#88000 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration: Apparent Difference Between Sutta and Abhidhamma sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Tue, 8/7/08, upasaka@... wrote: H:> In Abhidhamma, concentration is considered a universal - present at all times, accompanying every mind state. However, in the suttas there is frequent mention of the *development* of concentration. What is always present requires no development. How is this to be resolved? .... S: The development of concentration always refers to the development of *samma*- samadhi, either in samatha or vipassana or both. Any kind of bhavana, by definition, has to be developed with *samma* ditthi. As you say (in effect), the concentration arising now with say seeing consciousness or attachment doesn't need any development! Metta, Sarah p.s I've just seen that Nina has replied in more detail now, so I'll leave the other part of your message unless you request further comments from me as well. =========== #88001 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 1:59 am Subject: Re: Lengthy Reply Re: [dsg] Abh mistake of equaling ethical quality = feeling sarahprocter... Hi Howard (Alex, Herman & all), --- On Tue, 8/7/08, upasaka@... wrote: Alex: >> IMHO, if akusala actions (like fishing for example) felt bad > immeadetely on performing (like puting a hand to the red hot iron > stove) then none of the people would perform bad actions. .... >S: What about getting angry (to give an obvious example of akusala that feels bad)? ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ------- >Howard: But it does not always feel bad! So-called righteous anger, a misnomer and oxymoron, usually feels just wonderful!!! ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- S: Well, we're back to discussing a situation with different mind-states involved. Generally speaking, anger feels bad. Sometimes, as in the case with so-called 'righteous anger', the person may feel very happy afterwards, but at the time of venting-off, raising the voice, turning purple and so on, the dosa is accompanied by unpleasant feelings. The point too, I think, is that with so much ignorance and so little awareness or understanding, everything gets very mixed up. Alex had made the comment that we wouldn't follow anything that feels bad, but I don't think this is true. Generally, we pursue pleasant feelings, of course. Metta, Sarah ======== #88002 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Rob M..... sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Tue, 8/7/08, upasaka@... wrote: >Sarah, I agree with you that there are frequently misperceivings and misinterpretations of the nature of various mental states and other phenomena. However, I am uneasy in seeing the frequency with which well known mental phenomena are dismissed as not being the cetasikas pointed to by Abhidhamma. That can serve as an easy, unverifiable answer to all objections - a means to attempt to justify whatever one's belief is. Calm may be a calm accompanied by cold malice or a calm accompanied by warm lovingkindness. .... S: Yes, conventionally speaking we can refer to "a calm accompanied by cold malice", for example, when discussing a movie character. However, here we're discussing the Dhamma and what calm is as taught by the Buddha and his disciples. As the Buddha showed, this was different from calm that had been taught by other teachers. With his wisdom, common terms of the day took on new meanings. So 'calm' in the Buddha's teachings never refers to any state accompanying 'cold malice'. It also never refers to the relaxed feeling accompanying attachment when we look at a sunset or the snowy mountains or when the body feels relaxed and still. The point of reading and considering the teachings is for the understanding to develop and get closer and closer to clearly understanding what such states as calm really are when they arise and not to go on being fooled by what we've always taken to be calm. .... H:> A true lunatic - and there are some - can, with smiling and joyful ease and not any actual aversion, tear apart a human being for the pure joy of it, and the calm he feels is a true calm accompanied by delight! .... S: Ok, but let's be clear that when giving such an example, that it has nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching about what calm is. Also, there must be aversion whilst killing too. .... H: >It is that very perverse calm that is one of the most horrifying aspects of the behavior of such a monster. ... S: This is why it helps to also refer to Pali terms such as samatha and passaddhi when discussing the Buddha's teachings. Otherwise, if we just use 'calm', it's very confusing. Metta, Sarah ======= #88003 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Each presently arisen state corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Andrew, > > Op 9-jul-2008, om 12:55 heeft Andrew het volgende geschreven: > > > When the Buddha recommended that a person "see each presently arisen > > state" [MN131], was the "present" he was referring to conventional or > > ultimate? > > > > If ultimate, in the human realm, does that not mean vedana + sanna + > > sankhara + vinnana + one seventeenth of rupa? > > > > ... because rupa lasts for 17 mind-moments. > -------- > N: Here is another translation: > What is past is got rid of and the future has not come. > But whoever has vision now here, now there of a present dhamma, > The unmovable, unshakable, let him cultivate it [2]. > Swelter at the task this very day. Who knows whether he will die > tomorrow? > There is no bargaining with the great hosts of Death. > Thus abiding ardently, unwearied day and night, > He indeed is "Auspicious" called, described as a sage at peace> > > Vision is actually a translation of insight, vipassana. Present > reality: what appears now. Not exactly catching the arising of a > dhamma. Its characteristic can be known when it presents itself now > here, now there, , thus not: each present dhamma. Now here, now there > is literally from the Pali: tattha, tattha. When it presents itself. > The Buddha was referring to vipassana, thus, to ultimate realities. > No need to think of the seventeen moments of citta, that is > impossible. This fact merely indicates that rupa does not fall away > as fast as citta. > Does this make sense to you? > Nina. Hello Nina Thank you very much. Yes, it *does* make sense to me - but there had to be thinking beyond a single mind moment to get there (as far as I could tell!). Best wishes Andrew #88004 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:55 am Subject: [dsg] Re: To Rob M..... corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Andrew > > > The worldly trying to talk in ultimate terms, however ... well, > what > > is the value in it? Can anyone tell me? [Be ready for me to ask > you > > if you can correctly identify a presently arisen cetasika! ;_) ] > > > > > > If, by "trying" you mean the momentary arising of panna with samma- > viriya (etc) then the value is just that. (The value is just the > momentary arising of panna with samma-viriya etc). > > In anticipation of your next question, yes, I can correctly identify > a presently arisen cetasika. Phassa, for example, is the cetasika > that is presently contacting namas with their object. > > Is there a prize? :-) Hi KenH Sorry but the rules don't allow prize giving for "double speak". ;~( When it suits you, you insist on "the present" being one single mind moment lasting a trillionth of a second. Now, here you are claiming that you can identify happenings in such a present. Sorry to burst your bubble, but aren't you just (conventionally) thinking about a conventional past? As I understand many posts on this list in the past, it is most likely that you mistake phassa as rupa anyway. That's the view from my self-view! :-)) Regards Andrew #88005 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha taught meditation to Lay people: & Sutta formating sarahprocter... Hi Herman & Alex, --- On Tue, 8/7/08, Alex wrote: H:> According to the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004), >regarding the 1st Council: > > "... its historicity is questioned by virtually all Buddhist > >scholars. > They argue that while it was not unlikely that a small group of > Buddha's intimate disciples gathered after his death, a council held > in the grand style described in the scriptures is almost certainly a > fiction." ** A: >Sure that 500 parts and other elaborations are either symbolic or Fictional. **** S: It depends whether one prefers to accept the Macmillan Encyclopedia and modern scholars as authority on this or the ancient scriptures. What are the modern encyclopedias and scholars going to rely on, if not the ancient scriptures? Let me re-quote from the commentary to the Vinaya which I gave before in a series based on Jayawickrama’s translation of the Baahiranidaana of the Samantapaasaadikaa, the Vinaya commentary: "....For it has been said, “Thereupon the venerable Mahakassapa adressed the monks...........Subsequently he said, “Let us, friends, rehearse the Dhamma and the Vinaya......â€? The monks rejoined, “If that be so, Sir, may the Elder select the monks (for the Convocation).â€? The Elder rejected many hundreds and thousands of monks in the categories of wordling, Stream-Entrant, Once-Returner, Non-Returner, and Dry Visioned Arahant and canker-waned Arahant, all of whom were versed in the Teachings consisting of the entire ninefold Dispensation of the Teacher and chose 499 canker-waned monks who alone were proficient with regard to the learning in all aspects of the Teachings in the entire Three Baskets, had attained mastery in analytical knowledge, were of no mean achievement, and for the greater part were classified by the Exalted One as an expert each in his field in the distinct spheres of the threefold knowledge. Regarding them it has been said, “Thereupon the venerable Mahakassapa selected five hundred Arahants less one.â€? " **** S: Of course, the space was left for Ananda who made up the 500 on gaining arahatship. .... S: I also wrote before: >S: Looking at the Mahavamsa (the ancient Sinhalese historical text), I also don’t find any disparity in details. We read about the 700,000 leading bhikkhus amongst the "khattiyas and brahmans, vessas and suddas, and gods likewise" at the Parinibbana. We read about Mahakassapa pointing "500 eminent bhikkhus, who had overcome the asavas, repeaters of the ninefold doctrine and versed in all its separate parts; but there was one less because of the thera Ananda...." It continues with the same details of how they arrived in Rajagaha after "they had made their pilgrimage over Jambudipa (India), consoling here and there the sorrowing people" and how they spent the first of the rain-months repairing the dwellings in Rajagaha. Similar details are given about Ananda’s arahatship, how Upali was selected to "speak for the vinaya" and Ananda for the rest of the dhamma with Mahakassapa asking questions and so on. In the Theravada tradition, the dates and importance of the First, Second and Third Councils are found mostly in the Bahiranidana, the Smp., references in the Vinaya itself and the Mahavamsa. As I’ve mentioned, they are all in conformity..... I’ll just add a note from Geiger’s introduction to his translation of Mahavamsa concerning the inclusion of the Abhidhamma in the "later tradition" accounts of the First Council.....: "Among the Northern buddhist sources dealing with the first Council I mention the Mahavastu. Here, in agreement with the southern tradition Kasyapa is given as the originator of the coucil, the number of the bhiksus taking part is stated to be 500 and the place the aptaparna grotto near Rajagrha. "There is, besides, an account in the second volume of the Dulva, the Tibetan Vinaya of the Sarvastivadin sect. The fixing of the canon took place, according to this source, in the following order: 1) Dharma, by Ananda; 2)Vinaya, by Upali; 3)Matrka (i.e.Abhidarma) by Mahakasyapa himself....."< ***** Metta, Sarah p.s for more details see 'Vinaya commentary' in 'Useful Posts' ============ #88006 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:00 am Subject: Re: Almost all, if not all, words are conceptual. corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hi Andrew & all, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > The worldly trying to talk in ultimate terms, however ... well, what > > is the value in it? > > I have strong suspicion that all manners of talking, even "ultimate", > are still conventional since they use the same conventional language & > words, just different vocabulary of the language. > > Linguistically speaking there is no reason why word "X" is more > ultimate than word "Y". Conventional terms use language, and "ultimate" > terms use the SAME language. Language is conventional, or at least most > of it is. > > It is quite possible that Arahants do not attach to ANY words, meaning > of the words or letters. Hi Alex I agree with you. Language - all language - is conventional. It doesn't happen in a single mind moment. How many mind moments does it take to utter the word "jiffy"? There is a prize for the closest estimate! :-)) Regards Andrew #88007 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:22 am Subject: Re: Citta the householder has 4 Jhanas and was an anagami philofillet Hi Mike I'm feeling concerned because you've gone missing since my last post and I was afraid that the horrible prospect of the below.... > p.s at some point, Mike, maybe in the fall when I have more time I'd > like to discuss with you about why you came to distrust meditation (i.e > choosing or being assigned a primary object of meditation and pursuing > it with ongoing, diligent effort) ....could cause you to have become fed-up. I actually meant that I thought you would be one of the only people who could convince me, not that I wanted to try to sway you. In any case, I hope my usual over-the-top ranting didn't have anything to do with your current absence. I will be shutting up, pretty much, this summer... Metta, Phil #88008 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:28 am Subject: Re: Views re self & the world DN29 sarahprocter... Hi Antony, I had meant to thank you sooner for your reflections in #87255. Your post arrived while I was travelling. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Antony Woods" wrote: > From AN 7.49 Dana Sutta: <...> > Translator's note: This discourse discusses the motivations one might > have for being generous, and rates in ascending order the results that > different motivations can lead to. The Commentary notes that the > highest motivation, untainted by lower motivations and leading to > non-returning, requires a certain level of mastery in concentration > and insight in order to be one's genuine motivation for giving. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an07/an07.049.than.html ... S: In other words, for this 'highest mastery', there has to be the right understanding that it isn't 'my' dana or anyone else's. they are just fleeting wholesome dhammas that don't belong to anyone. Understanding this, there will be less conditions to cling to dana or any other wholesome states or deeds performed. How does this sound to you? Metta, Sarah ======== #88009 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:34 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity corvus121 Hi Sarah Yes, this a mysterious thread - mainly because I am stumbling along without direction. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: First of all, what are 'animal cittas' and 'human cittas'? Let's say strong lobha arises, such as whilst eating a delicious meal, how does it help to refer to it as 'animal lobha' or 'human lobha'. Isn't lobha, just lobha of varying degrees? Having read your posts about animals in the past, I am not sure what you are doing now. Are you denying any meaning to the classification of the realms? Are you suggesting that animals have strong lobha while humans have less strong lobha? I have not read anything like this before in Abhidhamma, but then I am not widely read ... perhaps you could share your insight? > S: We can talk about certain kinds of cittas predominating in particular realms. So, in an animal realm, lobha, dosa and moha predominate with very few opportunities for any kusala and none for the development of right understanding. (As I stressed before in a discussion with Rob K, I'm not referring to the bodhisatta or very occasional moments of wisdom that might arise as a result of past accumulations, such as possibly during the last javana cittas of the famous bats when the kamma-nimitta appeared). Doesn't the part in parenthesis sit uncomfortably with the part outside it? Don't you usually say of humans that "lobha, dosa and moha predominate" and kusala (and therefore right understanding) is incredibly rare? > In the human realm, lobha, dosa and moha also predominate, but I assume generally, with more lobha and less dosa on account of the pleasanter objects being experienced. Isn't this a rejection of the usual explanation that the human realm is best for insight because of exposure to unpleasantness? Makes me think of the monk who attained while being consumed by a tigress!! >However, there are more opportunities for accumulations of kusala to arise, especially of dana and sila. For those who are fortunate to have heard about the benefit and development of samatha and vipassana, there are also opportunities for these to develop. The "those" you talk of are concepts. Who knows what exposures have occurred in the past and what accumulations are at work? > I still don't quite see what the question is. In an ultimate sense, animals, humans and realms are all concepts. There are only cittas, cetasikas and rupas. The last citta of this life (cuti citta) is followed by the first citta (patisandhi citta) of the next life. What kind of roots that vipaka citta will have (and thereby, how is 'designated'), depends on kamma. In some realms, there are no rupas, of course. But the question was prompted by a consideration of santati and paccaya. I think we should be free to discuss these matters without fear of the old atta- view summary dismissal of the kind one from time to time encounters on DSG. It is not a popular subject. You and Nina were the only ones brave/polite enough to give it any time!! Who said women weren't brave!!?? Thanks and best wishes Andrew #88010 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:49 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta corvus121 Hi Sukin It is very cold here and I am beginning to tire, so I will leave a full reply to your post till later. Just one thing before I go: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > The interest in `ultimate' reasoning does not have to be denying > conventional actions of which these realities are behind. The > interest in knowing what Dana is in ultimate terms is in fact an > encouragement to knowing dana by its characteristic whereby it be > then developed even more and which would no doubt involve the > conventional act over time. However, should we be happy with just > vague idea about dana based on a conventional description? What of > the chance of being mislead by the outer act and any unwholesome > dhammas into coming to a wrong conclusion about what in fact dana is? > > On the other hand, an interest in making a distinction between > wholesome and unwholesome dhammas, this does not have to be > translated as being an eagerness to `know' at the expense of a > potential wholesome course of conduct, but instead can be seen as an > instance of seeing the importance of *panna* and its role in leading > the way to the development of any and all wholesome dhammas…..? I do agree with the above. I find that studying Abhidhamma fosters humility, patience and tolerance. When we act in the conventional world and we have a basic understanding of the complexity of santati, we are less confident about proclaiming "our" goodness/depravity. We recognise a flaw in that way of thinking and its propensity to proliferate. Understanding does affect action ... wholesomely! Good night! Andrew #88011 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Each presently arisen state scottduncan2 Dear Andrew, Nina, I'm interested in: A: "...Yes, it *does* make sense to me - but there had to be thinking beyond a single mind moment to get there (as far as I could tell!)." Scott: What explains so-called experience of wholes - the 'thinking beyond a single mind moment'? In other words, when I, like Andrew, have the experience of something making sense to me, what is that? It can't be that I'm experiencing the moment - I seem to be experiencing a 'makes-sense-to-me' that seems to persist over time. What is the explanation for the process whereby certain apparently similar moments of consciousness, with similar objects, lead to the conventional experience of having reached an intellectual conclusion about something? How does the seeming coherence of thought come about? Sincerely, Scott. #88012 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta, Ch 9, no 2. egberdina Hi Jon, 2008/7/9 Jonothan Abbott : > Hi Herman > > I readily admit that I haven't really 'got' your line of thought on the > perceived anatta/kamma inconsistency. But then, I'm not aware that > you've sought to explain the reasoning behind your 'thesis', at least > not in terms that this simple mind can grasp ;-)) > As far as this simple mind understands it, there is no difference in your simple mind between action and inaction. > Also, I have not been convinced by you >> that your conception of a "stream of consciousness" is not an >> atta-view. >> > > I've tried to explain what I understand to be the the conception of > stream of consciousness assumed in the teachings. I'm not sure whether > what you are 'not convinced' about is my understanding of the teachings, > or the teachings themselves (as you read them). > I think it is useful to consider the difference that you allude to here, the teachings as they are understood, and the teachings themselves, how they really, truly are. Personally, after consideration, the idea of teachings themselves makes no sense at all. >> Therefore, I continue to believe that Right View cannot >> incorporate both anatta and kamma. >> > > Here I think you are saying there is an inconsistency within the > teachings themselves as between (a) the characteristic of anatta and (b) > the doctrine of kamma/vipaka (an inconsistency that has apparently gone > unnoticed by students of the teachings and academics for the past 2500 + > years ;-)). I regret to inform you that on occasion there are slight disagreements on this site about a number of issues. Perhaps you have not noticed it ?? > >> No need to go over it again, I am happy to leave it :-) > > Agreed. We can leave it there for now ;-)) That would be most welcome. Cheers Herman #88013 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:25 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/7/9 : > > Hi, Herman - > > The past is there all the time, and it cannot change. It only grows > with ongoing action. Because our unchangeable past conditions the > present, we have a predictable world. Conditions do not change much. > This is why you end up sleeping in the same bed every night, next to > the same wife, and you do not wake up in other worlds, speaking fluent > Magadhi :-) > ============================== > We see this particular matter very differently. I don't believe in any > past, and certainly not in one that "is there all the time." I believe that > there *were* prior events and they were conditions for current reality, and I > also believe that those prior events are now nonexistent. Do you not differentiate between anything that is experienced as being past or present? Cheers Herman #88014 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:38 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Concentration: Apparent Difference Between Sutta and Abhidhamma egberdina Hi Alex, > http://www.greatwesternvehicle.org/criticism/vangorkom.htm > ============================================================= > Am I missing something? > I remember describing the dsg treatment accorded to Jhanananda at the time he was corresponding with us here, as though he was a black Jew. As far as I could tell, he was no less human than the rest of us, but then again, black Jews are no less human either. Some seem to evoke hatred better than others. Of course, he was not the cause of the hatred he evoked. Cheers Herman #88015 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 7/10/2008 9:25:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/7/9 : > > Hi, Herman - > > The past is there all the time, and it cannot change. It only grows > with ongoing action. Because our unchangeable past conditions the > present, we have a predictable world. Conditions do not change much. > This is why you end up sleeping in the same bed every night, next to > the same wife, and you do not wake up in other worlds, speaking fluent > Magadhi :-) > ============================== > We see this particular matter very differently. I don't believe in any > past, and certainly not in one that "is there all the time." I believe that > there *were* prior events and they were conditions for current reality, and I > also believe that those prior events are now nonexistent. Do you not differentiate between anything that is experienced as being past or present? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I distinguish between what WAS experienced and what IS experienced. The latter no longer exists. -------------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman ========================== With metta, Howard #88016 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:38 am Subject: Re: Presentism & multiple temporality truth_aerator Hi Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 7/9/2008 8:51:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Hi Howard, Ken, and all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > Hi, Alex (and Ken) - > > > > In a message dated 7/9/2008 6:34:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > truth_aerator@ writes: > > > > Kamma & Kammavipaka cannot occur > > simulteneously. But neither can they be in two different >moments since KammaVipaka depends on Kamma, and Kammavipaka cannot > appear from non-> existent Kamma. > > ========================== > >P1) You cannot conceive of something arising without its "cause" > >being present. > > True. So you are saying the cause (which happens prior to effect) >is present, which I take to mean as "exists". > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm sorry, Alex. I wasn't clear. I meant that literally *you*, >not "one", cannot conceive of something arising without >its "cause" being present. You are implying that cause is unseen? Remember, cause is past, and the arising of effect is "present". As you've said somewhere, only the present exists, which would mean that cause "past" doesn't exist. So from a radical momentarist POV you can either see the "cause" or its "effect" but never both since they take 2 different moments. In presentist view, it appears that the "cause" or origin is something that does not exist any more and thus we can only speculate about it. So conditionality is at best an inference. To digress a little bit, I believe in conditionality, although I need to admit to myself that it is ultimately unprovable (long story, another post). > Howard: I,however, see no need for the causal conditions to be >present, and, in fact, they typically are not present. > ----------------------------------------------- If causal conditions "typically are not present" and you "see no need for the causal conditions to be present" - then you are implying that conditionality doesn't exist? >Alex: When "this" no longer exists, can it really be a >condition "for something arising at a time that "this" no longer >exists!" > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Yes, and in fact that's how things are. > ------------------------------------------------- I believe that conditionality does exist. > And the very language itself implies more than one moment >happening at the time. Present continuous forms, infinitives, verbs, >even nouns. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't follow this at all. > ----------------------------------------- Any action, any verb implies change of persistent dhamma. This change needs to span more than 1 mind moment. There simply cannot be change in a super discrete momentariness as nothing changes. The arisen dhammas are not the same as the 2nd moment dhammas and change which requires some persistence isn't applicable. Where did anicca go? > You can't have object + bare sense-input + perception process > happening in radical momentariness view without falling into some > sort of Nihilism. > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: >I have been an opponent of discrete momentarism for a long, long > >time. I simply don't have the same view of causality as you, I believe in conditionality. I have problems with radical impermanence view, a view. Change requires "persistence", and persistence implies that dhammas can last for more than 1 moment. To be honest with you, I don't think that either (presentism or tri- temporal view) can be directly verified with absolute certainty. However evidence is more toward things lasting more than 1 moment. >One thing, though, is certain as to my position: As far as I'm > concerned, nothing of past or possible future exists. For whom? 2008 for us is "now". For someone living in 400 BC, 2008 AD would be in a far future which according to your logic doesn't exist. For someone living in 400 BC, 400BC is "now" yet according to your logic "past doesn't exist". Time is relative to the observer, perhaps just like a location. Best wishes, Alex #88017 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Each presently arisen state nilovg Dear Scott, Op 10-jul-2008, om 14:27 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > What explains so-called experience of wholes - the 'thinking > beyond a single mind moment'? In other words, when I, like Andrew, > have the experience of something making sense to me, what is that? It > can't be that I'm experiencing the moment - I seem to be experiencing > a 'makes-sense-to-me' that seems to persist over time. What is the > explanation for the process whereby certain apparently similar moments > of consciousness, with similar objects, lead to the conventional > experience of having reached an intellectual conclusion about > something? How does the seeming coherence of thought come about? ------- N: Because of sa~n~naa we can follow a thread, for example, a Dhamma subject, and reach conclusions. We do this all the time. This involves many processes of cittas. The cittas perform their functions and the javanacittas arising in each of these many processes may be kusala cittas or akusala cittas. We listen and we have to consider what we hear, but pa~n~naa has to be developed more to know when kusala cittas arise and when akusala cittas which ponder over the Dhamma. There may be some doubt or impatience, or there may be patience and the right energy to understand more. When what we heard makes sense, that is, we can verify the Dhamma we heard, there is more understanding. Nina. #88018 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:19 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex (& Andrew), > .... > S: What is "doing Vipassana practice" if not an attempt at >controlling consciousness? > You are reifying conventional matter of speech "doing Vipassana practice" in order to refute it from your ultimate dhamma perspective. Conventionally speaking: "there is bare, uninvolved observation/sati of presently arising of nama-rupa without trying to control them." Even in so called "samatha" practice teaches: -> "The freedom to choose, the freedom to be in control of our affairs, is just a delusion. " - pg 27 "Let go of controlling. Don't do it your way, do it in the Buddha's way. Just watch the breath. We can watch the breath in this moment. That's all we need to do. It's just a case of having the right attitude of detachment. It's easy then to watch the breath. The success of years of meditation is a sign of how much you have detached from the world. If you can't meditate it's because there is some craving, some attachment there. " - pg 78 It can be very scary to get into deep meditations. Do you know the reason why? It's because `you' have to disappear before you get into them. You're letting go of you, or what you take to be you. That's why it's wonderful to be able to completely get rid of the person in here who is always calling the shots, always talking, always making the decisions. Just allow things to stop by themselves." - pg 144 "If you want to find out how much you are conditioned, how much you have been completely brainwashed, then develop deep meditations and have the courage to be shocked. Have the courage to let go of everything including your own ego and self. Have that degree of strength because only the strong get to Enlightenment." pg 162 - Simply this moment by Ajahn Brahm. #88019 From: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:19 am Subject: New file uploaded to dhammastudygroup dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dhammastudygroup group. File : /Simply_This_Moment.pdf Uploaded by : truth_aerator Description : Awesome Ajahn Brahm's monastic lectures about Dhamma, Meditation & Awakening You can access this file at the URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Simply_This_Moment.pdf To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit: http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles Regards, truth_aerator #88020 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Presentism & multiple temporality upasaka_howard Hi, Alex - In a message dated 7/10/2008 10:39:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Howard and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > Hi, Alex - > > In a message dated 7/9/2008 8:51:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > truth_aerator@... writes: > > Hi Howard, Ken, and all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > Hi, Alex (and Ken) - > > > > In a message dated 7/9/2008 6:34:25 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > > truth_aerator@ writes: > > > > Kamma & Kammavipaka cannot occur > > simulteneously. But neither can they be in two different >moments since KammaVipaka depends on Kamma, and Kammavipaka cannot > appear from non-> existent Kamma. > > ========================== > >P1) You cannot conceive of something arising without its "cause" > >being present. > > True. So you are saying the cause (which happens prior to effect) >is present, which I take to mean as "exists". > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm sorry, Alex. I wasn't clear. I meant that literally *you*, >not "one", cannot conceive of something arising without >its "cause" being present. You are implying that cause is unseen? Remember, cause is past, and the arising of effect is "present". As you've said somewhere, only the present exists, which would mean that cause "past" doesn't exist. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: That's right - past cause doesn't exist. As for "unseen," we're not omniscient. Something being a condition for something else doesn't require our being aware of it. ----------------------------------------------- So from a radical momentarist POV you can either see the "cause" or its "effect" but never both since they take 2 different moments. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: All experiencing is current. What we experience either is a current existent, something recalled, or something planned or imagined. And at any moment, there is but one object of consciousness, it seems to me. BTW, you talk of two different moments, which may be, though not necessarily be, the discrete packet view. That is not my perspective. So please don't assume that it is. ----------------------------------------------- In presentist view, it appears that the "cause" or origin is something that does not exist any more and thus we can only speculate about it. So conditionality is at best an inference. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is recollection and inference. When the mind is clear, attentive, and wise, I believe we can make use of these to "see" conditionality as it is. ------------------------------------------------ To digress a little bit, I believe in conditionality, although I need to admit to myself that it is ultimately unprovable (long story, another post). > Howard: I,however, see no need for the causal conditions to be >present, and, in fact, they typically are not present. > ----------------------------------------------- If causal conditions "typically are not present" and you "see no need for the causal conditions to be present" - then you are implying that conditionality doesn't exist? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: No. --------------------------------------------------- >Alex: When "this" no longer exists, can it really be a >condition "for something arising at a time that "this" no longer >exists!" > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Yes, and in fact that's how things are. > ------------------------------------------------- I believe that conditionality does exist. ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: As do I. That is, I believe that phenomena arise when and only when certain other phenomena, their requisite conditions, have arisen. I just do not believe that the conditions must be simultaneously present, and, in fact, they normally are not. ------------------------------------------------------- > And the very language itself implies more than one moment >happening at the time. Present continuous forms, infinitives, verbs, >even nouns. > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't follow this at all. > ----------------------------------------- Any action, any verb implies change of persistent dhamma. This change needs to span more than 1 mind moment. There simply cannot be change in a super discrete momentariness as nothing changes. ---------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with you. I don't subscribe to the discrete packet perspective. At any instant nothing happens - nothing changes, but, and this "but" is important, events are in the midst of occurring, and change is ongoing. So, for example, at any instant, there may be the experiencing of warmth, the feeling of it as pleasant, relatively little attention in effect, sleepiness in effect, attachment to the pleasant warmth, etc. Various activities are, at any instant, *underway*. ------------------------------------------- The arisen dhammas are not the same as the 2nd moment dhammas and change which requires some persistence isn't applicable. Where did anicca go? > You can't have object + bare sense-input + perception process > happening in radical momentariness view without falling into some > sort of Nihilism. > ------------------------------------------ > Howard: >I have been an opponent of discrete momentarism for a long, long > >time. I simply don't have the same view of causality as you, I believe in conditionality. I have problems with radical impermanence view, a view. Change requires "persistence", and persistence implies that dhammas can last for more than 1 moment. --------------------------------------------- Howard: If, by a "moment" you mean a single-point, zero-duration time period, I agree that dhammas last more than one moment. Actually, I think that Abhidhamma, especially as augmented by the commentaries, concedes that as well. Nothing happens in no time, but events can and are in progress at every instant. ------------------------------------------- To be honest with you, I don't think that either (presentism or tri- temporal view) can be directly verified with absolute certainty. However evidence is more toward things lasting more than 1 moment. --------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, but only the present instant is present! ;-) --------------------------------------------- >One thing, though, is certain as to my position: As far as I'm > concerned, nothing of past or possible future exists. For whom? 2008 for us is "now". For someone living in 400 BC, 2008 AD would be in a far future which according to your logic doesn't exist. For someone living in 400 BC, 400BC is "now" yet according to your logic "past doesn't exist". ------------------------------------------------ Howard: No one lives in 400 BCE. People *lived* in 400 BCE, but no one "lives" then. ----------------------------------------------- Time is relative to the observer, perhaps just like a location. --------------------------------------------- Howard: All past events, if truly passed, occurred and ceased, and do not now exist. What constitutes an event, however, is a matter of convention. The warmth I may be feeling right now can be spoken of as ongoing. The commentarial tradition speaks of a rupa going through three stages of arising, stasis, and decline. We identify the warmth at one instant as a continuation of remembered warmth. But whatever exists, exists only now, and it is not what we name it or conceive it to be, but is just as it is - i.e., it is such! ------------------------------------------ Best wishes, Alex ========================== With metta, Howard #88021 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity jonoabb Hi Andrew This post of yours to Sarah, referring to a question discussed by Rupert Gethin, caught my eye. > Hi Sarah > Thanks for this. Yes, there is more to the question arising from a > reading of Rupert Gethin's "The Foundations of Buddhism". He > explains why, during a human lifetime, there is not the momentary > arising of animal cittas followed by a reversion to human cittas and > so on. This he says is because cittas arise in "patterns". During a > human lifetime, dhammas only arise in a human pattern. Sounds fair > enough, doesn't it? Do you have a problem with this terminology? > I'm wondering what could be contemplated by the "momentary arising of animal cittas" in the case of a being born as a human. Would it involve also the momentary taking of the form of an animal? It sounds a little bizarre ;-)). The terminology of "patterns" used by Rupert Gethin is new to me. Did the author cite any references for the question or his answer? Jon #88022 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration: Apparent Difference Between Sutta and Abhidhamma jonoabb Hi Howard A few general thoughts to add to the comments already made by Nina and Sarah. > Hi, all - > > In Abhidhamma, concentration is considered a universal - present at all > times, accompanying every mind state. However, in the suttas there is > frequent mention of the *development* of concentration. What is always present > requires no development. How is this to be resolved? > In the suttas, references to 'concentration' (samadhi) are often to the concentration that is associated with samatha or vipassana in particular, that is to say, to the concentration that accompanies the kusala cittas that constitute those 2 kinds of bhavana. The reason why concentration comes up so much in the context of samatha or vipassana bhavana seems to be that concentration is a prominent feature of both at the higher levels of their development. For example, metta (which is one of the kinds of consciousness categorised as samatha) may arise occasionally (and spontaneously) in one's daily life. But there is no aspect of metta arising repeatedly, or having all beings as its object. This comes only when metta has been much further developed (building on the present occasional and spontaneous arisings). > Also, in several suttas it is pointed out that concentration leads to > calm. For example, in the Upanissa Sutta, concentration supports happiness, > which, in turn, supports calm. Also, in the Anguttara Nikaya, there is the > following chain of conditionality in which the last link also conditions the > first, making the chain actually a cycle, hence making concentration and calm > mutually dependent: > > Virtuous ways of conduct -> > Non-remorse -> > Gladness -> > Joy -> > Serenity -> > Happiness -> > Concentration of the mind -> > Knowledge and vision of things as they really are -> > Revulsion and dispassion -> > Knowledge and vision of liberation > I think this could be an instance example of what I have tried to explain above. The reference to samadhi here would, I think, be to kusala samadhi only, of the level accompanying mundane insight consciousness. > What other cetasikas are requisite for the arising of calm? > Concentration alone would be insufficient, else we would always be calm, given the claim > that concentration is a universal. Given concentration as a universal, it > becomes pointless to describe it as a condition for calm. What is always present > is of no concern. It is there, and nothing more need be said. > At certain stages of the development of insight (in the case of the sutta you refer to above) different factors assume greater prominence. This does not mean, however, that those same factors are not present at other times. Jon #88023 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Streams, identity & difference jonoabb Hi Alex > Hi Howard, Jon, Ken, and Andrew, > > ... > Some people appear to say that only paramattha ultimately exist. I > wanted to make sure that people don't start denying the differences > between one "trans-temporal aggregation of mental activities" and > another "trans-temporal aggregation of mental activities". > But the teaching about what is real in the ultimate sense at the present moment (i.e., the 5 khandhas, the 18 dhatus, etc) does not require or imply a denial of the concepts by which life as it is conventionally known is lived. The teaching about the present-moment reality helps there to be less wrong view about what really is what. Concepts are not taken as being real in the ultimate sense (but conceptualising does not stop). > If conditionality is just a "concept" that doesn't exist in ultimate > reality, then how do we distinguish that from an assertion > that "things just happen and it us, worldlings, who create > conditionalites and such relations." > Conditionality is not "just a concept". It is an aspect of dhammas, to be understood through the development of insight into the true nature of presently arising dhammas. Jon #88024 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:53 am Subject: Of Mice and Men (Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon (and Andrew) - In a message dated 7/10/2008 11:53:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Andrew This post of yours to Sarah, referring to a question discussed by Rupert Gethin, caught my eye. > Hi Sarah > Thanks for this. Yes, there is more to the question arising from a > reading of Rupert Gethin's "The Foundations of Buddhism". He > explains why, during a human lifetime, there is not the momentary > arising of animal cittas followed by a reversion to human cittas and > so on. This he says is because cittas arise in "patterns". During a > human lifetime, dhammas only arise in a human pattern. Sounds fair > enough, doesn't it? Do you have a problem with this terminology? > I'm wondering what could be contemplated by the "momentary arising of animal cittas" in the case of a being born as a human. Would it involve also the momentary taking of the form of an animal? It sounds a little bizarre ;-)). The terminology of "patterns" used by Rupert Gethin is new to me. Did the author cite any references for the question or his answer? Jon ================================== I don't know that there is such a hard & fast line between "animal cittas" and "human cittas". When raging lust or ferocious anger arise in a human, is that not "animalistic"? And when gentleness and compassion and kindness arise in various mammals, which they certainly do, is that not "humane" (or human-like, as humans are at their best)? With metta, Howard #88025 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:53 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Each presently arisen state jonoabb Hi Andrew > Hi all > > When the Buddha recommended that a person "see each presently arisen > state" [MN131], was the "present" he was referring to conventional or > ultimate? > > If ultimate, in the human realm, does that not mean vedana + sanna + > sankhara + vinnana + one seventeenth of rupa? > > ... because rupa lasts for 17 mind-moments. > You mean a kind of 'snapshot' view of a millisecond ;-)) ;-)) I think 'each' here must be understood in the sense of 'any'. Only 1 dhamma at a time can be the object of panna, as far as I know, and then it would not be just a single moment of that dhamma. Jon #88026 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concentration: Apparent Difference Between Sutta and Abhidhamma upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 7/10/2008 12:28:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard A few general thoughts to add to the comments already made by Nina and Sarah. > Hi, all - > > In Abhidhamma, concentration is considered a universal - present at all > times, accompanying every mind state. However, in the suttas there is > frequent mention of the *development* of concentration. What is always present > requires no development. How is this to be resolved? > In the suttas, references to 'concentration' (samadhi) are often to the concentration that is associated with samatha or vipassana in particular, that is to say, to the concentration that accompanies the kusala cittas that constitute those 2 kinds of bhavana. The reason why concentration comes up so much in the context of samatha or vipassana bhavana seems to be that concentration is a prominent feature of both at the higher levels of their development. For example, metta (which is one of the kinds of consciousness categorised as samatha) may arise occasionally (and spontaneously) in one's daily life. But there is no aspect of metta arising repeatedly, or having all beings as its object. This comes only when metta has been much further developed (building on the present occasional and spontaneous arisings). > Also, in several suttas it is pointed out that concentration leads to > calm. For example, in the Upanissa Sutta, concentration supports happiness, > which, in turn, supports calm. Also, in the Anguttara Nikaya, there is the > following chain of conditionality in which the last link also conditions the > first, making the chain actually a cycle, hence making concentration and calm > mutually dependent: > > Virtuous ways of conduct -> > Non-remorse -> > Gladness -> > Joy -> > Serenity -> > Happiness -> > Concentration of the mind -> > Knowledge and vision of things as they really are -> > Revulsion and dispassion -> > Knowledge and vision of liberation > I think this could be an instance example of what I have tried to explain above. The reference to samadhi here would, I think, be to kusala samadhi only, of the level accompanying mundane insight consciousness. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I would say that, yes, that is typically so. Concentration due to lust and aversion rarely conduces to calm, and calm rarely conduces to such akusala samdhi. -------------------------------------------- > What other cetasikas are requisite for the arising of calm? > Concentration alone would be insufficient, else we would always be calm, given the claim > that concentration is a universal. Given concentration as a universal, it > becomes pointless to describe it as a condition for calm. What is always present > is of no concern. It is there, and nothing more need be said. > At certain stages of the development of insight (in the case of the sutta you refer to above) different factors assume greater prominence. This does not mean, however, that those same factors are not present at other times. Jon ========================== With metta, Howard #88027 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:06 am Subject: Re: Of Mice and Men (Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity) jonoabb Hi Howard > I don't know that there is such a hard & fast line between "animal > cittas" and "human cittas". When raging lust or ferocious anger arise in a human, > is that not "animalistic"? And when gentleness and compassion and kindness > arise in various mammals, which they certainly do, is that not "humane" (or > human-like, as humans are at their best)? > Yes, kusala and akusala may arise in both, although not necessarily all forms of kusala in animals, I believe. But there certainly is a 'hard and fast line' between the rebirth consciousness of beings born into the human realm and beings born into the animal realm. So it depends on what the writer meant by "animal cittas" and "human cittas". Which is why I asked that ;-)) Jon #88028 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:46 am Subject: Re: Of Mice and Men (Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity) upasaka_howard Hi, Jon - In a message dated 7/10/2008 1:07:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jonabbott@... writes: Hi Howard > I don't know that there is such a hard & fast line between "animal > cittas" and "human cittas". When raging lust or ferocious anger arise in a human, > is that not "animalistic"? And when gentleness and compassion and kindness > arise in various mammals, which they certainly do, is that not "humane" (or > human-like, as humans are at their best)? > Yes, kusala and akusala may arise in both, although not necessarily all forms of kusala in animals, I believe. But there certainly is a 'hard and fast line' between the rebirth consciousness of beings born into the human realm and beings born into the animal realm. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, I agree with that, but as the song title goes and as frequently mentioned on DSG, that is but "one moment in time". ------------------------------------------ So it depends on what the writer meant by "animal cittas" and "human cittas". Which is why I asked that ;-)) ------------------------------------------ Howard: Ah, good. That's clear, Jon. ----------------------------------------- Jon ======================= With metta, Howard #88029 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:26 am Subject: Re: Q. Commentary (part 1)[dsg] Sangiitisutta Corner nilovg Dear Alex, Op 9-jul-2008, om 21:02 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > N: This reminds us not to just quickly read this over. If one does > > not realize that whatever arises, whatever experience, feeling, > > sound, colour arises, does so because there are conditions for its > > arising, one takes them for self and believes that one is the > > possessor of them. > > > A: How do we directly know that there are conditions that causes > unarisen experience to arise? Can we directly know conditionality at > all? > We definately can directly "know" seeing, hearing, smelling, > tasting, bodily feeling, & some most basic mental states. But can we > directly, without using inferences to see "conditions"? How do these > conditions look like? ------ N: Seeing needs conditions, without eyesense and without visible object or colour there could not be seeing. True, seeing and visible object can be directly known but understanding has to be developed more in being mindful of seeing and visible object when they appear one at a time. All kinds of nama and rupa which appear are objects of mindfulness and direct understanding. As you may know already, there are stages of insight, and the first stage is knowing nama as nama and rupa as rupa. The second stage is direct understanding of conditions for dhammas. I quote from Kh Suijn's Survey: This is not easy to understand. If there is anything I can clarify more, please ask. Nina. #88030 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/7/10 : > Hi, Herman - > > > Do you not differentiate between anything that is experienced as being > past or present? > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I distinguish between what WAS experienced and what IS experienced. The > latter no longer exists. > -------------------------------------------------- Sorry if I'm being too persistent (how is that even possible :-)), but 1] I assume that you actually mean that the former no longer exists? 2] If what WAS experienced no longer exists, how do you know about it now? Cheers Herman #88031 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 7/10/2008 5:43:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/7/10 : > Hi, Herman - > > > Do you not differentiate between anything that is experienced as being > past or present? > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I distinguish between what WAS experienced and what IS experienced. The > latter no longer exists. > -------------------------------------------------- Sorry if I'm being too persistent (how is that even possible :-)), but 1] I assume that you actually mean that the former no longer exists? --------------------------------------------- Howard: LOL! Yeah, thanks! (Or, ... perhaps I'm TOTALLY insane! ;-)) ---------------------------------------------- 2] If what WAS experienced no longer exists, how do you know about it now? --------------------------------------------- Howard: Uh, by memory. :-) The original experience, right then and there, conditioned the present recollection (in the presence of other current conditions that prompt the recollecting). -------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman ========================= With metta, Howard #88032 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:37 pm Subject: Re: Of Mice and Men (Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity) egberdina Hi Jon, 2008/7/11 Jonothan Abbott : > Hi Howard > > > But there certainly is a 'hard and fast line' between the rebirth > consciousness of beings born into the human realm and beings born into > the animal realm. > Are realms realities? Cheers Herman #88033 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:51 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta philofillet Hi Andrew Thanks for the below: > > Does this sound like someone who really believes her > understanding > > and that of her students is "feeble?" Doesn't reflection on the > above > > make you wonder what kind of overshooting it is leading you into? > > Rhetorical questions, Andrew. Just put the above out for > reflection... > > Hi Phil > While you're at it, maybe some reflection on undershooting might lead > to some balance? You could start by reading learned Buddhist authors > who value both the Abhidhamma "ultimate outlook" and the conventional > teachings of the suttas. > What do they see that you don't? Is what they see of value? > Think about it! Excellent advice! "Reflection on undershooting." I read this this morning, from Ajahn Chah: "We are beings who have come within the sphere of influence of the BUddha....we human beings are already of sufficient merit and resources...if we don't practise rightly, we will fall back to being animals or creatures in Hell or hungry ghosts..." THere is reason for great confidence in our approach to the dhamma. Based on the above for the time being I reject the oft-repeated line that we do not understand suttas because we were not born in the Buddha's time. We were born as human under the sphere of his influence. Good kamma was there, we can make more in the light of his teaching. (I just keep mentioning overshooting re AS because there is aversion towards the suggestion that there is not trying to control dhammas when one is told that one should be aware of realities in daily life, etc. Just as much trying to contol dhammas inherent in that idea as there is in sitting quietly and just watching whatever comes. I personally think overshooting is a good thing, and am sure AS and her students benefit from it...but out with the holier-than- thou-ery! :) > You could start by reading learned Buddhist authors > who value both the Abhidhamma "ultimate outlook" and the conventional > teachings of the suttas. > What do they see that you don't? Is what they see of value? Good suggestion. "Abhihamma in Daily Life" is not only an AS concept. THere is a Burmese sayadaw who has a book with that title too, I think, and a series of lectures available in audio by another sayadaw under that title. So it is valid Dhamma, I think. I like the Sayadaws who teach under the influence of Mahasi Sayadaw, though I think there is too much talk of going through the stages of insight one after another by following the meditation practice. (i.e overshooting.) But they are very, very diligent about dealing with akusala that arises, "healing the mind" as U. Pandita says through satipatthana. So perhaps it would be best for me to continue my re- reading of CMA and listening to the Sayadaws to appreciate Abhidhamma at this time since there is so much aversion to AS, for whatever reason. (I sometimes think that since there is so very little aversion arising in daily life now, it has to find an outlet and is all pouring on AS! I don't know why that is, but I guess it's a good sign that I can feel so passionately about Dhamma, as long as I don't speak in a harmful way about my feelings. Easier said than done. OK, thanks Andrew. Catch you later. Nice to see you posting so much, I'm sure everybody's happy. Now I just hope Mike comes back! Metta, Phil #88034 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:12 pm Subject: Re: Each presently arisen state philofillet Hi Andrew, Jon and all Wow, what an excellent question > > > > When the Buddha recommended that a person "see each presently arisen > > state" [MN131], was the "present" he was referring to conventional or > > ultimate? > > > > If ultimate, in the human realm, does that not mean vedana + sanna + > > sankhara + vinnana + one seventeenth of rupa? > > > > ... because rupa lasts for 17 mind-moments. Ph: Obviously the Buddha, being the Buddha, wouldn't recommmend to people of feeble understanding to try to see things in the ultimate sense you've laid out. Maybe there can be direct understanding of "presently arisen states" in the sense of ongoing mind states (moods etc) which would of course be conceptual...at times pondering re the ultimate. There is a sutta that talks about "pondering" on the Dhamma as one of the 4 ways the Dhamma is lived. This pondering is certainly valuable. But we cannot know the 17 mind-moments of rupa, we cannot "see" it, we can ponder on it only, I think. Metta, Phil p.s I came across the sutta you puote from the other day, "A Single Excellent Night" and when I saw that line "see each presently arisen state" I thought about how attractive it was, and how it could condition the overshooting we were talking about in the other thread. For me, "each presently arisen state" is "each lingering or non-lingering mental mood/proliferation of thinking" - that is how things are experienced for me, I think. Thought there is of course no saying a direct understanding in the ultimate sense is impossible. Just no interest in trying to have it now, which is best, I think. #88035 From: "Phil" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:40 pm Subject: Re: Each presently arisen state philofillet Hi again Thinking about what I wrote here: > For me, "each presently arisen state" is "each lingering or > non-lingering mental mood/proliferation of thinking" - that is how > things are experienced for me, I think. > Maybe the "honeyball sutta" (MN18) is helpful for getting at the way people of feeble understanding can really see presently arisen states. Maybe a "presently arisen state" can be understood as what is wrapped up here: "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye- conscoiusness arises. The meeting of these three is contact. With contact as condition, there is feeling. What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceieves, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates." Maybe this process, which of course goes on and on countless times of day produces "presently arisen states" that can actually be seen by us, something like that... Metta, Phil #88036 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:40 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: To Rob M..... kenhowardau Hi Andrew, You asked me to identify a presently arisen cetasika, and I said `phassa.' There are seven cetasikas (including phassa) that arise with every citta, aren't there? Therefore, any of those seven would have been a correct answer. Seems pretty straightforward to me! Ken H > > Is there a prize? :-) > > Hi KenH > > Sorry but the rules don't allow prize giving for "double speak". ;~( #88037 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 2:49 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Each presently arisen state upasaka_howard Hi, Phil (and Andrew & Jon) - In a message dated 7/10/2008 9:12:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, philco777@... writes: Hi Andrew, Jon and all Wow, what an excellent question > > > > When the Buddha recommended that a person "see each presently arisen > > state" [MN131], was the "present" he was referring to conventional or > > ultimate? > > > > If ultimate, in the human realm, does that not mean vedana + sanna + > > sankhara + vinnana + one seventeenth of rupa? > > > > ... because rupa lasts for 17 mind-moments. Ph: Obviously the Buddha, being the Buddha, wouldn't recommmend to people of feeble understanding to try to see things in the ultimate sense you've laid out. Maybe there can be direct understanding of "presently arisen states" in the sense of ongoing mind states (moods etc) which would of course be conceptual...at times pondering re the ultimate. There is a sutta that talks about "pondering" on the Dhamma as one of the 4 ways the Dhamma is lived. This pondering is certainly valuable. But we cannot know the 17 mind-moments of rupa, we cannot "see" it, we can ponder on it only, I think. Metta, Phil ================================== No state holds still for us to examine it, but what is experienced flows on unhaltingly and unrelentingly. There can be no holding of things in place while conceptualization or even wisdom says "This is such". But if we forget about naming and categorizing and pidgeon-holing, and simply stay present, what there is is seen,and when the stage is reached, it is seen clearly, wordlessly, and with full understanding. And when there is this direct and true seeing, the presentness and the experience are both "ultimate". That's my perspective on this. With metta, Howard #88038 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:16 pm Subject: Presentism & falsity of saying about presently arisen dhamma truth_aerator Hi Ken, Howard, and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > You asked me to identify a presently arisen cetasika, and I > said `phassa.' There are seven cetasikas (including phassa) that >arise with every citta, aren't there? Therefore, any of those seven >would have been a correct answer. > > Seems pretty straightforward to me! > Ken H You are cheating. Of course the 7 universal cetasikas are supposed to arise with any consciousness. Please name NON-universal cetasikas. Oh, and by the time you have said any word about any arisen cetasika, then it is already long gone and is being replaced by another one, so you can't be totally right. Another thing about Presentism. You can't name an exactly present presently arisen and existent citta or cetasika. The consequent act of perception isn't perceiving and object that has started the whole process since that dhamma is long gone and doesn't "exist" any more, not even in the "past". Best wishes, Alex #88039 From: "colette" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 3:24 pm Subject: One of my odd questions ksheri3 Hi Group, Does anybody know anything about: "Dorje Jigdze, the zenith of enlightened action." Obviously I'm into some heavy tantras and could use some help now & then. thanx. toodles, colette #88040 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 9:59 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Each presently arisen state corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Scott, > Op 10-jul-2008, om 14:27 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > > > What explains so-called experience of wholes - the 'thinking > > beyond a single mind moment'? In other words, when I, like Andrew, > > have the experience of something making sense to me, what is that? It > > can't be that I'm experiencing the moment - I seem to be experiencing > > a 'makes-sense-to-me' that seems to persist over time. What is the > > explanation for the process whereby certain apparently similar moments > > of consciousness, with similar objects, lead to the conventional > > experience of having reached an intellectual conclusion about > > something? How does the seeming coherence of thought come about? > ------- > N: Because of sa~n~naa we can follow a thread, for example, a Dhamma > subject, and reach conclusions. We do this all the time. This > involves many processes of cittas. The cittas perform their functions > and the javanacittas arising in each of these many processes may be > kusala cittas or akusala cittas. > We listen and we have to consider what we hear, but pa~n~naa has to > be developed more to know when kusala cittas arise and when akusala > cittas which ponder over the Dhamma. There may be some doubt or > impatience, or there may be patience and the right energy to > understand more. > When what we heard makes sense, that is, we can verify the Dhamma we > heard, there is more understanding. > Nina. Hello Nina & Scott Nina, your explanation makes sense to me but when I say things like "processes of cittas", someone like KenH will jump in and accuse me of postulating something beyond the five aggregates and being eternalistic. How should I reply to him? Perhaps KenH might like to join this thread? Regards Andrew #88041 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/7/11 : > Hi, Herman - > > 2] If what WAS experienced no longer exists, how do you know about it now? > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Uh, by memory. :-) The original experience, right then and there, > conditioned the present recollection (in the presence of other current conditions > that prompt the recollecting). I don't understand your line of reasoning, Howard. You deny that the past exists, but you say you can recollect it. How can you recollect what is not there? Cheers Herman #88042 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:08 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Andrew > > This post of yours to Sarah, referring to a question discussed by Rupert > Gethin, caught my eye. > > > Hi Sarah > > Thanks for this. Yes, there is more to the question arising from a > > reading of Rupert Gethin's "The Foundations of Buddhism". He > > explains why, during a human lifetime, there is not the momentary > > arising of animal cittas followed by a reversion to human cittas and > > so on. This he says is because cittas arise in "patterns". During a > > human lifetime, dhammas only arise in a human pattern. Sounds fair > > enough, doesn't it? Do you have a problem with this terminology? > > > > I'm wondering what could be contemplated by the "momentary arising of > animal cittas" in the case of a being born as a human. Would it involve > also the momentary taking of the form of an animal? It sounds a little > bizarre ;-)). > > The terminology of "patterns" used by Rupert Gethin is new to me. Did > the author cite any references for the question or his answer? Hi Jon Gethin's book is an introductory text and he does a very good job explaining some of the seemingly bizarre things in Dhamma to people who are brand new to the teachings. If I put it this way, it may help: what if a newcomer to Dhamma listened to your account of nama and rupa and "streams of consciousness" (a term you are happy to use in the right context) and asked you - "OK why don't I experience 17 moments of rupa in animal form followed by 17 moments of rupa in human form?" Also, is not the paccaya a study of patterns? I should add that Gethin does not dismiss the Abhidhamma - at the very least, it is the understanding of the first generation of Buddhists in his view. Regards Andrew #88043 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:14 pm Subject: Re: Each presently arisen state corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Andrew > > > Hi all > > > > When the Buddha recommended that a person "see each presently arisen > > state" [MN131], was the "present" he was referring to conventional or > > ultimate? > > > > If ultimate, in the human realm, does that not mean vedana + sanna + > > sankhara + vinnana + one seventeenth of rupa? > > > > ... because rupa lasts for 17 mind-moments. > > > > You mean a kind of 'snapshot' view of a millisecond ;-)) ;-)) > > I think 'each' here must be understood in the sense of 'any'. Only 1 > dhamma at a time can be the object of panna, as far as I know, and then > it would not be just a single moment of that dhamma. > > Jon Hi Jon By spreading understanding over multiple mind moments, do you not immediately make that understanding conventional? Can you explain what you mean by it not just being a single moment of a dhamma? Thanks Andrew #88044 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:28 pm Subject: Re: Each presently arisen state corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > Ph: Obviously the Buddha, being the Buddha, wouldn't recommmend to > people of feeble understanding to try to see things in the ultimate > sense you've laid out. Maybe there can be direct understanding > of "presently arisen states" in the sense of ongoing mind states > (moods etc) which would of course be conceptual...at times pondering > re the ultimate. There is a sutta that talks about "pondering" on > the Dhamma as one of the 4 ways the Dhamma is lived. This pondering > is certainly valuable. But we cannot know the 17 mind-moments of > rupa, we cannot "see" it, we can ponder on it only, I think. Yes, I agree. If there are moments of direct awareness of realities (I don't say there aren't), the conceptualising/proliferating process that I grasp at as "me" isn't aware of them. > p.s I came across the sutta you puote from the other day, "A > Single Excellent Night" and when I saw that line "see each presently > arisen state" I thought about how attractive it was, and how it > could condition the overshooting we were talking about in the other > thread. For me, "each presently arisen state" is "each lingering or > non-lingering mental mood/proliferation of thinking" - that is how > things are experienced for me, I think. Thought there is of course > no saying a direct understanding in the ultimate sense is > impossible. Just no interest in trying to have it now, which is > best, I think. True. I have always read Khun Sujin's references to the "natural" cultivation of panna as something similar i.e. completely separate from a greedy form of wanting "to have". "Thinking" is a 100% conventional term for me. It doesn't happen in a single mind moment. Whatever vitakka-vicara are, they are something completely different from "thinking" - although they no doubt play some part in that conventional process! Bye Andrew #88045 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: To Rob M..... corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > You asked me to identify a presently arisen cetasika, and I > said `phassa.' There are seven cetasikas (including phassa) that arise > with every citta, aren't there? Therefore, any of those seven would > have been a correct answer. > > Seems pretty straightforward to me! Hi KenH Dhamma is so deep and difficult to see, I am always a little wary of straightforward answers. With good cause, in this instance, I believe. You do not seem to me to be connecting with the issue. By "identify", I did not mean - type out a correct word answer. Are "you" able to be directly aware of a cetasika NOW (i.e. single mind moment, trillionth of a second)? Please skip this if it is too elementary. Regards Andrew #88046 From: "Andrew" Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 10:37 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Each presently arisen state corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > No state holds still for us to examine it, but what is experienced flows > on unhaltingly and unrelentingly. There can be no holding of things in place > while conceptualization or even wisdom says "This is such". But if we forget > about naming and categorizing and pidgeon-holing, and simply stay present, > what there is is seen,and when the stage is reached, it is seen clearly, > wordlessly, and with full understanding. And when there is this direct and true > seeing, the presentness and the experience are both "ultimate". That's my > perspective on this. Hi Howard OK, so what is the purpose of naming and categorizing and pigeon- holing? Why not just skip that (like in Zen)? Regards Andrew #88047 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 10, 2008 11:02 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Each presently arisen state nilovg Dear Andrew, Op 11-jul-2008, om 6:59 heeft Andrew het volgende geschreven: > Nina, your explanation makes sense to me but when I say things > like "processes of cittas", someone like KenH will jump in and accuse > me of postulating something beyond the five aggregates and being > eternalistic. How should I reply to him? Perhaps KenH might like to > join this thread? ------- N: Yeah, yeah, let him join in! What is your opinion? Nina. #88048 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: present moment. nilovg Dear Andrew, Ken H and all, Op 11-jul-2008, om 7:34 heeft Andrew het volgende geschreven: > Are "you" able to be directly aware of a cetasika NOW (i.e. single > mind moment, trillionth of a second)? ------ N: Each presently arisen state is mot a good translation. The Pali has: Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ, tattha tattha vipassati; which dhamma that is present, now here, now there , he penetrates with insight. The other translation seems like catching the present moment, impossible. I am careful with the word arisen. Realities appear, and that means they have arisen and fallen away already. But their characteristics can be known by pa~n~na. We do not have to count processes. Perhaps I should recap what was said about nimitta, the sign of a reality. < Kh Sujin said: visible object arises and falls away very quickly and the object that just arises vanishes so quickly that we do not know which one is the one that is appearing now. Only a nimitta of it remains. It seems that it lasts for a while. She used the simile of a stick of fire you turn around in a circle and it seems to be a circle of fire. (Ledi Sayadaw mentioned this also). Or it seems that there is one moment that hardness appears. In reality this is not so, there are many moments of hardness arising and falling away. We do not know which one is the present one. There is ruupa-nimitta, vedanaa- nimitta, sa~n~naa-nimitta, sa.nkhaara-nimitta and vi~n~naa.na- nimitta. Only nibbaana is without nimitta, it is animitta. I asked whether this means that one is aware of a concept of that reality. She said yes. But here we have to be carefull with the word concept. It is not in the sense of mind-construct such as a table or a person. It is of a different order, more subtle. We could use the word shadow of a reality. So, we can continue being aware of characteristitcs of dhammas, but now it is clearer that they fall away so fast. It helps to understand their anattaness. We cannot hold them for a moment. She often said: what appears has arisen. And this also means that what has arisen is gone already before we realize it. > Nina. #88049 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction sarahprocter... Hi Herman, Tep & all, I was interested in the following while we were away: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > And the same occurs in the following sutta then, Ud 4:5? How do you explain it? > > 5. Thus have I heard. On a certain occasion the Blessed One dwelt > at Kosambi in the Ghosita monastery. > > Now at that time the Blessed One was living surrounded by a crowd > of monks and nuns, of male and female lay disciples, of kings and > their ministers, as well as by heretical sects and their pupils, and > he suffered annoyance and discomfort. > > And this thought occurred to him: "Surrounded by a crowd of monks > and nuns, of male and female votaries, of kings and their ministers, > as well as by heretical sects and their pupils, I suffer annoyance and > discomfort. What if I were to live alone, remote from the crowd?" <....> .... S: I've just looked at the text and the commentary. In another translation (Woodward, PTS), it has: "....lived in discomfort, not at ease" for "dukkha.m na phaasu viharati". The commentary (referring to Masefield's translation, 4:5) explains that the Buddha was staying in Ghosita's Resort (Ghositaaraame). The Buddha, of course, remains 'untainted', but it's said "The Lord was staying crowded in" (Bhagavaa aaki.n.no viharati) on account of the 'congestion' of the 'disputatious Kosambikan monks'. Three days in a row the Buddha had exhorted them with: "For enmities are never in this world placated through enmity" and so on (Dhp 5) and recited the story of the Kosalan king Diighiiti (Vin i 342ff), summarised at Dhp-a i 56). It seems that they continued to dispute and the text says the Buddha concluded: "Of jaded heart, indeed, are these futile persons! It is not possible right now for me to draw (such things) to their attention. And (since) there be here none capable of having (things) brought to their attention (sa~n~napitabbaa), what now if I were to live the life of the solitary wanderer?" The text gives the following for "dukkha.m): "Ill at ease (dukkha.m): not at ease, meaning under conditions that were not desirable on account of their not being pleasing to the heart, for which same reason he said "Am staying...not comfortable". As the text earlier stressed, there was no 'congestion' taintedness for the Buddha because no one can approach the Buddha against his will or cause him any disturbance. However, the Buddha always seeks the well-being of others and through his great compassion and wisdom always knows what is the appropriate time and best way to assist others. The conditions were simply not conducive to the bhikkhus benefiting by his further presence and talk at the time. Any further comments? Metta, Sarah ======= #88050 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:27 am Subject: Re: Metta, Ch 9, no 2. kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Ken > > > When a sense object is experienced by panna there is no idea of "this > > is my vipaka" is there? No, there isn't. But there is the > > understanding that the presently arisen citta was conditioned by its > > immediately preceding citta, which in turn was conditioned by its > > immediately preceding citta, which in turn was conditioned by . . . > > . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . by its > > immediately preceding citta, which was an impulsive (kamma- > > productive) citta the fruit of which is being experienced right now!" > > > > The way I see it, developed panna could know, say, seeing consciousness > as being of a different jati than, say, the kusala or akusala cittas > that think about what has been experienced (it could know, in other > words, that seeing consciousness was not a kusala or akusala citta). > > > Corrections welcome! > > > > Likewise (just my thoughts). > > Hi Jon (and Andrew), I'm sorry, but I can't follow your train of thought. If I went back to Andrew's original question that would help, but I am working off- line and have only limited internet access. My computer is at the repairer's and I borrow this one when I can (and try to stay off- line). (It's a long story!) Weren't we trying to imagine how the concept of a continuity (or stream) of consciousness would translate into right understanding? I'm not sure how your answer fits the bill. But, as I said, I will be able to look into it more when I have my computer back. Ken H #88051 From: "S.Ganesh" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:37 am Subject: DETAILED METHOD OF PRACTICING THE PARAMIS behappy.metta DETAILED METHOD OF PRACTICING THE PARAMIS 1. Dana Parami Generosity is of 3 kinds - (a) gift of material objects ; (b) gift of harmlessness ; (c) gift of Dhamma. Gift of material objects is twofold - (a) internal objects, (b) external objects How a gift of external object is made : - offers whatever is necessary to the needy when he knows by himself that someone is in need of something , he gives it away even unasked. When giving gifts , he does so freely without any conditions. When there are sufficient objects to offer , he gives them to each recipient sufficiently. When there is not enough , he divides ( into equal portions ). - in making gifts , he does not give things that would cause harm to others such as arms , poisons and intoxicants , nor playthings which would cause negligence and playfulness. - to a sick recipient , he offers only what is suitable and in proper quantity and measure. - all gifts are appropriate - for householder what is good for householders , for bhikkhus what is appropriate to them , offerings done without causing trouble to those close to him such as his parents , kinsmen , relatives, friends, colleagues , etc. - having promised an excellent gift he does not give something inferior. He does not give , expecting gain , honour , fame or reward , nor does he give anticipating benefits such as good existence , health or prosperity, other than Omniscience. - he does not make his offerings , detesting the recipients or the gift materials, always giving with reverence , a serene mind and full compassion . His generosity is totally free of the belief that noisy acclamation is auspicious , but is associated with the staunch faith in the law of kamma and its fruits . - he makes his offerings without subjecting the recipients to the trouble of showing respect and humbleness to him , without any wish to deceive or to cause disunity ; he gives only with a mind of great unity. - whenever attachment to or craving for a particular object appears excessively in him because of its superior quality , or because of long , personal use , or because it is the nature of greed to crave , hanker after objects of value and excellence , the Bodhisatta is aware of this greed , quickly dispels it , and seeks a recipient until he finds one a gives him the same object . - suppose he is about to partake a meal which is just enough for one and someone presents himself and asks for it , under such circumstances , a Bodhisatta does not think twice to forgo his meal and offer it right away to the recipient respectfully. How a gift of internal objects is made - the Bodhisatta gives away his whole body, placing himself at the service of others , not desiring at all the pleasures of senses or a good existence , but wishing only the supreme welfare and happiness of beings and to bring to the highest state his fulfilment of the Perfection of Generosity. ( The gift of his whole body ). - he gives away without hesitation or wavering , his limbs and organs such as the hands , the feet , the eyes , etc. to anybody who is in need of them. - two objectives of giving are (i) to fulfill the wish of the recipient and let him enjoy whatever he needs and (ii) to gain mastery over the performance of meritorious deeds of perfections by giving away generously without the slightest attachment to the objects offered. He gives away, believing " I will certainly attain Omniscience through such generosity ". - in the acts of offering , he gives only what would be truly beneficial to the recipient . The Gift of harmlessness - by giving protection to beings and saving them even at the sacrifice of his own life when they are subject to harm and danger. The Gift of Dhamma - means unequivocal teaching of truth with a pure mind completely free from defilements of greed , hate , etc. - to Future Disciples of a Buddha who have a strong wholesome desire to realize Savaka Bodhi ( Enlightenment of a Disciple ) , the Bodhisatta gives discourses on taking refuge in the Triple Gem , morality , guarding the doors of sense faculties , moderation in eating , practice of wakefulness , the seven good dhammas , practicing concentration and insight meditation , the seven kinds of purification , the knowledge of the four Paths ( Magga nana ), 3 kinds of knowledge ( Vijja ), the six Higher knowledges ( Abhinnas ) the four Analytical knowledge ( Patsambhina Nana ) and the Enlightenment of a Disciple ( Savaka Bodhi ). In fulfilling the Perfection of Generosity , the Bodhisatta develops the perfection of impermanence with regard to his life and with regard to his possessions. He considers these possessions as belonging to others as well. He constantly and continuously develops great compassion towards beings. In developing such compassion , he is gathering essence of merit worth extracting from his wealth. Just like a person whose house is blazing removes himself and all his most valuable assets from the great mansion of three abodes , which are raging with eleven fires ( fires of passion , hate , bewilderment , birth , ageing , death , grief , lamentation , pain , distress and despair ) by giving them away generously without leaving anything behind. He does so without concern , without discrimination as to what is to be given away or what is to be kept for personal use. Suttanta classification of Dana into 10 kinds. 1. When a Bodhisatta gives material gifts , he makes an offering of alms-food with the wish : " Through this material gift , may I help beings achieve long life , beauty , happiness , strength , intelligence and attain the supreme fruit of Arahatship." 2. Offering of drink to assuage the thirst for sensual defilements of beings. 3. He makes an offering of garments to gain golden complexion and adornment of moral shame and moral dread ; of vehicles to become accomplished in various psychic powers and gain the bliss of Nibbana ; of perfumes to produce the sweet fragrance of incomparable morality ; of flowers and unguents to be endowed with splendour of Buddha qualities ; of seats to win the seat of Enlightenment under the Bodhi-tree ; of beds to acquire the " sleep of a Buddha which is entering into the Fourth Jhana according to the saying , ' Lying on the left is the sleep of the sensuous , lying on the right that of a lion ; lying with upturned face that of a peta ; entering into the Fourth Jhana is the sleep of a Buddha '" ; of dwelling places such as rest houses etc., to become a refuge of beings and of lamps to acquire the 5 eyes ( Buddha eye - complete intuition of anothers' inclinations , intentions , hopes , hankerings , will , dispositions , practivities , moral state ; Samanta Cakkhu - the Eye of All-round Knowledge , the eye of a being perfected in wisdom ; Dhamma cakkhu - The Eye of Truth , perception of the attainment of the first three Maggas which lead to the fourth and final Magga , Arahatship ; Dibba Cakkhu - the Eye of Supernormal Power ; the Deva-Eye of super serious perception , the ' clear ' sight of seer, all pervading and seeing all that proceeds in hidden worlds and Pasada Cakkhu, the physical eye ). <....> #88052 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 1:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity sarahprocter... Hi Andrew, You raise and question many interesting side-issues which I'd be glad to look at (perhaps as separate threads?), but would like to really understand the main issue here for now, which I still don't follow. I don't think my last post addressed it. At the end of your post, you wrote: A:> In some realms, there are no rupas, of course. But the question was prompted by a consideration of santati and paccaya. I think we should be free to discuss these matters without fear of the old atta- view summary dismissal of the kind one from time to time encounters on DSG. It is not a popular subject. ... S: What exactly is the issue? Let's forget the Gethin quote which doesn't seem relevant to any understanding of continuity of cittas and conditions. Let me raise a few questions which may help. 1. Do you see any difficulty in the 'traditional' explanations about the last citta of this life conditioning the first citta of the next life by contiguity condition (anantara paccaya), just like now? 2. Do you see any difficulty with the explanations about kamma conditioning vipaka cittas, including the patisandhi (rebirth consciousness), subsequent bhavanga cittas and cuti citta? 3. You refer to an 'atta-view summary dismissal'. Do you see any difficulty with these cittas and processes of cittas as being understood (intellectually at least) as anatta? 4. Do you see any difficulty with some rebirth-consciousness (as a result of kusala kamma) being associated with sobhana roots and being designated as 'happy' rebirth, whilst other rebirth-consciousness (as a result of akusala kamma) not being associated with sobhana roots and being designated as 'woeful' rebirth? 5: Can you summarise any other central issue to the question you raised? [As we proceed, I'll attempt (in passing) to clarify my understanding of other points you raise, but let's be sure we're on the same page with these points first as I'm not sure from Gethin's quote what his meaning was on this point. (Incidentally, we have a copy of his book "The Buddhist Path to Awakening" which contains some interesting material, but not the book you referred to.)] Metta, Sarah p.s I'm enjoying your discussion with Sukin. I think it's a useful one. ============ #88053 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Rob M..... egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/7/10 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman, > .... > S: I think the teachings are very, very subtle and we have to examine each word very >carefully. >Naturally, our usual vocabulary and the meanings we are used to attaching to such terms >such as 'calm' or 'moral shame' or 'concentration' all come with their own baggage. > Happily, the teachings are not about the meanings of words, but about the experiences that the words point to. It really makes no difference what sound or sequence of written characters is used to refer to experience. > To understand what particular wholesome qualities, such as samatha (calm) or hiri (moral shame) are, requires a development of undestanding of such qualities after having listened and considered in some detail. It seems to me that a quality is experienced first, understood later. Your statement above adds to my conviction that when you use words like samatha or hiri, you are not referring to experience, but only to other words. If you are unable to discern the samatha and hiri of the theories, why talk about them as though they are real? > H:> I get all sorts of alarm bells going off when someone tells me there > is a very special "true" X they know about. > .... > S: So when the "alarm bells" go off, what is the reality? What is the reality now? That's all that counts. When the alarm bells go off, the alarm bells go off. These words refer to a range of perceptions, feelings, intentions and the like. They do not refer to other words. If I were to be asking myself "what is the reality now?", that would be the reality. But I think it is an absurd question to ask, and would doubt that I would ever ask it of myself. I believe that anyone who perpetually asks and answers such a question, believing it to be all that counts, does not see the drawback in craving. Cheers Herman #88054 From: mlnease@... Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:14 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction m_nease Hi Sarah, Great stuff, thanks. > In another translation (Woodward, PTS), it has: > > "....lived in discomfort, not at ease" for "dukkha.m na > phaasu viharati". > > The commentary (referring to Masefield's translation, 4:5) > explains that the Buddha was staying in Ghosita's Resort > (Ghositaaraame). The Buddha, of course, remains > 'untainted', but it's said "The Lord was staying crowded > in" (Bhagavaa aaki.n.no viharati) on account of the > 'congestion' of the 'disputatious Kosambikan monks'. Three > days in a row the Buddha had exhorted them with: "For > enmities are never in this world placated through enmity" > and so on (Dhp 5) and recited the story of the Kosalan > king Diighiiti (Vin i 342ff), summarised at Dhp-a i 56). > It seems that they continued to dispute and the text says > the Buddha concluded: "Of jaded heart, indeed, are these > futile persons! It is not possible right now for me to > draw (such things) to their attention. And (since) there > be here none capable of having (things) brought to their > attention (sa~n~napitabbaa), what now if I were to live > the life of the solitary wanderer?" > > The text gives the following for "dukkha.m): > > "Ill at ease (dukkha.m): not at ease, meaning under > conditions that were not desirable on account of their > not being pleasing to the heart, for which same reason he > said "Am staying...not comfortable". > > As the text earlier stressed, there was no 'congestion' > taintedness for the Buddha because no one can approach > the Buddha against his will or cause him any disturbance. > However, the Buddha always seeks the well-being of others > and through his great compassion and wisdom always knows > what is the appropriate time and best way to assist > others. The conditions were simply not conducive to the > bhikkhus benefiting by his further presence and talk at > the time. This all makes sense to me. I think it might be worth adding that the discomfort experienced by the Buddha here was vipakka (not unlike his backaches for example), certainly not kamma or even kiriya. Always good to sort these things out I think. mike p.s. Phil, if you're 'listening', please excuse my late reply. I'll get back to you as soon as it's practical. #88055 From: "Andrew" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity corvus121 Hi Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: What exactly is the issue? Let's forget the Gethin quote which doesn't seem relevant to any understanding of continuity of cittas and conditions. I hope you haven't forgotten what it was like before you knew much about Buddhism? At first, all you probably knew was that Buddhists believe you can be a human in this life (i.e. all through this life) but after you die, you may be reborn as an animal (and you would then live a whole life as an animal). Gethin was explaining to newbies how this occurs such that, during this conventional lifetime, you don't suddenly drop in and out of human form (as a newbie might reasonably postulate given all this talk of momentariness and separateness). Gethin does a very good job IMHO. But anyway, you have some questions ... > Let me raise a few questions which may help. > > 1. Do you see any difficulty in the 'traditional' explanations about the last citta of this life conditioning the first citta of the next life by contiguity condition (anantara paccaya), just like now? No. I am also happy to see the various conditions/paccaya at work as "patterns" in the ordinary sense of that English word. > 2. Do you see any difficulty with the explanations about kamma conditioning vipaka cittas, including the patisandhi (rebirth consciousness), subsequent bhavanga cittas and cuti citta? No. I am also happy to see the various conditions/paccaya at work as "patterns" in the ordinary sense of that English word. > 3. You refer to an 'atta-view summary dismissal'. Do you see any difficulty with these cittas and processes of cittas as being understood (intellectually at least) as anatta? No. They are to be seen as anatta. But we can't stop talking there. We have to go on and discuss paccaya/patterns. > 4. Do you see any difficulty with some rebirth-consciousness (as a result of kusala kamma) being associated with sobhana roots and being designated as 'happy' rebirth, whilst other rebirth-consciousness (as a result of akusala kamma) not being associated with sobhana roots and being designated as 'woeful' rebirth? No. I think it is important to study these patterns. > 5: Can you summarise any other central issue to the question you raised? How patterns can be discerned and studied without falling victim to self-view. If this is not possible, all the writings on paccaya are to be heaped into a pile and burned. Fortunately IMHO it *is* possible. > p.s I'm enjoying your discussion with Sukin. I think it's a useful one. Yes, Sukin is a gem. I'll get back to him soon! Regards Andrew #88056 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:50 am Subject: Re: present moment. kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Andrew, Ken H and all, > Op 11-jul-2008, om 7:34 heeft Andrew het volgende geschreven: > > > Are "you" able to be directly aware of a cetasika NOW (i.e. single > > mind moment, trillionth of a second)? > ------ > N: Each presently arisen state is mot a good translation. The Pali has: > Paccuppannañca yo dhammaṃ, tattha tattha vipassati; > > which dhamma that is present, now here, now there , he penetrates > with insight. > The other translation seems like catching the present moment, > impossible. > I am careful with the word arisen. Realities appear, and that means > they have arisen and fallen away already. But their characteristics > can be known by pa~n~na. We do not have to count processes. > Perhaps I should recap what was said about nimitta, the sign of a > reality. > < Kh Sujin said: visible object arises and falls away very quickly > and the object that just arises vanishes so quickly that we do not > know which one is the one that is appearing now. Only a nimitta of it > remains. It seems that it lasts for a while. She used the simile of a > stick of fire you turn around in a circle and it seems to be a circle > of fire. (Ledi Sayadaw mentioned this also). Or it seems that there > is one moment that hardness appears. In reality this is not so, there > are many moments of hardness arising and falling away. We do not know > which one is the present one. There is ruupa-nimitta, vedanaa- > nimitta, sa~n~naa-nimitta, sa.nkhaara-nimitta and vi~n~naa.na- > nimitta. Only nibbaana is without nimitta, it is animitta. > I asked whether this means that one is aware of a concept of that > reality. She said yes. > But here we have to be carefull with the word concept. It is not in > the sense of mind-construct such as a table or a person. It is of a > different order, more subtle. We could use the word shadow of a > reality. So, we can continue being aware of characteristitcs of > dhammas, but now it is clearer that they fall away so fast. It helps > to understand their anattaness. We cannot hold them for a moment. > She often said: what appears has arisen. And this also means that > what has arisen is gone already before we realize it. > > Hi Nina and Andrew, I am sure the above explanation is true in every respect, but I always find it hard to follow. I think this is because I am not asking the right questions: I am happy to understand Abhidhamma in a more simplistic way. I am happy just to learn "[these] dhammas arise with [those] dhammas and this one performs [such and such] a function while that one performs [such and such] a function" etc. You will remember that I was struggling to keep up with the discussions in Thailand (especially on `the ultimate meaning of dana'). I think this was due to my simplistic approach. It also has me struggling to understand Andrew's questions. He assures me he is not looking for a self outside the presently arisen dhammas, but I like to remind him all the same - 'there are only dhammas!' :-) Ken H #88057 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddha taught meditation to Lay people: & Sutta formatin egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/7/10 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman & Alex, > > --- On Tue, 8/7/08, Alex wrote: > H:> According to the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism (2004), >>regarding the 1st Council: >> >> "... its historicity is questioned by virtually all Buddhist > >>scholars. >> They argue that while it was not unlikely that a small group of >> Buddha's intimate disciples gathered after his death, a council held >> in the grand style described in the scriptures is almost certainly a >> fiction." > ** > A: >Sure that 500 parts and other elaborations are either symbolic or > Fictional. > **** > S: It depends whether one prefers to accept the Macmillan Encyclopedia and modern scholars as authority on this or the ancient scriptures. What are the modern encyclopedias and scholars going to rely on, if not the ancient scriptures? An understanding of human nature, maybe? An understanding that the texts of the Pali Canon are the accounts of the Buddhist sangha, by the Buddhist sangha, for the Buddhist sangha, maybe? And an understanding that this Buddhist sangha was not a loose collection of people individually intent on cessation, but a social group very much intent on ha ha ha ha staying alive (with grateful acknowledgment to the Bee Gees :-)), maybe? And an understanding that this Buddhist sangha was in competition with other such groups for almsfood, maybe? Cheers Herman PS I always have to smile when Ananda is portayed as having recited his own deeds as "thus have I heard". #88058 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:37 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Each presently arisen state scottduncan2 Dear Nina, Thanks for the reply: N: Because of sa~n~naa we can follow a thread, for example, a Dhamma subject, and reach conclusions. We do this all the time. This involves many processes of cittas. The cittas perform their functions and the javanacittas arising in each of these many processes may be kusala cittas or akusala cittas..." Scott: I've discussed this with Sarah awhile ago too - santati and atta-sa~n~naa. Its clear that we're dealing with may processes of cittas. N: "...We listen and we have to consider what we hear, but pa~n~naa has to be developed more to know when kusala cittas arise and when akusala cittas which ponder over the Dhamma..." Scott: I imagine that pa~n~naa deals with the fleeting object of the moment. When I imagine this, that is thinking. Let's say that this thought - 'pa~n~naa deals with the fleeting object' - is true and is an accurate thought reflecting Dhamma. It is still a thought and not as thinking and so it is experienced as a 'whole' - the dhamma and thus not a direct experience 'by' pa~n~naa of paramattha dhamma. It is a shadow process, an echo. You suggest, possibly, that if the thought is conditioned by kusala citta at a point earlier in the process, then the thought can reflect kusala. It can be said conventionally to be 'right thinking' but this is technically reserved for the moment of kusala itself. Can you comment on this formulation? N: "...There may be some doubt or impatience, or there may be patience and the right energy to understand more. When what we heard makes sense, that is, we can verify the Dhamma we heard, there is more understanding." Scott: By 'verify', I think you are referring to the function of pa~n~naa in the moment. The link between the moment and the whole is interesting. Sa~n~naa allows the creation of a sense of 'following a thread'. Pa~n~naa knows the moment. Sincerely, Scott. #88059 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity scottduncan2 Dear Andrew, Regarding: A: "...How patterns can be discerned and studied without falling victim to self-view. If this is not possible, all the writings on paccaya are to be heaped into a pile and burned. Fortunately IMHO it *is* possible..." Scott: I like this and am looking forward to more discussion. I've pondered much on this and, for me, it is like 'the missing link' - how the moment relates to the 'pattern', as you put it. Sincerely, Scott. #88060 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 7/11/2008 1:00:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/7/11 : > Hi, Herman - > > 2] If what WAS experienced no longer exists, how do you know about it now? > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Uh, by memory. :-) The original experience, right then and there, > conditioned the present recollection (in the presence of other current conditions > that prompt the recollecting). I don't understand your line of reasoning, Howard. You deny that the past exists, but you say you can recollect it. How can you recollect what is not there? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: The recollecting of "it" is simply a current operation. I think your ontology is being led by your language use. When we say "It is raining," there is no "it" that is engaged in raining. When I imagine a unicorn, there is no unicorn. When I think about my grandfather, he is not present. When I recall my first day at kindergarten, the events that made it up are not present. ----------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman ======================= With metta, Howard #88061 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Each presently arisen state upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 7/11/2008 1:37:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, windtrax@... writes: Hi Howard OK, so what is the purpose of naming and categorizing and pigeon- holing? Why not just skip that (like in Zen)? Regards Andrew =============================== Until we are arahants, automatically acting with wisdom's efficiency, the naming and categorizing and pigeon-holing serves as a very(!) useful tool, for without it our "rebirth frequency" would be dazzling! ;-)) And even for arahants, conceptualization and its representation as speech is needed to communicate with others. With metta, Howard #88062 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:03 am Subject: How do we see currently nonexistent cetasika? truth_aerator Hi Andrew, Ken and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Are "you" able to be directly aware of a cetasika NOW (i.e. single > mind moment, trillionth of a second)? > > Please skip this if it is too elementary. > > Regards > Andrew This isn't elementary question. It is a question, that as I understand it, has bothered many scholars who came up with different Abhidhammas to explain it. The perception (such as sanna) + interpretation of it (7 javana moments or whatever it is called) comes AFTER the cetasika. So at least 2 dhammas are involved. That cetasika which arises and falls, + consequent cittas that apprehend it. Here is the problem with this as I see it. How can there be interpretation, seeing, understanding or "direct knowing" of a cetasika that no longer exists according to radical presentism?? Best wishes, Alex #88063 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:47 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How do we see currently nonexistent cetasika? upasaka_howard Hi, Alex (and Andrew & Ken) - In a message dated 7/11/2008 11:04:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Hi Andrew, Ken and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > > Are "you" able to be directly aware of a cetasika NOW (i.e. single > mind moment, trillionth of a second)? > > Please skip this if it is too elementary. > > Regards > Andrew This isn't elementary question. It is a question, that as I understand it, has bothered many scholars who came up with different Abhidhammas to explain it. The perception (such as sanna) + interpretation of it (7 javana moments or whatever it is called) comes AFTER the cetasika. So at least 2 dhammas are involved. That cetasika which arises and falls, + consequent cittas that apprehend it. Here is the problem with this as I see it. How can there be interpretation, seeing, understanding or "direct knowing" of a cetasika that no longer exists according to radical presentism?? Best wishes, Alex ====================================== Alex, I distinguish at least two sorts of knowing: 1) direct knowing of a material phenomenon (rupa) as an object, direct "participative knowing" of mental activities and qualities (namas), and indirect knowing of rupas and of namas by recollection and thinking. Participative knowing of a nama is not the knowing of it as an object, but is a direct, non-dual knowing of it while it occurs. While feeling warmth as pleasant, there is, in addition to the knowing of the warmth as object and the feeling of that warmth as pleasant, the wordless, participative awareness of that knowing and that feeling. While attention to the current object of consciousness is shaky/distracted, there is participative awareness of that distractedness while it is in effect. Consciousness (vi~n~nana) and its concomitant operations are various modes of knowing an object, and while they are knowing the object, they in turn are known, but participatively and not as objects. When I smell an odor and that evokes a recollection that immediately spurs a reaction, there is, during all this, not just the knowing of the odor and then the recalling of something and then the volitional impulse leading to reaction, but also the participative (i.e., non-subject/object) knowing of the smelling, the recalling, and the willing. And after the fact, we can know with a certainty, and not just by inference, that there had been that smelling, recalling, and willing underway, because of the prior participative experiencing. I base this not on reading someone to have taught it to be the case, but on my personal experience. This is the way I see things to be. I admit, of course, and I hasten to add, that I could be seeing falsely, or misinterpreting my experience. With metta, Howard P. S. I hypothesize that the knowing of nibbana is of the nature of what I am calling "participative knowing." #88064 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: present moment. nilovg Dear Ken H,= Op 11-jul-2008, om 12:50 heeft kenhowardau het volgende geschreven: > I am sure the above explanation is true in every respect, but I > always find it hard to follow. I think this is because I am not > asking the right questions: I am happy to understand Abhidhamma in a > more simplistic way. I am happy just to learn "[these] dhammas arise > with [those] dhammas and this one performs [such and such] a > function while that one performs [such and such] a function" etc. > > You will remember that I was struggling to keep up with the > discussions in Thailand (especially on `the ultimate meaning of > dana'). I think this was due to my simplistic approach. > > It also has me struggling to understand Andrew's questions. He > assures me he is not looking for a self outside the presently arisen > dhammas, but I like to remind him all the same - 'there are only > dhammas!' :-) ------ N: This reminder is always good. We have to learn (a long process) that whatever appears is only a dhamma, a conditioned dhamma. It appears, and that means that it has arisen, otherwise it could not appear. Whatever arises has conditions for its arising. Understanding this leads to detachment. I would like to emphasize characteristics that appear one at a time, through one of the six doors. That helps us to understand what the present reality is, something you also reminds us of all the time: there is only the present moment. Understanding what characteristics are, becoming more familiar with them, this helps us to see that the Dhamma we learn is not abstract, that it is to be applied now. A moment of generosity: it is just a dhamma with a characteristic that can be known when it appears. This leads to detachment from the idea of my generosity. It is a mere element. No more doubts about the meaning of dana in this way. A moment of generosity is dana. One may have a mental picture of being in a temple and performing dana, presenting food and robes. This is a situation. In the midst of that situation there can be mindfulness of a dhamma, such as generosity. It has no possessor. Nina. P.S. I hope your computer will be in order soon. It seems we need a new one every four years, otherwise data will suddenly get lost. #88065 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Each presently arisen state nilovg Dear Scott, Op 11-jul-2008, om 14:37 heeft Scott Duncan het volgende geschreven: > N: "...We listen and we have to consider what we hear, but pa~n~naa > has to be developed more to know when kusala cittas arise and when > akusala cittas which ponder over the Dhamma..." > > Scott: I imagine that pa~n~naa deals with the fleeting object of the > moment. ------- N: Pondering over the meaning of a sutta: the object has to be concepts and these are not the fleeting object of the moment. It is not wrong to think of concepts, it is necessary and helpful. And we may do so full of confidence, saddhaa, confidence in the benefit of the teachings. We think about the Abhidhamma, about Saariputta, the General of the Dhamma. ------- > S: When I imagine this, that is thinking. Let's say that this > thought - 'pa~n~naa deals with the fleeting object' - is true and is > an accurate thought reflecting Dhamma. It is still a thought and not > as thinking and so it is experienced as a 'whole' - the dhamma and > thus not a direct experience 'by' pa~n~naa of paramattha dhamma. -------- N: Thinking about the teachings is not a direct experience 'by' pa~n~naa of paramattha dhamma. Right. But if there were not considering and pondering over the teachings, by way of concepts, including names, how could there be direct awareness and understanding? Impossible. ------- > S: It > is a shadow process, an echo. You suggest, possibly, that if the > thought is conditioned by kusala citta at a point earlier in the > process, then the thought can reflect kusala. It can be said > conventionally to be 'right thinking' but this is technically reserved > for the moment of kusala itself. Can you comment on this formulation? -------- N: Right thinking accompanies kusala citta. Many such cittas may think of a sutta. The term shadow is used in another connection, that referring to a moment: seeing is the object of awareness but then it has fallen away and only a sign is there. ------- > > N: "...There may be some doubt or impatience, or there may be patience > and the right energy to understand more. When what we heard makes > sense, that is, we can verify the Dhamma we heard, there is more > understanding." -------- > > Scott: By 'verify', I think you are referring to the function of > pa~n~naa in the moment. The link between the moment and the whole is > interesting. Sa~n~naa allows the creation of a sense of 'following a > thread'. Pa~n~naa knows the moment. ------ N: Verify: it can be thinking: 'this makes sense, it can be experienced now.' Or: 'This is true: ayoniso manaasikaara is food for the hindrances'. The role of sa~n~naa: also the Pali and its meaning is remembered, by sa~n~naa. Pa~n~naa knows the moment: this refers to awareness and direct understanding of just one reality. But I was thinking now about considering the Dhamma we heard, long moments. Weighing it up. Also this considering is accompanied by pa~n~naa, but of another level. And of different degrees, sometimes it may be weak. Considering is necessary, but nobody can make cittas do this or that, now considering, then awareness. It depends on the moment. Nina. #88066 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/7/11 : > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The recollecting of "it" is simply a current operation. I think your > ontology is being led by your language use. > When we say "It is raining," there is no "it" that is engaged in > raining. When I imagine a unicorn, there is no unicorn. When I think about my > grandfather, he is not present. When I recall my first day at kindergarten, the > events that made it up are not present. > ----------------------------------------------- The difference between imagination and recollection is not semantical. People who lose the ability the ability to distinguish between their real past and their real imaginations are said to have "lost their mind". Neither is there anything semantical about the changes in brain structure that accompany the loss of one's past. Until we lose it, our past is with us all the time, and makes us who we are. When we lose it, we become rambling fools. Pa~n~na requires the past :-) Cheers Herman #88067 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Satisfaction & Dissatisfactio egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/7/11 sarahprocterabbott : > Hi Herman, Tep & all, > > > Any further comments? > I'd like to draw a parallel between the activities of the commentators and your own activities in relation to KS. You go to great lengths to preserve whatever she has said. You and others re-organise and expand and selectively highlight and expound on what she meant at every turn of the way. In a generation to come, people will chance upon the record you have preserved, and may or may not incorporate that into what they tell others. And so on, and so on. Perhaps in 1000 years time there will be discussions about what KS really taught. I do not think those discussions would shed any light on what KS really taught. Do you? Cheers Herman #88068 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:20 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 7/11/2008 6:56:13 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/7/11 : > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The recollecting of "it" is simply a current operation. I think your > ontology is being led by your language use. > When we say "It is raining," there is no "it" that is engaged in > raining. When I imagine a unicorn, there is no unicorn. When I think about my > grandfather, he is not present. When I recall my first day at kindergarten, the > events that made it up are not present. > ----------------------------------------------- The difference between imagination and recollection is not semantical. ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Of course it is not! In imagining one is thinking of what did not and does not exist (at least to one's knowledge). In recollecting, one is thinking of what (seems to have) actually occurred. They are alike only in the fact that they pertain to what does not currently exist. ------------------------------------------------------- People who lose the ability the ability to distinguish between their real past and their real imaginations are said to have "lost their mind". -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: True, and entirely irrelevant. ---------------------------------------------------- Neither is there anything semantical about the changes in brain structure that accompany the loss of one's past. Until we lose it, our past is with us all the time, and makes us who we are. When we lose it, we become rambling fools. Pa~n~na requires the past :-) ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: You are making points that have no bearing on the issue at hand, namely whether past events now exist. ----------------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman ============================= With metta, Howard #88069 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 4:24 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity egberdina Hi Andrew, 2008/7/11 Andrew : > Hi Sarah > I feel very refreshed by your open-minded approach. > > How patterns can be discerned and studied without falling victim to > self-view. If this is not possible, all the writings on paccaya are > to be heaped into a pile and burned. Fortunately IMHO it *is* > possible. > I do not want to derail where-ever this discussion may lead, but I think it may be worthwhile, first of all, to acknowledge THAT patterns are discerned, and that moments and elements are not. Cheers Herman #88070 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? truth_aerator Hi Howard, Herman and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: >You are making points that have no bearing on the issue at hand, >namely whether past events now exist. > ----------------------------------------------------- Past events exist in the past. Einstein's Law of Relativity which has been emperically and scientifically verified, has shown that time flows relative to each observer. There simply isn't any "absolute nowness." One absolute & universal moment of time for all observers is a fiction, it doesn't exist. Only relative frames of reference do. For someone living in 2009 AD, 2008 is past and long gone, no longer existing. Is 2008 past for us right now reading in 2008? No. Best wishes, Alex #88071 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 5:21 pm Subject: Re: A question on contiguity - What exactly is Now, how long does it last? truth_aerator Hi Herman and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: >but I think it may be worthwhile, first of all, to acknowledge THAT >patterns are discerned, and that moments and elements are not. > > Cheers > > > Herman You are right, patterns are discerned. One of the patterns is called conditionality, kamma-vipaka and so on. Patterns require a sort of persistence of a context over time, in fact they probably require persistents of contents over "units" of time. You can't have a process whose causes fall away, totally, while the process is happening. A "mind moment" by itself can't be discerned because act of perception + what is percieved lasts for more than 1 moment of zero duration. Thinking about this. In a radical Presentist view, is there even such thing as "the present moment, now?"! How long does it last? Any number that you give, it is possible to split it in 2 or 3 parts (ex: past, "present", future) and ask "which of these is really really now?". That now can be split again until we get to the unit of 0 duration. This "now" obviously can't exist, which would mean that we percieve the past which no longer exists, anywhere or at any time... Radical conclussion, isn't it? Best wishes, Alex #88072 From: "Andrew" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:32 pm Subject: Re: present moment. corvus121 Hi KenH (and Nina) Thanks KenH for your frankness in admitting that you simply do not follow what is being raised for discussion. Unless this changes one way or the other, there is probably no use in "discussing" further. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Nina and Andrew, > > I am sure the above explanation is true in every respect, but I > always find it hard to follow. I think this is because I am not > asking the right questions: I am happy to understand Abhidhamma in a > more simplistic way. I am happy just to learn "[these] dhammas arise > with [those] dhammas and this one performs [such and such] a > function while that one performs [such and such] a function" etc. KenH, when you learn these things, what are you learning? Can you give us a Pali term or two for that subject area within the canon? > You will remember that I was struggling to keep up with the > discussions in Thailand (especially on `the ultimate meaning of > dana'). I think this was due to my simplistic approach. > > It also has me struggling to understand Andrew's questions. He > assures me he is not looking for a self outside the presently arisen > dhammas, but I like to remind him all the same - 'there are only > dhammas!' :-) I'm sure your reminder is well meant and, indeed, useful. But not if it is ever accompanied with accusations of self-view. After all, when you learn about the arisings and functions of the different dhammas, can you be sure you are not looking for something outside the presently arisen dhammas? If so, why can't others? Regards Andrew #88073 From: "Andrew" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:55 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Duncan" wrote: > > Dear Andrew, > > Regarding: > > A: "...How patterns can be discerned and studied without falling > victim to self-view. If this is not possible, all the writings on > paccaya are > to be heaped into a pile and burned. Fortunately IMHO it *is* > possible..." > > Scott: I like this and am looking forward to more discussion. I've > pondered much on this and, for me, it is like 'the missing link' - how > the moment relates to the 'pattern', as you put it. Hi Scott Yes, it is the missing link for me, too. When I encounter reluctance to discuss it, I wonder whether: 1. the answer is not available; or 2. seeking the answer is not the true purpose of Abhidhamma for worldlings like me. You will note that I have been asking various people: what is the purpose of Abhidhamma study? To identify reality in the present moment? To reconstruct reality from an earlier present moment? To form the basis of conventional decision-making (will I meditate? will I go to the temple?)? I am forming my own views on this, of course, and may give them at a later time if developed to the point of usefulness. Sorry I can't be more helpful! regards Andrew #88074 From: "Andrew" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Each presently arisen state corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Andrew - > > In a message dated 7/11/2008 1:37:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > windtrax@... writes: > > Hi Howard > > OK, so what is the purpose of naming and categorizing and pigeon- > holing? Why not just skip that (like in Zen)? > > Regards > Andrew > > > =============================== > Until we are arahants, automatically acting with wisdom's efficiency, > the naming and categorizing and pigeon-holing serves as a very(!) useful tool, > for without it our "rebirth frequency" would be dazzling! ;-)) Hi Howard Sorry, but I am not getting your meaning here. How is it a very useful tool? regards Andrew #88075 From: "Andrew" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:02 pm Subject: Re: How do we see currently nonexistent cetasika? corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hi Andrew, Ken and all, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" > wrote: > > > > Are "you" able to be directly aware of a cetasika NOW (i.e. single > > mind moment, trillionth of a second)? > > > > Please skip this if it is too elementary. > > > > Regards > > Andrew > > > This isn't elementary question. It is a question, that as I > understand it, has bothered many scholars who came up with different > Abhidhammas to explain it. > > > The perception (such as sanna) + interpretation of it (7 javana > moments or whatever it is called) comes AFTER the cetasika. So at > least 2 dhammas are involved. That cetasika which arises and falls, > + consequent cittas that apprehend it. > > Here is the problem with this as I see it. How can there be > interpretation, seeing, understanding or "direct knowing" of a > cetasika that no longer exists according to radical presentism?? Hi Alex Let's assume that there *is* an answer to your question i.e. that someone can explain to you how there can be understanding of a present cetasika. How would this help you? What would you do with the answer? Regards Andrew #88076 From: "Andrew" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:05 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity corvus121 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi Andrew, > > 2008/7/11 Andrew : > > Hi Sarah > > > > I feel very refreshed by your open-minded approach. > > > > > How patterns can be discerned and studied without falling victim to > > self-view. If this is not possible, all the writings on paccaya are > > to be heaped into a pile and burned. Fortunately IMHO it *is* > > possible. > > > > I do not want to derail where-ever this discussion may lead, but I > think it may be worthwhile, first of all, to acknowledge THAT patterns > are discerned, and that moments and elements are not. Hi Herman My head is full at the moment. Can you please post-mark this issue for exploration if and when we ever get some form of consensus on the wider issue? Thanks! Andrew #88077 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:31 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A question on contiguity - What exactly is Now, how long does it last? egberdina Hi Andrew, 2008/7/12 Alex : > Hi Herman and all, > > > You are right, patterns are discerned. One of the patterns is called > conditionality, kamma-vipaka and so on. Patterns require a sort of > persistence of a context over time, in fact they probably require > persistents of contents over "units" of time. Yes, agreed. If all knowable properties, which includes the property of knowing, changed all at once, neither change nor regularity (patterns) would be discernible. > Thinking about this. In a radical Presentist view, is there even such > thing as "the present moment, now?"! How long does it last? Any > number that you give, it is possible to split it in 2 or 3 parts (ex: > past, "present", future) and ask "which of these is really really > now?". That now can be split again until we get to the unit of 0 > duration. This "now" obviously can't exist, which would mean that we > percieve the past which no longer exists, anywhere or at any time... > Radical conclussion, isn't it? As well as being a logical impossibility, the radical presentist view lacks any empirical content (it does not refer to the world of anicca which we all share). You have to wonder why we are trying to be reasonable with people who do no more than just assert and re-assert their definitions as being reality. Cheers Herman #88078 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 11, 2008 8:33 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A question on contiguity - What exactly is Now, how long does it last? egberdina Hi Alex and Andrew, 2008/7/12 Herman Hofman : > Hi Andrew, > > 2008/7/12 Alex : >> Hi Herman and all, >> That last greeting should have read Hi Alex. Have a nice day, the both of you :-) Cheers Herman #88079 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:58 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/7/12 : > Hi, Herman - > > Howard: > You are making points that have no bearing on the issue at hand, namely > whether past events now exist. > ----------------------------------------------------- I'm sorry if I have been talking at cross-purposes with you. We may have to get the semantics straight before we go any further. I take an event to have duration. That means an event in process spans across the past, present and future. I would take the life of a living person to be such an event. Only an event that has completed is totally in the past. It is no more. I would certainly agree with you, if that is what you were meaning, that such an event does not presently exist. I take the life of a deceased person to be an example of such an event. I would appreciate your input into the following, which I believe to be relevant to a number of discussions occuring at dsg at the present moment. How long is now? Personally, I side with a view that now, the present, is extended, it is today, and only loosely so (by which I mean there is no need to define it further). I like the following two translations of sections of MN131 (I've included two, because some people react very poorly to TB. No, it's not tuberculosis, but a bhikkhu :-)) Let one not trace back the past Or yearn for the future-yet-to-come. That which is past is left behind Unattained is the "yet-to-come." But that which is present he discerns — With insight as and when it comes. The Immovable — the-non-irritable. In that state should the wise one grow Today itself should one bestir Tomorrow death may come — who knows? or You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the future. What is past is left behind. The future is as yet unreached. Whatever quality is present you clearly see right there, right there. Not taken in, unshaken, that's how you develop the heart. Ardently doing what should be done today, for — who knows? — tomorrow death. Cheers Herman #88080 From: "Christine Forsyth" Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:28 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? christine_fo... Hello Herman, all, And yet another translation .... this one from Bhikkhu Bodhi: 3. "Let not a person revive the past Or on the future build his hopes, [1211] For the past has been left behind And the future has not been reached. Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state; [1212] Let him know that and be sure of it, Invincibly, unshakeably. [1213] Today the effort must be made; Tomorrow Death may come, who knows? No bargain with Mortality Can keep him and his hordes away, But one who dwells thus ardently, Relentlessly, by day, by night - It is he,the Peaceful Sage has said, [1214] Who has had a single excellent night. 1211: More literally the first two lines would be translated: "Let not a person run back to the past or live in expectation of the future". The meaning will elucidated in the expository passage of the sutta. 1212: MA: He should contemplate each presently arisen state, just where it has arisen, with insight into its impermanence, etc. 1213: Asa.mhaara.m asankuippa.m. MA exsplains that this is said for the purpose of showing insight and repeated insight; for insight is "invincible,unshakeable" because it is not vanquished or shaken by lust aned other defilements. Elsewhere the expression "the invincible, the unshakeable" is used as a description of Nibbaana (e.g. Snv.1149) or of the liberated mind (e.g. Thag v.649) but here it seems to refer to a stage in the development of insight. The recurrence of the verb form sa.mhiirati in #8 and #9 suggests that the intended meaning is contemplation of the present moment without being misled into the adoption of a personality view. 1214: The "Peaceful Sage" (santo muni) is the Buddha. metta Chris ---The trouble is that you think you have time--- #88081 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? egberdina Hi Christine, 2008/7/12 Christine Forsyth : > > 1211: More literally the first two lines would be translated: "Let > not a person run back to the past or live in expectation of the > future". The meaning will elucidated in the expository passage of > the sutta. > 1212: MA: He should contemplate each presently arisen state, just > where it has arisen, with insight into its impermanence, etc. In our family we call our mother ma. She might well say we should do this and that, from time to time. Which MA are you quoting, and by quoting her, do you mean you agree with her? Cheers Herman #88082 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 2:30 am Subject: Re: [dsg] missing link:A question on contiguity nilovg Dear Andrew and Scott, Op 12-jul-2008, om 3:55 heeft Andrew het volgende geschreven: > A: "...How patterns can be discerned and studied without falling > > victim to self-view. If this is not possible, all the writings on > > paccaya are > > to be heaped into a pile and burned. Fortunately IMHO it *is* > > possible..." > > > > Scott: I like this and am looking forward to more discussion. I've > > pondered much on this and, for me, it is like 'the missing link' > - how > > the moment relates to the 'pattern', as you put it. > --------- N: I understand your dilemma. An example may help. Kamma conditions vipaakacitta and we may ponder about it but not know this directly. However, seeing is vipakacitta and the fact of its being conditioned can be directly known, without thinking about it, when insight has been developed more. Just now one may not know directly what nama is as different from rupa, but this is realized at the first stage of insight. No need to think about it. Kh Sujin explained that at each stage of insight there is understanding of kamma and vipaaka, kammassakata ~naa.na. At the second stage it is known more clearly that this naama that appears is result, but there is no need to name it vipaaka or to think about it. Thus, the answer is the development of insight that directly knows realities without thinking or naming them. That is the missing link. Meanwhile one should not try to know what only developed insight can understand, that makes life needlessly complicated. What can be understood now, at this moment, which characteristic is appearing? This is what should be "studied " with mindfulness. Nina. #88083 From: "Andrew" Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] missing link:A question on contiguity corvus121 Hello Nina (and Scott) I understood and liked your answer until I got to the last 2 sentences: > What can be > understood now, at this moment, which characteristic is appearing? > This is what should be "studied " with mindfulness. These sentences confused me because I thought we had just agreed that panna was yet too weak to "catch the moment". There is no control over mindfulness in the sense that it is conditioned. So, am I correct in concluding that what you refer to as *mindfulness studying which characteristic is appearing at this moment* is a conventional process involving thinking? As all thinking is conceptually focussed, we are not talking about satipatthana here. So the missing link remains: how does a pattern of thinking lead to a moment of satipatthana? Best wishes Andrew #88084 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? sarahprocter... Hi Chris, --- On Sat, 12/7/08, Christine Forsyth wrote: And yet another translation .... this one from Bhikkhu Bodhi: 3. "Let not a person revive the past Or on the future build his hopes, [1211] For the past has been left behind And the future has not been reached. <....> .... S: Lovely surprise to hear from you! Actually, I'd just been thinking of you over the last couple of days when I saw the discussions on the Bhaddekeratta Sutta. It always reminds me of you, remembering how much you appreciate it. I hope you, Sarah F and Luke are all well. My best regards to them too. Also your mother and brother who were having health problems before - wishing them well too. Metta, Sarah ======== #88085 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew (and Scott) - Patterns relate directly to what I have been calling "aggregations." The features of an aggregation are that 1) it is a collection, 2) the elements of the collection are harmoniously interrelated, often in intricate patterns, and 3) the those elements that are operations among act in concert. The interrelatedness and acting in concert create the illusion of a single, in-dividual (hyphenation intentional) entity, with self/own-being. The fact, however, that the aggregation is a mere collection of phenomena and that its elements act in concert only when *appropriately* combined can, when attended to, dispel the illusion of self and entity. That is exactly the point of the chariot metaphor. Though dangerous and a source of self-view, our perception of aggregations is the means for our ready grasping of relations and patterns, and is thus quite useful. Moreover, and I think this is very important, without awareness of patterns, we are less knowledgeable about the nature of reality. Patterns of interrelationship are central to the way things are and central to the Dhamma. Moreover, much of what we call "beauty" is due to pattern. Think for example of the pattern mode called "branching": It is beautiful to behold, and far flung, being found in trees, in feathers, in rivers & streams, in our system of arteries, veins, and blood vessels, and in the organization and development of a multitude of complex systems, including the schools and subschools of Buddhism. With metta, Howard #88086 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Each presently arisen state upasaka_howard Hi, Andrew - In a message dated 7/11/2008 9:58:18 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, windtrax@... writes: > Until we are arahants, automatically acting with wisdom's efficiency, > the naming and categorizing and pigeon-holing serves as a very(!) useful tool, > for without it our "rebirth frequency" would be dazzling! ;-)) Hi Howard Sorry, but I am not getting your meaning here. How is it a very useful tool? regards Andrew ============================== Sorry. I was being too just damn "clever" in having put the matter as What I meant was that without conceptualization, we wouldn't live for hardly any time at all! We would take no care in where we walked, we wouldn't eat or drink - in fact, we wouldn't consciously function at all. We would be like what William James called a "sessile sea anemone," but without its survival capacity. If we kept on coming back as human, we'd have a rebirth a minute, because it would take very little time for us to die! That's what I meant by our "rebirth frequency" being dazzling. Conceptualization is a survival tool. With metta, Howard #88087 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Does continuity exist? Is is continuous or discrete? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 7/12/2008 4:04:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/7/12 : > Hi, Herman - > > Howard: > You are making points that have no bearing on the issue at hand, namely > whether past events now exist. > ----------------------------------------------------- I'm sorry if I have been talking at cross-purposes with you. We may have to get the semantics straight before we go any further. I take an event to have duration. That means an event in process spans across the past, present and future. I would take the life of a living person to be such an event. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I see this the same as you, though I hasten to add that what is taken to constitute an event is a matter, at least in part, of convention. Any instant during the feeling of warmth, when it is "this instant" is the present moment, and there is no time but it. At that instant, warmth is being felt. But that instant cannot be isolated. It is an instant within a continuum (known by recollection), and this instant, like all others, is one that has no duration, one at which nothing happens but is also one at which many things are happening, i.e., are in progress. Yet that instant is all there is! Speech and concept fail in the face of dynamic reality. ------------------------------------------------ Only an event that has completed is totally in the past. It is no more. I would certainly agree with you, if that is what you were meaning, that such an event does not presently exist. I take the life of a deceased person to be an example of such an event. ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. -------------------------------------------------- I would appreciate your input into the following, which I believe to be relevant to a number of discussions occuring at dsg at the present moment. How long is now? --------------------------------------------------- Howard: There are differing psychological sense of 'now'. Generally, it is a fuzzy, mind-constructed temporal interval. And often that is my meaning for 'now'. But in the context of this discussion of "ultimates," I take the duration of "now" to be zero. ----------------------------------------------------- Personally, I side with a view that now, the present, is extended, it is today, and only loosely so (by which I mean there is no need to define it further). I like the following two translations of sections of MN131 (I've included two, because some people react very poorly to TB. No, it's not tuberculosis, but a bhikkhu :-)) Let one not trace back the past Or yearn for the future-yet-to-come. That which is past is left behind Unattained is the "yet-to-come." But that which is present he discerns — With insight as and when it comes. The Immovable — the-non-irritable. In that state should the wise one grow Today itself should one bestir Tomorrow death may come — who knows? or You shouldn't chase after the past or place expectations on the future. What is past is left behind. The future is as yet unreached. Whatever quality is present you clearly see right there, right there. Not taken in, unshaken, that's how you develop the heart. Ardently doing what should be done today, for — who knows? — tomorrow death. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Nice! Both of these. :-) --------------------------------------------------- Cheers Herman ========================== With metta, Howard #88088 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:47 am Subject: TYPO Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity upasaka_howard Hi, all - In a message dated 7/12/2008 8:09:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Patterns relate directly to what I have been calling "aggregations." The features of an aggregation are that 1) it is a collection, 2) the elements of the collection are harmoniously interrelated, often in intricate patterns, and 3) the those elements that are operations among act in concert. The interrelatedness and acting in concert create the illusion of a single, in-dividual (hyphenation intentional) entity, with self/own-being. The ================================ Item 3) got all messed up. It should be as follows: "3) those elements among the members of the collection that are operations act in concert." With metta, Howard #88089 From: "Alex" Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 8:09 am Subject: Re: How do we see currently nonexistent cetasika? truth_aerator Hi Andrew, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew" wrote: > Hi Alex > > Let's assume that there *is* an answer to your question i.e. that > someone can explain to you how there can be understanding of a > present cetasika. > > How would this help you? What would you do with the answer? > > Regards > Andrew Now that is one of the best, pragmatic, answers that I've heard here. You are right that the value of knowing this is questionable. But you know, the tendency to speculate is strong... Best wishes, Alex #88090 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 11:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] missing link:A question on contiguity nilovg Dear Andrew, a helpful question. I try to answer. Op 12-jul-2008, om 12:18 heeft Andrew het volgende geschreven: > What can be > > understood now, at this moment, which characteristic is appearing? > > This is what should be "studied " with mindfulness. > > These sentences confused me because I thought we had just agreed that > panna was yet too weak to "catch the moment". There is no control > over mindfulness in the sense that it is conditioned. So, am I > correct in concluding that what you refer to as *mindfulness studying > which characteristic is appearing at this moment* is a conventional > process involving thinking? As all thinking is conceptually > focussed, we are not talking about satipatthana here. > ------- N: I am not referring to a a conventional process of thinking. Mindfulness is conditioned: you heard about seeing which is different from defining and recognizing what you see. When your eyes are open you may believe that you notice persons and things all the time, but in between there are also moments that you do not think but just see visible object, just what impinges on the eyesense. When this is well understood intellectually, there are conditions for 'studying' with mindfulness whatever appears at the present moment. When walking on the street you will pay attention to step carefully, so that you do not stumble over some holes or bricks. But you will not think all the time of street, hole or feet. Sometimes hardness may appear without trying to make it appear, and then hardness, a dhamma, can be "studied " with mindfulness, or a beginning mindfulness, no thinking of stories about your walking. Study, no precise understanding yet of nama as nama and rupa as rupa. It is not helpful to wonder: is this a pattern of thinking or direct awareness, and nobody else will be able to tell you. As Ken said: there is only the present moment to be known. ----- A: So the missing link remains: how does a pattern of thinking lead to a moment of satipatthana? ------- N: Correct understanding of what awareness is, and what the object of awareness will lead to a moment of satipatthana. You understand already that awareness is a conditioned dhamma and that it cannot be made to occur at will. No missing link then. What hinders study with awareness now and then? But no expectations. As Ken said: there are only dhammas. Nina. #88091 From: "m. nease" Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 1:18 pm Subject: To Phil m_nease Hi Phil, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Phil" wrote: > Hi Mike > > I'm feeling concerned because you've gone missing since my last > post and I was afraid that the horrible prospect of the below. > p.s at some point, Mike, maybe in the fall when I have more time > I'd like to discuss with you about why you came to distrust > meditation (i.e. choosing or being assigned a primary object of > meditation and pursuing it with ongoing, diligent effort) I've never come to distrust bhaavanaa (if that's what you meant by "meditation" as described in the texts, most specifically in the Visuddhimaggha--assuming the pertinent impediments* have been overcome. > ...could cause you to have become fed-up. I actually meant that I > thought you would be one of the only people who could convince me, Thanks for the implicit complement. > not that I wanted to try to sway you. > > In any case, I hope my usual over-the-top ranting didn't have > anything to do with your current absence. The way I see it, your kamma (and its results) in posting to the list is yours and mine are mine--the same for everyone else, of course. When I find something unpleasant on the list, I see that as my vipakka (all of this speaking conventionally of course). Then my reaction is again my kamma with its attendant results and so on. > I will be shutting up, > pretty much, this summer... I expect I'll be keeping my comments restricted to my understanding of the texts and how they relate to everyday life from now on. Thanks again for the friendly note. mike *Vism Ch. III par. 27 to Ch. IV par. 20 sets out the matters that are preparatory to the development of samatha as discussed in the sections that follow dealing with the different kammatthaana. These matters are: a/ Severing the 10 impediments (a dwelling, family, gain, class, buildings, travel, kin, affliction, books and supernormal powers) b/ Approaching the good friend, the giver of the kammatthaana c/ Choosing a kammatthaana suitable to his own temperament d/ Choosing an appropriate monastery (having regard to the 18 possible faults of a monastery) e/ Severing the lesser impediments http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/72313 #88092 From: "Phil" Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 4:19 pm Subject: Re: To Phil philofillet Hi Mike Yes, thanks for the reminder on the below impediments. I think they provide a much more relevant soberizer to expecting too much out of meditation (as understood as it's taught in vism, i.e choosing or having assigned a meditation object to pursue - kammatthana, I see here) than do the concerns about self-view involved etc which I have never seen mentionned anywhere except at DSG (i.e the idea that there must be a kind of ariyanesque detachment/inisght into anatta before meditation can be fruitful, which pretty clearly is putting the cart before the horse etc.) In my opinion AS would remain more faithful to the texts if she concentrated more on reminding people of the below impediments and less on telling them to have ariyanesque detachment. (Sorry for the obligatory gripe...) Metta, Phil > *Vism Ch. III par. 27 to Ch. IV par. 20 sets out the matters that are > preparatory to the development of samatha as discussed in the sections > that follow dealing with the different kammatthaana. > These matters are: > a/ Severing the 10 impediments (a dwelling, family, gain, class, buildings, travel, kin, affliction, books and supernormal powers) > b/ Approaching the good friend, the giver of the kammatthaana > c/ Choosing a kammatthaana suitable to his own temperament > d/ Choosing an appropriate monastery (having regard to the 18 possible faults of a monastery) > e/ Severing the lesser impediments #88093 From: "connie" Date: Sat Jul 12, 2008 5:17 pm Subject: To Phil nichiconn Thanks, mike, I liked your phrasing better than my (retrieved from trash) < When the world's bitchy to me, that's how I see it. It's not what i call choice. Whatever's of me in there, to that extent i find myself disagreeable. Does it "matter"? > > I will be shutting up, > pretty much, this summer... I expect I'll be keeping my comments restricted to my understanding of the texts and how they relate to everyday life from now on. c: not to put words in your mouth, but they put a smile on mine: pp110-111 Expositor: Risings of Consciousness - The Door of a Bodily Action To expand: When a thought, 'I will move forward or step back' occurs, it sets up bodily qualities (born of mind). Now there are eight groups of these bodily qualities: the four primaries: extension, cohesion, heat, mobility, and four depending on these: colour, odour, taste, nutritive essence (ojaa). Among these, mobility strengthens, supports, agitates, moves forward or backward the coexisting physical body. Now in a cognitive process of simple 'adverting' (of attention), when the seven moments of apperception (javana) are set up, the first six cause to arise only such [83] mobility as can stregthen and support the coexisting body, but cannot move it. In consequence, however, of this work of the first six moments, the seventh moment sets up mobility able both to move the body forward and backward and to cause the act of looking straight ahead or obliquely, of bending and extending the limbs. Hence there results an act of going or coming or both; (by repetition more than a thousand times) it enables us to say that a man 'has gone a yojana, gone as far as ten yojanas.' As when a cart is drawn by seven yokes, the bullocks at the first yoke are able to bear the yoke but not to turn the wheels. And the same with the bullocks yoked to the second .. and sixth yokes. But by harnessing bullocks to a seventh yoke a clever driver sitting in the forepart of the cart takes the reins and urges the bullocks with the goad, beginning from the foremost of all; then all the bullocks being of united strength steady the yoke, turn the wheels, draw the cart, enabling us to say that it has gone ten or twenty yojanas. Thus the completeness of the process should be understood. ..cut.... ;just as, again, at the edges of the course where a great flood has been are tangled grasses, leaves and rubbish, and thus in the palm-leaves, in the flag, in the waving foliage, in the bubbles, the grasses, the leaves, and the rubbish, even though they see not the actual objects thought of, men know by mind as follows: ..cut... lol, conie #88095 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Buddhist texts 101: part 2 sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- On Thu, 10/7/08, Herman Hofman wrote: > > S: What is dukkha? > H:> I'm sure you know the following words of by heart, but > I'll write them > anyway :-) > > "Birth is stress, aging is stress, death is stress; > sorrow, > lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stress; > association with > the unbeloved is stress; separation from the loved is > stress; not > getting what is wanted is stress. In short, the five > clinging-aggregates are stress." .... S: Yes, the five khandhas of clinging are dukkha. Can we agree that they are dukkha because they are impermanent? "Bhikkhus, forms are impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not self.' "Sounds....Odours....Tastes.....Tactile objects....Mental phenomena are impermanent. What is impermanent is suffering. What is suffering is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' " (SN 35:3, Bodhi transl). This is dukkha in the ultimate sense. All conditioned realities are dukkha. You wrote: H:> The realisation of dukkha is very real, and not at all > pleasant. .... S: Now that we agree on the definition of dukkha (i.e visible objects, sounds....andy conditioned dhammas), perhaps you'll indicate where it is said that the realisation of dukkha or the 4NT is unpleasant. As I understand, any wisdom arises with pleasant (or neutral) feeling only. ***** > > S: What is renunciation? > > Sn 5:11 > > Subdue greed for sensual pleasures, > & see renunciation as rest. > Let there be nothing grasped > or rejected by you. > Burn up what's before, > and have nothing for after. > If you don't grasp > at what's in between, > you will go about, calm. > One completely devoid of greed > for name & form, brahman, > has > no effluents > by which he would go > under Mara's sway. .... S: A very nice passage from Sutta Nipata, thank you. So can we say that at all moments of wholesome consciousness there is renunciation? At such moments there is also calm because there is no attachment (or aversion or ignorance) on account of namas and rupas arising? Surely, this is true whatever the circumstances of our daily life? Thanks for your other quotes and messages. Metta, Sarah ========= #88096 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:01 am Subject: Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 280, 281 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga, Ch XVII, 280, 281 Intro: In the following sections it is explained that ignorance has been stated first, not in the sense of a simple beginning in time, but in the sense of a basic dhamma. So long as ignorance has not been eradicated, the wheel of becoming goes on. ------------- Text Vis. 280: But when ignorance is established since it is present when its condition is present, and when 'with ignorance as condition there are formations; with formations as condition, consciousness', there is no end to the succession of cause and fruit in this way. Consequently, the Wheel of Becoming with its twelve factors, revolving with the linking of cause and effect, is established as having 'no known beginning'. ****** Text Vis. 281: This being so, are not the words 'With ignorance as condition there are formations', as an exposition of a simple beginning, contradicted?--This is not an exposition of a simple beginning. It is an exposition of a basic state (see par. 107). ------- N: The Tiika to par. 107 adds that the Buddhas expound the meaning of the Dhamma that should be taught in many methods of teaching according to their own inclination and this is for the sake of the beauty in instruction. As to what is suitable for those who should be guided, this means that he uses the method of teaching by means of which those who should be guided could attain awakening. Because of these two reasons he would teach sometimes the basic factor (padhaanataa), sometimes what is most obvious (paka.tataa) and sometimes what is specific or not general, not common (asaadhaara.nataa). ... The Tiika to Vis. 281 answers the objection which states that with reference to ignorance, this would be an exposition of a simple beginning. It explains that ignorance is not a simple beginning (in time), because there is ignorance in the beginning, the middle and the end, at every occasion (sabbattha). --------- Text Vis. :For ignorance is the basic state for the three rounds (see par. 298). ------- N: The Vis. refers to a later par.: 298: 'With triple round it spins for ever' . It states (par. 288): here formations and becoming are the 'round of kamma'. Ignorance, craving and clinging are the 'round of defilements'. Consciousness, mentality-materiality, the sixfold base, contact and feeling are the 'round of result'. --------- Text Vis.: It is owing to his seizing ignorance that the fool gets caught in the round of the remaining defilements, in the rounds of kamma, etc., just as it is owing to seizing a snake's head that the arm gets caught in [the coils of] the rest of the snake's body. ------- N: The Tiika explains as to the expression ‘owing to his seizing ignorance’, as: holding on to ignorance, not abandoning it. Thus, in his own continuity the cause of becoming has been arranged, as the Tiika states. So long as the latent tendency of ignorance has not been eradicated, there are conditions for becoming. As to the expression ‘in the rounds of kamma, etc’ , this means: in the rounds of kamma and vipaaka. As to the expression, ‘to get caught’, this is the translation of palibodhenti: they obstruct, impede. The Tiika explains that the rounds of defilements, kamma and vipaaka impede him, they oppress him by the increase of many kinds of dukkha, in his wandering in the cyle. ----------- Text Vis.: But when the cutting off of ignorance is effected, he is liberated from them just as the arm caught [in the coils] is liberated when the snake's head is cut off, according as it is said, 'With the remainderless fading away and cessation of ignorance' (S.ii, 1), and so on. So this is an exposition of the basic state whereby there is bondage for him who grasps it, and liberation for him who lets it go: it is not an exposition of a simple beginning. This is how the Wheel of Becoming should be understood to have no known beginning. ******** N: The Tiika repeats that ignorance is a basic dhamma, it is the cause of the cycle. ------- Conclusion: The three rounds of defilements, kamma and vipaaka pertain to our daily life now. Seeing is vipaaka, and on account of what we see defilements such as like and dislike, are bound to arise. These defilements can motivate kamma that will produce result, and thus the wheel with the triple round ‘spins forever’, that is, so long as ignorance has not been eradicated. As the Tiika states: ‘The rounds of defilements, kamma, and vipaaka impede him, they oppress him by the increase of many kinds of dukkha, in his wandering in the cyle.’ As we have read in a previous section: sorrow etc. ‘come about with the arising of the cankers, and so when they are established, they establish the cankers which are the cause of ignorance. And when the cankers are established, ignorance is also established because it is present when its condition is present.’ We are reminded that ‘there is ignorance in the beginning, the middle and the end, at every occasion’. Only right understanding of realities can eradicate ignorance which is not knowing realities as they are, not knowing the four noble Truths. ********* Nina. #88097 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:09 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Thu, 10/7/08, Alex wrote: > S: What is "doing Vipassana practice" if not an attempt at >controlling consciousness? > A:> You are reifying conventional matter of speech "doing Vipassana practice" in order to refute it from your ultimate dhamma perspective. >Conventionally speaking: "there is bare, uninvolved observation/ sati of presently arising of nama-rupa without trying to control them." .... S: Is this the meaning of Vipassana in the teachings? Where? Does the 'doing' or 'ininvolved observation' not suggest a particular activity? Or is it just the understanding of any nama or rupa which appears now? I'll look forward to any textual sources you have on 'doing vipassana practice' on retreats in particular. Metta, Sarah ======= Even in so called "samatha" practice teaches: -> "The freedom to choose, the freedom to be in control of our affairs, is just a delusion. " - pg 27 "Let go of controlling. Don't do it your way, do it in the Buddha's way. Just watch the breath. We can watch the breath in this moment. That's all we need to do. It's just a case of having the right attitude of detachment. It's easy then to watch the breath. The success of years of meditation is a sign of how much you have detached from the world. If you can't meditate it's because there is some craving, some attachment there. " - pg 78 It can be very scary to get into deep meditations. Do you know the reason why? It's because `you' have to disappear before you get into them. You're letting go of you, or what you take to be you. That's why it's wonderful to be able to completely get rid of the person in here who is always calling the shots, always talking, always making the decisions. Just allow things to stop by themselves." - pg 144 "If you want to find out how much you are conditioned, how much you have been completely brainwashed, then develop deep meditations and have the courage to be shocked. Have the courage to let go of everything including your own ego and self. Have that degree of strength because only the strong get to Enlightenment. " pg 162 - Simply this moment by Ajahn Brahm. #88098 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Rob M..... sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- On Fri, 11/7/08, Herman Hofman wrote: > If you are unable to discern the samatha and hiri of the theories, why talk about them as though they are real? .... S: Such comments miss the point that it is never 'you' or 'I' that experience or discern anything. It is panna, right understanding that understands dhammas more and more clearly. At moments of kindness or generosity, for example, isn't the citta calm? It's free from attachment or anxiety or unpleasant feeling. The pleasant feeling at such moments is also different from the pleasant feeling accompanying attachment. There is calm and moral scruples. Yes, we can repeat words we've read and heard, but there can also be a testing out at this very moment of what we've heard. At such moments, panna develops without any clinging or expectation of any result. If there is a 'trying to catch' or 'trying to know' such dhammas, then we go off-track again, lost again in desire and clinging. The teachings are subtle, but there can be a growing understanding of the dhamma appearing at the present moment. Yes, it's a long path. Metta, Sarah ========= #88099 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity sarahprocter... Hi Andrew, There seem to be two main issues you raise: a) explaining Buddhism to newcomers b) the discerning of patterns Pls correct me if this is not right. a) --- On Fri, 11/7/08, Andrew wrote: A:> I hope you haven't forgotten what it was like before you knew much about Buddhism? At first, all you probably knew was that Buddhists believe you can be a human in this life (i.e. all through this life) but after you die, you may be reborn as an animal (and you would then live a whole life as an animal). .... S: Surely what is most helpful is to understand that Buddhism is not about a person or being who is a human in one life and then an animal in another life. What distinguishes the Buddha's teachings from other teachings is that there is no entity/self/soul that continues on from life to life in any form. In fact, as you know, there is no entity even for a moment now. So even for those new to the Buddha's teachings, it has to be explained and understood how really at this moment (and next moment and next life), there are just different moments of consciousness, one after the other. Furthermore, there are just those realities which can experience an object, the namas and those realities which can only ever be experienced, the rupas. So we take the example of seeing consciousness and visible object which is seen - no room for any entity or self that is continued or reborn. (Of course, you know all this, but I'm just stressing how, as I see it, the emphasis has to be on anatta from the outset, otherwise it's meaningless). ****** b) > 5: Can you summarise any other central issue to the question you raised? A:> How patterns can be discerned and studied without falling victim to self-view. If this is not possible, all the writings on paccaya are to be heaped into a pile and burned. Fortunately IMHO it *is* possible. .... S: When you refer to 'patterns' which are 'discerned and studied', isn't this just thinking about them? Perhaps I still misunderstand you. I don't see the understanding of paccaya as being a study of 'patterns', but an understanding of realities in depth at this moment. For example, visible object can be known as that which is seen. It's not a question of any name or label, but it is the object of seeing. Having said that, of course there can be wise consideration, reflection and study of the details about dhammas now. If that is what you refer to as 'patterns', then fine. It all comes back to whether it's wise or unwise attention now, whether it's pariyatti or speculation with attachment. Again, only panna can tell - we can't know for another. We agree on the other (Abhidhamma) points I raised for clarification, so I'll leave it there. You may like to clarify further what you mean/understand by a discerning of 'patterns'. Metta, Sarah ========= #88100 From: "Andrew" Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:38 am Subject: Re: [dsg] missing link:A question on contiguity corvus121 Dear Nina Thanks for taking the time to address my questions. Regards Andrew #88101 From: "Andrew" Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity corvus121 Dear Sarah Thanks for taking the time address my questions. I have taken this as far as I can and will be dipping out now. Sorry to all those I owe replies to. Regards Andrew #88102 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction sarahprocter... Hi Mike, Thanks for your helpful and kind feedback on the Udana ($:%) and commentary discussion about the Buddha's discomfort, lack of ease. S:> In another translation (Woodward, PTS), it has: > > "....lived in discomfort, not at ease" for "dukkha.m na > phaasu viharati". <...> > The text gives the following for "dukkha.m): > > "Ill at ease (dukkha.m): not at ease, meaning under > conditions that were not desirable on account of their > not being pleasing to the heart, for which same reason he > said "Am staying...not comfortable" . <...> >...The conditions were simply not conducive to the > bhikkhus benefiting by his further presence and talk at > the time. M:> This all makes sense to me. I think it might be worth adding that the discomfort experienced by the Buddha here was vipakka (not unlike his backaches for example), certainly not kamma or even kiriya. Always good to sort these things out I think. .... S: Yes, that's how I understood the dukkha - discomfort through the body-sense. What do you therefore understand the "not being pleasing to the heart" to mean? Does it mean that there was bodily discomfort and in addition he knew there was no point in staying there and repeating his words? Thanks again for your input. Metta Sarah ========= #88103 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 2:27 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Alex) - Learning to quickly note that one is tending towards getting lost in thought, excitement, or lethargy, and turning away from that, resuming attention to what arises in the moment, is possible. Maintaining such presence is a mindfulness facility that can be cultivated. Such cultivation is exactly what vipassana bhavana is about, and it includes events in a variety of contexts, one of which is what some deprecatingly call "formal meditation." I won't be "argued out of this," because I know from my own experience that it is true. With metta, Howard P. S. The horror at the thought of attempting to "control consciousness" is absurd to me. Such effort is exactly what the four right efforts are about. And "going with the flow" amounts to slavishly following desire. It is, in fact, the way of the world - and not a good way. #88104 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 12:58 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Meditation truth_aerator Sarah, Jon, Scott, Sukinder, Ken and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > S: Is this the meaning of Vipassana in the teachings? Where? Does >the 'doing' or 'ininvolved observation' not suggest a particular >activity? > >Or is it just the understanding of any nama or rupa which appears >now? I'll look forward to any textual sources you have on 'doing >vipassana practice' on retreats in particular. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= It is basic fact of meditative experience that the more "atta view" you have the more difficult it is to achieve any noteworthy levels of meditation. Meditation is an axle of the Buddhist practice, like it or not. It is a practical expression of one's wisdom regarding what the Buddha has taught. It is what separates those who know vs those who think that they know. If understanding is developed to any workable degree, than one should have no difficulty understanding that unwholesome mental states and the hindrances are bad. Do you agree that unwholesome mental states and hindrances are bad and should be removed (for the longer period of time, the better). If one's teaching doesn't help one to be able to seclude from sensuality and unwholesome states, than I am not interested in that. IMHO true understanding isn't just in one's heavy theoretical head and it must be shown pragmatically, if that is, true understanding. True understanding of (Seclusion from sensuality, unwholesome states) is a prerequisite for Jhana and one of the signs of these things being undestood is the ability to enter deep states of meditation as an expression of this understanding. If one claims that "one is studying panna", yet this panna can't show that what (sensuality & unwholesome states) are, and where they lead to, it is not the sort of panna that I want, or the panna that Buddha has taught. Mere words (even if they are true) without action are lame. > > "Let go of controlling. Don't do it your way, do it in the Buddha's > way. Just watch the breath. We can watch the breath in this moment. > That's all we need to do. It's just a case of having the right > attitude of detachment. It's easy then to watch the breath. > The success of years of meditation is a sign of how much you have > detached from the world. If you can't meditate it's because there is some craving, some attachment there. " - pg 78 > > It can be very scary to get into deep meditations. Do you know the > reason why? It's because `you' have to disappear before you get into them. You're letting go of you, or what you take to be you. That's why it's wonderful to be able to completely get rid of the person in here who is always calling the shots, always talking, always making the decisions. Just allow things to stop by themselves." - pg 144 > > "If you want to find out how much you are conditioned, how much you > have been completely brainwashed, then develop deep meditations and > have the courage to be shocked. Have the courage to let go of > everything including your own ego and self. Have that degree of > strength because only the strong get to Enlightenment. " pg 162 > - Simply this moment by Ajahn Brahm. Best wishes, Alex #88105 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 1:09 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: To Rob M..... truth_aerator Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > .... > S: Such comments miss the point that it is never 'you' or 'I' that >experience or discern anything. It is panna, right understanding >that understands dhammas more and more clearly. > Do you clearly see the above or are you just typing what you have read? How does one clearly sees the above, whats the method? > At moments of kindness or generosity, for example, isn't the citta >calm? It's free from attachment or anxiety or unpleasant feeling. > Do you directly percieve that? >The pleasant feeling at such moments is also different from the >pleasant feeling accompanying attachment. There is calm and moral >scruples. Yes, we can repeat words we've read and heard, but there >can also be a testing out at this very moment of what we've heard. >At such moments, panna develops without any clinging or expectation >of any result. > Great, what sort of tests have you done? Can you let go of sensuality and unwholesome states of mind just for a few hours and go into Jhana? If not, then what sort of understanding are we talking about? Best wishes, Alex #88106 From: "reverendaggacitto" Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:14 pm Subject: "proper anatta view" prior to "noteworthy" levels of meditation. reverendagga... Hello Again Every body! it is interesting to see that there are those who believe that a proper view of anatta is required for "note worthy" levels of meditation.Meditation is the ONLY vehicle that was given to PRACTICE the Buddha Dharma.It's purpose is a method to reveal insight by way of mindfulness.If having "proper anatta view" were a requirement for "noteworthy" levels of meditation,then meditation would not be needed for deep levels of insight!You would ALREADY have it! May the Buddha's, Deva,and Angel's bless ALL of you! bhikkhu/reverend aggacitto jhana meditation #88107 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:33 pm Subject: Re: "proper anatta view" prior to "noteworthy" levels of meditation. truth_aerator Bhante Aggacitto, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "reverendaggacitto" wrote: > it is interesting to see that there are those who believe that > a proper view of anatta is required for "note worthy" levels of > meditation. >>> The only "absorption" that a person who craves for 5 khandas can reach is micchasamadhi. If you take nama-rupas arising as a "self", then you will have a hard time, trying to reach samma-samadhi. Nonexistent Atta can't reach samma-samadhi. Only the mind, citta, "reaches" Jhana (of Samma-Samadhi) - which is like a road sign that sweet cessation has finally begun. >Meditation is the ONLY vehicle that was given to PRACTICE > the Buddha Dharma.It's purpose is a method to reveal insight by way >of mindfulness.If having "proper anatta view" were a requirement for > "noteworthy" levels of meditation,then meditation would not be >needed > for deep levels of insight!You would ALREADY have it! > Samma-Samadhi requires Samma-ditthi. Of course the data the citta gets in samma-samadhi increases samma-ditthi, which in turn helps samma-samadhi (and all factors in between). So we have a sweet circle where samma ditthi strengthens samma-samadhi & samma-samadhi strengthens samma-ditthi. Cessation at last. Isn't it wonderful? Best wishes, Alex #88108 From: "m. nease" Date: Sun Jul 13, 2008 4:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction m_nease Hi Sarah, sarah abbott wrote: > S:> In another translation (Woodward, PTS), it has: >> >> "....lived in discomfort, not at ease" for "dukkha.m na >> phaasu viharati". > <...> >> The text gives the following for "dukkha.m): >> >> "Ill at ease (dukkha.m): not at ease, meaning under >> conditions that were not desirable on account of their >> not being pleasing to the heart, for which same reason he >> said "Am staying...not comfortable" . > <...> >>...The conditions were simply not conducive to the >> bhikkhus benefiting by his further presence and talk at >> the time. > > M:> This all makes sense to me. I think it might be worth > adding that the discomfort experienced by the Buddha here > was vipakka (not unlike his backaches for example), > certainly not kamma or even kiriya. Always good to sort > these things out I think. > .... > S: Yes, that's how I understood the dukkha - discomfort through the > body-sense. What do you therefore understand the "not being pleasing to > the heart" to mean? Does it mean that there was bodily discomfort Why not also mental discomfort? This is not a synonym for any akusala kamma that I know of. He was surely capable of smelling a bad odor, tasted a bitter flavor and so on. So why wouldn't he be able to know an unpleasant thought? I don't see why a mental contact should be any different from a physical one in this context. This is a completely different thing, of course, from suffering aversion to the unpleasant impacts or desire to be free of them, whether mental or physical. So-- > and in > addition he knew there was no point in staying there and repeating his > words? I think so, but I'd go a little further than that. I've always taken the Buddha's conduct in incidents like theser (there are several similar, sorry I don't have examples at hand) as an indication of disapproval and a kind of disciplining of the noisy people. What worse result could their conduct occasion than the loss of the company of the Buddha? Just speculation on my part, but it's how I've always thought of these events. Thanks in advance for letting me know if these notions are contrary to the texts. mike #88109 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction sarahprocter... Hi Mike & all, --- On Mon, 14/7/08, m. nease wrote: sarah abbott wrote: > S:> In another translation (Woodward, PTS), it has: >> >> "....lived in discomfort, not at ease" for "dukkha.m na >> phaasu viharati". .... > S: Yes, that's how I understood the dukkha - discomfort through the > body-sense. What do you therefore understand the "not being pleasing to > the heart" to mean? Does it mean that there was bodily discomfort .... M:> Why not also mental discomfort? This is not a synonym for any akusala kamma that I know of. He was surely capable of smelling a bad odor, tasted a bitter flavor and so on. .... S: First of all, let's be clear that bodily pain, i.e discomfort through the body-sense, is nama (i.e mental rather than physical). The citta which experiences through the body-sense and the unpleasant feeling/painful feeling associated with it are both namas. Of course, as you say, there was still the smelling of a bad odor and so on - these are vipaka cittas. However, at moments of seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting, there is no painful feeling as the feeling at such moments is neutral. I take the dukkha to be referring to unpleasant feeling, which would only arise with bodily experience in the case of an arahat. ........ M: >So why wouldn't he be able to know an unpleasant thought? I don't see why a mental contact should be any different from a physical one in this context. This is a completely different thing, of course, from suffering aversion to the unpleasant impacts or desire to be free of them, whether mental or physical. So-- .... S: As you go on to say, no aversion, so how can there be any 'unpleasant thought'? Surely, 'unpleasant thought' can only refer to thinking with unpleasant feeling (domanassa) and dosa? Impossible for an anagami or arahat to have such. Even in the sense door process in which body consciousness is accompanied by unpleasant (bodily) feeling, i.e. dukkha, the subsequent javana cittas cannot be accompanied by unpleasant feeling. .... >S: and in > addition he knew there was no point in staying there and repeating his > words? ... M:> I think so, but I'd go a little further than that. I've always taken the Buddha's conduct in incidents like theser (there are several similar, sorry I don't have examples at hand) as an indication of disapproval and a kind of disciplining of the noisy people. What worse result could their conduct occasion than the loss of the company of the Buddha? .... S: Yes, this is how I understand it too. A teaching in itself. They were not even able to follow him. It reminds me how silence is sometimes the best answer to inappropriate comments or questions which don't lead to anything useful. .... M:> Just speculation on my part, but it's how I've always thought of these events. Thanks in advance for letting me know if these notions are contrary to the texts. ... S: I think your last comment is very appropriate and I always appreciate the chance to discuss texts with you. Metta, Sarah ======== #88110 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:59 am Subject: Re: [dsg] A question on contiguity jonoabb Hi Andrew (and Sarah) >> In the human realm, lobha, dosa and moha also predominate, but I >> assume generally, with more lobha and less dosa on account of the >> pleasanter objects being experienced. > > Isn't this a rejection of the usual explanation that the human realm > is best for insight because of exposure to unpleasantness? > As regards the favourableness of the human realm to the development of insight, I just happened to come across this in CMA while browsing for something else (from Guide to Ch V, par. 5): ********************* The word 'manussa', human, literally means those who have sharp or developed minds. As the human mind is very sharp, this makes man much more capable of weighty moral and immoral action than any other class of living beings. The human being is capable of development up to Buddhahood, and also of such serious crimes as matricide and parricide. The human realm is a mixture of both pain and pleasure, suffering and happiness, but because it offers the opportunity for attaining the highest happiness, it is considered a blissful realm." ********************* Elsewhere we read of the difficulty of the arising of a sense of urgency in those realms where the lifespan is very long and the sense-door impressions are wholly or mostly pleasant. Regarding the fact that in the human realm lobha is said to be the more prevalent form of akusala, I would not see this as in any way offsetting the salutary effect of the suffering/unpleasantness factor. Jon #88111 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Rob M..... sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Mon, 14/7/08, Alex wrote: > S: Such comments miss the point that it is never 'you' or 'I' that >experience or discern anything. It is panna, right understanding >that understands dhammas more and more clearly. > A: >Do you clearly see the above or are you just typing what you have read? >How does one clearly sees the above, whats the method? .... S: As I keep stressing to you, 'one' never sees anything. It's not a matter of doing or of 'my' or 'your' understanding at all. This is why it's essential to study and consider very carefully. Take the word 'vipassana'. If we just follow teachers who tell us to 'do' it without ever deeply understanding what the meaning is of vipassana, of anatta, of panna, of samatha and so on, it'll be impossible to ever eradicate the idea of atta. When there's a careful considering of dhammas at this moment and a beginning to undestand seeing, visible object, hearing, sound or feeling now, there's no question about 'how does one do anything' or 'what's the method'. It becomes clearer and clearer that what is essential, all that's essential, is the direct understanding of the present dhamma appearing. Without the development of such understanding, it's always going to be a trying to have certain states, such as calm or metta, in order to be a calm or kind person. In other words, instead of developing detachment from what has arisen already, the practice is developing attachment to desirable qualities. I'm sorry, Alex (& anyone else), but I just don't see any purpose (or have any interest in) discussing selves and personalities and who has or has not attained any wisdom, jhana and so on. To me it's usually a clear indication of no understanding, for a start - a clinging to self and results. So, I'll leave any such 'do you?'-type questions aside and stick to those about dhammas and discussions on texts. Metta, Sarah ========== #88112 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is a question? was Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching jonoabb Hi Herman > In the context of knowledge, a question is an acknowledgment of not > knowing [something]. > An open question acknowledges both the possibilities of there being > answers, or maybe not. > A question wants answers, whether positive or negative. > A question is an act in the service of getting those answers. I'd have thought a question could serve many different purposes, depending on the particular context and the mindstate of the person asking it. > In the context of reality, a question, as a wanting to know what is > real, is a denial of itself, because it is that very wanting to know > that is the reality. > > So is a question like "what is the reality of the present moment?" > anything other than unacknowledged craving in action, and any > subsequent advertence to a "reality" as a supposed answer to that > question, anything other than a continuation of the cover-up of > craving in action? That would all depend on the circumstances, including the mindstate of the questioner. No rule, I'd say. BTW, given that this is a discussion on knowledge/reality, how would you assess your own question? ;-)) Jon #88113 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What is a question? was Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching jonoabb Hi Alex > Hi Herman, Nina, Sarah, Jon, Scott, Sukinder, KenH and all, > > ... > If the thing is known, then it is useless to define & explain it > again & again. > > If the thing is unknown, then it is even more useless and > impossible, to properly define & explain it since it is uknown. > =============================================================== > > What am I trying to say? It is not exactly a revelation that "there > is seeing, hearing, smelling,tasting, touching, thinking&willing". I'm sure fact of the existence of the 5 sense doors and mind door is, as you say, not exactly a revelation. Yet in many, many suttas the Buddha spoke at some length about just these (as the ayatanas in particular, but also as the elements and the khandhas). So perhaps the point is not "there is" (seeing, etc), but is "what (seeing, etc) really is". > What would be a better thing to say is: "How to get rid of suffering > and what precise steps to take and in what situation." > > Here is where Bhavana (Meditation) comes in. Yes, agreed that we are talking about bhavana. But I don't think there's any sutta that defines or describes bhavana as "meditation". "Meditation" as a translation of "bhavana" (literally, "development") is found only in relatively recent times, to my knowledge. Jon #88114 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:12 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Meditation sarahprocter... Hi Alex, We were discussing the meaning of vipassana and your reference to 'doing vipassana', referring to a particular meditation practice and retreat-type setting. --- On Mon, 14/7/08, Alex wrote: > S: Is this the meaning of Vipassana in the teachings? Where? Does >the 'doing' or 'ininvolved observation' not suggest a particular >activity? > >Or is it just the understanding of any nama or rupa which appears >now? I'll look forward to any textual sources you have on 'doing >vipassana practice' on retreats in particular. .... A: It is basic fact of meditative experience that the more "atta view" you have the more difficult it is to achieve any noteworthy levels of meditation. Meditation is an axle of the Buddhist practice, like it or not. It is a practical expression of one's wisdom regarding what the Buddha has taught. It is what separates those who know vs those who think that they know. .... S: You've been telling us repeatedly how you've relatively recently read the entire 4 Nikayas - DN, MN, SN and AN. You also say you prefer to restrict your study of the Buddha's teachings to these. So where is the textual support for your comments about 'doing vipassana', 'uninvolved observation', vipassana practice on retreats. What is your definition of 'meditation' for the comments above, btw? Metta, Sarah ======= #88115 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:17 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: response to hate mail etc - ... Credibility jonoabb Hi Alex >> I was interested to see you acknowledge the importance of an >> understanding of nama and rupa. A rare point of agreement between >> us ;-)) >> >> Would you agree that intellectual knowledge of the namas and rupas >> that arise in one's daily life is an important first step in this? > > If the dhamma arising now can be directly known now as it arises with > mindfulness & panna present, then it is useless to define it > again&again in the books and internet posts. > But my question related to intellectual knowledge about dhammas as a first step. So you're not disagreeing with that ;-)) As far as the person for whom mindfulness and panna are sufficiently developed such that any further reminders are useless, I say well done!! > Talking about non-yet-arisen Dhammas is going beyond "observation of > presently arisen dhammas" into a speculative (for the specific person > at a specific time) territory not presently relevant. But my question related to the dhammas that arise in one's daily life. It's a fair bet that there's seeing and visible object arising now. So this is not "talking about not-yet-arisen dhammas"; nothing "speculative" at all. > If somebody's teaching contradicts the core texts and doesn't lead to > Nibbana, then we have all the right to question it. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. But of course it's quite possible to question someone's interpretation of the teachings without getting too personal. > Since when did the KS's authority replaced Buddha's authority found > in 4 Main Nikayas + first few KN works? If you wish to question an interpretation on a particular point, please feel free to bring it up for discussion. Jon #88116 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:33 am Subject: [ dsg] Re: Kamma, was Death.] jonoabb Hi Herman > As Nina is pointing out in her commentary quotes on the DN33 thread, > food is one of the conditions for dhammas. Food, you know, as in > morsel food. As I read it, (conventional) morsel food is one of the conditions for the (conventional) body or being, but not for dhammas. When it comes to dhammas, the 'food' is not morsel food, but is other dhammas (referred to here as 'paccaya'). >> I'm of course aware that, in the conventional view of things, it is >> bodily or verbal action, rather than (mere) intention, that brings >> consequences. > > There's nothing conventional about putting morsel food into your > mouth, nor the certain death that will follow from a consistent > failure to do that. Well that depends on your definition of conventional, I suppose ;-)). To my understanding, "birth" and "death are conventional events, the corresponding dhammas being patisandhi citta and cuti citta. > Ohhh, really? The eating of food can be known, and commentated on, as > a necessary condition for dhammas to arise, but that condition cannot > be known by awareness or insight??? If we are talking about the 4 kinds of 'food' as condition for the arising of dhammas, then yes, that could be known by (sufficiently developed) awareness or insight. But the knowledge of conventional eating of food being a necessary condition for the body to survive does not require any level of panna. > I think someone has played a joke on you, and forget to tell you :-) Yeah, the story of my life ;-)) > I think the facts of life are an inconvenient truth to those who > desire an "ultimate" understanding. If a person interested in understanding about the ultimate was finding the facts of life to be an inconvenient truth, then I would say they should to reconsider their understanding of the ultimate ;-)) Jon #88117 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:35 am Subject: Re: Retreats (was, response to hate mail etc) jonoabb Hi Alex >> Talking of texts, I'd be interested to know the basis for your >> comment above about the importance of attending "intensive, and >> hopefully long, >> meditation retreats", in the development of understanding. >> > > Many suttas. > > ========================== DN2 ============================= > [Sutta text snipped and re-pasted below] > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html > ============= > > Short & intensive retreats are for those who cannot become meditative > monks full time. It is better than nothing. Hmm, is that the best you can do? ;-)) Firstly, being a monk does not equate to being "meditative". Even in the time of the Buddha, there were monks who lived (busy) monastic lives (including monks of various levels of enlightenment). Secondly, I think the idea that retreats are beneficial to all just isn't found in the suttas, and it certainly can't be inferred from the sutta you've quoted. Sorry, can't give you many marks out of 10 for this one, Alex ;-)) Jon ========================== DN2 ============================= "A householder or householder's son, hearing the Dhamma, gains conviction in the Tathagata and reflects: 'Household life is confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the household life into homelessness?' "So after some time he abandons his mass of wealth, large or small; leaves his circle of relatives, large or small; shaves off his hair and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household life into homelessness. "When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of mindfulness and alertness, and is content. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html ============= #88118 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:46 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta sarahprocter... Hi Howard (Alex & all), --- On Sun, 13/7/08, upasaka@... wrote: H:> Learning to quickly note that one is tending towards getting lost in thought, excitement, or lethargy, and turning away from that, resuming attention to what arises in the moment, is possible. .... S: Generalising, surely these are just moments of akusala thinking, followed by some wise attention which turns away from the akusala thinking momentarily, of course. In other words, just different moments of akusala and kusala without any self or special doing involved. Any wise attention is accompanied by sati (awareness) and this is just as conditioned as the unwise attention and akusala thinking. Awareness can arise anytime at all, even in the midst of such day-dreaming. .... H: > Maintaining such presence is a mindfulness facility that can be cultivated. ... S: You're speaking conventionally and I understand what you're saying. Of course, in truth, no state can be maintained for even a finger-snap. I agree, however, that when right understanding and mindfulness are developed, there will of course be more conditions for them to arise. .... H:> Such cultivation is exactly what vipassana bhavana is about, and it includes events in a variety of contexts, one of which is what some deprecatingly call "formal meditation." I won't be "argued out of this," because I know from my own experience that it is true. .... S: I know how you feel, Howard and thre's no need to respond further. As I understand the term 'vipassana' and 'vipassana bhavana', it refers to insight, the developed right understanding of realities, starting with the clear understanding of the distinction between namas and rupas. I have never read/understood it to refer to any 'events' such as 'formal meditation'. ...... H:> P. S. The horror at the thought of attempting to "control consciousness" is absurd to me. Such effort is exactly what the four right efforts are about. ... S: I haven't heard about any such 'horror'! We all know what it's like to have the view that we can 'control consciousness'. Before we hear and develop any understanding of the Buddha's teachings, atta-view and ideas of control are all we know. I agree with you, however, that at moments of right effort with right understanding, there is a development of wholesome states. If you wish to call this 'control' as the indriyas or 'controlling faculties' are developed, that's fine by me. However, it's never a 'we' that controls consciousness and right effort never develops by a 'doing something' by following particular events or in particular contexts. Anyway, we know where we stand on these issues, so as I said, no need to respond further unless you'd like to Howard. .... H:> And "going with the flow" amounts to slavishly following desire. It is, in fact, the way of the world - and not a good way. ... S: We certainly agree here! On the other hand, if desire is the reality now, it is the understanding of it that matters, rather than looking for another reality to be aware of. This is the sense of "going with the flow" which refers to the understanding and awareness of whatever has been conditioned to arise at the present moment. Thanks for your input as always. I hope you're having a good summer and some enjoyable family occasions (without too much desire, of course:-)). Metta, Sarah ========= #88119 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 1:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 7/14/2008 7:46:38 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard (Alex & all), --- On Sun, 13/7/08, upasaka@... wrote: H:> Learning to quickly note that one is tending towards getting lost in thought, excitement, or lethargy, and turning away from that, resuming attention to what arises in the moment, is possible. .... S: Generalising, surely these are just moments of akusala thinking, followed by some wise attention which turns away from the akusala thinking momentarily, of course. In other words, just different moments of akusala and kusala without any self or special doing involved. Any wise attention is accompanied by sati (awareness) and this is just as conditioned as the unwise attention and akusala thinking. Awareness can arise anytime at all, even in the midst of such day-dreaming. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Awareness cannot arise "anytime at all" if by "anytime" you mean regardless of conditions. Volitional actions, some useful and others useless or even harmful, are critical in the matter whether or not awareness tends to arise. For the mass of people who simply live their lives with no efforts made in useful directions, awareness does not grow in frequency of occurrence or in strength. Not everyone does as well as everyone else. Conditions are not, themselves, causeless, and useful volition and acting upon such is critical to the development of useful conditions. -------------------------------------------------- .... H: > Maintaining such presence is a mindfulness facility that can be cultivated. ... S: You're speaking conventionally and I understand what you're saying. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Then what do you deny? That there is a self who can do something? Granted! There is none! Now what?? Sarah, you make valid paramattha-vaca observations, and then, in my view, inappropriately apply them at the conventional level. An extreme example of this, though not SO extreme, would be for a starving man with food in front of him but who has read DSG posts to the effect that there is no person to do anything, to simply sit and die, without acting to take sustenance. ---------------------------------------------------- Of course, in truth, no state can be maintained for even a finger-snap. I agree, however, that when right understanding and mindfulness are developed, there will of course be more conditions for them to arise. .... H:> Such cultivation is exactly what vipassana bhavana is about, and it includes events in a variety of contexts, one of which is what some deprecatingly call "formal meditation." I won't be "argued out of this," because I know from my own experience that it is true. .... S: I know how you feel, Howard and thre's no need to respond further. As I understand the term 'vipassana' and 'vipassana bhavana', it refers to insight, the developed right understanding of realities, starting with the clear understanding of the distinction between namas and rupas. I have never read/understood it to refer to any 'events' such as 'formal meditation'. ...... H:> P. S. The horror at the thought of attempting to "control consciousness" is absurd to me. Such effort is exactly what the four right efforts are about. ... S: I haven't heard about any such 'horror'! We all know what it's like to have the view that we can 'control consciousness'. Before we hear and develop any understanding of the Buddha's teachings, atta-view and ideas of control are all we know. I agree with you, however, that at moments of right effort with right understanding, there is a development of wholesome states. If you wish to call this 'control' as the indriyas or 'controlling faculties' are developed, that's fine by me. However, it's never a 'we' that controls consciousness and right effort never develops by a 'doing something' by following particular events or in particular contexts. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I have no bone to pick with regard to the 1st clause of your last sentence, but I utterly deny the truth of the 2nd clause. Attending to mental states as they arise, dropping the akusala ones like hot potatoes and "feeding" the kusala ones is exactly "doing something," and, in fact, is doing something *right*! -------------------------------------------------------------- Anyway, we know where we stand on these issues, so as I said, no need to respond further unless you'd like to Howard. ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, just what I'm saying in this post. But, yes, we do (I think) know where each other stands. ------------------------------------------------------------ .... H:> And "going with the flow" amounts to slavishly following desire. It is, in fact, the way of the world - and not a good way. ... S: We certainly agree here! ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Good. :-) -------------------------------------------------------- On the other hand, if desire is the reality now, it is the understanding of it that matters, rather than looking for another reality to be aware of. This is the sense of "going with the flow" which refers to the understanding and awareness of whatever has been conditioned to arise at the present moment. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No argument. Seeing it clearly for what it is, and then, seeing that it is harmful, letting it go. (That relinquishment is essential.) -------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your input as always. I hope you're having a good summer and some enjoyable family occasions (without too much desire, of course:-)). ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: :-) Thanks. A pleasantly busy summer, but with the pleasantness offset by the unpleasantness of illness and death among friends and the realization that unhappy occurrences, even of extreme nature, can arise at any time. The trick, and a hard one to carry out, is to manage to love strongly and deeply and joyfully and yet disengage from everything and every one, for nothing and no one can be held onto. ----------------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ========================== With metta, Howard #88120 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:10 am Subject: Re: Meditation sukinderpal Hi Alex, Since you included me in the address and no one else has posted anything, I would like to make a few comments. But as you know, I've always had difficulty keeping pace with you, so please allow me to bow out at anytime when I think that it is getting a little difficult. ================ > S: Is this the meaning of Vipassana in the teachings? Where? Does >the 'doing' or 'ininvolved observation' not suggest a particular >activity? > >Or is it just the understanding of any nama or rupa which appears >now? I'll look forward to any textual sources you have on 'doing >vipassana practice' on retreats in particular. Alex: It is basic fact of meditative experience that the more "atta view" you have the more difficult it is to achieve any noteworthy levels of meditation. Meditation is an axle of the Buddhist practice, like it or not. It is a practical expression of one's wisdom regarding what the Buddha has taught. It is what separates those who know vs those who think that they know. Sukin: Do you mean by this, that those who see the value in `meditation' and go ahead with it do so as a result of wisdom? On the other hand, those who don't, this is because for them wisdom of the required level has not arisen? Or do you mean something else? ================ Alex: If understanding is developed to any workable degree, than one should have no difficulty understanding that unwholesome mental states and the hindrances are bad. Sukin: Here you seem to be suggesting that the understanding arises as a result of some experience with meditation, so you are not saying what I suggested above then? ================ Alex: Do you agree that unwholesome mental states and hindrances are bad and should be removed (for the longer period of time, the better). Sukin: Here you seem to be viewing the hindrances as being undesirable in relation to the practice of meditation? Should they be spoken of only in such a context given that they are conditioned to arise regardless of conventional activity and situation? Or is it that you are talking purely about the development of samatha / Jhana? ================ Alex: If one's teaching doesn't help one to be able to seclude from sensuality and unwholesome states, than I am not interested in that. Sukin: We come to the Dhamma with ignorance and should be happy with any little we get from it. Given aeons over aeons of accumulated akusala, I think change to the positive will have to be very incremental. To expect otherwise reflects not only one's own ignorance and lack of appreciation of the depth of the Dhamma, but also the attachment to results. ================ Alex: IMHO true understanding isn't just in one's heavy theoretical head and it must be shown pragmatically, if that is, true understanding. Sukin: True understanding will *never* downplay intellectual "understanding" and dismiss any opportunity to hear and consider more the Dhamma. ============== Alex: True understanding of (Seclusion from sensuality, unwholesome states) is a prerequisite for Jhana and one of the signs of these things being undestood is the ability to enter deep states of meditation as an expression of this understanding. Sukin: Jhana is the culmination of the kind of understanding which sees the danger of akusala, particularly of tanha. The tanha arises invariably with sense contacts, hence the need for seclusion. But this kind of understanding has nothing to do with that which was taught by the Buddha, one which sees the greater danger in ignorance. Were this kind of understanding developed, not only there wouldn't be need particularly, to be secluded from sense contacts, but each arisen state is potential object of understanding, otherwise ignorance continues to be accumulated and no defilements will ever be eradicated. =============== Alex: If one claims that "one is studying panna", yet this panna can't show that what (sensuality & unwholesome states) are, and where they lead to, it is not the sort of panna that I want, or the panna that Buddha has taught. Sukin: The kind of panna you seem to be referring to is not the same kind that the Buddha meant for his disciples to understand. Here is an illustration: Take the example of a person who might use the `earth kasina' as meditation object. This person would have the understanding of the earth element to such a degree that experience through the other doorways would remind him of the danger of sense contacts, hence in understanding them as being only aspect of "earth" he experience a degree of calm. But this is and will ever be "conceptual" only. Hence when he concentrates on a kasina, he experiences samatha which leads to Jhana, but the object is always a `concept'. On the other hand, someone who is developing vipassana / satipatthana, when he sees what is later conceptualized as a `coloured disc', the understanding knows `visible object' and *not* earth element. His is direct understanding of the present moment "reality", whereas in the case of the jhanalabi, its that of a particular concept and how this will condition calm. Besides in the one, akusala is taken as `me' and hence the calm as also belonging to me. In the other, seeing visible object for what it is, an element, this is not taken for `self'. Furthermore, in the development of samatha, the kasina and other signs being `concept' and repeatedly taken as object, no clue about impermanence arises. On the other hand, when a characteristic of reality is object, it is also understood to be conditioned and as arisen and fallen away. Do you see the big difference? Would you still insist on seeing a relationship between the two? ============== Alex: Mere words (even if they are true) without action are lame. Sukin: "Understanding" even if this is only pariyatti, will see that there are ultimately only dhammas arising and falling away beyond control. Kusala conditions more kusala, panna more panna. Pariyatti which is panna of the beginning level accumulates to at some point result in patipatti. To talk as though there was someone who needed to decide to make `practice' happen, is to bring in a factor which is *not* part of the Path. In fact it seems to be a case of continually bringing `self' in to *deny* the above mentioned conditions. Alex, as I stated in the beginning, I'm writing this because no one else has (unless some already has by the time I've finished typing this). So please don't mind if I don't go all the way discussing this with you. Metta, Sukin #88121 From: mlnease@... Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction m_nease Hi Sarah, > Hi Mike & all, > > --- On Mon, 14/7/08, m. nease wrote: > > sarah abbott wrote: > S: First of all, let's be clear that bodily pain, i.e > discomfort through the body-sense, is nama (i.e mental > rather than physical). Good point. > The citta which experiences through > the body-sense and the unpleasant feeling/painful feeling > associated with it are both namas. Right--got it. > Of course, as you say, there was still the smelling of a > bad odor and so on - these are vipaka cittas. However, at > moments of seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting, there is > no painful feeling as the feeling at such moments is > neutral. I'd forgotten this--thanks for the reminder. > I take the dukkha to be referring to unpleasant > feeling, which would only arise with bodily experience in > the case of an arahat. OK--understood. > M: >So why wouldn't he be able to know an unpleasant > thought? I don't see why a mental contact should be any > different from a physical one in this context. This is a > completely different thing, of course, from suffering > aversion to the unpleasant impacts or desire to be free of > them, whether mental or physical. So-- Well, I've tried to come up with a 'painful thought' that would be the mental (naama) equivalent to the physical (naama) pain, say, of a backache or a stone shard in the foot--but to no avail. As you say below, in thinking, no domanassa means no unpleasantness. > S: As you go on to say, no aversion, so how can there be > any 'unpleasant thought'? Surely, 'unpleasant thought' can > only refer to thinking with unpleasant feeling (domanassa) > and dosa? Impossible for an anagami or arahat to have > such. > > Even in the sense door process in which body consciousness > is accompanied by unpleasant (bodily) feeling, i.e. dukkha > , the subsequent javana cittas cannot be accompanied by > unpleasant feeling. For the arahant, I assume you mean? > >S: and in > > addition he knew there was no point in staying there and > > repeating his words? > .. > M:> I think so, but I'd go a little further than that. > I've always taken the Buddha's conduct in incidents like > theser (there are several similar, sorry I don't have > examples at hand) as an indication of disapproval and a > kind of disciplining of the noisy people. What worse > result could their conduct occasion than the loss of the > company of the Buddha? .... > S: Yes, this is how I understand it too. A teaching in > itself. They were not even able to follow him. It reminds > me how silence is sometimes the best answer to > inappropriate comments or questions which don't lead to > anything useful. .... > M:> Just speculation on my part, but it's how I've always > thought of these events. Thanks in advance for letting me > know if these notions are contrary to the texts. > .. > S: I think your last comment is very appropriate and I > always appreciate the chance to discuss texts with you. My pleasure Sarah, thanks for the corrections. mike #88122 From: "m_nease" Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction m_nease Hi Again Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > S: First of all, let's be clear that bodily pain, i.e discomfort through the body-sense, is nama (i.e mental rather than physical). The citta which experiences through the body-sense and the unpleasant feeling/painful feeling associated with it are both namas. > > Of course, as you say, there was still the smelling of a bad odor and so on - these are vipaka cittas. However, at moments of seeing, hearing, smelling and tasting, there is no painful feeling as the feeling at such moments is neutral. I take the dukkha to be referring to unpleasant feeling, which would only arise with bodily experience in the case of an arahat. > ........ > M: >So why wouldn't he be able to know an unpleasant thought? I don't see why a mental contact should be any different from a physical one in this context. This is a completely different thing, of course, from suffering aversion to the unpleasant impacts or desire to be free of them, whether mental or physical. So-- > .... > S: As you go on to say, no aversion, so how can there be any 'unpleasant thought'? Surely, 'unpleasant thought' can only refer to thinking with unpleasant feeling (domanassa) and dosa? Impossible for an anagami or arahat to have such. > > Even in the sense door process in which body consciousness is accompanied by unpleasant (bodily) feeling, i.e. dukkha, the subsequent javana cittas cannot be accompanied by unpleasant feeling. > .... Aside from the last bit (waiting to hear back), I've learned all this before, pretty elementary abhdihamma really. It also implicitly corrects a mistake I made in an another post, suggesting that unpleasantness encountered on the list is vipakka. Since what I encounter on the list is just visible data, this is obviously not the case ('as the feeling at such moments is neutral'). It's most often, I suppose, just displeasure accompanying subsequent thinking with unwholesome volition and other factors (hatred, envy, avarice and so on). mike #88123 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:35 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: To Rob M..... truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > --- On Mon, 14/7/08, Alex wrote: > > S: Such comments miss the point that it is never 'you' or 'I' >that > >experience or discern anything. It is panna, right understanding > >that understands dhammas more and more clearly. > > > A: >Do you clearly see the above or are you just typing what you >have > read? > > >How does one clearly sees the above, whats the method? > .... > S: As I keep stressing to you, 'one' never sees anything. It's not a matter of doing or of 'my' or 'your' understanding at all. > We've been over this before. Buddha, Arahants commonly used conventinal words without being afraid of being rebiked by learned people. > This is why it's essential to study and consider very carefully. >Take the word 'vipassana'. If we just follow teachers who tell us >>> Remember, no "we", no "teachers". >> to 'do' it without ever deeply understanding what the meaning is of vipassana, of anatta, of panna, of samatha and so on, it'll be impossible to ever eradicate the idea of atta. >>> We've been over this before. If you say that one must "do" in order to meditate, then I'll rebuke you again that one must "do" in order to study. > > When there's a careful considering of dhammas at this moment and a beginning to undestand seeing, visible object, hearing, sound or feeling now, there's no question about 'how does one do anything' >>> I wasn't saying that. It is your problem that you keep reinterpreting what I say in such a way that both of us would disagree. > > Without the development of such understanding, it's always going to be a trying to have certain states, such as calm or metta, in order to be a calm or kind person. In other words, instead of developing detachment from what has arisen already, the practice is developing attachment to desirable qualities. > If one truly understands the drawbacks of sensuality and unhwolesome states, entering Jhana is like making a step forward. No atta view required. Best wishes, Alex #88124 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:43 pm Subject: [dsg] What is a question? was Re: Overview of KS 3: Her Faulty Teaching truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex > > I'm sure fact of the existence of the 5 sense doors and mind door >is, as you say, not exactly a revelation. Yet in many, many suttas >the Buddha spoke at some length about just these (as the ayatanas in >particular, but also as the elements and the khandhas). So perhaps >the point is not "there is" (seeing, etc), but is "what (seeing, >etc) really is". Everyone knows that there are 5 senses & mind. What I am concerned is to "how" to develop full detachment from them. This is what others didn't know. At best the arupavadin ascetics taught detachment from 5 senses and part of the mind. Only Buddha taught HOW to detach from absolutely everything. > > Yes, agreed that we are talking about bhavana. But I don't think > there's any sutta that defines or describes bhavana > as "meditation". "Meditation" as a translation of "bhavana" >literally, "development") is found only in relatively recent times, >o my knowledge. No kidding sherlock, modern english language is also relatively recent development. Ok so I can say "Bhavana". Rose by any other name smells just as sweet. Buddha did teach formal bhavana. Check out the suttas. =========== MN125 =============== "And when, Aggivessana, the ariyan disciple is possessed of mindfulness and clear consciousness, then the Tathagata disciplines him further, saying: 'Come you, monk, choose a remote lodging in a forest, at the root of a tree, on a mountain slope, in a wilderness, in a hill-cave, a cemetery, a forest haunt, in the open or on a heap of straw.' He chooses a remote lodging in the forest... or on a heap of straw. Returning from alms-gathering, after the meal, he sits down cross-legged, holding the back erect, having made mindfulness rise up in front of him, he, by getting rid of coveting for the world, dwells with a mind devoid of coveting, he purifies the mind of coveting. By getting rid of the taint of ill-will, he dwells benevolent in mind, compassionate for the welfare of all creatures and beings, he purifies the mind of the taint of ill-will. By getting rid of sloth and torpor, he dwells devoid of sloth and torpor; perceiving the light, mindful, clearly conscious, he purifies the mind of sloth and torpor. By getting rid of restlessness and worry, he dwells calmly the mind subjectively tranquilized, he purifies the mind of restlessness and worry. By getting rid of doubt, he dwells doubt- crossed, unperplexed as to the states that are skillful, he purifies the mind of doubt. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.125.horn.html =============================== Best wishes, Alex #88125 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 4:58 pm Subject: Re: Meditation truth_aerator Hi Sukinder, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > > Hi Alex, > > Alex: > It is basic fact of meditative experience that the more "atta view" > you have the more difficult it is to achieve any noteworthy levels >of > meditation. Meditation is an axle of the Buddhist practice, like it > or not. It is a practical expression of one's wisdom regarding what > the Buddha has taught. It is what separates those who know vs those > who think that they know. > > Sukin: Do you mean by this, that those who see the value in > `meditation' and go ahead with it do so as a result of wisdom? On >the > other hand, those who don't, this is because for them wisdom of the > required level has not arisen? > Or do you mean something else? > Samadhi can be proper, with preliminary samma-ditthi or improper with atta, miccha ditthi, bhavatanha and such. If one has samma-ditthi, the rest of the factors spring up, including samma-samadhi. If miccha ditthi, then micchasamadhi. > ================ > Alex: > If understanding is developed to any workable degree, than one should > have no difficulty understanding that unwholesome mental states and > the hindrances are bad. > > Sukin: Here you seem to be suggesting that the understanding arises > as a result of some experience with meditation, so you are not saying > what I suggested above then? > Samma ditthi helps samma samadhi, and samma samadhi gives the data to increase samma - ditthi. So we have a self reinforcing loop. > ================ > Alex: > Do you agree that unwholesome mental states and hindrances are > bad and should be removed (for the longer period of time, the better). > > Sukin: Here you seem to be viewing the hindrances as being > undesirable in relation to the practice of meditation? Should they be > spoken of only in such a context given that they are conditioned to > arise regardless of conventional activity and situation? Or is it > that you are talking purely about the development of samatha / Jhana? > Hindrances obstruct vision of things as they are. Samma-samadhi removes hindrances, at least temporarily. If you can't supress the hindrances even for a short while, then you are overpowered with them and how can you break through to the high ariayan states? > ================ > Alex: > If one's teaching doesn't help one to be able to seclude from > sensuality and unwholesome states, than I am not interested in that. > > Sukin: We come to the Dhamma with ignorance and should be happy with > any little we get from it. Given aeons over aeons of accumulated > akusala, I think change to the positive will have to be very > incremental. To expect otherwise reflects not only one's own > ignorance and lack of appreciation of the depth of the Dhamma, but > also the attachment to results. > It is called "optimism". It is a known psychological fact that if you keep saying (actually it is not you saying, it is Mara saying) "It can't be done, all the akusala" then *you* are right! Remember angulimala? Have you murdered 999 people? Or even 1 person? How much akusala would it take to murder 999 people? If Angulimala could do it, so can you!!! > ================ > Alex: > IMHO true understanding isn't just in one's heavy theoretical head > and it must be shown pragmatically, if that is, true understanding. > > Sukin: True understanding will *never* downplay intellectual > "understanding" and dismiss any opportunity to hear and consider more > the Dhamma. > Some of you know 100x more than some Arahants. I am sure that the problem is not quantity of info. > ============== > Alex: > True understanding of (Seclusion from sensuality, unwholesome states) > is a prerequisite for Jhana and one of the signs of these things > being undestood is the ability to enter deep states of meditation as > an expression of this understanding. > > Sukin: Jhana is the culmination of the kind of understanding which > sees the danger of akusala, particularly of tanha. The tanha arises > invariably with sense contacts, hence the need for seclusion. But > this kind of understanding has nothing to do with that which was > taught by the Buddha, one which sees the greater danger in >ignorance. Ignorance (mara) is blinded in Jhana mn25. > Were this kind of understanding developed, not only there wouldn't be > need particularly, to be secluded from sense contacts, but each > arisen state is potential object of understanding, otherwise > ignorance continues to be accumulated and no defilements will ever be > eradicated. > Gee! So what did the Arahants know then, if they kept being in secluded places away from people! Why aren't you teaching all the Arahants? You better phone them and tell them to get out of caves and forests and start livin' it in the cities. > =============== > Alex: > If one claims that "one is studying panna", yet this panna can't show > that what (sensuality & unwholesome states) are, and where they lead > to, it is not the sort of panna that I want, or the panna that Buddha > has taught. > > Sukin: The kind of panna you seem to be referring to is not the same > kind that the Buddha meant for his disciples to understand. Here is > an illustration: > > Take the example of a person who might use the `earth kasina' as > meditation object. This person would have the understanding of the > earth element to such a degree that experience through the other > doorways would remind him of the danger of sense contacts, hence in > understanding them as being only aspect of "earth" he experience a > degree of calm. But this is and will ever be "conceptual" only. >>> In which sutta does it say that Kasina or the breath is conceptual only? Why then did the Buddha recommend it in sutta on voidness mn121- 122? >Hence when he concentrates on a kasina, he experiences samatha which >leads to Jhana, but the object is always a `concept'. > Again, where in the suttas is this stated? If kasina is so bad, why did the Buddha talk about it in mn121 and other suttas? Why did he praise seclusion ? Best wishes, Alex #88126 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 5:25 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Sarah (and Alex) - > > > I'll look forward to any textual sources you have on 'doing vipassana > practice' on retreats in particular. > > Metta, > > Sarah > > > ================================= > Learning to quickly note that one is tending towards getting lost in > thought, excitement, or lethargy, and turning away from that, resuming attention > to what arises in the moment, is possible. Maintaining such presence is a > mindfulness facility that can be cultivated. Such cultivation is exactly what > vipassana bhavana is about, and it includes events in a variety of contexts, > one of which is what some deprecatingly call "formal meditation." > I won't be "argued out of this," because I know from my own experience > that it is true. > > With metta, > Howard > > P. S. The horror at the thought of attempting to "control consciousness" is > absurd to me. Such effort is exactly what the four right efforts are about. > And "going with the flow" amounts to slavishly following desire. It is, in > fact, the way of the world - and not a good way. > Hi Howard, I think you will find there are *two* ways of the world. One is to go with the flow, and the other is to struggle against the flow. You are recommending the latter (which I suppose (not sure) is better than the former). During a Buddha's sasana a third – or middle – way is knowable. It is a way of momentary conditioned dhammas. Those "horrified" people who seem to you to be saying "absurd" things are actually trying to understand the middle way. It is not easy, and they will get it wrong from time to time. But even when they do get it wrong they are at least trying to see a [deep, profound, hard to see] middle way. They are not just going with the flow. :-) Ken H #88127 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:07 pm Subject: Re: Retreats (was, response to hate mail etc) truth_aerator Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex > > Firstly, being a monk does not equate to being "meditative". Even >in the time of the Buddha, there were monks who lived (busy) >monastic lives (including monks of various levels of enlightenment). > Of course there were non-meditative monks. As a general rule, those who intensily engaged in Bhavana (if only for a week like Maha Mogallana or 2, like Ven. Sariputta) being reclusive monks, they achieved Arahatship and then were busy helping new commers. >>> > Secondly, I think the idea that retreats are beneficial to all >>> Not to all. There is one type of carita (character type) for which nettipakarana prescribes intense study. 5 Other types, there has to be active Bhavana if quickest progress is to be made. In the Buddha's time there were lay anagamis with all 4 Jhanas (ex: Citta) and Jhana plays an important role, after all, it is noble 8 fold path not 7 fold path. If you can achieve 4 Jhanas at home, without retreats, then I bow to you, all power to you. But for most, retreats are required. > ========================== DN2 ============================= > "A householder or householder's son, hearing the Dhamma, gains > conviction in the Tathagata and reflects: 'Household life is > confining, a dusty path. The life gone forth is like the open air. It > is not easy living at home to practice the holy life totally perfect, > totally pure, like a polished shell. What if I were to shave off my > hair and beard, put on the ochre robes, and go forth from the > household life into homelessness?' > > "So after some time he abandons his mass of wealth, large or small; > leaves his circle of relatives, large or small; shaves off his hair > and beard, puts on the ochre robes, and goes forth from the household > life into homelessness. > > "When he has thus gone forth, he lives restrained by the rules of the > monastic code, seeing danger in the slightest faults. Consummate in > his virtue, he guards the doors of his senses, is possessed of > mindfulness and alertness, and is content. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.02.0.than.html > ============= > Best wishes, Alex #88128 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:11 pm Subject: Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta truth_aerator Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > Hi Howard, > > I think you will find there are *two* ways of the world. One is to > go with the flow, and the other is to struggle against the flow. > You are recommending the latter (which I suppose (not sure) is > better than the former). > > During a Buddha's sasana a third – or middle – way is knowable. It > is a way of momentary conditioned dhammas. > Unless you are Arahant, if you don't go against the flow then you'll sink in the kilesas. I can't believe you had the courage to even say that! === "And who is the individual who goes against the flow? There is the case where an individual doesn't indulge in sensual passions and doesn't do evil deeds. Even though it may be with pain, even though it may be with sorrow, even though he may be crying, his face in tears, he lives the holy life that is perfect & pure. This is called the individual who goes against the flow. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.005.than.html ============= What you are saying is Adhamma and that is terrible. Best wishes, Alex #88130 From: "Phil" Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:15 pm Subject: Honeyballs! (was Re: Each presently arisen state philofillet Hi again all Still thinking about what I wrote about what I wrote below: > Thinking about what I wrote here: > > > For me, "each presently arisen state" is "each lingering or > > non-lingering mental mood/proliferation of thinking" - that is how > > things are experienced for me, I think. > > > Maybe the "honeyball sutta" (MN18) is helpful for getting at the > way people of feeble understanding can really see presently arisen > states. Maybe a "presently arisen state" can be understood as what > is wrapped up here: "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye- > conscoiusness arises. The meeting of these three is contact. With > contact as condition, there is feeling. What one feels, that one > perceives. What one perceieves, that one thinks about. What one > thinks about, that one mentally proliferates." Maybe this process, > which of course goes on and on countless times of day > produces "presently arisen states" that can actually be seen by us, > something like that... Yes, I think I'm on to something valuable here. And in light of the sutta reference that brought this up to. (MN 134: "Let not a person revive the past/or on the future build his hopes/for the past has been left behind/and the future has not been reached/instead with insight let him see/each presentlly arisen state") So I was thinking, for me, rather than aspiring to seeing a presently arisen dhamma, which is too fleet in passing, there could be seeing of presently arisen above-decribed processes, or "honeyballs" as I have come to think of them in a cute way. Just something for me to play with this summer. And then I realized in the following line of the process which I didn't quote because I was in a hurry there is this: "What one thinks about one mentally proliferates. WIth what one has mentally proliferated as the soure, perceptions and notions (born of) mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, future, and present forms congnizable through the eye." So in the process of dhammas described in the honeyball sutta (MN 18, by the way) we see just how one comes to "revive the past/or on the future build his hopes." I think that's neat. Up to now, my approach (so to speak - it's the habitual process of dhammas that has come to be conditioned, in reality) when caught up in thinking of past or future has been to think "The Buddha said this is harmful" and to stop doing it for that reason. And that's not bad at all. But now there might be more understanding involved, seeing how it comes to be as I ponder/observe my honeyballs! (And yes, we all have honeyballs!) So I will spend this summer observing my honeyballs. I'll let you know how it is going when I get back from Canada. Metta, Phil p.s oh, I guess fireworks didn't exist in the Buddha's day - of course they didn't, not in India. If they had, I'm quite sure there would be a simile using fireworks to describe the way thought process/proliferations bloom and fall away. In Japan, fireworks really look like flowers. They blooms, then fall away, leaving traces in the sky. Of course it is easier to see this at night. And I think the BUddha's emphasis on physical seclusion is parallel in some way to this, there are ways to provide conditions in which it is easier to see thought processes blooming and falling away in the mind, and ways to make it less likely they will catch and spread and proliferate..... ....ok leaving on a good note. without a single mention of...stop. #88131 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 7/14/2008 8:26:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Howard, I think you will find there are *two* ways of the world. One is to go with the flow, and the other is to struggle against the flow. You are recommending the latter (which I suppose (not sure) is better than the former). ----------------------------------------------- Howard: While I wouldn't use the word 'struggle', I admit to favoring going against the flow. So did the Buddha. The so-called "flow," the path of least resistence, is, for worldlings, the way of desire and aversion. The Dhamma goes against the flow. --------------------------------------------- During a Buddha's sasana a third – or middle – way is knowable. It is a way of momentary conditioned dhammas. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: What way is that, Ken? Everything we experience and everything that happens consists of nothing but that. So, no matter *what* happens, THAT is the case, which makes it no "way" at all! The middle way of the Buddha is action free of sense of self, a non-doing doing. That has to be achieved - approached in steps. It is not there from the outset, and the Buddha was well aware of that. ------------------------------------------------- Those "horrified" people who seem to you to be saying "absurd" things are actually trying to understand the middle way. It is not easy, and they will get it wrong from time to time. But even when they do get it wrong they are at least trying to see a [deep, profound, hard to see] middle way. They are not just going with the flow. :-) Ken H =========================== With metta, Howard #88132 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:13 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------ <. . .> KH: > > I think you will find there are *two* ways of the world. One is to go with the flow, and the other is to struggle against the flow. You are recommending the latter (which I suppose (not sure) is better than the former). H: > While I wouldn't use the word 'struggle', I admit to favoring going against the flow. So did the Buddha. The so- called "flow," the path of least resistence, is, for worldlings, the way of desire and aversion. The Dhamma goes against the flow. ------- Please believe me; I have nothing against `going against the flow' in the context taught by the Buddha. I also have nothing against `going against the flow' in the conventional context that is known to everyone. What I am strongly against is the assertion (the wrong view) that the conventional notion of going against the flow is the same as the Buddha's notion of going against the flow. It isn't! --------------- KH: > >During a Buddha's sasana a third - or "middle" - way is knowable. H: > What way is that, Ken? Everything we experience and everything that happens consists of nothing but that. So, no matter *what* happens, THAT is the case, --------------- Exactly! And isn't it wonderful? There are only dhammas: there are no sufferers, no travellers - no one! There are only fleeting impersonal dhammas that are completely indifferent to their fate. And this is the case whether we know it or not! ------------ H: > which makes it no "way" at all! ------------ Yes, in a sense! As far as you and I – as conceptual beings - are concerned there is no way. The way taught by the Buddha was purely a way travelled by conditioned dhammas. (Conditioned dhammas that have no interest in whether they travel it or not.) Isn't that wonderful? Who needs a way when there is no "who" - only dhammas? ------------------ H: > The middle way of the Buddha is action free of sense of self, a non-doing doing. That has to be achieved - approached in steps. It is not there from the outset, and the Buddha was well aware of that. ------------------ Now you have lost the plot. What a pity - just when we were in complete agreement! :-) The beautiful fact that there are only dhammas (no sufferers, no travellers . . .) is *always* there. What is *not* always there is panna (the understanding that there are only dhammas). There is really no need for anyone to do anything. Suffering ends (ceases to exist) whenever there was right understanding of the way things ultimately are! Ken H #88133 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:28 am Subject: Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > I think you will find there are *two* ways of the world. One is to > > go with the flow, and the other is to struggle against the flow. > > You are recommending the latter (which I suppose (not sure) is > > better than the former). > > > > During a Buddha's sasana a third – or middle – way is knowable. It > > is a way of momentary conditioned dhammas. > > > > Unless you are Arahant, if you don't go against the flow then you'll > sink in the kilesas. I can't believe you had the courage to even say > that! > > > > === > "And who is the individual who goes against the flow? There is the > case where an individual doesn't indulge in sensual passions and > doesn't do evil deeds. Even though it may be with pain, even though > it may be with sorrow, even though he may be crying, his face in > tears, he lives the holy life that is perfect & pure. This is called > the individual who goes against the flow. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.005.than.html > ============= > > > What you are saying is Adhamma and that is terrible. > > > Hi Alex, Let me repeat what I have just said to Howard - but without the typo this time: Suffering ends (ceases to exist) whenever there is right understanding of the way things ultimately are. Ken H #88134 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:39 am Subject: Sangiitisutta Corner DN 33 1.9, 1.9.1, 1.9.2 scottduncan2 Dear All, Continuing the text and translation from #87919: CSCD Duka.m 304. < Date: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:43 am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta philofillet Hi fellows and all > Suffering ends (ceases to > exist) whenever there was right understanding of the way things > ultimately are! > --------------------------------------------- > Howard: > But understanding doesn't just fall from heaven like spring rain. It's > arising (or not) is conditioned by our kusala or akusala kamma. Wisdom does > not arise equally in all "beings." > ======================= I really have to agree here because I was thinking precisely this after reading this sentence from my notebook on AS's Survey of Paramattha Dhammas: "The aim of the study of Dhamma should be the direct understanding of realities through satipatthana. Satipatthana can arise and be aware of the characteristics of the element that experiences whatever object is appearing." I know I am writing that out of context, but honestly I can't at this time see how the above isn't wishful thinking. As Howard says "it's arising (or not) is conditioned by our kusala or akusala kamma." THe sutta I have quoted many times from AN (VI,49) gets at this very clearly. I will quote it one more time before my departure: "If there is no sense control, O monks, then the basis for virtue is destroyed for one who lacks sense control. If there is no virtue, then the basis for right concentration is destroyed for one who lacks virtue. Ifr there is no right concentration, then the bsais for knowledge and vision of things as they really are is destroyed for hone who lacks right concentration...." Now, it can be argued/is argued by some (not all) abhidhammikas (?) that the concentration that accompanies every moment of cognition can be strong enough to fulfill the above function. I honestly think they should ask themselves, and often, if this is making full use of the rare opportunity to apply oneself (actually dhammas conditioned, of course) to the Buddha's teaching. Ken wrote below: > Suffering ends (ceases to > exist) whenever there was right understanding of the way things > ultimately are! Yes, sure, but Ken, my friend, we don't experience life in such terms. I'm at a dead end for the time being when it comes to just what value it is insisting on deep levels of understanding that are so very, very different from our own. The Buddha urged us to see for ourselves, to test his teaching and confirm its truth. How can we confirm its truth when we are insisting on seeing things in the light of a truth that is so very, very beyond our level of understanding? I just don't get it, honestly. Anyways, I write this in a very friendly feeling way as I get ready for my departure to Canada. Catch you all again in a month or so. Metta, Phil #88137 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:08 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiitisutta Corner DN 33 1.9, 1.9.1, 1.9.2 nilovg Dear All, Commentary to the Sangiitisutta. The Twos sutta: Twos2.0 There are double doctrines, friends, which are perfectly set forth by the Exalted One who knows, who sees. Hereon there should be a chanting in concord...for the good...of devas and of men: -- Which are the doubles? [ 2.1 ]Mind2.1 and body. [Katame dve [dve dhammo (syaa. ka.m.) evamuparipi? ‘‘Naama~nca ruupa~nca.] --------- Co : In the twofold dhamma, (of naama and ruupa), naama are the four khandhas and also nibbaana; these are incorporeal (aruupino, having no ruupa). Here four khandhas are naama in the sense of bending (naamana). [Tattha naamaruupaduke naamanti cattaaro aruupino khandhaa nibbaana~nca. Tattha cattaaro khandhaa naamana.t.thena naama.m.] ------- Naama in the sense of bending and in the sense of name making. ------ [Naamana.t.thenaati naamakara.na.t.thena.] -------- N: Naama bends (naamati) towards an object, it knows an object. Naama also means name. Now follows an exposition about name making, and how this is seen in different ways. It is similar to the “Expositor”, p. 500, 501. This passage is difficult to understand for us today, but at that time there was the need to elaborate on the meaning of naama which means name. There are word associations of naamati, to bend, and of naama as name, and in this connection we should understand the following explanations of the mental phenomenon which is called naama. The Expositor in a footnote, states that ruupa is so called because it reveals itself. Date: Tue Jul 15, 2008 7:21 am Subject: Re: Meditation sukinderpal Hi Alex, =========== > Sukin: Do you mean by this, that those who see the value in > `meditation' and go ahead with it do so as a result of wisdom? On the > other hand, those who don't, this is because for them wisdom of the > required level has not arisen? > Or do you mean something else? Alex: Samadhi can be proper, with preliminary samma-ditthi or improper with atta, miccha ditthi, bhavatanha and such. If one has samma-ditthi, the rest of the factors spring up, including samma-samadhi. If miccha ditthi, then micchasamadhi. S: So you are saying that one must start with some degree of samma- ditthi otherwise what follows will be "miccha" path factors? Would you then say that `seeing the value of formal meditation and getting on with it' is result of samma-ditthi? If so, based on what particular principle do you come to this conclusion? ================ Alex: Samma ditthi helps samma samadhi, and samma samadhi gives the data to increase samma - ditthi. So we have a self reinforcing loop. S: Are you suggesting that samma-ditthi and samma-samadhi, these two could arise separately? Can Jhana arise without panna? ================ Alex: Hindrances obstruct vision of things as they are. Samma-samadhi removes hindrances, at least temporarily. S: The hindrances are akusala, so obviously they can't "see". They are hindrances to the development of tranquility since they do not allow `concentration' to take place and develop. The only real hindrance to the development of vipassana is ignorance of the Dhamma. The development here is about knowing any and every reality, including these hindrances. However there is also `wrong view', and this is the dhamma which not merely hinders, but actually takes one further away from looking in the right direction. So while sensual desire, ill will etc. are akusala and `blind', these being understood as being just another conditioned reality to be known, they don't serve as hindrance to the development of panna. On the other hand, thinking that the hindrances need to be suppressed `first' before there can be any development of understanding, *this* is wrong view and very misleading. ================ Alex: If you can't supress the hindrances even for a short while, then you are overpowered with them and how can you break through to the high ariayan states? S: If you don't begin to acknowledge that the development of panna is about better and better understanding the present moment reality, a million years of experiencing Jhana *won't* get you an inch closer to enlightenment. =============== > Sukin: We come to the Dhamma with ignorance and should be happy with > any little we get from it. Given aeons over aeons of accumulated > akusala, I think change to the positive will have to be very > incremental. To expect otherwise reflects not only one's own > ignorance and lack of appreciation of the depth of the Dhamma, but > also the attachment to results. Alex: It is called "optimism". S: You mean a view about a situation regardless of the truth? =============== Alex: It is a known psychological fact that if you keep saying (actually it is not you saying, it is Mara saying) "It can't be done, all the akusala" then *you* are right! S: And if you keep denying the truth, let alone coming to realize it, you can't be expected to have any deep appreciation of the Dhamma even in principle. Are you in effect denying that the development of understanding leading to enlightenment takes many, many lifetimes? That some of us acknowledge this and the fact of our own kilesas being still very much `there' and panna very weak, this should not be interpreted as being in any way pessimistic. Optimism and pessimism are expressions of "self" and have no place in the development of the Path. =============== Alex: Remember angulimala? Have you murdered 999 people? Or even 1 person? How much akusala would it take to murder 999 people? S: I'm sure I've murdered many, many more humans and other living beings. But as you say, this is not an obstacle to the possibility of panna arising and leading to enlightenment. The difference between Angulimala and I, is in the accumulated "wisdom", and this is why even though he killed 999 people in his last life and I have not killed one in this, he got enlightened and I haven't. And btw, talking about Angulimala, where does your theory about the need to suppress the hindrance fit in his case?! ============== Alex: If Angulimala could do it, so can you!!! S; Neither Angulimala nor Sukinder can "do it"! It's all about conditions arising and developing. You need to step out of this kind of conventional thinking, Alex. ================ > Sukin: True understanding will *never* downplay intellectual > "understanding" and dismiss any opportunity to hear and consider more > the Dhamma. Alex: Some of you know 100x more than some Arahants. I am sure that the problem is not quantity of info. S: How many times has it been pointed out that it is all about "understanding", not accumulated info? The understanding is of the level known as "pariyatti" and this is differentiated from the next level, namely `patipatti' or practice, in that while the latter has characteristic of a reality as object, pariyatti has a `concept' of the same reality as object. So indeed this is very, very weak level of panna and has nothing to do with the quantity of info. Remember even Arahats listened to the Dhamma even though they had no need for it, however their respect for it was great in accordance with their level of understanding. ============== Alex: Ignorance (mara) is blinded in Jhana mn25. S: I couldn't find this one on ATI. ============== Sukin: > Were this kind of understanding developed, not only there wouldn't be > need particularly, to be secluded from sense contacts, but each > arisen state is potential object of understanding, otherwise > ignorance continues to be accumulated and no defilements will ever be > eradicated. Alex: Gee! So what did the Arahants know then, if they kept being in secluded places away from people! Why aren't you teaching all the Arahants? You better phone them and tell them to get out of caves and forests and start livin' it in the cities. S: Are you implying that the Arahats were still learning? If loving kindness and compassion arose for them naturally as a result of past accumulations, could not their preference for secluded places and for some, would not Jhana then likely arise? =============== > Take the example of a person who might use the `earth kasina' as > meditation object. This person would have the understanding of the > earth element to such a degree that experience through the other > doorways would remind him of the danger of sense contacts, hence in > understanding them as being only aspect of "earth" he experience a > degree of calm. But this is and will ever be "conceptual" only. >>> Alex: In which sutta does it say that Kasina or the breath is conceptual only? Why then did the Buddha recommend it in sutta on voidness mn121- 122? S: I wasn't talking about breath; this can be an object for both samatha and vipassana. Why would you consider a `coloured disc' or a `sign' of this anything but concept? If it is a reality, through which doorway is it experienced and what the characteristic? Regarding the Suttas you mentioned, I had a quick look, and do not know how to interpret it. But I have the following general remarks: - Besides the development of vipassana, the Buddha encouraged all forms of kusala, including dana, sila, the Brahmaviharas and samatha / Jhana development. This is because panna can't be expected to arise all the time and meanwhile there are accumulated tendencies to all form of kusala. - There were many disciples both ariyans and non-ariyans who were accomplished in Jhana. There were also those who were not so skillful and hence could do with a little help from the Buddha in order that they would then improve. - Those skilled in samatha / Jhana as well as vipassana who were ariyans, when these disciples went through the different stages of Jhana, this is the most ideal situation for their wisdom to express itself, thence the greater purity of those states. - If frequent mention and encouragement of Jhana is to be seen as being `a practice' which is part of the Path, then why not include also dana and other forms of kusala which the Buddha indeed also greatly encouraged? ============== >Hence when he concentrates on a kasina, he experiences samatha which >leads to Jhana, but the object is always a `concept'. Alex: Again, where in the suttas is this stated? If kasina is so bad, why did the Buddha talk about it in mn121 and other suttas? S; In the case of those people who are able to experience calm while contemplating on the elements, the appropriate kasinas are necessary if there is going to be any deep levels of concentration. So obviously the Buddha would not say no to kasinas. But this is only in the context of the development of Jhana and not of Vipassana which obviously was the *only* practice ever taught by Him as being the way leading out of samsara. ============== Alex: Why did he praise seclusion ? S: You mean physical or mental seclusion? If the latter, what would the Buddha praise more, seclusion from sense experience by way of Jhana which merely suppresses kilesas, or would he praise the practice namely satipatthana / vipassana, which is the Path leading to akusala of all kinds being eradicated once and for all? I'll be busy the next two days, so please don't expect any quick response. Metta, Sukin #88139 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Alex) - In a message dated 7/15/2008 6:28:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Hi Alex, Let me repeat what I have just said to Howard - but without the typo this time: Suffering ends (ceases to exist) whenever there is right understanding of the way things ultimately are. Ken H ============================= The important question is why it should be that there is such right understanding. Without addressing that, your assertion is empty. With metta, Howard #88140 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Jul 15, 2008 11:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta nilovg Dear Phil, Have a very good trip to Canada. I hope your mother will be in a relatively good shape, she will be glad to see you. Op 15-jul-2008, om 15:43 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > this sentence from my notebook on AS's Survey of > Paramattha Dhammas: "The aim of the study of Dhamma should be the > direct understanding of realities through satipatthana. Satipatthana > can arise and be aware of the characteristics of the element that > experiences whatever object is appearing." ------- N: I am happy about the quote and I see it quite differently, but that does not matter. I see it as follows: Ph: Now, it can be argued/is argued by some (not all) abhidhammikas (?) that the concentration that accompanies every moment of cognition can be strong enough to fulfill the above function. I honestly think they should ask themselves, and often, if this is making full use of the rare opportunity to apply oneself (actually dhammas conditioned, of course) to the Buddha's teaching. ------- N: Learning little by little about nama and rupa in our life, becoming familiar with some of their characteristics, just little by little, I see this as < making full use of the rare opportunity to apply oneself (actually dhammas conditioned, of course) to the Buddha's teaching. > As you know, I will rather emphasize understanding, more so than concentration. What is concentration without right understanding? It may be wrong concentration. Best wishes for the summer, Nina. #88141 From: "szmicio" Date: Tue Jul 15, 2008 1:12 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta szmicio > > this sentence from my notebook on AS's Survey of > > Paramattha Dhammas: "The aim of the study of Dhamma should be the > > direct understanding of realities through satipatthana. Satipatthana > > can arise and be aware of the characteristics of the element that > > experiences whatever object is appearing." Is satipatthana a reality? a dhamma? I think that satipattha is a name for a moment or state when sati-sampajana is present? Am I wrong? bye Lukas #88142 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta truth_aerator Hi Ken and Sukinder, > In a message dated 7/15/2008 6:28:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > Hi Alex, > > Let me repeat what I have just said to Howard - but without the typo > this time: > > Suffering ends (ceases to exist) whenever there is right > understanding of the way things ultimately are. > > Ken H > I don't deny, I affirm the importance of right understanding. What I do deny is understanding (that isn't powerful enough) that can't remove kamachanda and the hindrances, which prevent one from reaching samma- samadhi, Jhana. If one has strong enough understanding of kamachanda and such, one will have no problem reaching Jhana. Best wishes, Alex #88143 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:24 pm Subject: Re: Meditation - Buddha awakened to Jhana truth_aerator Hi Sukinder, Ken and all, Browser crashed and my post was erased. I don't want to retype it again. Few things: a) Buddha remembered Jhana (MN36), not vipassana "I thought: 'I recall once, when my father the Sakyan was working, and I was sitting in the cool shade of a rose-apple tree, then — quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful mental qualities — I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. Could that be the path to Awakening?' Then, following on that memory, came the realization: 'That is the path to Awakening.' I thought: 'So why am I afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities?' I thought: 'I am no longer afraid of that pleasure that has nothing to do with sensuality, nothing to do with unskillful mental qualities, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.036x.than.html b) Buddha praised Jhana (MN108) not vipassana. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.108.than.html c) Buddha awakened (some translate 'discovered') Jhana in SN 2,7 ...Truly in a confining place, he [ed:Buddha] found an opening —the one of extensive wisdom, the awakened one who awakened to jhana,1 the chief bull, withdrawn, the sage http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn02/sn02.007.than.html = d) Ananda explained that it is Jhana that is an opening from confining place. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an09/an09.042.than.html e) Jhana as basis for "insight", MN64 http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima2/064-maha-malunkhyaputta-e1.html How to stop being a "baby boy" and get on livin' it, Anagami/Arhat style! f) Mara is blinded in Jhana (MN25) ßBhikkhus, what is inaccessible to Màra and the followings of Màra. Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhu secluded from sensual thoughts and demeritorious thoughts ... attained to abides in the first jhàna. To this is said, that death is blindfolded, having destroyed the feetless one has gone beyond the sight of death, the evil one ...Again, the bhikkhu overcoming all the sphere of neither-perception- nor-non-perception, attains to the cessation of perceptions and feelings and abides. Seeing it with wisdom too, desires get destroyed. To this is said, that death is blindfolded, having destroyed the feetless one, has gone beyond the sight of death, the evil one. http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima1/025-nivapa-sutta-e1.html ======= I don't know about you, but I don't want Mara's peanut butter! Of course Jhana has to be used for Nibbana, Nirodha & Panna. I am not praising simple indulgence for indulgence's sake (although this IS the best indulgence that a non-ariya can do). I believe that Panna, if it is real Panna, has to be strong enough to supress kamachanda and allow one to enter Jhana at will. Best wishes, Alex #88144 From: "Phil" Date: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:54 pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta philofillet Hi Nina Thanks for your kind wishes re my mom. > N: Learning little by little about nama and rupa in our life, > becoming familiar with some of their characteristics, just little by > little, I see this as < making full use of the > rare opportunity to apply oneself (actually dhammas conditioned, of > course) to the Buddha's teaching. > Yes, as long as we can truly be satisfied by "little by little." At this point I am finding it very difficult to believe that people in this age can be satisfied by "little by little" and that teachings such as Ven. D's "one moment of sati in a life time? Wealthy man" that you know I once really liked can *truly* be accepted by people. I can't get over my suspicion that lurking beneath this sort of teaching there must inevitably be the seeking of results in this one lifetime, and when this seeking of results applies itself to deep, deep teachings, it must go wrong... ...that is just something I can't get beyond for the time being, Nina, but it is my problem, not yours. In the meantime I will (there will be conditions for) seeking results with respect to gross defilements, which must involve more in the way of conceptual objects of understanding. But I do continue to find lots of deep and interesting points to ponder in SPD! I think it's a very good book and I'm glad there is enough patience for me there to continue to benefit from it despite the calls to "awareness of present realities now" and that sort of thing that put me off. Have a great summer Nina, and all my best to Lodewijk. I am also re- reading the Perfections now and then and always hear his voice when I read. Metta, Phil > As you know, I will rather emphasize understanding, more so than > concentration. What is concentration without right understanding? It > may be wrong concentration. > Best wishes for the summer, > Nina. > #88145 From: "szmicio" Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:56 am Subject: Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta szmicio > A:If one has strong enough understanding of kamachanda and such, one will > have no problem reaching Jhana. but how can we understand kamachanda? What is the characteristic of kamachanda? bye Lukas #88146 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction sarahprocter... Hi Mike, (Phil & all), --- On Tue, 15/7/08, m_nease wrote: > S: As you go on to say, no aversion, so how can there be any 'unpleasant thought'? Surely, 'unpleasant thought' can only refer to thinking with unpleasant feeling (domanassa) and dosa? Impossible for an anagami or arahat to have such. > > Even in the sense door process in which body consciousness is accompanied by unpleasant (bodily) feeling, i.e. dukkha, the subsequent javana cittas cannot be accompanied by unpleasant feeling. ****** S: to clarify, in the case of the anagami or arahant here. ... M:> Aside from the last bit (waiting to hear back), I've learned all this before, pretty elementary abhdihamma really. It also implicitly corrects a mistake I made in an another post, suggesting that unpleasantness encountered on the list is vipakka. Since what I encounter on the list is just visible data, this is obviously not the case ('as the feeling at such moments is neutral'). It's most often, I suppose, just displeasure accompanying subsequent thinking with unwholesome volition and other factors (hatred, envy, avarice and so on). .... S: Exactly so. We think it's akusala vipaka when we read messages which seem distasteful/disturbing/using harsh speech and so on. In fact, as you say, what is seen is just visible object, experienced with neutral feeling. Who can say at any time whether it's kusala or akusala vipaka? If the screen light is particularly strong or there's some eye-strain, we may generalise and say it's akusala vipaka perhaps. However, as you suggest, the displeasure (or attachment) whilst reading messages is not vipaka, it's dosa (or lobha) with unpleasant (or pleasant) feeling. Likewise, any understanding that develops as conditioned by what is seen is due to accumulations for such. It is 'association with the wise', wise attention, not kusala vipaka. I think this is an area which is a good example of some basic Abhidhamma understanding being very practical in daily life, such as right now as we read the messages. Any problems, such as any displeasure, always come back to the accumulations for such, rather than the vipaka or other people. As Phil has been quoting recently from the Honeyball Sutta (MN18): "What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates." Thanks for the discussion, Mike. [Phil, I like your comments about habitual processes which are conditioned, thinking about past and future all the time. Best wishes for understanding all those honeyballs and have a great trip back to Canada.] Metta, Sarah ======== #88147 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:21 am Subject: Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Ken (and Alex) - > > In a message dated 7/15/2008 6:28:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > Hi Alex, > > Let me repeat what I have just said to Howard - but without the typo > this time: > > Suffering ends (ceases to exist) whenever there is right > understanding of the way things ultimately are. > > Ken H > > > ============================= > The important question is why it should be that there is such right > understanding. Without addressing that, your assertion is empty. > > Hi Howard, I'm sorry for being a bit slow, but I don't follow you. In what way was that assertion empty? Ken H #88148 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Rob M..... sarahprocter... Hi Alex & all, --- On Tue, 15/7/08, Alex wrote: > > S: <...>It is panna, right understanding > >that understands dhammas more and more clearly. > > > A: <...> >How does one clearly sees the above, whats the method? > .... > S: As I keep stressing to you, 'one' never sees anything. It's not a matter of doing or of 'my' or 'your' understanding at all. > A:> We've been over this before. Buddha, Arahants commonly used conventinal words without being afraid of being rebuked by learned people. ..... S: Ok, you ask "what's the method" for understanding dhammas more clearly as anatta and for the eradication of defilements. Is it following a prescribed technique, attending a meditation retreat, trying to attain jhana or what? Let's see how the Buddha and Arahats answer this (from my earlier post #31984): SN35: 153 (8) Is there a Method? [B.Bodhi transl] "Is there a method of exposition, bhikkhus, by means of which a bhikkhu - apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it* - can declare final knowledge thus: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being’?"** <....> "There is a method of exposition by means of which a bhikkhu - apart from faith.....apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it - can declare final knowledge thus: ‘Destroyed is birth....there is no more for this state of being.’ And what is that method of exposition? Here, bhikkhus, having seen a form with the eye, if there is lust, hatred, or delusion internally, a bhikkhu understands: ‘There is lust, hatred, or delusion internally’; or, if there is no lust, hatred, or delusion internally, he understands: “There is no lust, hatred, or delusion internally.’ Since this is so, are these things to be understood by faith, or by personal preference, or by oral tradition, or by reasoned reflection, or by acceptance of a view after pondering it?â€? "No, venerable sir.â€? "Aren’t these things to be undeerstood by seeing them with wisdom?***â€? "Yes, venerable sir.â€? "This, bhikkhus, is the method of exposition by means of which a bhikkhu can declare final knowledge thus: ‘Destroyed is birth..there is no more for this state of being.’ "Further, bhikkhus, having heard a sound with the ear....Having cognized a mental phenomenon with the mind, if there is lust, hatred, or delusion internallly..........etc’ <....> "This, bhikkhus, is the method of exposition by means of which a bhikkhu - apart from faith, apart from personal preference, apart from oral tradition, apart from reasoned reflection, apart from acceptance of a view after pondering it- can declare final knowledge thus: “Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.â€? ***** * BB note 150: As at 12:68 [Kosambi] ** Pali for this: paraatthi naa kho bhikkhave, pariyaayo ya.m pariaaya.m aagamma bhikkhu a~n~natreva saddhaaya a~n~natra- ruciyaa a~n~natra anussavaa a~n~natra aakaaraparivitakkaa a~n~natra di.t.thinijjhaanakkhantiyaa a~n~na.m vyaakareyya: "khii.naa jaati, vusita.m brahmacariya.m, kata.m kara.niiya.m naapara.m itthattaayaati pajaanaamaa" ti~n ***dhammaa pa~n~naaya disvaa veditabbaati ............................... S: It all comes down to the understanding of seeing, visible object, attachment and other dhammas when they appear as mere dhammas. No self to do anything at all. Metta, Sarah ======= #88149 From: sarah abbott Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta sarahprocter... Hi Howard, --- On Mon, 14/7/08, upasaka@... wrote: >S:.... Any wise attention is accompanied by sati (awareness) and this is just as conditioned as the unwise attention and akusala thinking. Awareness can arise anytime at all, even in the midst of such day-dreaming. ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- >Howard: Awareness cannot arise "anytime at all" if by "anytime" you mean regardless of conditions. ... S: All dhammas (except for nibbana) are conditioned. I thought that was clear in what I wrote. ... H:> Volitional actions, some useful and others useless or even harmful, are critical in the matter whether or not awareness tends to arise. .... S: And yet, cetana is not an eightfold path factor. I think that right understanding is the critical ingredient here. .... H:> For the mass of people who simply live their lives with no efforts made in useful directions, awareness does not grow in frequency of occurrence or in strength. Not everyone does as well as everyone else. Conditions are not, themselves, causeless, and useful volition and acting upon such is critical to the development of useful conditions. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -- S: Again, I'd prefer to stress the right understanding of what is useful, what is useless, what dhammas are and so on. This is the way that the other path factors develop and defilements (starting with self-view) are eventually eradicated. .... .... >H: > Maintaining such presence is a mindfulness facility that can be cultivated. ... >S: You're speaking conventionally and I understand what you're saying. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -- >Howard: Then what do you deny? That there is a self who can do something? Granted! There is none! Now what?? Sarah, you make valid paramattha-vaca observations, and then, in my view, inappropriately apply them at the conventional level. An extreme example of this, though not SO extreme, would be for a starving man with food in front of him but who has read DSG posts to the effect that there is no person to do anything, to simply sit and die, without acting to take sustenance. ..... S: This would be an extreme example of wrong view. Understanding dhammas are conditioned doesn't mean there is any material change to the circumstances of one's life. The difference is that while eating, driving, going to work and so on, there is a growing understanding of the dhammas involved and of these as anatta. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---- .... >S: <....>However, it's never a 'we' that controls consciousness and right effort never develops by a 'doing something' by following particular events or in particular contexts. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - >Howard: I have no bone to pick with regard to the 1st clause of your last sentence, but I utterly deny the truth of the 2nd clause. Attending to mental states as they arise, dropping the akusala ones like hot potatoes and "feeding" the kusala ones is exactly "doing something," and, in fact, is doing something *right*! ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - ..... S: I think that 'understanding' rather than 'attending to', 'dropping' and 'feeding' is more appropriate in terms of understanding bhavana (mental development), i.e the development of right understanding. Otherwise it's not clear who or what is 'dropping' or 'feeding'. ..... ....... >Howard: H:> :-) Thanks. A pleasantly busy summer, but with the pleasantness offset by the unpleasantness of illness and death among friends and the realization that unhappy occurrences, even of extreme nature, can arise at any time. .... S: Yes, a good reminder. We spend so much time in a day involved with trivial concerns, always forgetting that death or sickness can come at any time. .... H:> The trick, and a hard one to carry out, is to manage to love strongly and deeply and joyfully and yet disengage from everything and every one, for nothing and no one can be held onto. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- .... S: I appreciate the last phrase, "for nothing and no one can be held onto" in particular. It's so very true and yet we continue to live most the day in forgetfulness, it seems. Always good to chat, Howard. Again, we can just agree to differ on any points you'd prefer to leave aside. Metta, Sarah ======== #88150 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 1:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 7/16/2008 6:21:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > > Hi, Ken (and Alex) - > > In a message dated 7/15/2008 6:28:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > Hi Alex, > > Let me repeat what I have just said to Howard - but without the typo > this time: > > Suffering ends (ceases to exist) whenever there is right > understanding of the way things ultimately are. > > Ken H > > > ============================= > The important question is why it should be that there is such right > understanding. Without addressing that, your assertion is empty. > > Hi Howard, I'm sorry for being a bit slow, but I don't follow you. In what way was that assertion empty? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Whether you see it as empty or not, what of the question to why it should be that there is right understanding? ========================== With metta, Howard Ken H #88151 From: upasaka@... Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 2:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 7/16/2008 7:10:59 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Howard, --- On Mon, 14/7/08, upasaka@... wrote: >S:.... Any wise attention is accompanied by sati (awareness) and this is just as conditioned as the unwise attention and akusala thinking. Awareness can arise anytime at all, even in the midst of such day-dreaming. ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- >Howard: Awareness cannot arise "anytime at all" if by "anytime" you mean regardless of conditions. ... S: All dhammas (except for nibbana) are conditioned. I thought that was clear in what I wrote. ... H:> Volitional actions, some useful and others useless or even harmful, are critical in the matter whether or not awareness tends to arise. .... S: And yet, cetana is not an eightfold path factor. I think that right understanding is the critical ingredient here. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Many people, including Bhikkhu Bodhi, translate 'samma sankappo' as "right intention" or "right resolve". In any case, I find a position that kamma as not one of the most basic elements of the Dhamma as wildly off the mark. ------------------------------------------------ .... H:> For the mass of people who simply live their lives with no efforts made in useful directions, awareness does not grow in frequency of occurrence or in strength. Not everyone does as well as everyone else. Conditions are not, themselves, causeless, and useful volition and acting upon such is critical to the development of useful conditions. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -- S: Again, I'd prefer to stress the right understanding of what is useful, what is useless, what dhammas are and so on. This is the way that the other path factors develop and defilements (starting with self-view) are eventually eradicated. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: You are, of course free to stress whatever you wish. While I consider wisdom as most critical in the uprooting of defilements, it requires many sorts of conditions for its cultivation. I don't generally favor what I think of as one-trick-pony approaches to the Dhamma. ----------------------------------------------- .... .... >H: > Maintaining such presence is a mindfulness facility that can be cultivated. ... >S: You're speaking conventionally and I understand what you're saying. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -- >Howard: Then what do you deny? That there is a self who can do something? Granted! There is none! Now what?? Sarah, you make valid paramattha-vaca observations, and then, in my view, inappropriately apply them at the conventional level. An extreme example of this, though not SO extreme, would be for a starving man with food in front of him but who has read DSG posts to the effect that there is no person to do anything, to simply sit and die, without acting to take sustenance. ..... S: This would be an extreme example of wrong view. Understanding dhammas are conditioned doesn't mean there is any material change to the circumstances of one's life. The difference is that while eating, driving, going to work and so on, there is a growing understanding of the dhammas involved and of these as anatta. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: There IS or there COULD be?? Almost NO people find that "while eating, driving, going to work and so on, there is a growing understanding of the dhammas involved and of these as anatta." It can be so for those people who have cultivated appropriate attention in manner taught by the Buddha, though. ------------------------------------------------ ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---- .... >S: <....>However, it's never a 'we' that controls consciousness and right effort never develops by a 'doing something' by following particular events or in particular contexts. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - >Howard: I have no bone to pick with regard to the 1st clause of your last sentence, but I utterly deny the truth of the 2nd clause. Attending to mental states as they arise, dropping the akusala ones like hot potatoes and "feeding" the kusala ones is exactly "doing something," and, in fact, is doing something *right*! ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - ..... S: I think that 'understanding' rather than 'attending to', 'dropping' and 'feeding' is more appropriate in terms of understanding bhavana (mental development), i.e the development of right understanding. Otherwise it's not clear who or what is 'dropping' or 'feeding'. --------------------------------------------------- Howard No "one" is dropping anything. That's a red herring. Right effort is not the same factor as right understanding! There's that one-trick pony in the center ring again. --------------------------------------------------- ..... ....... >Howard: H:> :-) Thanks. A pleasantly busy summer, but with the pleasantness offset by the unpleasantness of illness and death among friends and the realization that unhappy occurrences, even of extreme nature, can arise at any time. .... S: Yes, a good reminder. We spend so much time in a day involved with trivial concerns, always forgetting that death or sickness can come at any time. .... H:> The trick, and a hard one to carry out, is to manage to love strongly and deeply and joyfully and yet disengage from everything and every one, for nothing and no one can be held onto. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- .... S: I appreciate the last phrase, "for nothing and no one can be held onto" in particular. It's so very true and yet we continue to live most the day in forgetfulness, it seems. Always good to chat, Howard. Again, we can just agree to differ on any points you'd prefer to leave aside. Metta, Sarah =========================== With metta, Howard #88152 From: "m. nease" Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction m_nease Hi Sarah, sarah abbott wrote: > S: Exactly so. We think it's akusala vipaka when we read messages which > seem distasteful/disturbing/using harsh speech and so on. In fact, as > you say, what is seen is just visible object, experienced with neutral > feeling. Who can say at any time whether it's kusala or akusala vipaka? > If the screen light is particularly strong or there's some eye-strain, > we may generalise and say it's akusala vipaka perhaps. However, as you > suggest, the displeasure (or attachment) whilst reading messages is not > vipaka, it's dosa (or lobha) with unpleasant (or pleasant) feeling. > Likewise, any understanding that develops as conditioned by what is seen > is due to accumulations for such. It is 'association with the wise', > wise attention, not kusala vipaka. > > I think this is an area which is a good example of some basic Abhidhamma > understanding being very practical in daily life, such as right now as > we read the messages. Any problems, such as any displeasure, always come > back to the accumulations for such, rather than the vipaka or other > people. As Phil has been quoting recently from the Honeyball Sutta > (MN18): "What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that > one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates." > > Thanks for the discussion, Mike. My pleasure Sarah, thanks for the reminders. I don't usually like to dwell on kamma/vipakka too much (though in this case it's a good think I did)--however, one last point. Do you remember, quite a while back, you posted some commentary about kusala/akusala vipakka being (something to the effect of) what the ordinary person would like or dislike? If you do, could you please repost it? Thanks in advance. > [Phil, I like your comments about habitual processes which are > conditioned, thinking about past and future all the time. Best wishes > for understanding all those honeyballs and have a great trip back to Ditto, Phil--good points and perfectly apt citation. mike #88153 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta nilovg Dear Phil, Op 16-jul-2008, om 1:54 heeft Phil het volgende geschreven: > In the meantime I will (there > will be conditions for) seeking results with respect to gross > defilements, which must involve more in the way of conceptual objects > of understanding. ------- N: I also find the simple reminders in the suttas very helpful. We need not think so much that they are conceptual objects or conceptual teaching. I like the Sigalovadasutta very much. The Buddha warns for evil friendship, because, before you know it, they can influence you and drag you on to your ruin. It is most important with whom you associate. We also read in K. II that likeminded people search each other's company, like the same elements that attract each other. So, I think we can profit from the teaching on paramattha dhamma and also from the teaching according to the suttanta method. Actually, both ways are excellent. Nina. #88154 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 15-jul-2008, om 22:12 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > > this sentence from my notebook on AS's Survey of > > > Paramattha Dhammas: "The aim of the study of Dhamma should be the > > > direct understanding of realities through satipatthana. > Satipatthana > > > can arise and be aware of the characteristics of the element that > > > experiences whatever object is appearing." > > Is satipatthana a reality? a dhamma? > > I think that satipattha is a name for a moment or state when > sati-sampajana is present? Am I wrong? ------- N: Satipatthana can refer to the four Applicartions of Mindfulness which are explained in the satipatthanasutta; all objects that can be object of vipassana. Or satipatthana refers to the Way the Buddha and his great Disciples went: ahving equanimity no matter people listened or did not approve of his teachings. The third meaning: sati of the level of satipatthana and this is associated with right understanding. Sati sampajanna , this means sati and pa~n~naa. It is a moment when sati and pa~n~naa arise. I quote some parts of my "Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka": Mindfulness, in Pali: sati, arises with every sobhana citta (beautiful consciousness). Sati is wholesome, it is non-forgetful of what is wholesome.There are many levels of sati. There is sati of the level of dåna. The kusala citta that performs dåna could not arise without sati. There is sati with síla. When kusala citta arises which observes síla there is sati. The kusala citta which develops samatha is accompanied by sati which is aware of the object of samatha. The kusala citta which develops vipassanå is accompanied by sati. Sati in vipassanå is mindful of nåma or reupa which appears right now through one of the six doors. The object of mindfulness in vipassanå can be visible object, seeing, sound, hearing, thinking, or any other reality which appears at the preent moment. In order that the function of sati in vipassana will become clearer, we should first have more understanding of the object of sati.... Intellectual understanding of nåma and rípa is different from the direct experience of their characteristics and one should know this difference. It is important to know when there is sati and when there is no sati. If we have correct understanding of sati it can be developed. Many realities are appearing, such as seeing, hearing, attachment, hardness or heat, but mostly there is forgetfulness, no study of realities. But sometimes sati may arise, just for a moment, and begin to be aware of one reality at a time. We may try to explain in many ways what sati is, but it can only be known from experience, when it has actually arisen already. Sati is not self, we cannot be master of sati. Sati cannot arise whenever we want it to arise, and for as long as we wish. However much we want to have sati, it is beyond control. It can arise only when there are the right conditions for its arising. When we listen to the Dhamma as it is explained by the good friend in Dhamma, when we consider what we have heard, ask questions and discuss Dhamma, our intellectual understanding will grow and this can condition right mindfulness. We should know that also intellectual understanding is not self, that it arises because of conditions. It can arise only when we have listened to the Dhamma already and pondered over it for a long time, and when there is steadfast remembrance of what we have heard....> Nina. #88155 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:09 pm Subject: Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta truth_aerator Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Alex, > > Let me repeat what I have just said to Howard - but without the typo > this time: > > Suffering ends (ceases to exist) whenever there is right > understanding of the way things ultimately are. > > Ken H > I don't deny, I strongly affirm the importance of understanding. I do however want to state that it is very important about HOW one gets that sort of panna. I also would like to state clearly that panna *must* be strong enough to enter Jhana, if it is panna at all. Best wishes, Alex #88156 From: "Alex" Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: To Rob M..... truth_aerator Hi Sarah, I believe, strongly, that entire Noble8fold path is required. The suttas often do NOT mention absolutely everything, in fact one often must combine several suttas to have a clear picture. Ex: MN 74 & mn111. If one reads the Dighanaka sutta, one may get wrong impression that Sariputta awakened only through hearing the discource. If one would read mn111, one would know that Sariputta was doing Jhana & immaterial attainments in seclusion for 2 weeks. He was listening to the discource on 14th day when he (a sotopanna at least) reached all 8 attainments and Nirodha Samapatti. I am sure that most people, after reaching 8 attainments would easily get path attainments reading and considering the Buddha's discourses. Heck, all would reach Anagami/Arhatship stage if nirodha was reached (as was the case with Ven. Sariputta). Similiar case with Ven. Rahula. Best wishes, Alex #88157 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiitisutta Corner DN 33 1.9, 1.9.1, 1.9.2 scottduncan2 Dear Nina, connie, All, I like this: "...As to the fourth way of name-giving, this concerns elements that make their own name as they arise. 'For no one, when feeling arises, says: "Be thou called feeling".... For feeling, whether it be in the past, future or present, is [after all and always] just feeling. And so is perception, so are mental activities, so is consciousness...]'..." Scott: It often appears to me that feeling, for example, is just there, underneath the thoughts, as it were, and long before them. The thoughts have names and explanations for feeling but these are just thoughts. This wordless experience called feeling is definitely what it is. Sincerely, Scott. #88158 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:50 pm Subject: Re: Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > > Do you remember, quite a while back, you posted some commentary about kusala/akusala vipakka being (something to > the effect of) what the ordinary person would like or dislike? If you do, could you please repost it? Thanks in advance. > > Hi Mike and Sarah, I can't resist butting in on this question because I think I know the answer. Or, at least, I think I know part of the answer. Sense objects can be desirable, moderately desirable or undesirable. If I remember correctly, we (or citta) can't tell which is which. But (and now we're coming to the part I think I can answer) we can at least know what is meant by `desirable' etc. The meaning of those terms when applied to the characteristics of sense rupas is exactly the same as the ordinary, reasonable, man in the street might give those same terms when they are applied to conventional objects (pannatti). Corrections welcome, of course. :-) Ken H #88159 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:47 am Subject: Yoniso manasikara and sati szmicio "> L:The Buddha said that yoniso manasikara condition panja(right > understanding), but is yoniso manasikara a cetasika or just pannati. --------- N: There are aIso two kinds of citta which are called manasikara (Atthasalini 133 and Visusshimagga XIV, 152). One kind of citta which is manasikara is the panca-dvaravajana-citta (five-sense-door adverting-consciousness). The first citta of the 'sense-door process', which adverts to the object; it is called 'controller of the sense-door process'. The other kind of citta which manasikara is the mano-dvara-vajana-citta (mind-door adverting-consciousness) which adverts to the object through the mind-door and is succeeded by the javana cittas. It is called 'controller of the javanas'.) In a sense- door process this type of citta is called votthapanacitta and determines the object, and it is followed by javanacittas. When the manodvaaraavajjanacitta is followed by kusala javanacittas there is wise attention to the object. The manodvaaraavajjanacitta itself is kiriyacitta, neither kusala nor akusala, and it is an extremely short moment. We cannot pinpoint it. It is not a concept." --------------------------------------------------------------- L:Most time there is a lot of thinking. Now, when I see thinking as namas. Is there yoniso manasikara or sati-sampajanna which knows it? Sometimes I am forgetful and have a day-dreaming. But there is a moment when I get back to reality. In such moments there is no forgetfulness. Is it yoniso manasikara or sati? "> L: I just considered yoniso manasikara as just this moment when we put > our attention to things which are important.Example, when we put our > attention to seeing or hearing. > But can we really put attention anywhere? Or just yoniso manasikara > arise with the citta? --------- N: See above, only the cetasika manasikara accompanies each citta. When we think of paying attention to something we should know that it is only a cetasika which we cannot pinpoint, it is gone immediately." --------------------------------------------------------- L:So yoniso manasikara is a cetasika manasikara or mano-dvara-vajana-citta, panca-dvaravajana-citta?? bye Lukas #88160 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:04 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@... wrote: > > > Hi, Ken - > > In a message dated 7/16/2008 6:21:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > kenhowardau@... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@ wrote: > > . . . > Hi Howard, > > I'm sorry for being a bit slow, but I don't follow you. In what way > was that assertion empty? > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Whether you see it as empty or not, what of the question to why it > should be that there is right understanding? > Hi Howard, I have done some revision and I think I can see where the confusion came from. I had begun by talking in very simplistic terms about there being only dhammas. Since there are only dhammas there is no need to worry, is there? There is no need to do anything! After all, dhammas don't care what happens to them. OK, I know this is a simplistic and potentially dangerous way to talk, but it's an interesting exercise, and I thought you were entering into the spirit of things in the following exchange: --------- KH: > > During a Buddha's sasana a third (or middle) way is knowable. It is a way of momentary conditioned dhammas. H: > What way is that, Ken? Everything we experience and everything that happens consists of nothing but that. So, no matter *what* happens, THAT is the case, --------- But it seems I was wrong. As Phil's comments on our discussion demonstrate, he [and you] were not seeing this conversation as about simplistic understanding. Phil thought it was about deep, developed, profound understanding: ---------- Phil: > Ken wrote below: > Suffering ends (ceases to > exist) whenever there was right understanding of the way things > ultimately are! Yes, sure, but Ken, my friend, we don't experience life in such terms. I'm at a dead end for the time being when it comes to just what value it is insisting on deep levels of understanding that are so very, very different from our own. The Buddha urged us to see for ourselves, to test his teaching and confirm its truth. How can we confirm its truth when we are insisting on seeing things in the light of a truth that is so very, very beyond our level of understanding? I just don't get it, honestly. ------------ So that at least explains the confusion. While we are on the subject, what do you think of my suggestion that even a basic, simplistic, understanding (of the fact that there are only dhammas) is still a useful – perhaps immensely useful – asset? Ken H #88161 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:16 am Subject: Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta kenhowardau --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" wrote: > > Hi Ken, > > --- > I don't deny, I strongly affirm the importance of understanding. I do > however want to state that it is very important about HOW one gets > that sort of panna. I also would like to state clearly that panna > *must* be strong enough to enter Jhana, if it is panna at all. > > Hi Alex, Could you explain what you have written, please? At first you talk of "that sort of" panna, which implies there can be various sorts and/or levels of panna. But then you say that nothing short of jhana- panna can be called panna. As you understand it, what, ultimately, is panna? Is it a conditioned paramattha dhamma (an ultimate reality)? Ken H #88162 From: sarah abbott Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction sarahprocter... Hi Mike, KenH, (Rob K & all), M:> Do you remember, quite a while back, you posted some commentary about kusala/akusala vipakka being (something to > the effect of) what the ordinary person would like or dislike? If you do, could you please repost it? Thanks in advance. .... S: Are you referring to the passage from the Sammohavinodani which has been quoted several times? For example, here I discussed it with Scott: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/71072 Yes, we can generalise and say conventionally that the good taste is kusala vipaka and the bad taste is akusala vipaka and we would generally agree, but of course all have our own preferences. However, after discussing (conventionally) how some objects are kusala or akusala vipaka, the text(s) stress that the only determiner at any moment is past kamma. We sit under a fan in the same room and one person feels comfortable and the other gets a chill. It just depends on kamma: Taken from the Sammohavinodani in the message above: > "But the Elder Tipi.taka Cuula-Abhaya said: 'The agreeable and > disagreeable are distinguishable according to [kamma-] result > (vipaaka) only, not according to impulsion (javana)...Only by way of > [kamma-] result, however, is it rightly distinguishable. For [kamma-] > resultant consciousness cannot be mistaken. If the object is > agreeable it is profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it > is unprofitable result that has arisen." .... S: So, we might say conventionally that what we've just seen here is kusala or akusala vipaka, but who knows? It depends on kamma what kind of seeing consciousness arises at any moment, to see desirable or undesirable objects. And as discussed, almost everything that is considered desirable or undesirable is according to the proliferations and subsequent feelings, rather than the actual visible objects. ... K: >I can't resist butting in on this question because I think I know the answer. Or, at least, I think I know part of the answer. Sense objects can be desirable, moderately desirable or undesirable. If I remember correctly, we (or citta) can't tell which is which. But (and now we're coming to the part I think I can answer) we can at least know what is meant by `desirable' etc. The meaning of those terms when applied to the characteristics of sense rupas is exactly the same as the ordinary, reasonable, man in the street might give those same terms when they are applied to conventional objects (pannatti). .... S: I think that's rather a good and interesting way of putting it. I'll be interested to hear any further comments of Mike's. Metta, Sarah p.s The fuller quote of the passage above can be found in this old post of Rob K's: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20277 ================== #88163 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta upasaka_howard Hi, Ken (and Phil) - In a message dated 7/17/2008 6:04:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: While we are on the subject, what do you think of my suggestion that even a basic, simplistic, understanding (of the fact that there are only dhammas) is still a useful – perhaps immensely useful – asset? =========================== I think it is useful and true. I see the matter no other way that this. It is certainly conducive to relinquishment. But think that more is needed. This includes the following: Experientially, and not via mere intellectual assent, directly knowing that 1) There are only dhammas, and 2) These dhammas are inseparable and interdependent lawful arisings that constitute a seamless network - mere impersonal, arising & subsiding flashings in the void (or rolling waves on the sea of experience), all fleeting, ungraspable, insubstantial, and not sources of satisfaction. It is only by means of direct, dazzling, supernal wisdom that the fullness of liberating relinquishment can occur. (Yes, I know these words are grandiose. I purposely chose them that way to distinguish intellectual understanding from supermundane, liberating wisdom.) With metta, Howard #88164 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta, Ch 9, no 2. jonoabb Hi Herman You mention a number of points, and there's much that could be said on them. But since we've agreed to drop the thread, I'll save my comments for another occasion ;-)) > As far as this simple mind understands it, there is no difference in > your simple mind between action and inaction. Couldn't resist commenting here, though. I would say that taking action and not taking action are both concepts. In either case, it is the mental factor of cetana ('intention') that is being referred to, I believe. > ... >>> No need to go over it again, I am happy to leave it :-) >>> >> Agreed. We can leave it there for now ;-)) >> > > That would be most welcome. > Fine by me, too. Jon #88165 From: "Egbert" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta, Ch 9, no 2. egberdina Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > > > > As far as this simple mind understands it, there is no difference in > > your simple mind between action and inaction. > > Couldn't resist commenting here, though. I would say that taking action > and not taking action are both concepts. In either case, it is the > mental factor of cetana ('intention') that is being referred to, I believe. > It will forever be true that you wrote this post, Jon. And it will be forever true that you did not abstain from doing so. Denial of action/inaction IS your action, Jon, it is what makes you you. Cheers Herman #88166 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:10 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Yoniso manasikara and sati nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 17-jul-2008, om 10:47 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > L:Most time there is a lot of thinking. Now, when I see thinking as > namas. Is there yoniso manasikara or sati-sampajanna which knows it? -------- N: Only you yourself can tell what level of understanding realizes this. It may be intellectual understanding or direct awareness. Anyway, thinking can be understood as just a dhamma, no self who thinks. ------- > > L: Sometimes I am forgetful and have a day-dreaming. But there is a > moment when I get back to reality. In such moments there is no > forgetfulness. Is it yoniso manasikara or sati? ------ N: Again, nobody else can tell. Sati when it arises, is aware of only one charactreistic at a time through one of the six doors, without thinking. And also sati is non-self, there may be an idea of my sati, without our noticing it. -------- > > "> L: I just considered yoniso manasikara as just this moment when > we put > > our attention to things which are important.Example, when we put our > > attention to seeing or hearing. > > But can we really put attention anywhere? Or just yoniso manasikara > > arise with the citta? > --------- > N: See above, only the cetasika manasikara accompanies each citta. > When we think of paying attention to something we should know that > it is only a cetasika which we cannot pinpoint, it is gone > immediately." > --------------------------------------------------------- > > L:So yoniso manasikara is a cetasika manasikara or > mano-dvara-vajana-citta, panca-dvaravajana-citta?? ------ N:When we speak of wise attention, we mean the kiriyacitta manasikaara together with the kusala javanacittas. I quote a note of Ven. Bodhi to the Middle L. Sayings 2, all the cankers: Nina. #88167 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 7:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiitisutta Corner DN 33 1.9, 1.9.1, 1.9.2 nilovg Continuation with the Commentary to the Sangiitisutta. Sutta: Ignorance and craving for rebirth. ‘‘Avijjaa ca bhavata.nhaa ca. ------ Co: ignorance is not knowing dukkha, etc. Also this has been explained in the Visuddhimagga. [Avijjaati dukkhaadiisu a~n~naa.na.m. Ayampi vitthaarato visuddhimagge kathitaayeva.] ------- N: Ignorance is not knowing dukkha, the origin of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha and the way leading to the cessation of dukkha. Thus, ignorance is not knowing the four noble truths. Co: As to craving for becoming, this is desire for becoming. As is said, how is there here craving for becoming? For which becomings there is desire for becoming etc. [Bhavata.nhaati bhavapatthanaa. Yathaaha ‘‘tattha katamaa bhavata.nhaa? Yo bhavesu bhavacchando’’tiaadi (dha. sa. 1319).] N: The Buddha gave ignorance and craving for becoming as starting points of the exposition on the round of becoming: Vis. Ch XVII, 285. The two things, ignorance and craving, should be understood as the root of this Wheel of Becoming. Of the derivation from the past, ignorance is the root and feeling the end. And of the continuation into the future, craving is the root and ageing-and-death the end. It is twofold in this way. -------- N: Because of ignorance one does not see the danger of being in the cycle of birth and death, one does not want to be liberated from it. So long as ignorance and all kinds of craving, including craving for rebirth, have not been eradicated by pa~n~naa, one continues in the cycle. -------- Sutta; False opinion as to (a) rebirth, (b) no rebirth. ‘‘Bhavadi.t.thi ca vibhavadi.t.thi ca. ------- Co: as to wrong view with regard to becoming: eternalism, wrong view as to eternalism. Dhsg (1320): what is here wrong view as to becoming? “There will be the self and the world”, thus this wrong view is explained according to the method of the Abhidhamma. [Bhavadi.t.thiiti bhavo vuccati sassata.m, sassatavasena uppajjanakadi.t.thi. Saa ‘‘tattha katamaa bhavadi.t.thi? ‘Bhavissati attaa ca loko caa’ti yaa evaruupaa di.t.thi di.t.thigata’’ntiaadinaa (dha. sa. 1320) nayena abhidhamme vitthaaritaa. ------- Co: as to wrong view of annihilation: wrong view arising with regard to annihilation. Dhsg (1321) : what is here wrong view as to annihilation? The self and the world will not exist (anymore), thus this wrong view is explained according to the method of the Abhidhamma. Vibhavadi.t.thiiti vibhavo vuccati uccheda.m, ucchedavasena uppajjanakadi.t.thi. Saapi ‘‘tattha katamaa vibhavadi.t.thi? ‘Na bhavissati attaa ca loko caa’ti (dha. sa. 285). Yaa evaruupaa di.t.thi di.t.thigata’’ntiaadinaa (dha. sa. 1321) nayena tattheva vitthaaritaa.] ******* Nina. #88168 From: "szmicio" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 8:20 am Subject: Re: Yoniso manasikara and sati szmicio Dear Nina, > > L:Most time there is a lot of thinking. Now, when I see thinking as > > namas. Is there yoniso manasikara or sati-sampajanna which knows it? > -------- > N: Only you yourself can tell what level of understanding realizes > this. It may be intellectual understanding or direct awareness. > Anyway, thinking can be understood as just a dhamma, no self who thinks. > ------- L: But when sati-sampajana arises, is there yoniso manasikara too? Or should I say If there is sati-sampajanna it is yoniso manasikara? > > > > L: Sometimes I am forgetful and have a day-dreaming. But there is a > > moment when I get back to reality. In such moments there is no > > forgetfulness. Is it yoniso manasikara or sati? > ------ > N: Again, nobody else can tell. Sati when it arises, is aware of only > one charactreistic at a time through one of the six doors, without > thinking. And also sati is non-self, there may be an idea of my sati, > without our noticing it. > -------- L: Yes, but I still don't understand the process of yoniso manasikara. The Teacher said if we want to have right understanding(panja) there should be: 1) listening to the Dhamma 2) yoniso manasikara When I lead my daily life I just see diffrent conditions, diffrent dhammas. There is a time when I am absorbed my work and there is forgetfulness. Even when I am listening Dhamma there still can be forgetfulness. But when there are a proper conditions yoniso manasikara arise and there is understanding. I dont know what yoniso manasikara is, but I know thats not me who do something, who put attention here or there and who has understanding. bye Lukas #88169 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yoniso manasikara and sati nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 17-jul-2008, om 17:20 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > L: But > when sati-sampajana arises, is there yoniso manasikara too? > Or should I say If there is sati-sampajanna it is yoniso manasikara? ------- Yes. Whenever kusala citta arises we know that there is wise attention to the object that is experienced at that moment. Every time the javanacittas are kusala cittas. -- > > ------ > > N: Again, nobody else can tell. Sati when it arises, is aware of > only > > one charactreistic at a time through one of the six doors, without > > thinking. And also sati is non-self, there may be an idea of my > sati, > > without our noticing it. > > -------- > > L: Yes, but I still don't understand the process of yoniso manasikara. > The Teacher said if we want to have right understanding(panja) there > should be: > 1) listening to the Dhamma > 2) yoniso manasikara --------- N: When listening, and when considering the Dhamma we heard there are kusala cittas. Then there is yoniso manaasikaara. But we should not worry: is there, is there not. -------- > > L: When I lead my daily life I just see diffrent conditions, diffrent > dhammas. There is a time when I am absorbed my work and there is > forgetfulness. Even when I am listening Dhamma there still can be > forgetfulness. But when there are a proper conditions yoniso > manasikara arise and there is understanding. > I dont know what yoniso manasikara is, but I know thats not me who do > something, who put attention here or there and who has understanding. ----- N: That is right, no self who is doing something. Nina. #88170 From: "Alex" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:06 pm Subject: Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta truth_aerator Hi Ken & all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Alex" > wrote: > > > > Hi Ken, > > > > > > --- > > I don't deny, I strongly affirm the importance of understanding. I >do however want to state that it is very important about HOW one >gets that sort of panna. I also would like to state clearly that >panna *must* be strong enough to enter Jhana, if it is panna at all. > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > Could you explain what you have written, please? At first you talk > of "that sort of" panna, which implies there can be various sorts > and/or levels of panna. Panna's strength can be weak, middling, or strong. > But then you say that nothing short of jhana- > panna can be called panna. > Here I was talking about panna directed towards sensuality & unwholesome mental states. I declare that panna should be strong enough to remove (at least temporary) akusala states. In my book, panna that only "talks the talk" is weak and doesn't deserve to be even called "panna". > As you understand it, what, ultimately, is panna? >> Ability to see in such a way as to give rise to dispassion, revulsion, & liberation from ALL dukkha. > Is it a conditioned paramattha dhamma (an ultimate reality)? > > Ken H Yes it is conditioned and impersonal (not I, not me, nor mine)! Best wishes, Alex #88171 From: upasaka@... Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 11:13 am Subject: A Video Worth Viewing upasaka_howard Hi, all - My son sent the link _http://www.cyberthing.net/video-play.php?id=105_ (http://www.cyberthing.net/video-play.php?id=105) to me. His wife checked it out on Snopes to verify that the story is true, and it is. It is a wonderful example, I think, of the fact that love isn't a strictly human phenomenon. I found this very moving! With metta, Howard #88172 From: "m_nease" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:01 pm Subject: Re: Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction m_nease Hi Ken and Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > If I remember correctly, we (or citta) can't tell which is which. > But (and now we're coming to the part I think I can answer) we can > at least know what is meant by `desirable' etc. The meaning of > those terms when applied to the characteristics of sense rupas is > exactly the same as the ordinary, reasonable, man in the street > might give those same terms when they are applied to conventional > objects (pannatti). Thanks, I'm pondering this. Can you locate the source of this idea in the texts? I'm afraid the one Sarah has provided (thanks, Sarah) isn't the one I'm looking for. It referred to the ordinary man by livelihood, I think--'merchant' or 'minister' or some such, As I recall. To give you a sense of what I'm prothinkerating about here, it seems to me that nearly all of what people usually think of as vipakka is pa.n.natti. Gain/loss, praise/blame etc., my car, my house, my job, my status, the plight of myself, my family, my countrymen & co-confessionals etc. All pa.n.natti, no? And aren't these (or rather dhammas arising with regard to these) what motivate most thought, speech and action? Then if we add that the only sense-consciousness that's inherently pleasant or unpleasant is tactile consciousness (or have I misunderstood this?), then does it really follow that the only vipakka is tactile pleasure/pain? Thanks for your patience. mike #88173 From: "Scott Duncan" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:40 pm Subject: Re: Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction scottduncan2 Dear Mike, (Ken and Sarah), Regarding: M: "...Thanks, I'm pondering this. Can you locate the source of this idea in the texts? I'm afraid the one Sarah has provided (thanks, Sarah) isn't the one I'm looking for. It referred to the ordinary man by livelihood, I think--'merchant' or 'minister' or some such, As I recall..." S: Is this it? In Sammohavinodanii (The Dispeller of Delusion), regarding 'the distinguishing an object as intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable': "41. But according to whom is it distinquishable? By way of the average being (majjhaimaka-satta). For this is not distinguishable according to the likes and dislikes of great emperors such as Mahaasammata, Mahaasudassana, Dhammaasoka and so on. for to them even a divine object appears unpleasing. Nor is it distinguishable according to [the likes and dislikes of] the extreme unfortunates who find it hard to get food and drink. For to them lumps of broken rice-porridge and the taste of rotten meat seem like ambrosia. But it is distinguishable according to what is found agreeable at one time and disagreeable at another time by average [men such as] accountants, officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants. For such are able to distinguish between agreeable and disagreeable [i.e. what is distinguishable according to the average man's impulsion]. "42. But the Elder Tipi.taka Cuula-Abhaya said: 'The agreeable and disagreeable are distinguishable according to [kamma-] result (vipaaka) only, not according to impulsion (javana). But it is impulsion through perversion of perception (sa~n~navipallasa) only that lusts for the agreeable or hates the same agreeable, that lusts for the disagreeable or hates the same disagreeable. Only by way of [kamma-]result, however, is it rightly distinguishable. For [kamma] resultant consciousness cannot be mistaken. If the object is agreeable it is profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable result that has arisen.' "43. Although those of wrong view, on seeing such exalted objects as the Enlightened One or the Order, or a great shrine and so on, shut their eyes and feel grief (domanassa), and on hearing the sound of the Law they stop their ears, nevertheless their eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc., are only profitable [kamma-]result." Sincerely, Scott. #88174 From: "m. nease" Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction m_nease Thanks, Pal, That's the one. I'll get back to you. mike #88175 From: LBIDD@... Date: Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:11 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,282 Vism.XVII,283 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 282. 3.This Wheel of Becoming consists in the occurrence of formations, etc., with ignorance, etc., as the respective reasons. Therefore it is devoid of a maker supplementary to that, such as a Brahmaa conjectured thus, 'Brahmaa the Great, the Highest, the Creator' (D.i,18), to perform the function of maker of the round of rebirths; and it is devoid of any self as an experiencer of pleasure and pain conceived thus, 'This self of mine that speaks and feels' (cf. M.i,8). This is how it should be understood to be without any maker or experiencer. 283. 4. However, ignorance--and likewise the factors consisting of formations, etc.--is void of lastingness since its nature is to rise and fall, and it is void of beauty since it is defiled and causes defilement, and it is void of pleasure since it is oppressed by rise and fall, and it is void of any selfhood susceptible to the wielding of power since it exists in dependence on conditions. Or ignorance--and likewise the factors consisting of formations, etc.--is neither self nor self's nor in self nor possessed of self. That is why this Wheel of Becoming should be understood thus, 'Void with a twelvefold voidness'. ********************* 282. tayida.m yasmaa avijjaadiihi kaara.nehi sa"nkhaaraadiina.m pavatti, tasmaa tato a~n~nena ``brahmaa mahaabrahmaa se.t.tho sajitaa´´ti (dii0 ni0 1.42) eva.m parikappitena brahmaadinaa vaa sa.msaarassa kaarakena, ``so kho pana me aya.m attaa vado vedeyyo''ti eva.m parikappitena attanaa vaa sukhadukkhaana.m vedakena rahita.m. iti kaarakavedakarahitanti veditabba.m. 283. yasmaa panettha avijjaa udayabbayadhammakattaa dhuvabhaavena, sa.mkili.t.thattaa sa.mkilesikattaa ca subhabhaavena, udayabbayapa.tipii.litattaa sukhabhaavena, paccayaayattavuttittaa vasavattanabhuutena attabhaavena ca su~n~naa. tathaa sa"nkhaaraadiinipi a"ngaani. yasmaa vaa avijjaa na attaa, na attano, na attani, na attavatii. tathaa sa"nkhaaraadiinipi a"ngaani. tasmaa dvaadasavidhasu~n~nataasu~n~nameta.m bhavacakkanti veditabba.m. #88176 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:18 am Subject: Moment of feeling bodliy sensations. szmicio Dear Nina(Sarah and others) I find some difficulties. I quote from your book(Abhidhamma in daily life): "When there is bodily pain, the painful feeling is vipaka, it accompanies the vipakacitta which experiences the object impinging on the body-sense.Unpleasant (mental) feeling may arise afterwards; it is not vipaka, but accompanies the akusala citta." There is touching-consciousness and tangible object. It is vipakacitta with 7 universal cetasikas which feels tangible object. But what is the function of vedana cetasika at this moment? Is it touching-consciousness feels tangible object or vedana cetasika?? Bye Lukas #88177 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Satisfaction & Dissatisfaction sarahprocter... Hi Mike, (Ken, Scott & all Australians*) --- On Fri, 18/7/08, m_nease wrote: M:> Thanks, I'm pondering this. Can you locate the source of this idea in the texts? I'm afraid the one Sarah has provided (thanks, Sarah) isn't the one I'm looking for. It referred to the ordinary man by livelihood, I think--'merchant' or 'minister' or some such, As I recall. .... S: Actually, it was the same passage, but I just gave the one key paragraph from it about how in the end we can only say that "If the object is agreeable it is profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable result that has arisen". We can read in the suttas and Jataka tales about good and bad results and these are as most ordinary people would see them. However, to be more and more precise, we have to consider what 'result', what vipaka really is. It's like when we read about 'assoication with the good friend' and so on, again, conventional terms are used to describe moments of kusala vipaka and wise attention. .... M: >To give you a sense of what I'm prothinkerating about here, it seems to me that nearly all of what people usually think of as vipakka is pa.n.natti. Gain/loss, praise/blame etc., my car, my house, my job, my status, the plight of myself, my family, my countrymen & co-confessionals etc. All pa.n.natti, no? .... S: Yes. Lots of log stories, usually with no understanding of vipakka at all. ... M:> And aren't these (or rather dhammas arising with regard to these) what motivate most thought, speech and action? .... S: Yes, trying to attain all of these without understanding what kusala/akusala vipaka is and what the cause of vipaka is. Even when there is a little more understanding, it's usually still wanting to have good results for *me*. .... M:> Then if we add that the only sense-consciousness that's inherently pleasant or unpleasant is tactile consciousness (or have I misunderstood this?), then does it really follow that the only vipakka is tactile pleasure/pain? .... S: The only one of the 5 sense-consciousnesses (i.e seeing etc) that is *accompanied by* pleasant/unpleasant feeling is tactile/bodily consciousness as you suggest. (We have to be careful, because there are other cittas in the sense-door process that can be accompanied by pleasant feeling, such as the javana cittas. These are also sense-door consciousnesses. Even the santirana cittas (which are vipaka cittas) can be accompanied by pleasant feeling if the the object is particularly desirable. Then we have to consider the tadarammanas too. Also, other vipaka cittas such as seeing, are still vipaka, even though only accompanied by neutral feeling. Perhaps I misunderstand your question. Anyway, I'm glad Ken & Scott have joined in this useful thread too. We'll actually be travelling to Australia* tomorrow evening, so my further replies are likely to be slow. I'll look forward to reading any more comments by anyone. Metta, Sarah p.s *If anyone would like to meet up with us for discussion in Sydney, maybe on a Saturday (Botanic Gardens?) in the next month, pls contact Jon or I off-list. =============== #88178 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:23 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: To Rob M..... sarahprocter... Hi Alex & all, I enjoy these discussions with you - always challenging! We were discussing "what's the method" and I gave a sutta quote to indicate that what is important is the understanding of seeing, visible object, attachment and other dhammas when they appear now as mere dhammas. I also stressed there is "no self to do anything at all" and you've made it clear before that you agree with this last comment. --- On Thu, 17/7/08, Alex wrote: A:> I believe, strongly, that entire Noble8fold path is required. ... S: Yes, no one has ever suggested otherwise. Samma ditthi is the "forerunner" or leader, but it needs the assistance of all the other factors. .... A:> The suttas often do NOT mention absolutely everything, in fact one often must combine several suttas to have a clear picture. ... S: Again, I agree with you. We have to read many, many suttas to get a clear picture and I'd add that some Abhidhamma study is essential too. The point Mike and I have been discussing with regard to vipaka is a good example of this. If we just read the suttas without hearing anything about the details of what vipaka really is, we would miss many essential points. ... A:> Ex: MN 74 & mn111. If one reads the Dighanaka sutta, one may get wrong impression that Sariputta awakened only through hearing the discource. If one would read mn111, one would know that Sariputta was doing Jhana & immaterial attainments in seclusion for 2 weeks. He was listening to the discource on 14th day when he (a sotopanna at least) reached all 8 attainments and Nirodha Samapatti. ... S: (He had to have reached at least anagami stage to attain to nirodha samapatti - no need to go over this again, though). If we just read these two suttas, we might get the wrong impression that Sariputta only needed to hear a discourse after 2 weeks in seclusion in jhana and immaterial attainements. If we then tried to emulate this, we'd be going seriously wrong. When we read many, many other suttas inc. the Patisambhidamagga, Jatakas, Theragatha and even Abhidhamma, we know that Sariputta had been developing all the paramis over aeons and aeons in order to be the first disciple during his last life. We know he had listened to many, many previous Buddhas and had spent an incredible number of lives with the bodhisatta as companion. We know that he had heard the Abhidhamma and understood the meaning of all he heard in summary form and was able to explain it to others in detail. Yes, I agree that it's not enough to just read and consider one or two suttas in isolation. However, whatever our accumulations are, whatever we read and study, the Truths are universal. The realities of our life now come down to seeing, visible object and so on. These are the dhammas which had to be understood by the Bodhisatta, by Sariputta and all others in order to become enlightened. It's the same now. ..... A:> I am sure that most people, after reaching 8 attainments would easily get path attainments reading and considering the Buddha's discourses. Heck, all would reach Anagami/Arhatship stage if nirodha was reached (as was the case with Ven. Sariputta). .... S: If someone has attained to this level (including nirodha samapatti), then it's clear that there's no return to this sensuous realm and arahatship will be attained either in this life or the next. For them, there is no more attachment to sensuous objects, no more aversion of any kind, no more doubt or wrong view - just the most subtle of attachments, ignorance and conceit left. A:> Similiar case with Ven. Rahula. .... S: What about now? What about the attachment and ignorance and realities to be known now? I think this is more important to discuss and consider than to be concerned with the anagamis and arahats. Everyone has different accumulations. Visakkha and Angulimala, for example, had very different experiences from Ven Rahula. I think we miss the whole point if we're concerned with attainments rather than understanding our lives now, the conditioned realities now as anatta. Metta, Sarah ========= #88179 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta sarahprocter... Hi Howard & all, --- On Wed, 16/7/08, upasaka@... wrote: >Howard: Many people, including Bhikkhu Bodhi, translate 'samma sankappo' as "right intention" or "right resolve". In any case, I find a position that kamma as not one of the most basic elements of the Dhamma as wildly off the mark. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- S: It's a poor and confusing translation in my view. Samma sankappo is vitakka cetasika. Right thinking may also be a misleading translation as well, I agree, but when 'right intention' is given, friends (like yourself)always naturally think of cetana and kamma. Kamma is 'one of the most basic elements of the Dhamma', but it's not an eightfold path factor. It is not one of the factors which lead out of samsara, which lead to the realisation of the Truths. When there is samma ditthi, samma sankappo and so on, it is kusala kamma already at such moments. In fact, samma ditthi (and associated factors) is the highest kind of kusala kamma. .... ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- -- >>S: Again, I'd prefer to stress the right understanding of what is useful, what is useless, what dhammas are and so on. This is the way that the other path factors develop and defilements (starting with self-view) are eventually eradicated. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- >Howard: You are, of course free to stress whatever you wish. While I consider wisdom as most critical in the uprooting of defilements, it requires many sorts of conditions for its cultivation. I don't generally favor what I think of as one-trick-pony approaches to the Dhamma. ------------ --------- --------- --------- -------- S: Yes, many conditions for its cultivation - as we know, it is pariyatti (wise considering of dhammas which we read/hear about) that leads to patipatti (the development of the path), leading to pativedha (realization of the Truths). .... .... >Howard: There IS or there COULD be?? Almost NO people find that "while eating, driving, going to work and so on, there is a growing understanding of the dhammas involved and of these as anatta." It can be so for those people who have cultivated appropriate attention in manner taught by the Buddha, though. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- S: If there is an understanding of dhammas, life goes on - eating, driving and so on. Yes, if wise attention has conditioned the path to develop as taught by the Buddha. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---- ..... S: I think that 'understanding' rather than 'attending to', 'dropping' and 'feeding' is more appropriate in terms of understanding bhavana (mental development) , i.e the development of right understanding. Otherwise it's not clear who or what is 'dropping' or 'feeding'. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --- >Howard No "one" is dropping anything. That's a red herring. Right effort is not the same factor as right understanding! There's that one-trick pony in the center ring again. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --- S: When there's right understanding, there is always right effort accompanying it. If we think about developing right effort without the understanding of effort (viriya) as a conditioned dhamma arising with almost every citta, then it's bound to be wrong effort. Whenever there is an idea of specially attending to a particular object or doing anything, I believe it's wrong effort at work. I think these are subtle but important points. Apologies in advance for any exasperation you may feel. Metta, Sarah ====== #88180 From: "Egbert" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 5:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta egberdina Hi Sarah and Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --- > S: When there's right understanding, there is always right effort accompanying it. If we think about developing right effort without the understanding of effort (viriya) as a conditioned dhamma arising with almost every citta, then it's bound to be wrong effort. Whenever there is an idea of specially attending to a particular object or doing anything, I believe it's wrong effort at work. > I hope you guys enjoy your trip to Australia. Please let me know if you were able to get there without doing anything. Cheers Herman #88181 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:15 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- On Fri, 18/7/08, Egbert wrote: H:> I hope you guys enjoy your trip to Australia. Please let me know if you were able to get there without doing anything. .... S: :-) Thanks for the good wishes as always. What will be done will be done - enough already without any self interfering and thinking it can or should do more:-) Metta, Sarah ========== #88182 From: "connie" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:19 am Subject: Vism.XVII,282 Vism.XVII,283 nichiconn Path of Purity, p.696 [578] Bereft of one to do and feel. Because this wheel of becoming is the proceeding of activities and so on through such causes as ignorance and so on, therefor it has nothing to do with any maker of the round of births such as Brahmaa, with the idea that "Brahmaa is great {read mahaa Brahmaa for Mahaabrahmaa}, Brahmaa is the best, the creator," or with any other self who experiences happiness and misery, and who is imagined to be on this wise - "This self of mine speaks, is sentient." {Majjhima i, 8.} Thus, "Bereft of one to do and feel" should be understood. Void through the void twelve parts. And because ignorance is void of permanence from its nature of rising and falling; of pleasantness from being corrupted and corruptible; of bliss from being oppressed by rise and fall; and of an obedient individuality from being connected with its own causes, and the same with its parts: activities and so on; or, because ignorance is not the self, nor of the self, neither is it in the self nor does it possess the self, and the same with the parts: activities and so on, therefore this wheel of becoming should be understood to be void through the void twelve parts. #88183 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:26 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/7/18 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman, > > --- On Fri, 18/7/08, Egbert wrote: > H:> I hope you guys enjoy your trip to Australia. Please let me know if > you were able to get there without doing anything. > > .... > S: :-) > > Thanks for the good wishes as always. What will be done will be done - enough already without any self interfering and thinking it can or should do more:-) > It will be always remain with me, the time KS and you sang "Que sera sera" in beautiful harmony :-) Who'd have thought Doris Day was amongst the Noble Ones? Cheers Herman #88184 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- On Fri, 18/7/08, Herman Hofman wrote: >>s: Thanks for the good wishes as always. What will be done will be done - enough already without any self interfering and thinking it can or should do more:-) > H:> It will be always remain with me, the time KS and you sang "Que sera sera" in beautiful harmony :-) Who'd have thought Doris Day was amongst the Noble Ones? .... S: What wit! Isn't it your bedtime yet, Herman? On second thoughts, we could (with a little technical assistance) add "Que sera sera" to the homepage and all sing along when we open up our posts....que sera, sera..... Metta, Sarah ======== #88185 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:54 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/7/18 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman, > > --- On Fri, 18/7/08, Herman Hofman wrote: >>>s: Thanks for the good wishes as always. What will be done will be done - enough already without any self interfering and thinking it can or should do more:-) > On second thoughts, we could (with a little technical assistance) add "Que sera sera" to the homepage and all sing along when we open up our posts....que sera, sera..... > I'm glad your vocabulary still has the word "could" in it. You realise, of course, that that word is a complete rejection of the notion conveyed by "que sera sera". What will be done will be done excludes the possibility of possibilities. It is silly for me to desire a world that makes sense, I know :-) Cheers Herman #88186 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:08 am Subject: Willing and Determinacy (Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and Sarah & all) - This business of (free) will is confusing and perplexing, but it is so because we want simple answers! "We" DO make choices, and choices that are made COULD have been differently made. But HOW could they have been differently made? Answer: Had conditions been different! The thing is that among the conditions, chief among them, in fact, are our desires and will! We DO act on our desires, and that is what most folks informally mean by "exercising free will." But, of course, our desires and acts of will do not arise randomly, but in response to conditions! So, what's the bottom line? It is two-fold: 1) Choices are made, and what those choices are is critical, and 2) Nothing occurs randomly and without precondition, including making choices. ;-) With metta, Howard #88187 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:29 am Subject: Re: Willing and Determinacy (Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta) egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/7/19 : > > ================================== > This business of (free) will is confusing and perplexing, but it is so > because we want simple answers! I believe that both the taking of a "que sera sera" or a "could" attitude are actions. A "que sera sera" act is a look at the past, and a "could" act is looking towards a future. I do not believe that any present act, the assumption of an attitude towards what has already passed or what is yet to come, can be explained in terms of past conditions only. If the past was sufficient to explain the future, then action/volition/present are irrelevant. > "We" DO make choices, and choices that are made COULD have been > differently made. But HOW could they have been differently made? Answer: Had > conditions been different! > The thing is that among the conditions, chief among them, in fact, are > our desires and will! We DO act on our desires, and that is what most folks > informally mean by "exercising free will." But, of course, our desires and acts > of will do not arise randomly, but in response to conditions! > So, what's the bottom line? It is two-fold: > 1) Choices are made, and what those choices are is critical, and > 2) Nothing occurs randomly and without precondition, including making > choices. ;-) > Cheers Herman #88188 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:55 am Subject: Re: Willing and Determinacy (Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta) upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 7/18/2008 10:30:07 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/7/19 : > > ================================== > This business of (free) will is confusing and perplexing, but it is so > because we want simple answers! I believe that both the taking of a "que sera sera" or a "could" attitude are actions. A "que sera sera" act is a look at the past, and a "could" act is looking towards a future. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. ------------------------------------------------- I do not believe that any present act, the assumption of an attitude towards what has already passed or what is yet to come, can be explained in terms of past conditions only. If the past was sufficient to explain the future, then action/volition/present are irrelevant. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Then what you presume is an element of randomness in the sense of events occurring without precondition. I don't subscribe to that. I also think that the Dhamma teaches a conditionality that doesn't include such. (Neither my belief nor what the Dhamma teaches, of course, determines the reality. The reality is whatever it is, independent of belief and teachings.) ------------------------------------------------ > "We" DO make choices, and choices that are made COULD have been > differently made. But HOW could they have been differently made? Answer: Had > conditions been different! > The thing is that among the conditions, chief among them, in fact, are > our desires and will! We DO act on our desires, and that is what most folks > informally mean by "exercising free will." But, of course, our desires and acts > of will do not arise randomly, but in response to conditions! > So, what's the bottom line? It is two-fold: > 1) Choices are made, and what those choices are is critical, and > 2) Nothing occurs randomly and without precondition, including making > choices. ;-) > Cheers Herman =========================== With preconditioned metta ;-)), Howard #88189 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:11 am Subject: Sariputta, Accumulations, Paramis, Arhatship under 1 day. truth_aerator Hi Sarah and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, sarah abbott wrote: > > Hi Alex & all, > > I enjoy these discussions with you - always challenging! Thank you Sarah for your kind words. > We were discussing "what's the method" and I gave a sutta quote to >indicate that what is important is the understanding of seeing, >visible object, attachment and other dhammas when they appear now as >mere dhammas. What you've said above is a method. Yes it is crucial to understand everything in terms of conditionality-anicca-dukkha-anatta. I just disagree at suggestions that reading and "understanding" dhammas as they arise even in lay life is the best (and the one and only) way to go. As far as I am concerned, "rites & rituals" is more of a deluded approach to doing things, rather than doing all by itself. Some ppl here claim that formal meditation is "rites & ritual", while this can be true for most people, it isn't true for some people. One can study with "rites & ritual" approach even Abhidhamma. As long as sakkayditthi+other 2 factors wasn't put to rest, one can do anything with improper approach, including "understanding presently arisen realities". > --- On Thu, 17/7/08, Alex wrote: > A:> I believe, strongly, that entire Noble8fold path is required. > ... > S: Yes, no one has ever suggested otherwise. Samma ditthi is >the "forerunner" or leader, but it needs the assistance of all the >other factors. > .... Yes, and some of the factors (such as right energy) do require more than passive stance of the impersonal nama-rupa process. > > A:> Ex: MN 74 & mn111. > > If one reads the Dighanaka sutta, one may get wrong impression that > Sariputta awakened only through hearing the discource. If one would > read mn111, one would know that Sariputta was doing Jhana & > immaterial attainments in seclusion for 2 weeks. He was listening >to the discource on 14th day when he (a sotopanna at least) reached >all 8 attainments and Nirodha Samapatti. > ... > S: (He had to have reached at least anagami stage to attain to >nirodha samapatti - no need to go over this again, though). If we >just read these two suttas, we might get the wrong impression that >Sariputta only needed to hear a discourse after 2 weeks in seclusion >in jhana and immaterial attainements. If we then tried to emulate >this, we'd be going seriously wrong. > Earliest strata of Buddhist texts suggests that parami is a later, proto-mahaayana addition. I do not believe in paramis being taught in earlier Buddhism. Furthermore sutta evidence points that Gotama was a buddhist for at most, 3 lifetimes: as a monk under Buddha Kassapa, in Tusita Heaven, as Buddha in his last lifetime. It may even be that he had a gap in training after meating Buddha Kassapa and his (contradictory) story in this life. Sutta evidence also points to me that Sariputta & Ven MahaMoggalana took 7-14 weeks *under* Buddha's guidance to reach where they are. There is simply no evidence that they were Buddhist before. "Let alone seven nights and days, six nights and days, five nights and days, four nights and days, three nights and days, two nights and days, one night and day. A bhikkhu endowed with these five factors gaining the training from the Thus Gone One in the morning, for whatever cause sons of clansmen rightfully go forth homeless that highest end of the holy life, he here and now, knowing, realizing, will attain in the evening, or advised in the evening would realise the next morning." http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima2/085-bodhirajakumara-e1.html In MN85, it is said that capable people, under Buddha's guidance can achieve Arhatship in under one day, (12 hrs). Arhatship (for capable) people under Buddha's guidance can come very quick. No need for long drawn out parami gathering missions being a Buddhist. There aren't suttas in the 4 Nikayas dealing with "paramis". Paramis is a later addition (started from perhaps Buddhavamsa) and seems to contradict the super-powerful teaching of the Buddha that can make a capable person an Arahant in one day. I can talk about the above more if anyone wishes. Regarding Angulimala & such: I do NOT believe that they had super Buddhist accumulations. To be more precise they did have good Kamma to meet Buddha in person and be able to reach Arahatship, however I do not believe in extreme views on accumulations. If Angulimala was so wise (beyond us 100x over), why did he murder 999 people? Wouldn't his transcedent wisdom prevent him from doing something as stupid, cruel and evil as mass murder? Furthermore, what about all the bad Kamma he accumulated through doing those deeds in his LAST lifetime. Who here murdered 999 people? Who here murdered just one? The point is, we can do it! Please no conceited responses of "His accumulations, His his his! I did so much bad kamma in previous lives that paths & fruits simply cannot arise!". Since Ang he has murdered them with his hands in his last existence, he would have a lot of memory, nightmares and remorse of what he did and the faces of those whom he killed. None of us here (I hope) have murdered 1, let alone 999 people. Aren't you simply guessing about what you did or didn't do in previous lifetimes. You are. But even then, Angulimala had it tougher as he had to deal with what definately has happened in his lifetime. If he could do it, we could do it! Best wishes, Alex #88190 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 8:26 am Subject: There *is* doing. truth_aerator Hi Sarah, I hope as well that you have a good trip to Australia. However, please answer the question. Was there or not any doing to get to Australia. You know, buying tickets, packing bags, walking from home to the car, driving to the airport, finding the airplane seats, etc etc. Of course it was all the doing of nama-rupas, however the impersonal doing of impersonal khandic process *WAS* there. It seems to me to be ridiculous to say "there is no doing", yet one still does something (sits on the chair, stands up from the chair, reaching this, typing that, reading this, etc etc). Best wishes, Alex #88191 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Moment of feeling bodliy sensations. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 18-jul-2008, om 12:18 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > I find some difficulties. > I quote from your book(Abhidhamma in daily life): > > "When there is bodily pain, the painful feeling is vipaka, it > accompanies the vipakacitta which experiences the object impinging on > the body-sense.Unpleasant (mental) feeling may arise afterwards; it is > not vipaka, but accompanies the akusala citta." > > There is touching-consciousness and tangible object. > It is vipakacitta with 7 universal cetasikas which feels tangible > object. > > But what is the function of vedana cetasika at this moment? > Is it touching-consciousness feels tangible object or vedana > cetasika?? ------ N: The citta that cognizes tangible object (hardness, etc.), thus body-consciousness (kaaya vi~n~naa.na) is accompanied by feeling that also experiences that object, but in its own way. Citta is the chief in knowing an object, and the accompanying cetasikas also experience that object but each in its own way. Feeling experiences the "flavour" of the object. Thus, we do not say that the citta feels the object, citta knows or cognizes an object. It is the accompanying feeling that feels. Nina. #88192 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 2:24 pm Subject: Re: Sariputta, Accumulations, Paramis, Arhatship under 1 day. dhammanusarin Dear Alex, - I like your kusala cetana in telling people that they too can become arahants "under one day" like those fortunate bhikkhus who were trained by the Buddha in the old days. In the Maha-satipatthana Sutta it is stated very clearly that "anyone" who develops the four frames of reference (exactly as explained in the sutta DN 22, no corner cutting) from 7 days up to 7 years, s/he can expect to attain either arahantship or non-returnship if there is some clinging left. DN 22: "Now, if anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven years, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return. "Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return. "Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or — if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance — non-return. "'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding — in other words, the four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html ................... T: Please notice that in DN 22 there is no requirement that the bhikkhu is "endowed with these five factors gaining the training from the Thus Gone" as stated in the quoted Bodhirajakumara Sutta below. >Alex: Sutta evidence also points to me that Sariputta & Ven MahaMoggalana took 7-14 weeks *under* Buddha's guidance to reach where they are. There is simply no evidence that they were Buddhist before. "Let alone seven nights and days, six nights and days, five nights and days, four nights and days, three nights and days, two nights and days, one night and day. A bhikkhu endowed with these five factors gaining the training from the Thus Gone One in the morning, for whatever cause sons of clansmen rightfully go forth homeless that highest end of the holy life, he here and now, knowing, realizing, will attain in the evening, or advised in the evening would realise the next morning." http://www.mettanet.org/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima2/085-bodhirajakumara-e1.html >Alex: I can talk about the above more if anyone wishes. T: Please do. At this point I have two questions. What are "these five factors gaining the training from the Thus Gone One", and why does DN 22 not state the same restriction? The huge advantage of training according to DN 22 is that anyone can do it, and s/he needs not be trained by the Tathagata. Regards, Tep === #88193 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:54 pm Subject: Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta kenhowardau Hi Howard, ------ KH: > > <. . .> what do you think of my suggestion > that even a basic, simplistic, understanding (of the fact that there > are only dhammas) is still a useful - perhaps immensely useful - > asset? H: > I think it is useful and true. I see the matter no other way that this. ------- I am glad to hear it. However, I suspect you (like Phil) still think I am talking about a deeply developed understanding. But I'm not. I am just saying there are only dhammas and, therefore, there is no need to worry – no need to do anything. (No *use* in doing anything!) ---------- H: > It is certainly conducive to relinquishment. ---------- Yes it is. And the relinquishment to which it is conducive occurs concurrently with it. Relinquishment is a function of right understanding. But so what? Who cares whether there is right understanding and relinquishment or whether there is wrong understanding and attachment? In either case there are only dhammas. Silly little fleeting things! :-) ---------------- H: > But think that more is needed. This includes the following: <. . .> ----------------- Now we have gone our separate ways again, haven't we? How can there be a need for anything? When a Dhamma student (someone who is studying the nature of conditioned dhammas) talks about a need (samvega, for example) he is talking about something altogether different from anything known to the ordinary, uninstructed, worldling, isn't he? So, is that the kind of need you are talking about? Or are you (like Phil) insisting that beginners should persevere with the conventional kind of need? Ken H #88194 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 3:54 pm Subject: Re: Sariputta, Accumulations, Paramis, Arhatship under 1 day. truth_aerator Dear Tep and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: > > Dear Alex, - > ................... > > T: Please notice that in DN 22 there is no requirement that the > bhikkhu is "endowed with these five factors gaining the training >from the Thus Gone" as stated in the quoted Bodhirajakumara Sutta >below. It is a given that a person would posses at least some factors, in order to really go at full Sattipatthana and reap rewards in no time. > > >Alex: Sutta evidence also points to me that Sariputta & Ven > MahaMoggalana took 7-14 days not weeks. Sorry for typo. > >Alex: I can talk about the above more if anyone wishes. > > T: Please do. At this point I have two questions. > > What are "these five factors gaining the training from the Thus >Gone One", > Confidence, Health, not crafty or fraudulent shows himself as s/he is, effort, achieves wisdom (rise & fall - udayabbaya-ñana?). MN85: Here the bhikkhu takes faith about the enlightnment of the Thus Gone One:That Blessed One is perfect, rightfully enlightened, endowed with knowledge and conduct, well gone, knows of the worlds, is the incomparable tamer of those to be tamed, Teacher of gods and men, enlightened and blessed. He has few ailments and few disorders, promoting a good digestive system, not too cold and not too hot. He is not crafty nor fraudulent, shows his real self to the Teacher or to the wise co-associates in the holy life. Abides with aroused effort, for the dispelling of demerit and the accumulation of merit. Becomes firm not giving up the yoke for things of merit. [1] Becomes wise endowed with the noble ones penetration of the rising and falling of the five holding masses, for the rightful destruction of unpleasantness. ====================================================== >and why does DN 22 not state the same restriction? I am not sure, perhaps if you can reach Jhana (up to 4th if we stick to the texts and be conservative) then a week should be enough, and it is a given that you have the above 5 qualities mentioned in MN85 in order to try this at all. #5D Mentions 4 Jhanas http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.22.0.than.html > The huge advantage of training according to DN 22 is that anyone >can do it, and s/he needs not be trained by the Tathagata. > You are right. Best wishes, Alex #88195 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 11:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta upasaka_howard Hi, Ken - In a message dated 7/18/2008 6:54:17 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, kenhowardau@... writes: Now we have gone our separate ways again, haven't we? How can there be a need for anything? ============================ There is the need to go beyond simply thinking correct things and being calmed by that. That isn't the goal, though it is good. With metta, Howard #88196 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 4:09 pm Subject: Doing truth_aerator >Ken: Wrote: >I am just saying there are only dhammas and, therefore, there is no > need to worry – no need to do anything. (No *use* in doing >anything!) > Ken, do you see that there are only dhammas or are you just counting someone else's nanas? As far as I am concerned, before one is sotopanna, or at least got rid of sakkayditthi, then "there are only dhammas" is simply another view-excuse for nama to avoid relinquishing defilements. The kilesas hijjack this true teaching and cause one to slack. Furthermore, the teaching that "there are only Dhammas" isn't even unique to Buddism. In Ancient Greece there were teachings like that, except the word was "atomos" rather than dhammas. ======= "And who is the individual who goes with the flow? There is the case where an individual indulges in sensual passions and does evil deeds. This is called the individual who goes with the flow. "And who is the individual who goes against the flow? There is the case where an individual doesn't indulge in sensual passions and doesn't do evil deeds. Even though it may be with pain, even though it may be with sorrow, even though he may be crying, his face in tears, he lives the holy life that is perfect & pure. This is called the individual who goes against the flow. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.005.than.html ========= "If, on examination, a monk knows, 'I usually remain covetous, with thoughts of ill will, overcome by sloth & drowsiness, restless, uncertain, angry, with soiled thoughts, with my body aroused, lazy, or unconcentrated,' then he should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. Just as when a person whose turban or head was on fire would put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness to put out the fire on his turban or head; in the same way, the monk should put forth extra desire, effort, diligence, endeavor, undivided mindfulness, & alertness for the abandoning of those very same evil, unskillful qualities. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.051.than.html#tur ban ============= Some people either deliberately or subconsciously use Strawman fallacy to equate doing with self view. This is terrible because if non-ariyas don't do "good", the tendency is to do evil, and reap all the sour results later on... Best wishes, Alex #88197 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:13 pm Subject: Re: Willing and Determinacy (Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma, Logic, Anatta) egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/7/19 : > Hi, Herman - > > > I do not believe that any > present act, the assumption of an attitude towards what has already > passed or what is yet to come, can be explained in terms of past > conditions only. If the past was sufficient to explain the future, > then action/volition/present are irrelevant. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Then what you presume is an element of randomness in the sense of events > occurring without precondition. Not quite. I think there are at least two scenarios that can be differentiated. One is the absence of mindfulness, the other is the presence of mindfulness. In the absence of mindfulness: the past flows into the future the past IS the precondition for that future that future will be the precondition for another future, ad infinitum there is no difference between activity and passivity, act and abstinence, doing and not doing In the presence of mindfulness: the past fllows into the present the past IS the precondition for the present there is nothing in the present that makes it necessary that any intention becomes an act there is a difference between activity and passivity, act and abstinence, doing and not doing I don't subscribe to that. I also think that > the Dhamma teaches a conditionality that doesn't include such. (Neither my > belief nor what the Dhamma teaches, of course, determines the reality. The > reality is whatever it is, independent of belief and teachings.) > ------------------------------------------------ Cheers Herman #88198 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:18 pm Subject: Satipatthana may require Jhana: Sankhitta Sutta AN8.63 truth_aerator Dear Tep and all, I've just re-read an awesome sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.063.than.html Here the monk asks the Buddha for the teaching for Arahatship and Buddha gave it. In this case: 4 Brahmaviharas -> Jhanas -> 4 Sattipatthana -> Arhatship And a happy ending: "Then that monk, having been admonished by an admonishment from the Blessed One, got up from his seat and bowed down to the Blessed One, circled around him, keeping the Blessed One to his right side, and left. Then, dwelling alone, secluded, heedful, ardent, & resolute, he in no long time reached & remained in the supreme goal of the holy life for which clansmen rightly go forth from home into homelessness, knowing & realizing it for himself in the here & now. He knew: "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world." And thus he became another one of the arahants." - AN 8.63 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an08/an08.063.than.html Best wishes, Alex #88199 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:25 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Adhamma, illogic, Atta egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/7/19 kenhowardau : > Hi Howard, > > Now we have gone our separate ways again, haven't we? How can there > be a need for anything? > You don't seem to realise that the need is in exactly those silly fleeting little dhammas that you allege familiarity with. That need is called craving. Craving is need. It is in every moment you dare or care to be vigilant. > When a Dhamma student (someone who is studying the nature of > conditioned dhammas) talks about a need (samvega, for example) he is > talking about something altogether different from anything known to > the ordinary, uninstructed, worldling, isn't he? > > So, is that the kind of need you are talking about? Or are you (like > Phil) insisting that beginners should persevere with the > conventional kind of need? > Cheers Herman