to them that you lack credibility T: IMHO the much more critical "situation" for all of us Buddhists is that we are too busy debating what the Buddha taught than to practice in accordance with the Dhamma. This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "With reference to a monk who practices the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma, it is this way of according with the Dhamma that he should be described as practicing the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma. When speaking, he speaks Dhamma and not non-Dhamma. When thinking, he thinks about Dhamma and not about non- Dhamma. Avoiding both these things, he stays equanimous, mindful, alert." [Iti 3.37] "Ananda, what is the path and method, to dispel the lower bonds of the sensual world? [T: the lower five fetters, samyojana.] "Ananda, the bhikkhu secluding the mind thoroughly, by dispelling things of demerit, removes all bodily transgressions that bring remorse. Then secluding the mind, from sensual thoughts and thoughts of demerit, with thoughts and discursive thoughts and with joy and pleasantness born of seclusion abides in the first jhana. Established in it he reflects all things that matter, all feelings, all perceptive things, all intentions, all conscious signs are impermanent, unpleasant, an illness, an abscess, an arrow, a misfortune, an ailment, foreign, destined for destruction, is void, and devoid of a self. "Then he turns the mind to the deathless element: "This is peaceful, this is exalted, such as the appeasement of all determinations(sankhara khandha), the giving up of all endearments, the destruction of craving, detachment(viraga), cessation and extinction(nibbana). "With that mind he comes to the destruction of desires. If he does not destroy desires on account of greed and interest for those same things. He arises spontaneously, with the destruction of the five lower bonds, of the sensual world, not to proceed. Ananda, this too is a method for overcoming the five lower bonds of the sensual world.. http://www.vipassana.info/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-e1.htm -------------------------------------- I hope I did not bore you much with the above sutta quotes. ;-) Tep === #87587 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How does rebirth happen? cuticitta--> - ? --> patisandhicitta truth_aerator Dear Herman, Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > 2008/6/28 Alex : > > Hi Herman, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" > > wrote: > > ============================================================== Alex a) If memories are stored only in physical body, then when body dies > > the specific memories are gone. However the sort of materialistic > > rebirth that I was talking about, may function even if at each > > rebirth there is a blank slate (this is what makes it terrible, for these things may go on without end as long as life anywhere is). The kammic results as it applies to the person may be gene and material based. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Herman: I'm not sure I have understood you correctly here. What are the kammic results you speak of? Are you proposing that the actions of a being in one lifetime will determine their genetic makeup in a future lifetime? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lets say that Adam's last moment of "consciousness" were negative, negative cuti-citta. Lets say that the first moment of consciousness in a new organism "Bob" is fairly similiar (as to appear to be a logical continuation of Adam's type of consciousness). Bob has bad genes and is born in a bad environment. The the first person perspective continues from Adam to Bob. Of course it isn't Adam that is reborn, just a similiar 1st person perspective. Kinda like when you dream and the character can have everything totally different (body, feelings, thoughts, perceptions, circumstances, etc) except for 1st person perspective which remains constant. > > > > b) Not all babies are created equal. Some are born in better, some > > worse circumstances. Some have better genes some not. > > It depends what criteria you use. In a sexual act that leads to > conception, 249,999,999 sperm do not make it. 1 does. If cessation is > the goal of evolution, we have 249,999,999 success stories. If > survival of the fittest is the goal, we have only 1. But I think you > are already assuming that becoming is the goal. And in that case I > agree that some are better able to survive in their inherited > circumstance than others. But I do not see a connection with rebirth. > See above. > > > > c) The specific memories/skills/facts/ethics may for some reason > > be "deactivated" at certain stages in life and may underpin a > > person's "mental functions" not as specific memories but as inborn > > abilities. > > > > I think you are talking about Lamarckian evolution here. >>>>>> No, I didn't imply this sort of (false) belief. I just wanted to show how Kamma on a subjective level could work. Of course the "change" from life to life can go upwards and downwards. It has nothing to do with better survival. Logical continuation of: positive is positive, of negative, negative. The materialistic expression of Kammic results may be Bad: a) Genes (leading to bad character traits, deformities, etc) b) Environment (poverty, poor family country, kill-to-survive, land where persecutions against your kind are widespread, you name it) Good: a) Genes (leading to good character traits, physical gifts, etc) b) Environment (abundance, rich family, everything comes on a golden plate, fame, good status, you name it) Best wishes, Alex #87588 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How to handle suttas, path to awakening, mere speculations egberdina Hi Jon, 2008/6/27 jonoabb : > Hi Alex > > > Of course I do not have "truly personal knowledge" of the Noble > Eightfold Path as being momentary cetasikas, or of the actual number > of dhammas that may arise, or of the 24 conditions set out in the > Patthana, etc. > > But I'm puzzled as to why you would think I *did* have. Surely those > of us posting here are only setting out what we understand to be the > case from a study of the texts (assisted by what little level of > awareness development there may be). Is your own position any > different from that? > Why would anyone study texts? Simply because they have been spoken? Surely they were spoken for a reason, to a specific audience. To study a text as an end in itself is to use something for a purpose for which it wasn't intended. I think it is a safe bet that if you study a text academically , it never applied to you to start with. Cheers Herman #87589 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:47 am Subject: [dsg] Re:How does rebirth happen? cuticitta-->-?--> patisandhicitta truth_aerator --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > 2008/6/28 Alex : > > Hi Herman, > > > > > > Thank you very much for your kind words. > > > > It is my pleasure :-) > > > > > > Herman, do you accept the radical presentism, when every moment > > different particle arises? > > Not really, no. > > > > > > If so what connects the 1st person perspective from one moment to the next? The similiarity of two "particles" that make up the body and so > > on. > > > > Could the same happen at the time of death? The most similiar (or > > identical) brainwave of a newborn baby to that particular 1st person perspective makes the awareness (which is fully dependent on body and such) to carry through? Of course the specific memories bounded with the last body crumble to dust. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > I do not believe that there can be such a thing as undifferentiated > awareness. It would be awareness that is unaware [of anything], a > conscious unconsciousness. >>>>>>>>>>> I didn't say this here. Of course unconscious consciousness and such are contradictory and impossible word wrigglings. What I've meant by 1st person perspective is a subjective feeling of "I am". The sort of rebirth I am proposing with 1st person perspective can be demonstrated thus: Reflect on what happened in dreams. You still had feeling "I am" although it was not "I am Herman". Even though at THAT moment all Herman's personality contents weren't present, the (delusive) feeling "I AM" was. >>>> Also, if all memories are erased, there is no information transmitted from one life to another, or one universe to another. Thus there is nothing that differentiates birth from rebirth, or one big bang from another, IMO. >>>>> The Quantum Physics *seem* to suggest that there can be some sort of (non local) transmission between one particle and the other. So maybe it is possible that at the end moment of life, some sort of transmission between dying organism and one being born, happens. Apparently some forms of nonlocality have been experimentally shown. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlocality Best wishes, Alex #87590 From: "abhidhammika" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:23 am Subject: Re:How does rebirth happen? cuticitta-->-?--> patisandhicitta abhidhammika Dear Herman, Howard, Alex, Mike, Scott, Nina, Phil Herman wrote: 'It is good to see you around.' Thank you. I dropped by very briefly. > > Consciousness never exists. > I agree. > > Then, what is going on when we say rebirth? > > A new mental event with new other 4 aggregates merely happens when > there are still conditions for them to arise. Is there any problem > with that? > Herman invited a response with: 'Not as a theoretical statement. What is required to make this relevant is a demonstration that there are such conditions. Otherwise we may as well be discussing the dynamics behind Harry Potter's skills.' There certainly are conditions, but these are not my presentations. I can only repeat dogmatically, as Alex rightly remarked, what the Buddha already taught us in Pali Texts. It is from Pa.ticcasamuppaado, Dependent Happening. Avijjaa paccayaa sankhaayaa, sankhaara paccayaa viññaa.nam, viññaa.na paccayaa naamaruupam. 'Due to unwiseness, actions happen. Due to actions, resultant consciousness happens. Due to resultant consciousness, mind and matter happen.' Please see Section 1, Pa.ticcasamuppaada Suttam, Nidaana Samyuttam, Samyuttanikaayo. Please note that the viññaa.nam in the expression 'sankhaara paccayaa viññaa.nam' is a vipaaka viññaa.nam (a resultant consciousness) because sankhaaraa are causative actions with cetanaas strong enough to produce results. That is why my translation 'Due to actions, resultant consciousness happens' is justified. Furthermore, please note that the Buddha has explained the emergence of a new system of body and mind as the consequence of the resultant consciousness when he stated viññaa.na paccayaa naamaruupam (Due to resultant consciousness, mind and matter happen). Thus, we now know the conditions for rebirth in light of Pa.ticcasamuppaado taught by Gotma the Buddha, the Founder of Theravaada Buddhism. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw www.bodhiology.org #87591 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility moellerdieter Hi James, you wrote: 'James: Well, that's a pretty low blow. :-( I noticed that you didn't read anything I referenced; you didn't even skim it; you just wrote another post repeating what you had written earlier. D: well.. a soft form of censure ;-) I mentioned my intention to have a look into the links.. nevertheless ,isn't it usual practise that one is at least quoting some from the material requested to read? The repetition was necessary , because you seemed not to agree that Theravada, the teaching of the Elders, is that what has been laid down in the Pali Canon, the Tipitaka (all commentaries secondary). with Metta Dieter #87592 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:30 am Subject: Re:How does rebirth happen? What is Vinnana? truth_aerator Dear Abhidhammika, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > Avijjaa paccayaa sankhaayaa, sankhaara paccayaa viññaa.nam, > viññaa.na paccayaa naamaruupam. > > 'Due to unwiseness, actions happen. Due to actions, resultant > consciousness happens. Due to resultant consciousness, mind and > matter happen.' > > Please see Section 1, Pa.ticcasamuppaada Suttam, Nidaana Samyuttam, > Samyuttanikaayo. > > Please note that the viññaa.nam in the expression 'sankhaara > paccayaa viññaa.nam' is a vipaaka viññaa.nam (a resultant > consciousness) because sankhaaraa are causative actions with > cetanaas strong enough to produce results. That is why my > translation 'Due to actions, resultant consciousness happens' is > justified. > > Furthermore, please note that the Buddha has explained the emergence > of a new system of body and mind as the consequence of the resultant > consciousness when he stated viññaa.na paccayaa naamaruupam (Due to > resultant consciousness, mind and matter happen). > > Thus, we now know the conditions for rebirth in light of > Pa.ticcasamuppaado >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Big question: What exactly does "Vinnana" means? It can't be bare "awareness" without any feelings: "What does one cognize with that consciousness? One cognizes 'pleasure.' One cognizes 'pain.' One cognizes 'neither pleasure nor pain " http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html =============================================================== 'Consciousness, consciousness': Thus is it said. To what extent, friend, is it said to be 'consciousness'?" "'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus, friend, it is said to be 'consciousness.' And what does it cognize? It cognizes 'pleasant.' It cognizes 'painful.' It cognizes 'neither painful nor pleasant.' 'It cognizes, it cognizes': Thus it is said to be 'consciousness.'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html Furthermore, there is a sutta where it says that consciousness cognizes "sour, bitter" and so on.... =================== So bare consciousness seems to be refuted. When it comes to DO we have a strange non-linear thing. Feelings are present almost everywhere (except mindless rupa & salayatana perhaps) Feelings Directly happen in "Vinnana", "Nama", "vedana", and "dukkha somanassa domanassa, etc" Also they happen when "Sankhara, jati, jaramarana dukkha" happens and almost in all other links as well... >>>>>>>> taught by Gotma the Buddha, the Founder of Theravaada Buddhism. >>>>>>>> Buddha didn't teach "Theravada". He taught "Dhamma-Vinaya". His followers were called "Sons of Sakyan" or something like that. Sakyan = Scythians. Gotama = Goth (gothic tribes, similiar in meaning to above) The whole (former) warrior culture of Buddha and his closest monks... Ok, this if off topic now. I can continue this analysis if anyone wishes in another thread. Best wishes, Alex #87593 From: Dieter Möller Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [was Vism.XVII,270] .. FNTs and N8FP moellerdieter Dear Tep,and others.. you wrote: ( Dieter: Recognizing suffering (ageing and death..1st N.T. ) the Prince considered its origin and its conditions (2nd N.T.) and the cessation of its conditions .) T: Exactly. It is the same kind of analysis and critical thinking that great scientists employ to research a new problem. Then, Eureka! ' Vision arose, clear knowing arose, discernment arose, knowledge arose, illumination arose within me with regard to things never heard before.' . D: yes, so the Buddha developed by D.O. what in science is called a theory..or refering to the simile of a physician, D.O. is stating the sickness / allowing the diagnosis and the medical description , the 8fold N.P. Tep: The Buddha: Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. >Dieter: Only here, after following the 8fold N.P. , the direct knowledge of fabrications, its orgination and cessation appear , leaving it to the student to conclude that it is meant herewith the journey ended , the city reached .. the ignorance fully abolished ,isn't it?< Tep: I think there are several knowledges(~naana) in between the direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths and the cutting off of cankers (fermentation or 'asavas'); only that last ~naana uproots ignorance... snip D: I agree , however what I liked to point out is that in the Narada Sutta fabrications is appearing last , stating it as a consequence of travelling and without mentioning its supporting condition ignorance.. Tep: Another sutta, MN 117, states that beyond the N8FP are Right Knowledge (samma ~naana) and Right Release(samma vimutti). This shows that there are vijjaa and vimutti beyond the N8FP. In other words, the N8FP is the path for the sekha (lerners). D: yes, the path for the sekha and vimutti after the path has been completed Tep : (D: I wonder in which other suttas D.O. is presented this way..) T: That is a very good question of a true student of Buddhism. I think MN 38 : Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta (from "the Majjhima Nikaya: Middle Length Sayings" by Bhikkhu Bodhi and Bhikkhu Nanamoli) may be close to what you are asking. Other good ones I can recall are: SN 12.23, AN 10.92. D:I had a brief look, but all suttas you refering to, are treating the D.O. in the usual way, i.e. incl. ignorance .. B.T.W. S.N. 12.23 a special one for our Abhidhammica friends to be prenetrated. Perhaps we can conclude the D.O. - 8 fold N.P. relation is in simple words described by 'the What and How to do ', isn't it? with Metta Dieter #87594 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:39 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: [was Vism.XVII,270] .. FNTs and N8FP dhammanusarin Dear Dieter,(Sukin) - Thank you for the well-concluded discussion. > Dieter: > Perhaps we can conclude the D.O. - 8 fold N.P. relation is in > simple words described by 'the What and How to do ', isn't it? > .......... T: Yes, I think so. The 'what' is pariyatti, and the 'how' is patipatti or patipada(path, way) for realization (pativedha). Sukin is an expert in this subject. Tep === #87595 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:47 pm Subject: Conditionality: Is it citta, cetasika, or rupa? truth_aerator Hello all, To which paramattha dhamma does Conditionality belong? Is it conditioned or unconditioned? Best wishes, Alex #87596 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conditionality: Is it citta, cetasika, or rupa? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 6/28/2008 4:47:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hello all, To which paramattha dhamma does Conditionality belong? Is it conditioned or unconditioned? Best wishes, Alex ============================= Conditionality isn't a dhamma. There is no thing that is conditionality. We use the term 'conditionality' to refer to that fact that some dhammas are conditions for others. That's all. One needs to be wary of nominalizations that reify; i.e., that create "things" when there are none. With metta, Howard #87597 From: "derekacameron" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:51 am Subject: Levels of upacara samadhi derekacameron Somewhere, I came across a description of different levels of upacara samadhi, but I can't find the source for it. I believe there were 6 levels differentiated, each with 3 identifying characteristics, though I'm not sure about that. It doesn't sound like it's from the Suttas, and I've looked in the Visuddhimagga, but can't find it there. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Can you tell me where it comes from? Derek. #87598 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:37 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conditionality: Is it citta, cetasika, or rupa? truth_aerator Hi Howard, Abhidhammikas, and all --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 6/28/2008 4:47:55 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Hello all, > > > To which paramattha dhamma does Conditionality belong? > > Is it conditioned or unconditioned? > ============================= > Conditionality isn't a dhamma. There is no thing that is conditionality. We use the term 'conditionality' to refer to that fact that some dhammas are conditions for others. That's all. One needs to be wary of nominalizations that reify; i.e., that create "things" when there are none. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What separates dhamma that is and isn't a condition? Why is citta, cetasika, rupa or Nibbana is considered dhamma - when conditionality isn't? We indirectly see that there is conditionality and at this board it is almost #1 topic said by beloved Abhidhammikas. So what exactly is conditionality? Does it exist or not? If it doesn't, than how do we explain conditionality and whats written in Patthana? Best wishes, Alex #87599 From: "buddhatrue" Date: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:22 pm Subject: Re: Buddhist texts 101 - prerequisite: an historical perspective buddhatrue Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > "The fact that the Sutta, Vinaya, Abhidhamma, and Atthakatha exhibit > in an increasing order the elements of exaggeration, supernatural > marvels and legendary tales---goes further to support the same > chronological order of these works." > > This struck a chord with me, given the recent discussions on > Theravada, and the way that every sutta is read through Buddhagosa's > glasses by the core membership of dsg. My aims in setting up this > thread are to make it clearer that the teachings of the Buddha > (Buddhism) and Theravada are not one and the same, that the connection > between Buddhism and Theravada is only a loose one, and that Theravada > interpretations of Buddhism are only that. I propose that this will > become possible through a discussion on the chronology of the > Buddhist texts, and the realisation that there is an arrow of time ie > older texts can inspire newer ones, but not vice versa. Hopefully it > will become apparent that the simplicity and elegance of the Dhamma as > it was spoken 2500 years has not benefited from 1000 years of > "exaggeration, supernatural marvels and legendary tales". Very nicely stated. If "Theravadins" pride themselves on following the original teachings of the Buddha, then they should really follow only the original teachings of the Buddha. Did the Buddha teach with a commentator constantly by his side "translating" what he said for those listening? Isn't it an insult to the Buddha's ability as a supreme teacher to assume that he would need such a thing, then or now? Herman, the sutta that you provide is an excellent example of the Buddha's teaching. It is beautiful, simple and straightforward: suffering is caused by attachment and the way to end that suffering is through non-attachment vis-a-vis mindfulness. Nothing else needs to be added. The Buddha doesn't say that Mettagu should follow him around and listen to the Dhamma thousands of times for 'understanding to grow', and the Buddha doesn't mention anything about memorizing all of the different types of nama and rupa for 'understanding to grow'. Dieter suggests that I can point this out but that I should do so in a nice and sweet way. Well, I don't know how to do that. You can't really burst someone's bubble in a nice and sweet way. Quite simply, the tradition of Theravada is no more the Buddha's original teaching than Mahayana and Tibetan. Mix 2,500 years with the human's propensity for mental proliferation and you get what we have today. It is up to us to separate the seed from the chaff. Metta, James