#90400 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Doubts and Siilana sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, --- On Fri, 19/9/08, szmicio wrote: > S: ....Any time, any place, any location, any activity, any reality..... > I never think 'this is time for understanding because I'm reading a sutta' or 'this is not time for understanding because I'm reading the newspaper', for example. Seeing is seeing, visible object is visible object regardless. The rest is thinking about concepts of study. >L: But those moment's of yoniso manasikara, when we put attention to seeing and hearing, cannot arise all the time. There is usually thinking about what to do next, day-dreaming and thinking of what is not important. .... S: Of course, it's not 'we' who put attention to anything. When kusala cittas arise, there is yoniso manasikara. Sati and other sobhana cittas arise by conditions at such times. No use in thinking about 'doing' anything. As you say, the day-dreaming and unwholesome thinking usually follows the sense experiences. That's right - good to know it! I think that when understanding develops, more and more akusala is seen. Before we heard of the Buddha's teachings, we probably didn't realise that most of the day is spent in unwholesome thinking. .... L:> It reminds me of lack of control of any reality, I cant induce the way I think, or make a proper attention arise. ... S: Exactly! This is the teaching about dhammas as anatta. .......... >L: When we hear a sound, there is nama and rupa at the same time. There was said that nama and rupa arise at the same moment all the time. But what next? When rupa fall away, then citta can experience any object, for example another citta, is there rupa at that moment? .... S: Let's take the example of the seeing of visible object. Actually, the visible object has to have arisen first to condition the seeing, so they don't arise together. (Remember that rupas last up to 17x as long as namas). The other cittas in that eye-door process also experience that visible object. When the visible object has fallen away, it is followed by a mind-door process. During the first mind-door process, the characteristic of that same visible object is experienced and after that in subsequent mind-door processes, any object (concept or reality) may be experienced. You ask if there is rupa at those moments and there must be. For example, there has to be the 'base' (heart-base in this case, arising in the heart-base kalapa of rupas) for all cittas other than seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and tactile consciousness to occur. There are also the other kalapas of rupas of the body conditioned by past kamma which have to arise at every moment. However, there can only ever be one object (a concept or a reality) of citta at a time and this is the important point - what can be directly known now. I hope I haven't confused you or misunderstood the question. Have you read Nina's book on Rupas? It's on zolag website, I'm sure. Metta, Sarah ======== #90401 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:36 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Twos (26-29), Commentary, part 2. nilovg Hi Herman, Op 18-sep-2008, om 11:48 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > I have no idea what to understand by your statements, I'm sorry. If > the word "own" is by way of explanation, what does it explain? "Own" > refers the subject to itself. Itself. Itself. Yes, itself. That's what > it means. If you mean that the subject, itself, is not eternal and/or > unchanging, then yes, I agree. If you mean there is no subject, I have > no idea what you mean, especially if you can also say this in the > thread concerning Nelson: > > "Yes, we never know what was accumulated in past lives. Perhaps we > were also violent, who knows. That is why we have to be cautious > today, not wasting opportunities for kusala and the development of > understanding". ----------- N: Your dilemma is: what is meant by own, own kamma, and these accumulations, it seems they belong to a person. "I was such or such in the past", etc. I find that all such points are very well formulated by the Visuddhimagga: Vis. Ch XVII, 171, 172. Intro: In this section it is explained again that kamma and its appropriate fruit arising in the continuity of lives are ultimate realities. There is no person who performs kamma and no person who experiences its fruit. ---------- Text Vis.171. Now it was also asked, 'Whose is the fruit, since there is no experiencer?' Herein: 'Experiencer' is a convention For mere arising of the fruit; They say 'It fruits' as convention, When on a tree appears its fruit. 172. Just as it is simply owing to the arising of tree fruits, which are one part of the phenomena called a tree, that it is said 'The tree fruits' or 'The tree has fruited', -------- N: As to the expression, ‘ one part of the phenomena called a tree’, the Tiika explains: the ruupas that are taken as the concept of tree (rukkhapa~n~natti). ---------- Text Vis.: so it is simply owing to the arising of the fruit consisting of the pleasure and pain called experience, which is one part of the aggregates 'deities' and 'human beings', that it is said 'A deity or human being experiences or feels pleasure or pain'. There is therefore no need at all here for a superfluous experiencer. ---------- N: The Tiika explains that when in the continuity of the khandhas (khandhasantaane) kusala cetanaa or akusala cetanaa arises, and it is said that someone performs merit or evil, the doer is a convention (kattuvohaaro). Also when there is the fruition (of kamma), and it is said that someone experiences happiness or sorrow, the experiencer is a convention (upabhu~njakavohaaro). Therefore, there is no other experiencer whosoever apart from the khandhas. That is the meaning. -------- Conclusion: It is important to know the difference between what is convention and what is ultimate truth. If one understands that, in the ultimate sense, there are mere dhammas performing good deeds and bad deeds, and mere dhammas that experience the results of these deeds, doubts will disappear about how kamma of the past that has fallen away can bear fruit later on, even in a next life. ----------- N: How are we doing, Herman? ------ Nina. #90403 From: "sarahprocterabbott" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:40 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... sarahprocter... Dear Tep (& Alex), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: > Sarah knows very well that she has to maintain the house that she is > living in as well as maintain her body and developing right mental > attitude for day-to-day living in peace. All this is enough to prove > that trees are real and Sarah is real; but both trees and Sarah are > impermanent, and whatever is impermanent is dukkha, and whatever is > dukkha it should not be for Sarah to cling to as 'this is > mine', 'this is me', "that is my self'. That is exactly the meaning > of letting go that you are talking about. But Sarah may not know it > yet. Give her more time. ;-)) ... S: "...that trees are real and Sarah is real; but both trees and Sarah are impermanent..." Hmmmm, did the Buddha teach this or is it your own interpretation, Tep:-)). Metta, Sarah ========= #90404 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:44 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Doubts and Siilana nilovg Dear Lukas, great that you have a website and that so many texts are translated into Polish. I had not expected this in Poland. Can you give a link, I tried to access but the URL did not work. It was not a proper link. A series about nama and rupa? In what way? My Abh in D.L. is about cittas, but not without rupa, and there is my series Rupas. Do you have something special in mind? Op 18-sep-2008, om 15:53 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > You asked about examples of wrong view, di.t.thi: when there is a > > firm belief that kamma does not produce result. Or that after > death > > there is no rebirth. > > L: But it is thinking. How ditthi can now anything? How dithi can now > anything about kamma and its result? ------ N: Citta can think with wrong view, very often. When someone reads about kamma and vipaaka, ditthi can arise and motivate the thinking: no, this is not true. Citta is then accompanied by wrong view. ***** Nina. #90405 From: sarah abbott Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:50 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... sarahprocter... Hi Colette, --- On Sun, 14/9/08, colette wrote: >Why I wrote to you saying how I enjoyed this post is because of the way you viewed things, rupas, tangible objects and anything tangible. >S: Yes, 'tree' is a mental label >colette: do you realize how difficult it is for people to simply realize and accept that everything is nothing more than a label that another person placed upon something and all the individual does is maintain another person's point of view. .... S: Thank you for your interest in these recent threads and yes, I realise it's very difficult indeed to understand realities as distinct from concepts and labels. ... S:> "The function of sanna is to mark and perceive (or remember) each object that is experienced at every moment, whether that object be a reality or a 'mental label' or idea, as in the case of 'tree'. " >colette: why don't you come right out and say that this same function that you give to sanna is the exact definition of "Conditioning" in the Abhidhamma? I wouldn't want to detract from the beauty of this definition however if my interpretation is too awkward for you and our readers. ... S: No, you're not detracting from anything. It's a good question. Yes, the way sanna (perception) accumulates, remembering and marking at each moment is by way of a particular condition - natural decisive support condition. So, it is true to say that the marking of the concept 'tree' now is a result of conditions. We can say that any reality arises now as a result of past and present conditions too. ... Thanks for you other comments too, Colette. Metta, Sarah ======== #90406 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:49 am Subject: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Twos (30 - 31) , Commentary part 2. nilovg Sutta:'Not being content with wholesome acts and not shrinking from exertion. (Asantu.t.thitaa ca kusalesu dhammesu appa.tivaanitaa ca padhaanasmi.m.) Co: Not being content with kusala dhammas means not being content with the cultivating of kusala dhammas he wants to do more. Endowed with this and having accomplished siila, he undertakes the cultivation of jhaana, and having acquired jhaana he strives to develop vipassanaa.Having made an inception with vipassanaa he has not attained accomplishment so long as he has not become an arahat. Co Pali: Asantu.t.thitaa ca kusalesu dhammesuuti yaa kusalaana.m dhammaana.m bhaavanaaya asantu.t.thassa bhiyyokamyataa, taaya hi sama"ngiibhuuto puggalo siila.m puuretvaa jhaana.m uppaadeti. Jhaana.m labhitvaa vipassana.m aarabhati. Aaraddhavipassako arahatta.m agahetvaa antaraa vosaana.m naapajjati. --------- N: Thus, the development of kusala and understanding never is enough until one has reached the final goal: arahatship. This is an exhortation not to be slack and make a halt halfway. On the other hand one should not force oneself and long for what is beyond one’s capacities. ------------ We read in the “Atthasaalinii” (Expositor II, p. 516, Suttanta Couplets): ---------- As to ‘Not shrinking from Exertion’ , the Co. refers to dha.sa. Pali 1367, and we read in The Co refers to dha sa pali: 1367. We read: (transl U Kyaw Khine, 1379): “Relentlessness in endeavour means: preparing well for the task, persevering continuously, not relaxing in one’s endeavour, not sparing any pains, not relinguishing the desire (chanda) to strive, not relinguishing the task, practice of meritorious dhammaa, mental cultivation and prasctising (them) repeatedly in order to cultivate merit.” The Co adds that he divided day and night into six parts and practised watchfulness, and would not stop with his endeavour until he reached arahatship. Co: Appa.tivaanitaa ca padhaanasminti ‘‘kusalaana.m dhammaana.m bhaavanaaya sakkaccakiriyataa saataccakiriyataa a.t.thitakiriyataa anoliinavuttitaa anikkhittachandataa anikkhittadhurataa aasevanaa bhaavanaa bahuliikamma’’nti eva.m vuttaa rattindiva.m cha ko.t.thaase katvaa jaagariyaanuyogavasena aaraddhe padhaanasmi.m arahatta.m apatvaa anivattanataa. ------- We read in the “Atthasaalinii” (Expositor II, p. 517, Suttanta Couplets): ------- N: When someone sees the value of all kusala dhammas and in praticular the development of right understanding, there will be conditions to ‘not relinguishing the task’, thus, not giving up the development. One realizes that it is not self who is not shrinking back from endeavour. ------ Nina. #90407 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:04 am Subject: Re: Doubts and Siilana szmicio Dear Nina > great that you have a website and that so many texts are translated > into Polish. I had not expected this in Poland. Can you give a link, > I tried to access but the URL did not work. It was not a proper link. L: That's a proper link, but it doesn't work becouse it's empty now. I am owner of an empty domain.You know just a name: www.dhamma.pl. I want to publish polish version of "Be here now" first. > A series about nama and rupa? In what way? My Abh in D.L. is about > cittas, but not without rupa, and there is my series Rupas. Do you > have something special in mind? L: I think it's not enough for me. Best wishes Lukas #90408 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? truth_aerator Dear Sarah, Scott and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Alex (& Scott), > > --- On Wed, 17/9/08, Alex wrote: > A:> I wonder if the Buddha has stated anywhere in the 4 nikayas >that such > and such are ultimate dhammas, and these are just concepts. > > >As far as I am concerned, !!!anything! !! in Samsara is >dependently > arisen, has no sabhava (check Patis) and liable to arise-stay-and > fall away. > .... > > S: As the Patis is very much 'in' this month, you might like to >take a look at the 'All', the ultimate dhammas as recently (very >helpfully) listed by Tep and further discussed by Jon: Those aren't "ultimate sabhava containing realities!" In fact Patis says that ALL is devoid of sabhava nature. Treatise XX On Voidness. Best wishes, Alex #90409 From: "glenjohnann" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:01 am Subject: no lurking today glenjohnann Hello Sarah and all Just read Sarah's post to Jessica talking about her time in Sri Lanka, listening to tapes of Khun Sujin and reading drafts of Nina's work, Visudhimagga etc. - with Ann (who lurks here somewhere). Well, no lurking today! I remember well (and with some attachment!!) our time together in Sri Lanka - and what a relief it was to meet someone who wanted to dive into the materials. I have recently returned from a couple of weeks holidaying with my family, where I read a lot from the Survey of Paramatta Dhamma's. I had taken it with me, and then while listening to a tape (Feb. 06) I heard Sarah say that Khun Sujin has recommended reading the Survey chapter by chapter (Ihad previously jumped to certain chapters that seemed "important" to me at the time). So, I started at the beginning and have found it to be very useful. There is, of course, lots of information, and it is in the context of realities appearing at this moment. I find that reading a translation of Khun Sujin's writings (which are based on recordings of her talks in Thai) provides more subtle description and discussion than she can always provide in English. Not that there are things missing in the English discussions, but because the book is a translation of her work in her native language, it provides a greater depth and breadth of language that helps one to understand. And enormous thanks to Nina for doing the translation - we are sooo fortunate that Nina is able to do this. One thing that struck me was a comment about seeing arising naturally (one does not go around looking for it) and sati arising the same way. Sati seems so elusive before we start to learn more about its development - and even when we know that hearing the dhamma correctly and reflecting on it wisely are conditions for for its developoment, along with Panna, it is hard to let go of subtle wanting, searching and trying to create conditions for it's arising. When I read about the arising of Sati and Panna as being just like the arising of seeing or hearing etc. (in the sense of their arising when there are conditions for it), it helped me see more clearly (in an intellectual sense) the "naturalness" of it. I have more examples of things that stood out for me, both in the book and the tapes. However, if I post them all at once, it could well lead to more lurking! If so inclined, I highly recommend going through the book chapter by chapter. Jonothan, I hope that your broken toe is well on the mend. I can appreciate the shock was to find your gentle, kind surfing friends in so much trouble. As you point out so well, as the story goes on and on, it is also good to be able to think of it all in terms of the Dhamma - we tend, even having heard and studied the Dhamma, to think of people as "personalities" that have certain characteristics and forget that there are many, many latent tendencies which may or may not manifest themselves in this life. And that one never knows, in terms of vipaka, what will arise in this life, that may appear to be so far from violence etc. Metta Ann #90410 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:28 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Only for the Wise to See .. Less Book Recitation truth_aerator Hello Sarah, Tep and all, >--- sarah abbott wrote: > > However, I think the consideration and deep study of realities is >exactly what the Buddha's teaching is about and it is these >paramattha dhammas which the Buddha taught and discussed. > > I don't think we're just interested in "intellectual understanding" >or 'theoretical paramattha dhammas that arise and pass away much >faster than they can blink". I think we're interested in >understanding and being aware of seeing which appears now, visible >object which appears now, thinking which appears now, so that slowly >panna begins to understand the worlds as they really are, not the >make-believe worlds of trees, houses, head-hairs and people which >we've lived in for so very long, in complete delusion. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========== We have a fundamental disagreement. I believe that Buddha's path is all about reaching Nibbana rather than reaching "understanding what appears now". Nothing that appears now is nicca-sukha-atta, nothing is worth clinging too. Not even "ultimate" realities which may be mere reifications of certain phenomena over other, due to Mr. Craving ofcourse. Check out MN24 sutta. The *Holy* life is lived for "Total Unbinding through lack of clinging" (remember it is Tanha that is origin of suffering). ====== "Then is the holy life lived under the Blessed One for the sake of purity in terms of view?" "No, my friend." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.024.than.html#t-2 ====================================================== Of course it goes without saying that "purity in terms of virtue, mind, view, the overcoming of perplexity, knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path, knowledge & vision of the way, and knowledge & vision" are important as *stages* not as clinging points. To elevate any of them into position of "an ultimate reality" is clinging which stops the path. Best wishes, Alex #90411 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:49 am Subject: Re: [dsg] no lurking today nilovg Dear Ann, thanks for a lovely post. Op 19-sep-2008, om 19:01 heeft glenjohnann het volgende geschreven: > One thing that struck me was a comment about seeing arising naturally > (one does not go around looking for it) and sati arising the same > way. Sati seems so elusive before we start to learn more about its > development - and even when we know that hearing the dhamma correctly > and reflecting on it wisely are conditions for for its developoment, > along with Panna, it is hard to let go of subtle wanting, searching > and trying to create conditions for it's arising. When I read about > the arising of Sati and Panna as being just like the arising of > seeing or hearing etc. (in the sense of their arising when there are > conditions for it), it helped me see more clearly (in an intellectual > sense) the "naturalness" of it. -------- N: I also finds this striking, and also in our English discussions she pointed this out several times. We do not take any trouble to see, seeing arises all the time. Evenso, when there are conditions for sati, when pa~n~naa of the pariyatti level has been sufficiently developed, sati will arise. And as Jon said before: in its own sweet time. As you say: < it is hard to let go of subtle wanting, searching and trying to create conditions for it's arising.> It is pa~n~naa that can see through this all. There is a danger for taking the wrong Path if it is not seen. I also intend to go over Survey again to send some corrections of misprints to Pinna. Maybe this is an occasion to post more parts of it again here. Nina. #90412 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:52 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Doubts and Siilana nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 19-sep-2008, om 17:04 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > A series about nama and rupa? In what way? My Abh in D.L. is about > > cittas, but not without rupa, and there is my series Rupas. Do you > > have something special in mind? > L: I think it's not enough for me. ------- N: Just an idea. We make a series together by question and answer. Just a few sentences at a time, it does not take too much time to do this. You start why it is not enough. Others can chime in, the more the better. Perhaps a link to Polish sutta translations? Nina. #90413 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Being aware only of "Ultimate Realities"? No meditating on concepts? nilovg Dear Alex, Op 18-sep-2008, om 22:21 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > I have read that one is not supposed to meditate or be aware of > concepts, that only ultimate realities should be seen or read about. ------- N: It depends whether a subject is used for samatha or vipassana, or this can be at different moments. That is why your Q cannot be answered with yes or no. It needs careful explanations. When the object is not a nama or rupa appearing now, the object is a concept. Nobody said that concepts are so bad. Nina. #90414 From: "szmicio" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:19 pm Subject: Re: Doubts and Siilana szmicio --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Lukas, > Op 19-sep-2008, om 17:04 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > > > A series about nama and rupa? In what way? My Abh in D.L. is about > > > cittas, but not without rupa, and there is my series Rupas. Do you > > > have something special in mind? > > L: I think it's not enough for me. > ------- > N: Just an idea. We make a series together by question and answer. > Just a few sentences at a time, it does not take too much time to do > this. You start why it is not enough. Others can chime in, the more > the better. > Perhaps a link to Polish sutta translations? http://sasana.pl/ then click(on the left) "Projekt Tipitaka". There is a list of Suttas. http://tipitaka.pl/ here suttas are grouped in few groups: (Menu on the left) Glowne Sutty - it means Main Suttas Sutty o Swiecie - it means Suttas about world Sutty o praktyce - it means Suttas about practise I like this classification very much. Those Suttas always reminds me about what is important. If you click Glowne Sutty, choose a Sutta on the right. I think you'd like it: http://theravada.na.mahajana.net/rozwoj_mentalny.html - bhavana(mental development) diagram http://theravada.na.mahajana.net/zespoly_zapalu.html - 5 khandhas diagram best wishes Lukas #90415 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:41 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What do you do? egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/9/17 kenhowardau : > Hi Herman, > > My advice to anyone else in receipt of that invitation would be to > politely accept. Who knows, you might learn something! Is there a way > in which apparently rational human beings could say they didn't exist? > Yes, that is possible. > Otherwise, my advice would be to politely decline. Certainly don't > join the group if your sole intention is to make a mockery of it. > To date, I see only that everything said in favour of the position is mocked by everything done by those who say it. Just who is mocking who? Cheers Herman #90416 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:42 pm Subject: Re: The Vism's Meditation for Developing Namarupa-pariccheda~nana dhammanusarin Dear Sarah (Connie, Larry, Sukin, Alex), - In your latest message #90392 you replied to #90278 which originated from my old request : > >Tep: "Concerning "understanding nama-rupa appearing now", would you feel comfortable enough to discuss the Vism, XVIII, 5-8 in contrast with Khun Sujin's idea?" But you did not want to discuss these 4 short paragraphs in the Vism, which give an example of "how one [meditator] defines mentality- materiality in detail through the method of defining the four elements." : Vism, XVIII, 8. Instead you gave a link to an old discussion #81395 between Nina and Larry. So I wrote back in #90278 saying that Niana's focus was only on word definition of the four elements in a meditation object, while XVIII, 5-8 is about observing of the essences of the four elements in each of the 32 bodyparts (head hair, body hair, nail, ...) for people whose "vehicle is pure insight". This observing/defining the 4 basic dhatus, according to Ven. Buddhaghosa, precedes seeing/knowing nama & rupa in the ultimate sense as stated in paragraph 28. T: Your explanation on "understanding nama-rupa appearing now" is not clear, because you simply quoted Vism XVIII, 4, 25, and 28, ignoring 5-8 completely. >Sarah (#90264): The important point to stress is that haterver the accumulations, nama and rupa have to be clearly understood and distinguished in order for all ideas of atta to be eradicated. At the end of para 4, it said: "After that he defines in brief as 'mentality-materiality' (naama-ruupa) the mentality that has the characteristic of 'bending' and the materiality that has the characteristic of 'being molested'. >S: Seeing is nama, visible object is rupa. Right understanding has to know any object appears without any selection at all. It's not a matter of working through lists and counting cittas or anything else. A little later in the chapter we come across the "chariot" again: [ followed by quotes from Vism, XVIII, 25, 28] ......................... The above reply shows that by choosing to read only some paragraphs that you understand, skipping those that you do not understand, does not give you the whole picture of the method. I am not an expert in Vism, unlike you and Nina and Larry. I rarely quote from the book. So please do not trouble me by your difficult questions like the followings. In fact, you should answer them yourself. Thank you. >S: with regard to what we take for head hair, body hair, nail and so on, what exactly is experienced through the body-sense would you say? If there is awareness and right understanding of the reality at the moment of touching, say 'head hair', what is known? What is the object of awareness? Sincerely, Tep === #90417 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 12:45 pm Subject: What Happens When We Die? bhikkhu0 Friends: Mainstream science is beginning to fund near-death-out-of-body-experience research: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080919/hl_time/whathappenswhenwedie A good idea! The element of Consciousness is more elusive, than previously imagined IMHO. The spirit is now out of the bottle so to say. Hehehe :-) May they gain success & insight! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #90418 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:09 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What do you do? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/9/17 : > Hi, Herman - > > But if what you wrote signifies clinging to > identity, that is not quite so well done, I think, for identity (or own being) > is really what atta is all about. We disagree here. There is nothing in the concept of identity when applied to real things, such as trees, rivers and human beings, that implies that what it is applied to is unchanging. And that is well understood in Buddhism as well. From Book 2, Chapter 2 The questions of King Milinda. 1. [40] The king said: 'He who is born, Nâgasena, does he remain the same or become another?' 'Neither the same nor another.' 'Give me an illustration.' 'Now what do you think, O king? You were once a baby, a tender thing, and small in size, lying flat on your back. Was that the same as you who are now grown up?' 'No. That child was one, I am another.' 'If you are not that child, it will follow that you have had neither mother nor father, no! nor teacher. You cannot have been taught either learning, or behaviour, or wisdom. What, great king! is the mother of the embryo in the first stage different from the mother of the embryo in the second stage, or the third, or the fourth 1? Is the mother of the baby a different person from the mother of the grown-up man? Is the person who goes to school one, and the same when he has finished his schooling another? Is it one who commits a crime, another who is punished by having his hands or feet cut off?' 'Certainly not. But what would you, Sir, say to that? ' ****The Elder replied: 'I should say that I AM THE SAME PERSON, now I am grown up, as I was when I was a tender tiny baby, flat on my back. For all these states are included in one by means of this body.'*** I also would refer you to the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta SN 22:59, to see what exactly is being denied by the Buddha's teaching on anatta. From my reading of this source to great confusion, anatta denies a permanent unchanging agent, a soul. It does not deny the identity of ever changing beings. How could it, if it starts of with: Thus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." — "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this. and finishes with: That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words. Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more. > Folks here such as those you mention above countenance identity in namas > and rupas, and to that extent, I believe they accept atta-view. And if you > extend countenancing of identity to aggregations of namas and rupas, then that > would also be reifying. The extent to which you do, is, I think, the extent > to which you accept an atta-view. (You might not at all, of course, but I > can't tell from your words.) Atta view is not about identity, it is about agency and permanence and being independent of conditionality, IMO. > If in saying that there are emails, that there are written words, and > that there are Jon, Sarah, Nina, Ken and Scott, what is *meant* is that emails > have identity (or self), and written words as well, and Jon, Sarah, Nina, Ken > and Scott as well, then it quite correct to say "There are no emails" and > "There are no written words" and "There are no Jon, Sarah, Nina, KenH and > Scott." The Zen folks make statements along those lines, and when they do, I > understand them to exactly be denying identity, for, as Thich Nhat Hanh says, any > A consists entirely of things that are not A. Nothing exists of itself. > I agree with the Zen folks and with Thich Nhat Hanh in what they say, but I do not believe they are denying identity. To deny identity would require a statement like "Nothing exists". But beings well and truly exist, it is just that they do not exist by and of and in themselves, they exist in dependence. Cheers Herman #90419 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:11 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: What do you do? egberdina Hi Sukin, 2008/9/17 Sukinder : > Hi Herman, > > Are Jon, Sarah etc. known to us or not? > > Say that I don't know these people, with or without knowledge of the > Abhidhamma I'd say many thoughts would arise, some conditioned by > curiosity. In the end however, I think I would just ignore it. ;-) > Thanks for your comments. I think you gave good advice :-) Cheers Herman #90420 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:13 pm Subject: Did Buddha even teach "Samatha only"? truth_aerator Dear Nina and all, >--- Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Alex, > Op 18-sep-2008, om 22:21 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > > > I have read that one is not supposed to meditate or be aware of > > concepts, that only ultimate realities should be seen or read >about. > ------- > N: It depends whether a subject is used for samatha or vipassana, Did the Buddha ever taught "samatha only"? It is quite sad when some people claim that "anapanasati" is samatha only. How can it be samatha if it fulfills 4 satipatthanas, 7 enlightment factors and can bring FULL liberation? Thank you very much for your responce, Best wishes, Alex #90421 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:16 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... dhammanusarin Dear Sarah (Alex), - Thank you for giving me a chance to quote one of my favorite suttas. Do you know the name of this sutta? ;-)) [A quiz] > Tep: Sarah knows very well that she has to maintain the house that she is living in as well as maintain her body and developing right mental attitude for day-to-day living in peace. All this is enough to prove that trees are real and Sarah is real; but both trees and Sarah are impermanent, and whatever is impermanent is dukkha, and whatever is dukkha it should not be for Sarah to cling to as 'this is mine', 'this is me', "that is my self'. That is exactly the meaning of letting go that you are talking about. But Sarah may not know it yet. Give her more time. ;-)) ... S: "...that trees are real and Sarah is real; but both trees and Sarah are impermanent..." Hmmmm, did the Buddha teach this or is it your own interpretation, Tep:-)). ........... Ye keci sankhaaraa atiitaanaagatapaccuppa~n~na, ajjhattaa vaa, bahiddhaa vaa, olaarikaa vaa, sukhumaa vaa, hiinaa vaa, paniitaa vaa, ye duure santike vaa, sabbe sankhaaraa netam mama, neso hamasmi, na meso attaati, evametam yathaabuutam sammappa~n~naaya datthabam. "All volitional formations, whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or fine, inferior or superior, far or near, should be seen with one's own knowledge, as they truly are, thus: `This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'." If you think an external sankhara (e.g. a tree) is not real, try driving your car into it. If you think 'Sarah is not real', then who thinks so if there is no thinker? Answering 'pa~n~na knows, there is no-one (no being, no person) who knows' is a miccha-ditthi. Attachment (upadana) conditions a self; letting go of self (anatta) through not clinging to the khandhas is the way to abandon self. Seeing 'no self' in the khandhas is a pa~n~na that lets go of the khandhas; it does not follow that there are no Buddhas, no ariya monks, no uninstructed-worldling Sarah. ;-)) Tep === #90422 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:33 pm Subject: Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' dhammanusarin Dear Sukin (Alex, Sarah), - At the bottom of the message you wrote: Ps: Tep, I'll be busy on and off the next few says. So I will look for a good time to start our other discussion, but not yet. Hopefully in there, because we will not be making direct reference to the Buddha's words, you will then not perceive me as trusting my own opinions over that of the Buddha. ;-) T: No need to hurry, friend. Take you time. I agree with your new policy of 'no direct reference', Sukin. The big disadvantage, however, is that we will not have a basis for judging a view or opinion (whether it is right or wrong). By the way, do you know that Sarah did not survive the 'no-book, no- reference' discussion-rule testing? She gave up easily. :-( ........................... To you I seem be an unfair person because I wrote : "Sukin just gives his own interpretation, Alex." Suk: Don't we all? And if this is so bad, why then criticize those people who rely on the ancient commentaries, having seen their own limitations with regard to reading and interpreting the Suttas? T: You were criticized because you had given incorrect interpretations of the suttas that you didn't know much about. I don't read much ancient commentaries; yet nobody critizes me because I do not volunteer interpretations of the commentaries. ;-) In this message #90388 you once again give a strong opinion about Anapanasati even though 1) you don't practice it, and 2) you don't know either the Anapanasati Sutta or the Treatise 3 (Anapanasati) in the Ptsm. Would you believe it if I say the Buddha and the Arahant Sariputta both said that Anapanasati was BOTH samatha & vipassna? ============================= >Tep wrote: > T: I concur with you, Alex. It is obvious that Anapanasati is seen in several suttas (the collection of the Buddha's lectures to His > disciples). It was given particularly in the Maha-satipatthana Sutta. > Besides Sukin who has more confidence in his opinion than in the > Buddha's words, who else can deny that the Buddha taught Anapanasati > to the monks as a path for them to follow? (1) Suk: I don't mind being accused of this. But I wonder with what kind of citta you do it. It is obvious that some of us believe that you and others are giving your own interpretations, not in line with the intended meaning of the Buddha's words. But have you ever read anyone of us say the same thing about you or those other people, namely that you believe in yourselves more than the Buddha? ========= (1) T: No, I have not, and will find it to be absurd for anyone to even think like that. Prove to me first that I ever gave even one misinterpretation of the suutas, or misquoting the Buddha, or writing anything like you said. Now, I am wondering what kind of citta you had while writing such a lie. ========== >Tep: > It is absurd to think that the Buddha would teach them Anapanasati, > knowing that His disciples could not follow it. (2) Suk: I hope my explanation above has clarified my position a little more. But you may like to ask yourself these questions: "Am I in the same league as those people?" "Is the important Teaching to which the Buddha was enlightened, samatha or vipassana?" "If the latter, why at any time give more importance to the former, so much so as to go on and argue in support of it at the expense of the other? ========= (2) T: Okay, Sukin, I play along with you. ;-) -- No, I am not. -- Both samatha & vipassana. Several suttas explain that. -- In the suttas as well as in the Ptsm, both serenity and insight are extremely important as the path (development). ========= >Tep: > I advise Sukin to read the following post about > the various paths in Buddhissm. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/89407 (3) Suk: Frankly, I don't understand the quote from the Patisambhidamagga, the subject re: the 37 enlightenment factors is too deep for me. Still I think the "Path" I am talking about, namely the Noble Eightfold Path, has altogether a different meaning and implication from the "path" used in reference to the various dhammas in the quote you cite. My mention of the Path is in terms of its `function' being that of "understanding Dukkha" and gradually leading to enlightenment. In your quote, the same thing can't be meant, can it? But perhaps you will explain how you see it? (3) T: I think you simply reject the Ptsm passages on Path (magga), although you make it sound like it is your fault. But who am I to expect you to understand my explanation if the great Arahant's words are not helpful? You know, the Chief Disciple Sariputta taught several new monks and helped them to attain Stream-entry? He must be one of the greatest teachers in the world. ==================== Tep === #90423 From: "Tep" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:00 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Only for the Wise to See .. A Great Turning Around dhammanusarin Dear Alex and Sarah, - >Alex: >We have a fundamental disagreement. I believe that Buddha's path is all about reaching Nibbana rather than reaching "understanding what appears now". Nothing that appears now is nicca-sukha-atta, nothing is worth clinging too. Not even "ultimate" realities which may be mere reifications of certain phenomena over other, due to Mr. Craving ofcourse. T: I think the following Sarah's point is valid, Alex. > > Sarah; > >>I don't think we're just interested in "intellectual understanding" >>or 'theoretical paramattha dhammas that arise and pass away much >>faster than they can blink". I think we're interested in >>understanding and being aware of seeing which appears now, visible >object which appears now, thinking which appears now, so that slowly >panna begins to understand the worlds as they really are. T: Moving away from the paramattha dhammas' nano-second behaviors to the arising-and-passing-away phenomena is a great turning around. Tep === #90424 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:01 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Alex and Sarah, Regarding: A: "Those aren't 'ultimate sabhava containing realities!...In fact Patis says that ALL is devoid of sabhava nature. Treatise XX On Voidness." Scott: Can you provide the exact quote and a more precise reference please? In suggesting that a given dhamma has 'sabhaava' one asserts that this dhamma simply arises in the way natural to it; seeing consciousness, for example, 'sees' visible object. Its sabhaava is 'seeing'. It strikes me as a bit of an absurdity to suggest that 'seeing is devoid of seeing'. Were this so, Alex, you'd not be able to gaze at your favourite tree, would you? ;-) In the Sammahavinodanii (p.67) it is noted (regarding, as an example, 'earth element'): "As regards pa.thaviidhaatu ('earth element') and so on, the meaning of element has the meaning of 'nature' (sabhaava); and the meaning of nature has the meaning of 'voidness' (s~n~na); and the meaning of voidness has the meaning of 'not a being' (nissatta). Thus is is the element that is only earth in the sense of nature, voidness and not a being, that is the earth element. And likewise with regard to the water element, etc..." Scott: As I understand, voidness refers to the absence of any one who does anything, in the ulitmate sense. Voidness does not mean 'devoid of sabhaava.' In the above excerpt the meaning of a dhamma mergers with the meaning of sabhaava, which merges with the meaning of nissatta. This, to me, is to say that a dhamma is only what it is, its nature which includes function but not actor. Sincerely, Scott. #90425 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:07 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Alex and Sarah, (s~n~na)=(su~n~na), of course. Sincerely, Scott. #90426 From: "Scott" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:13 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Alex and Sarah, Sammahavinodanii=Sammohavinodanii. No more typos will be corrected. Sincerely, Scott. #90427 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:23 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? truth_aerator Dear Scott, >--- "Scott" wrote: > > Dear Alex and Sarah, > > Regarding: > > A: "Those aren't 'ultimate sabhava containing realities!...In fact > Patis says that ALL is devoid of sabhava nature. Treatise XX On > Voidness." > > Scott: Can you provide the exact quote and a more precise reference > please? > ex: [Because it is] produced, ignorance is empty ..., fabrications are empty ..., consciousness is empty ..., name and form are empty ..., the sixfold sensory spheres are empty ..., contact is empty ..., feeling is empty ..., craving is empty ..., grasping is empty ..., becoming is empty of own-nature; ceased, it is changed and empty. [Because it is] produced, directed thought pertaining to visible form is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to sound is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to odor is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to flavor is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to tactile sensation is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to mental phenomena [i.e. feeling, perception, and fabrications] is empty of own-nature; ceased, it is changed and empty. [Because it is] produced, discursive thinking pertaining to visible form is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to sound is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to odor is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to flavor is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to tactile sensation is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to mental phenomena [i.e. feeling, perception, and fabrications] is empty of own-nature; ceased, it is changed and empty. http://www.empty-universe.com/emptyuniverse/id42.htm The fact remains is that "sabhava" is refuted in Patis, almost never mentioned in the suttas, not mentioned in Canonical Abh and only in much later commentaries it is constantly talked about as existing... Best wishes, Alex #90428 From: "connie" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:32 pm Subject: Re: The Vism's Meditation for Developing Namarupa-pariccheda~nana nichiconn dear Tep Uncommon, > >Tep: "Concerning "understanding nama-rupa appearing now", would you feel comfortable enough to discuss the Vism, XVIII, 5-8 in contrast with Khun Sujin's idea?" connie: to my understanding they are the same teaching. >> Tep: But you did not want to discuss these 4 short paragraphs in the Vism, which give an example of "how one [meditator] defines mentality-materiality in detail through the method of defining the four elements." : Vism, XVIII, 8. Instead you gave a link to an old discussion #81395 between Nina and Larry. So I wrote back in #90278 saying that Niana's focus was only on word definition of the four elements in a meditation object, while XVIII, 5-8 is about observing of the essences of the four elements in each of the 32 bodyparts (head hair, body hair, nail, ...) for people whose "vehicle is pure insight". This observing/defining the 4 basic dhatus, according to Ven. Buddhaghosa, precedes seeing/knowing nama & rupa in the ultimate sense as stated in paragraph 28. connie: well, i'm sorry about the Vism aversion, so let me haul the book off the shelf again... grumble, grumble. By the way, there's a (pardon any typos) copy of Pe Maung Tin's translation of chapter 18 in the dsg files section. It's kind of interesting comparing the 2 standard English versions. T: Your explanation on "understanding nama-rupa appearing now" is not clear, because you simply quoted Vism XVIII, 4, 25, and 28, ignoring 5-8 completely. connie: We've ignored 17 whole chapters - several in particular (1, 2, 3, 11, 13 & 14) referred to in the introductory section of this one. So here we are, already in the 3rd relay chariot, i think: di.t.thi-visuddhi -- the five purities of view one of our translators calls 'the body' and the other 'the trunk'. But no problem as long as we know we are jumping in ahead of ourselves, i guess. >Sarah (#90264): The important point to stress is that whatever the accumulations, nama and rupa have to be clearly understood and distinguished in order for all ideas of atta to be eradicated. At the end of para 4, it said: "After that he defines in brief as 'mentality-materiality' (naama-ruupa) the mentality that has the characteristic of 'bending' and the materiality that has the characteristic of 'being molested'. connie: As PoP has it <> I like the image in para 4: <> >S: Seeing is nama, visible object is rupa. Right understanding has to know any object appears without any selection at all. It's not a matter of working through lists and counting cittas or anything else. A little later in the chapter we come across the "chariot" again: [followed by quotes from Vism, XVIII, 25, 28] ........................ > Tep: The above reply shows that by choosing to read only some paragraphs that you understand, skipping those that you do not understand, does not give you the whole picture of the method. I am not an expert in Vism, unlike you and Nina and Larry. I rarely quote from the book. So please do not trouble me by your difficult questions like the followings. In fact, you should answer them yourself. Thank you. >S: with regard to what we take for head hair, body hair, nail and so on, what exactly is experienced through the body-sense would you say? If there is awareness and right understanding of the reality at the moment of touching, say 'head hair', what is known? What is the object of awareness? connie: Either the concept of 'hair' or one of the three 'tangibles'... the "correct" answer being "earth element". peace, connie #90429 From: "connie" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:48 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... nichiconn dear no one and all, as far as jumping in front of trains and driving into trees and such, where are the meditators now? should i not take things like flying seated thru the air or diving into the earth literally? thanks, connie #90430 From: "connie" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:54 pm Subject: Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' nichiconn Dear Tep, Tep: I don't read much ancient commentaries; yet nobody critizes me because I do not volunteer interpretations of the commentaries. ;-) connie: I will volunteer if you think it would be of any benefit. happily at your service, connie #90431 From: "Alex" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:08 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... truth_aerator Hi Connie and all, You are making an issue out of non issue. Meditation should be for Final Nibbana, not to be able to fly in the air and such things. Best wishes, Alex #90432 From: upasaka@... Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:10 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What do you do? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 9/19/2008 7:11:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: I agree with the Zen folks and with Thich Nhat Hanh in what they say, but I do not believe they are denying identity. To deny identity would require a statement like "Nothing exists". But beings well and truly exist, it is just that they do not exist by and of and in themselves, they exist in dependence. ============================== Identity is essence; it is independent nature and being; it is own-being. To not exist in and of themselves is exactly what it is for phenomena to lack identity. Lacking identity is not lacking existence - it is lacking own-being and own-nature. Emptiness is not non-existence. With metta, Howard #90433 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:20 pm Subject: The Ultimate Goal! bhikkhu0 Friends: The Ultimate Goal is complete Extinguishing of Craving: By the gradual stilling, giving up, fading away, letting go, relinquishing and thus ceasing of all greed, desire, lust, craving, clinging, attachment, adherence, obsession, and latent tendency towards the various elements of forms, feelings, perceptions, constructions & kinds of consciousness, the mind is finally said to be well released...!!! Therefore; those recluses & priests, who are well released by Extinction of Craving , have reached the Ultimate End & won Absolute Security from Bondage, they have achieved a Sublime Nobility, they have accomplished the Supreme Good! They are therefore Best among all Gods & all Humans!!! Even these mighty Devas as Indra , BrahmÄ? and Pajapati praise them with these profound, long standing ovations from afar: Homage to you, Thoroughbred Man! Admirable are you, Supreme Man! We do not know on what you Meditate! See also: http://What-Buddha-Said.net/drops/Arahat_Qualities.htm Source: The Grouped Sayings by the Buddha. Samyutta Nikaya 22(4+79): [III 13+-91] http://www.pariyatti.com/book.cgi?prod_id=948507 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn22-001.html The Ultimate Goal is the Extinguishing of Craving! Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) ... #90434 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:21 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What do you do? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/9/20 : > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 9/19/2008 7:11:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > I agree with the Zen folks and with Thich Nhat Hanh in what they say, > but I do not believe they are denying identity. To deny identity would > require a statement like "Nothing exists". But beings well and truly > exist, it is just that they do not exist by and of and in themselves, > they exist in dependence. > ============================== > Identity is essence; it is independent nature and being; it is > own-being. To not exist in and of themselves is exactly what it is for phenomena to > lack identity. Lacking identity is not lacking existence - it is lacking > own-being and own-nature. Emptiness is not non-existence. > If you're happy for me to keep disagreeing with you, I'm happy to keep discussing the matter :-) What do you think of the Nagasena quote, then? Do you think his is the same position as yours? Cheers Herman #90435 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:23 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 1, no 2. nilovg Dear friends, During our journey we often discussed dåna and we began to investigate the different moments of consciousness which arose while giving. When we presented food to the monks we noticed that there were not only wholesome moments of consciousness, but also unwholesome moments of consciousness. We were attached to pleasant sights or to the peace and quiet we felt, or we were pleased with ourselves because of our giving. Sometimes we felt uneasy when we were wondering whether we presented the food in the right way or when we were afraid of spilling the food while offering it. The different moments of consciousness arise and fall away very rapidly and it is hard to know exactly when wholesome consciousness arises and when unwholesome consciousness. When we are sincere we can find out that there are many more unwholesome moments of consciousness than wholesome moments of consciousness. This should not discourage us from doing wholesome deeds, because if we would not perform wholesome deeds there would still be more unwholesomeness. Knowing that there are many more unwholesome moments than wholesome moments is in itself wholesome, because it is the beginning of right understanding. Right understanding is wholesome. The many different moments of consciousness, cittas, arise because of their own conditions. There is no self who can exert control over the cittas which arise, cittas are beyond control. Even if we tell ourselves; “Now I am going to offer dåna and I wish to have only wholesome cittas”, unwholesome cittas are bound to arise as well. We all have accumulated tendencies to wholesomeness, kusala, as well as tendencies to unwholesomeness, akusala. Thus, there are conditions for the arising of kusala cittas as well as akusala cittas, at different moments. There is no mind which belongs to a “self”, a person. What we take for “my mind” are only different cittas which arise, one at a time, and then fall away, succeeding one another. There are different types of citta: akusala citta, kusala citta, vipåkacitta (citta which is the result of wholesome action or unwholesome action) and kiriyacitta (citta which is neither cause nor result). We are used to an idea of self who sees, hears, thinks, performs dåna or tells a lie, but in reality there is no self performing such actions, only different cittas that arise one at a time and perform each their own function. Seeing is a function performed by a citta, hearing is another function performed by a citta. When one is generous or tells a lie there is no person who is acting, there are cittas performing their functions. ****** Nina. #90436 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:35 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nama and rupa series. nilovg Dear Lukas, thanks you for the links. I tried them, just to have an impression. I do not know Polish. The clicking of suttas did not work, but never mind, I would not understand any way. I am glad that many suttas and also Abhidhamma have been translated. Diagrams: personally not so fond of them. You did not answer my question on nama and rupa series. It can be short posts, just one or two sentences. Do you like to start with a question? Nina. Op 19-sep-2008, om 21:19 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > http://tipitaka.pl/ here suttas are grouped in few groups: > (Menu on the left) #90437 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:59 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? kenhowardau Hi Scott and Alex, ----- Scott: > As I understand, voidness refers to the absence of any one who does anything, in the ulitmate sense. Voidness does not mean 'devoid of sabhaava.' ----- Yes, what could be more crucial than that understanding? There is a sutta quote somewhere denying sabhava, but its meaning is exactly as you have described for the meaning of 'voidness.' The intention of the sutta was not to deny that dhammas had their own inherent, or intrinsic, natures. To give it that meaning would be to open the floodgates. It would mean that conditioned dhammas were no more real than concepts - and so the functions of dhammas would be no more efficacious than conventional actions. Right understanding would be no better and no worse than formal meditation. It doesn't bear thinking about! :-) Ken H S: > No more typos will be corrected. "Dyslexics of the world untie!" #90438 From: "szmicio" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:41 am Subject: Re: nama and rupa series. szmicio Dear Nina, > You did not answer my question on nama and rupa series. It can be > short posts, just one or two sentences. Do you like to start with a > question? Yes I do. When I asked about nama rupa series I mean something which can remind us nama and rupa in daily life. Something like your series Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka. We talk about rupa. But how it looks like? Is there any special way to learn the characteristic of rupa? or just leading the normal life? best wishes Lukas. #90439 From: "rinzeee" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 2:23 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Fwd: Sudden Insight In My Dream rinzeee Dear Sukin --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder wrote: > > Dear Rinze, Sukin: Thanks Rinze for corresponding with me. I like it that you believe firmly in the Abhidhamma. :-) Rinze: Of course Sukin, I do believe in Abhidhamma, and the rest of Lord Buddha's Teachings! BTW is "believe" a cetasika? :-)) But you will note that strictly speaking believe = faith (or confidence) + wisdom. Sukin: I've heard explanations, but I can't recall them. I therefore remain clueless what it means for wisdom to be out of balance with faith. Rinze: Let me give you an illustration, which I hope, will bring this `balancing act' into perspective. Let's say I come across a long bridge, that is full of potholes you can see right through, down to the river some meters below. But unfortunately, the bridge is under water, about a few 100 cm, so much so that, I can't see where to place the footing. You, a native of the area, are there on the other side of the bridge, and gives me simple instructions on how to cross over to your side (in conventional terms), not the exact specifications, as to where and where the potholes are, or how far apart or close together and so on. You say, "Keep to the centre of the bridge, as most of the holes are concentrated on the two sides, and you are likely to fall. Even though there are some holes in the centre area, it is a safer route". So, having listened to you with wise attention, I take my first step, into a heretheto unkown terrain that's `Greek' to me! You must understand that, however wise I am, unless I take that first step, my wisdom is of no use. Since I would be only speculating, on what you said, as I have not even started to cross the bridge as yet! On the other hand, if I took the steps rashly, without being aware of every step I take, then my faith in your instructions is of no use. It lacks the support of wisdom, since I may place my foot, into one of those potholes, and fall through! Therefore, with every step I take, I should feel terrafirma underneath my foot. That would serve as cause and condition for the next step to be taken! At any moment, when I don't feel solid ground underneath, I would know that I've reached a pothole, and I would look to you for further instructions, which perhaps you might give it in depth, with the specification of the diameter of the hole etc. Now, I would understand your instructions, even in depth, since my wisdom has grown along with faith, as I have covered quite a long distance, following your instructions! In this way my wisdom is in proportionate, to the faith I place in your instructions when followed. In this way there is balance in faith and wisdom. You say, "I LIKE IT that you believe FIRMLY in the Abhidhamma ". Lord Buddha says that one should maintain equanimity in the face of the eight vagaries of this world, Labo/Alabo, Ayaso/Yaso, Ninda/Prasansa, Sapa/Dukh (gain/ loss, fame/blame, honour/dishonour, happiness/grief). So, in this instance, when you maintain a polarized attitude, you might not see the dhamma in what I write (if any), but would only be focused on changing my views, if I'm not so inclined to your taste. Sukin: Can you elaborate on what you mean by, "Faith (in something), is a set of instructions, which when followed, alters the mental state of a person…?" Can you expand further, especially the part about "When PS is seen in some aspects, faith and wisdom works in tandem (apart from the other enlightenment factors)"? Rinze: I think the illustration above would have made this clear. When my confidence in your instructions, to cross the bridge grows, with the wisdom while doing it, then my anxiety ceases and relief is the outcome. Hence the change in mental, state from suffering to happiness. Of course one must not read too much dhamma, into a simple illustration, which brings out only a part of it. When you do merit, or there is skillfulness, in your actions, one would find that there is harmony in your life, things are happening to the better. This is the Paticcasamuppada (PS) at the `shallow' end of the sea, where the Dhamma touches every one. Things do not happen without cause and condition. So when good things are happening to you and around you, you will see what their causes are, if mindfull. When bad things are happening to you and around you, you will see what their causes are, if mindfull. In this way you will see whether there is progress in your actions or not. Or the path that you have taken is right or not. Lord Buddha says, "When there is this, this is. With the arising of this, this arises. When there is not this, this is not. With the cessation of this, this ceases". This is the basic principle of PS. Sukin: We come to the Dhamma having judged other teachings as not being right. We continue with the kind of discriminative thinking as we go along, otherwise we won't go very far. And discriminate right or wrong we all do, regardless there is direct experience or not, besides what would any discussion be like without this? We may feel duty bound to cite a Sutta, or we may prefer to discuss using reason. Who is to say which is better? Rinze: Yes, I agree, that we come to the Dhamma, having judged other teachings as not right. But once we have decided on Buddhadhamma as the way, our discriminative thinking, should be within the framework of the Teachings. And that includes all aspects of the Teachings, not just the preferred against not what is preferred. Because there are those who have realized the Dhamma, in ways that may not be to our preference. My contention is that, we cannot say this way is correct, and that way is wrong. Unless we can prove why it is wrong, citing the Dhamma. And that too, there must be PS (cause & condition) in our citation, as the Dhamma is beyond reason, which as you may note, is the principal difference when compared to other Teachings. All other Teachings stopped at `Self View', but not Buddhadhamma, which accounts to its profoundity! Sukin: I've heard explanations, but I can't recall them. I therefore remain clueless what it means for wisdom to be out of balance with faith. It would seem to me that wisdom arises with faith and therefore when it does it performs its function as it must. Are you talking about different moments of citta? And are you referring to panna when you mention "queries of this sort" or something else? Rinze: Confusion is bound to arise, when we try to think in terms of `cittas and cetasikas' for ordinary conventional ideas, which may be one of the reason why, the Suttas define Nama as vedana, sanna, chetana, passa and manasikara, while the Abhidhamma defines it as vedana, sanna, and 50 other cetasikas. Imagine the confusion, in the minds of those listening to the Dhamma, while Lord Buddha speaks, in terms of Cittas and Cetasikas, for every encounter experienced in daily life! Don't forget that, if there is any one who could `split hairs' in Dhamma He can! But He did it, only occasionally, depending on his audience. But if you read the Suttas closely, you will find, the cetasikas spoken of in conventional terms. I said "….needless queries of this sort, even disagreement of either one or the other facets of Dhamma". Here I mean doubts in the various aspects of dhamma and not panna. Sukin: I'd be careful to make the kind of comparison. Since when it comes to the Dhamma, faith must go together with wisdom. Even when referring to parts of the Teachings which we can't as yet understand, the faith in that is still based on those parts which we `do' understand, whatever extent that may be. In any case, taking care not to fall prey to doubt, wisdom will have it that we don't believe blindly anyway. Taking refuge in the Triple Gem must do justice to what they really stand for. The refuge is taken with the arising of understanding, otherwise it is quite meaningless, I would think. Rinze: Yes. Contd #90440 From: "rinzeee" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 2:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Fwd: Sudden Insight In My Dream rinzeee Dear Sukin (contd) > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sukinder > wrote: > > > > Dear Rinze, > Sukin: I refer you to the fact of the Noble Eightfold Path or Satipatthana / Vipassana being the One Way. How does Jhana fit in here? Rinze: "Mano pubbhanga ma Dhamma, Mano setta, Mano maya" Dhammapada.- "Mind precedes all Dhammas, mind is their chief, mind made are they" Everything arises in the mind, that includes the Noble Eightfold Path or Satipatthana / Vipassana, except Nibbana. What is common to them, is the kind of object. Objects range from, the gross, to the subtle, culminating in Nibbana, the object of path consciousness. These objects (except Nibbana) are cognized by the mind and has to be very clear and great (not obscure). Only then, investigation (vipassana) can arise. As the nature of the objects, become increasingly subtle, the concentration needed is great. For an object to be clear, it has to be continuously attended to, ie mindfulness must be without a break, such that every preceeding moment and the succeeding moment has the same object. The most suitable object for this purpose, is the Breath. Being mindfull of the breath, while going about with one's day to day chores, is difficult, though not impossible. Because, one could also cultivate momentary concentration, paying attention to the changing nature of the object, presented in every moment, which is what is implied, in the mindfulness of the postures, of the body, in 4 Foundation of Mindfulness Sutta. Nevertheless, concentration is a precondition, for investigation of the object (Vipassana), to be effective. To be conscious of the breath, as the object in every moment, *Onepointedness* must develop. The need for onepointedness arises, because of the attachment of consciousness (underlying tendencies) to fresh objects, all the time (we wouldn't like to see the same film twice, but would like to see something new each time, isn't it?). Therefore every moment that, consciouness deviates from the object, it is rediirested to the object, ie *Directed Thought* must develop. In a conscious moment with developed onepointedness and directed thought, *Sustained Thinking* prevails and is developed and doubt is cleared. Where there is no doubt the object is clear, therefore there is no mental agitation, hence *Joy* arises. Where there is joy, the mind becomes tranquil paving the way for *Happiness* to arise. Now, what is Vitakka, Vicara, Piti, Sukha and Ekaggata? They are the first Jhana factors. If one is inclined towards Jhanas then one could enjoy the 1st Jhana. As consciousness becomes familiar with the 1st Jhana, wisdom sees that directed thought is not needed, since consciousness does not stray from the object. Sometimes even sustained thought is not needed, since the object is very clear. Therefore, condition is ripe for the 2nd Jhana to arise, and with an act of will (dhammachanda) one drops vitakka and vicara (so to speak), and enjoys the 2nd Jhana and so on. But, if one is not inclined towards Jhanas, then one can investigate the object, at the threshold of 1st Jhana itself. Since the hindrances are at bay, the mind is clear and so is the object, the conditions are set for Vipassana to happen. This is how Jhana fits in to Noble Eightfold Path or Satipatthana / Vipassana. Sukin: The fact that the Buddha valued Jhana and encouraged it even for those who were already ariyans is because it must be better than ordinary kaamavacara kusala cittas. Rinze: It is better than ordinary kamavacara kusala cittas, because ordinary kamavacara kusala cittas may or may not be directed towards Nibbana as objective. One could give dana expecting to be reborn in the heavenly realms, another could give, with wisdom (alobha thoughts). But Jhana cittas has the skill of concentration, which is absolutely necessary for Vipassana. Moreover in developing a jhana citta, a quick witted person, would already be aware of Vipassana also happening at the same time (Dhamma-anupassana as in Satipattana). Sukin: Even though I value all kusala cittas and have very high regard for Jhana, I don't see it as being part of the Path to enlightenment. Rinze: I don't see it that way, and I wouldn't say that. I would not come to such a conclusion. I think it is premature! What would you say, if you realized that, Right Concentration, which is one of the path factors, is the 4th Jhana citta, where Equanimity prevails? Because, in path consciousness, one of the conditions is equanimity about Formations (sankhara), one should neither be attached to nor repulsed by, for this Insight Knowledge to arise. Moreover, the fact that the noble 8-fold path factors has arisen, is a Jhana by itself (IMO)! Sukin: The reason why I object to people's suggestion about the need for some kind of samatha `practice' is that because this is seen as being necessary for enlightenment. Rinze: What if it is so? Why not leave that option open, without coming to a definite conclusion? Moreover, why let `people's suggestions' motivate your thinking, unless you are certain that, that person is right! And that is not enough reason, for your objection to samatha practice being necessary for enlightenment. Sukin: One never hears talk about the development of ordinary kusala as can arise in daily life, …… Rinze: Of course Sukin, there is development of ordinary kusala, in daily life, when they do arise, more so in those skillfull in samatha practice! Why? Because one is prepared for the nuances of the mind, in daily life, since one has seen it in Samatha practice! Or to put it differently, wisdom will see, that akusala citta do not arise, in daily life! Sukin: …….but instead the need for some kind of formalized practice for the higher development of samatha, including Anapanasati. Rinze: What if it is so? Anapansati is the *thread* that connects the mundane to the supramundane consciousness! Lord Buddha used it and He instructs us too, to use it! Sukin: This is due to `ambition' and / or a distorted view of the Path, and results in Silabattaparamasa, as far as I can see. Rinze: The `ambition' you mean here, could be `right ambition' too, Dhammachanda (wish-to-do – chanda-iddhipado) one of the enlightenment factors! Whether it is a distorted view of the Path or not, depends on the person. If he finds that lobha, dosa, moha diminish while alobha, adosa and amoha increase, while seeking this Path, then it is not distorted. The criteria for Silabattaparamasa too is just that, what ever one does with Right View, should gradually diminish lobha, dosa, moha while increasing alobha, adosa and amoha. Why? Because the roots of all thinking is just that! Metta Rinze Sukin, how do I get what is replied (to mine) emailed to me directly, so that I don't have to scan the whole message board? #90441 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] What do you do? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 9/20/2008 2:22:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi Howard, 2008/9/20 : > Hi, Herman - > > In a message dated 9/19/2008 7:11:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > I agree with the Zen folks and with Thich Nhat Hanh in what they say, > but I do not believe they are denying identity. To deny identity would > require a statement like "Nothing exists". But beings well and truly > exist, it is just that they do not exist by and of and in themselves, > they exist in dependence. > ============================== > Identity is essence; it is independent nature and being; it is > own-being. To not exist in and of themselves is exactly what it is for phenomena to > lack identity. Lacking identity is not lacking existence - it is lacking > own-being and own-nature. Emptiness is not non-existence. > If you're happy for me to keep disagreeing with you, I'm happy to keep discussing the matter :-) What do you think of the Nagasena quote, then? Do you think his is the same position as yours? ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I find it entirely compatible with my position. The later phenomenon being neither the same nor different from the earlier is the middle way of no-essence or anatta. It is neither substantialism nor nihilism. This is along the same lines as the rebirth flame being kindled from the prior flame - neither the same flame nor different. ----------------------------------------------- Cheers > Herman ========================= With metta, Howard P. S. I'm not sure, but I think it is possible that, as is common, we are differing only in the matter of speech and not our understandings. #90442 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 1, no 1. egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/9/19 Nina van Gorkom : > Dear friends, > > Chapter 1 > > Dåna. > > Sri Lanka is a country where dåna is widely practised. The Singhalese > are always giving and sharing, they see the value of generosity. Even > those who are poor organise dåna for the monks in temples or in their > homes. I do not dispute anything you say, about all the truly wonderful people you have met in Sri Lanka. What I write next is purely for the sake of balance. Sri Lanka is a country torn by civil war. It is one of the most dangerous countries in the world in which to live. The Singhalese, regardless of the dana you refer to, cannot comtemplate living together with the Tamils. The sangha in Sri Lanka is an ugly thing. If you care to listen, it chants "Singhalese uber alles". It is very ugly, Nina. Do not forget the past. Cheers Herman #90443 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] EMPTINESS egberdina Hi colette, 2008/9/18 colette : > Good Morning Herman, > > Isn't Emptiness the chief characteristic of any doorway? > No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that the chief charactersitic of a doorway is that it is the useful fiction by which one thing can become another. Doorways are the lowest common denominator of dualist fantasies. Mind and body interface through a ..... you guessed it, a doorway. I was sorry to hear of the passing of Richard Wright (Pink Floyd). In using the word passing, I do not insinuate that he passed through a doorway :-) god loves you, colette, and so do I cheers Herman #90444 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:45 am Subject: Re: The Vism's Meditation for Developing Namarupa-pariccheda~nana dhammanusarin Dear subtle Connie (Alex, Herman, Han, Sarah), - Thank you for the discerning quality I have often seen in your reply. 1. Concerning Khun Sujin's understanding nama-rupa appearing now and the Vism, XVIII, 5-8, you say : > connie: to my understanding they are the same teaching. T: In principle, yes. In practice, no. Why? Because Khun Sujin nevers practices. 2. Concerning Sarah's skipping-and-skimming the Vism to pick or choose what she wants to use to support her views, you say: > connie: well, i'm sorry about the Vism aversion, so let me haul the book off the shelf again... grumble, grumble. By the way, there's a (pardon any typos) copy of Pe Maung Tin's translation of chapter 18 in the dsg files section. It's kind of interesting comparing the 2 standard English versions. T: Do you mean my aversion or her aversion? But I do not hate the Vism, and as I have said several times so far, I think Ven. Buddhaghosa was an ariya savaka. Thank you for letting know about the alternative translation. I'll take a look. 3. Concerning poor explanation of unclear/unsatisfactory explanation of "understanding nama-rupa appearing now" because XVIII, 5-8 was ignored, you say: >connie: We've ignored 17 whole chapters - several in particular (1, 2, 3, 11, 13 & 14) referred to in the introductory section of this one. So here we are, already in the 3rd relay chariot, i think: di.t.thi-visuddhi -- the five purities of view one of our translators calls 'the body' and the other 'the trunk'. But no problem as long as we know we are jumping in ahead of ourselves, i guess. T: No doubt why whenever I insist that virtues and concentration support development of understanding, some DSG hardcore members always come out and argue that understanding is all it takes. The reverse logic comes from studying only Part III (Understanding) of the Vism. 4. Concerning Sarah's reply (#90264) with a quote of Vism XVIII, 4 : "The important point to stress is that whatever the accumulations, nama and rupa have to be clearly understood and distinguished in order for all ideas of atta to be eradicated", you say: >connie: As PoP has it <> I like the image in para 4: <> T: Would you elaborate further as to what "making the search" actually and practically (not theoretically) means to you? 5. Concerning Sarh's 4 questions that I am 'unable' to answer, you give one condensed reply as follows. >> Sarah: with regard to what we take for head hair, body hair, nail and so on, what exactly is experienced through the body-sense would you say? If there is awareness and right understanding of the reality at the moment of touching, say 'head hair', what is known? What is the object of awareness? >connie: Either the concept of 'hair' or one of the three 'tangibles'... the "correct" answer being "earth element". T: By accepting "concept" as a valid object of contemplation (defining, discerning), you now stand alone and away from the hard core DSG members. With respect to the "earth element" (also, the other three dhatus) Ven. Buddhaghosa explains in Chapter XI, 27 that it has to be discerned in brief or "in detail" until it "becomes clear in the correct characteristics". And that to me does not mean reading and considering, or even thinking, about the element. It is much more subtle than the mundane, ordinary uninstructed worldling's contaminated thinking. Here, virtues and concentration play the important role. What is your thought on such discerning process? .................................. Thank you very much for taking the time, Connie. Tep === #90445 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:27 am Subject: Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' dhammanusarin Dear friend Connie, - I am pleased to see more posts from you. I think not many members here understand your subtle and penetrating knowledge of Buddhism. It is time for you to be on stage as a leading actress. ;-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > > Tep: I don't read much ancient commentaries; yet nobody critizes me because I do not volunteer interpretations of the commentaries. ;-) > > connie: I will volunteer if you think it would be of any benefit. > > happily at your service, > connie > Happiply accepting the kind offer, Tep === #90446 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: nama and rupa series. nilovg Dear Lukas, Op 20-sep-2008, om 10:41 heeft szmicio het volgende geschreven: > When I asked about nama rupa series I mean something which can remind > us nama and rupa in daily life. Something like your series Pilgrimage > in Sri Lanka. > > We talk about rupa. But how it looks like? Is there any special way to > learn the characteristic of rupa? > or just leading the normal life? ---------- N: In our normal, daily life rupas are experienced all the time through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense and mind-door. Visible object or colour is experienced through the eye-sense, also now. This is the only rupa that can be seen. When your eyes are open just now colour, which is rupa, impinges on the eyesense, which is also rupa. This is a condition for the citta that sees. Citta is nama. Nama and rupa have different characteristics. Nama experiences an object, whereas rupa does not experience any object, it does not know anything. Colour does not know: I am experienced by seeing. It seems that you see people all day, but this is thinking arising on account of what is seen. Hearing hears sound through the earsense. Sound and earsense are rupas, and when sound impinges on earsense it is a condition for hearing. It seems that you hear the traffic, but this is thinking arising on account of what is heard. The whole day we cling to the sense objects of colour, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object, but these are only rupa elements that arise for a moment and then fall away. The Buddha taught about nama and rupa so that people can develop the wisdom that leads to detachment from all nama and rupa. They are mere dhammas and do not belong to us. At first we understand this in theory, we understand the terms of realities. In learning to attend to the characteristics of dhammas when they appear there will be less ignorance about them. You ask whether there is any special way to learn the characteristics of rupa. The theoretical understanding of what these characteristics are must become really firm. Consider again and again seeing when there is seeing, and visible object or colour when it appears. But this considering must be very natural, in daily life. Otherwise lobha slips in and leads to delusion. We want to have pa~n~naa for ourselves, but that is not the way. That is not detachment, which is the goal. If one does not see lobha, it cannot be eradicated. We cannot make any reality arise, no nama, no rupa. They all arise because of their own conditions. Nina. #90447 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:42 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 1, no 1. nilovg Hi Herman, Op 20-sep-2008, om 14:24 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > Sri Lanka is a country torn by civil war. It is one of the most > dangerous countries in the world in which to live. The Singhalese, > regardless of the dana you refer to, cannot comtemplate living > together with the Tamils. The sangha in Sri Lanka is an ugly thing. If > you care to listen, it chants "Singhalese uber alles". It is very > ugly, Nina. Do not forget the past. -------- N: I wrote down my impressions almost thirty years ago. I can't help it if you have a negative view of the Sangha. Every individual has accumulated kusala and akusala. How can we judge others? Dana is kusala, it cannot be changed into akusala. Nina. #90448 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:43 am Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... dhammanusarin Dear Alex, Connie and others, - Abhi~n~nas are not a joke. "Alex" wrote: > > Hi Connie and all, > > You are making an issue out of non issue. Meditation should be for > Final Nibbana, not to be able to fly in the air and such things. > > Best wishes, > > > > "connie" wrote: > > > > dear no one and all, > > as far as jumping in front of trains and driving into trees and such, where are the meditators now? should i not take things like flying seated thru the air or diving into the earth literally? > > thanks, > > connie =========================== T: I don't mind the abhi~n~nas that enable my khandhas to fly seated thru the air, dive into the earth, see far away with Divine Eye, recollect many past lives, or even touch the sun and moon as described in several suttas and the Visuddhimagga. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.053.than.html Tep ==== #90449 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:55 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Alex (and Sarah), Regarding: "[Because it is] produced, ignorance is empty ..., fabrications are empty ..., consciousness is empty ..., name and form are empty ..., the sixfold sensory spheres are empty ..., contact is empty ..., feeling is empty ..., craving is empty ..., grasping is empty ..., becoming is empty of own-nature; ceased, it is changed and empty. [Because it is] produced, directed thought pertaining to visible form is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to sound is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to odor is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to flavor is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to tactile sensation is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to mental phenomena [i.e. feeling, perception, and fabrications] is empty of own-nature; ceased, it is changed and empty. [Because it is] produced, discursive thinking pertaining to visible form is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to sound is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to odor is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to flavor is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to tactile sensation is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to mental phenomena [i.e. feeling, perception, and fabrications] is empty of own-nature; ceased, it is changed and empty." Scott: I'm still having trouble with this reference. This is, I think, found in the Yuganaddhavaggo of the Pa.tisambhidaamagga, 10. Su~n~nakathaa. I can find this in the Paa.li CSCD, but it doesn't seem to conform to the order in which the link has it. It is unclear, since the link notes that these are 'excerpts from The Treatise on Emptiness', whether these are taken directly or are parsed out and recombined. Someone with a translation of Pa.tisambhidaamagga might kindly confirm. Any help? Sincerely, Scott. #90450 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 8:52 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? ... Voidness ... dhammanusarin Dear Scott (Nina, Alex, Connie, Han), - I have the translation by Ven. Nanamoli (PTS Publication, 2002), but I can only give you less than half of the help you want. -------------------------- Scott: I'm still having trouble with this reference. This is, I think, found in the Yuganaddhavaggo of the Pa.tisambhidaamagga, 10. Su~n~nakathaa. I can find this in the Paa.li CSCD, but it doesn't seem to conform to the order in which the link has it. It is unclear, since the link notes that these are 'excerpts from The Treatise on Emptiness', whether these are taken directly or are parsed out and recombined. Someone with a translation of Pa.tisambhidaamagga might kindly confirm. Any help? .......................... T: The Treatise on Voidness is numbered XX, not X. Voidness (su~n~nataa), not 'emptiness', is only seen here in the whole book. The treatise's content consists of the following sections (for example). Different kinds of voidness : Voidness of formations Voidness in change; voidness by characteristic; ... voidness as escape Internal and external voidness; ... voidness in search; ... voidness in penetration; voidness in fathoming. No part in the treatise matches the quote in question. But there is an interesting section in this treatise about "ultimate meaning" of voidness that I think our Abhidhammika friends here may appreciate : XX, 26. What is voidness in the ultimate meaning of all kind of voidness, which is the terminating of occurrence in [the Arahant], who is fully aware? Here [in what remains of this same life] through renunciation one who is fully aware terminates the occurrence of zeal for senual-desires; through non-ill-will he terminates the occurrence of ill-will; through perception of light ... [and so on] ... through the arahant path he terminates all defilements. Or else, through the nibbana principle(dhatu) without [result of past] clinging left, in one who is fully aware this occurrence of eye ends and no further occurrence of eye arises; this occurrence of ear ... of nose ... of tongue ... of body ... this occurrence of mind ends and no further occurence of mind arises. This is voidness in the ultimate meaning of all kinds of voidness, which is the terminating of occurrence in [the Arahant][ who is fully aware. [endquote] T: Notice the meaning of 'ultimate' is clear in the Arahant where voidness, nibbana, and "understanding now" are truly and unambiguously defined. Tep === #90452 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:10 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? ... Voidness ... scottduncan2 Dear Tep (Nina, Alex, Connie, Han), I knew you'd come through, Tep - thank you! T: "The Treatise on Voidness is numbered XX, not X. Voidness (su~n~nataa), not 'emptiness', is only seen here in the whole book. The treatise's content consists of the following sections (for example). Different kinds of voidness : Voidness of formations Voidness in change; voidness by characteristic; ... voidness as escape Internal and external voidness; ... voidness in search; ... voidness in penetration; voidness in fathoming..." Scott: I'll search it section-by-section. (I'll study the rest of your reply after I get this particular thing done.) Sincerely, Scott. #90453 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? ... Voidness ... nilovg Dear Tep and Scott, Op 20-sep-2008, om 17:52 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > But there is an interesting section in this treatise about "ultimate > meaning" of voidness that I think our Abhidhammika friends here may > appreciate : > > XX, 26. What is voidness in the ultimate meaning of all kind of > voidness, which is the terminating of occurrence in [the Arahant], > who is fully aware? -------- N: In this context I think that paramattha would refer: in the highest sense. This meaning fits the arahat. When we use the word paramattha dhammas it has a different meaning as you know. Nina. #90454 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Did Buddha even teach "Samatha only"? nilovg Dear Alex, Op 20-sep-2008, om 1:13 heeft Alex het volgende geschreven: > N: It depends whether a subject is used for samatha or vipassana, > > Did the Buddha ever taught "samatha only"? It is quite sad when some > people claim that "anapanasati" is samatha only. How can it be > samatha if it fulfills 4 satipatthanas, 7 enlightment factors and > can bring FULL liberation? ------ N: Did I say samatha only? No. Samatha as well as vipassana. Nina. #90455 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:04 pm Subject: The Great Ultimate Meaning... dhammanusarin Dear Nina (Scott, Han, Connie), - It is not a surprise to see your comment that still sounds as defensive as usual. Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > Dear Tep and Scott, > Op 20-sep-2008, om 17:52 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > > > But there is an interesting section in this treatise about "ultimate meaning" of voidness that I think our Abhidhammika friends here may appreciate : > > > > XX, 26. What is voidness in the ultimate meaning of all kind of > > voidness, which is the terminating of occurrence in [the Arahant], > > who is fully aware? > -------- > N: In this context I think that paramattha would refer: in the > highest sense. This meaning fits the arahat. > When we use the word paramattha dhammas it has a different meaning > as you know. > Nina. > .................... T: You may not know what I now know, Nina! Let me tell you. I have become more convinced than ever before that there is only ONE meaning of ultimate ideas(paramattha dhammas) in the Arahant and only there that paramattha dhammas make great sense. In Ptsm, XXI,8 the great ultimate meaning, nibbana, is embraced by the "great understanding". There are other dhammas (the bodhipakkhiya dhammas) that become "great" in the Arahant where the great ultimate meaning is fully understood in the great ultimate sense. I have come to believe that the meaning of ultimate sense of the dhammas has been misunderstood (by most of us) for too long, after reading the following. Ptsm XXI, 8. What is great understanding(mahaa pa~n~naa)? It embraces the great meaning, thus it is great understanding. It embraces the great ideas(dhammas), thus it is great understanding. ... ... the great faculties ... the great powers(bala) ...the great enlightenment factors ... the great noble path ... the great noble fruits of asceticism ... the great direct knowledges ... the great ultimate meaning, nibbana, thus it is great understanding. ... For your information only (not intended for a debate), Tep === #90456 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:06 pm Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? ... Voidness ... dhammanusarin Dear Scott, - You wrote : > > Scott: I'll search it section-by-section. (I'll study the rest of > your reply after I get this particular thing done.) > T: I am looking forward to your excellent research findings, Scott. Thanks. Tep === #90458 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:57 pm Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? ... Voidness ... scottduncan2 Dear Tep, Thanks for your confidence: T: "I am looking forward to your excellent research findings, Scott. Thanks." Scott: The headings I am looking at for all of this 'su~n~nata' stuff are: Suttantapi.take Khuddakanikaayo Pa.tisambhidaamaggo 2. Yuganaddhavaggo 10. Su~n~nataa kathaa Scott: Are there corresponding headings in the PTS version? As I think you mentioned, there are no other references to su~n~nata in the rest of the Pa.tisambhidaamagga that I can see. The Su~n~nata Kathaa is in the Yuganaddhavaggo, the second large section (between the first, Mahaavaggo, and the third, Pa~n~navaaggo. Sorry to trouble you. Sincerely, Scott. #90459 From: "Scott" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 2:51 pm Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Alex (and Sarah), Regarding the anthology you referenced. I'm having to find each of the phrases within the Paa.li text, which is a bit time consuming. I wonder if it would have been better to have actually referenced (and read?) the text instead of simply cutting and pasting this particular collection. If I recall, the curator of the emptyuniverse website, Mr. Shatz, expresses views which, for me, are quite solidly proto-Mahayana, or quasi-Mahayana or whatever. It is always, it seems, in relation to a misunderstanding of the term 'su~n~nata' in favour of later philosophical evolution that views stray beyond traditional Theravada. Whenever 'emptiness' is emphasized, its gone too far, as far as I go. This is fine, but I'm not interested in straying beyond the bounds of the DSG parameters. So, I'm still working on the project... Sincerely, Scott. "[Because it is] produced, ignorance is empty ..., fabrications are empty ..., consciousness is empty ..., name and form are empty ..., the sixfold sensory spheres are empty ..., contact is empty ..., feeling is empty ..., craving is empty ..., grasping is empty ..., becoming is empty of own-nature; ceased, it is changed and empty. [Because it is] produced, directed thought pertaining to visible form is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to sound is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to odor is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to flavor is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to tactile sensation is empty ..., directed thought pertaining to mental phenomena [i.e. feeling, perception, and fabrications] is empty of own-nature; ceased, it is changed and empty. [Because it is] produced, discursive thinking pertaining to visible form is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to sound is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to odor is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to flavor is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to tactile sensation is empty ..., discursive thinking pertaining to mental phenomena [i.e. feeling, perception, and fabrications] is empty of own-nature; ceased, it is changed and empty." #90460 From: "Tep" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 3:01 pm Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? ... Voidness ... dhammanusarin Dear Scottie, - >Thanks for your confidence T: I should be thanking you, because of your patience I am motivated to do more digging. Good for learning. >Scott: The headings I am looking at for all of this 'su~n~nata' stuff are: Suttantapi.take Khuddakanikaayo Pa.tisambhidaamaggo 2. Yuganaddhavaggo 10. Su~n~nataa kathaa >Scott: Are there corresponding headings in the PTS version? As I think you mentioned, there are no other references to su~n~nata in the rest of the Pa.tisambhidaamagga that I can see. The Su~n~nata Kathaa is in the Yuganaddhavaggo, the second large section (between the first, Mahaavaggo, and the third, Pa~n~navaaggo. Sorry to trouble you. T: No, no. I am not troubled at all. It is very good that you ask again. It is true that the Patisambhidamagga book published by PTS (2002) has the three parts as you explain. The Mahaavaggo consists of 10 treatises (I. ~nanakatha or treatise on knowledge. 2. ditthikatha or treatise on views. ... 10. mandapeyyakatha.). The Yuganaddhavaggo consists of 10 treatises (11. yuganaddhakatha, ... 20. su~n~nakatha). The Pa~n~navaaggo consists of the last 10 treatises (21. mahapa~n~nakatha, ..., 30. matikakatha). I want to reassure you that the only one treatise about su~n~nataa is the 20th katha in the Yuganaddhavaggo. Reading through this katha I do not see any similarity with the your puzzling quotes that you say are taken from Ptsm. No, I do not think so. The su~n~nakatha was based on a sutta (S iv 54) in which the Buddha explained to Ven. Ananda about su~n~nataa, begining with the question : 'The world is void, the world is void is said. In what way does the world void?'. After introducing the sutta, the Ven. Sariputta expounded upon the various types of voidness as I showed in the last message. Using this sutta as a guide for your Google search, you may be able to find the origin of the puzzling quote. Tep === #90461 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 3:46 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What do you do? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/9/20 : > Hi, Herman - > > ------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I find it entirely compatible with my position. The later phenomenon > being neither the same nor different from the earlier is the middle way of > no-essence or anatta. It is neither substantialism nor nihilism. This is along the > same lines as the rebirth flame being kindled from the prior flame - neither > the same flame nor different. > ----------------------------------------------- All you say is correct, but this does not negate the fact that Nagasena says that he is the same person as when he was a tender baby. He is the same person across time, and that is the meaning of identity in the non-mathematical world. And, as he also says, he had the same parents when he was young as he does know. And all this by means of his body, which is the same body as when he was young. The Buddha says of the body: Because this body composed of the four great elements is seen standing for a year, two years, three, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, a hundred years or more. But what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness' by day and by night arises as one thing and ceases as another. SN12:61 What the Buddha is quite unambiguous about is that it is the mind / consciousness that is never identical to itself. There is no "I" in any of it. But that is the mind, not the body. Emptiness is strictly limited to mental phenomena. From MN121: "And there is just this NON-EMPTINESS: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition". Emptiness is improperly applied if applied to what is not mental in nature. Cheers Herman #90462 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:28 pm Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sunnaloka --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Scott" wrote: Hi Scott & all, > I'm still having trouble with this reference. > > This is, I think, found in the Yuganaddhavaggo of the > Pa.tisambhidaamagga, 10. Su~n~nakathaa. I can find this in the Paa.li > CSCD, but it doesn't seem to conform to the order in which the link > has it. It is unclear, since the link notes that these are 'excerpts > from The Treatise on Emptiness', whether these are taken directly or > are parsed out and recombined. > > Someone with a translation of Pa.tisambhidaamagga might kindly > confirm. Any help? Suttantapiá¹­ak Khuddakanikayo Paá¹­isambhidamagg 2. Yuganaddhavaggo Suññata katha cf. Ven. ÑÄ?ṇamoli's PTS translation: "What is voidness in change? Born materiality is void of individual essence[1]; disappeared materiality is both changed and void. Born feeling is void of individual essence; disappeared feeling is both changed and void. Born perception … [and so on with 199 of the 201 ideas listed in Tr. I §5, omitting the last two members of the Dependent Origination, up to] … Born being is void of individual essence; [179] disappeared being is both changed and void." [1] ÑÄ?ṇamoli's footnote: n1: This seems to be the only Piá¹ reference for the term sabhava (individual essence). `"Void of individual essence": here sabhava (individual essence) is sayaṃ bhavo (essence by itself); arising of itself (sayam eva uppado) is the meaning. Or sabhava is sako bhavo (own essence); own arising (attano yeva uppado). Because of existence in dependence on conditions (paccayayattavuttitta) there is in it no essence by itself or essence of its own, thus it is "void of individual essence". What is meant is that it is void of essence by itself or of its own essence. Or else it is the essence that itself has (sakassa bhavo); for each single idea among the various ideas beginning with the earth principle is itself (sako), and "essence" is a figurative term for idea; and each single idea does not have any other idea called an "essence", therefore it is void of any essence other than itself: the meaning is that itself is void of another essence. Hence what is meant is that a single idea has a single individual essence. Or alternatively "void of individual essence" (svabhavena suññaṃ) is to be taken as void through having voidness as its individual essence (suññnasabhavena suññaṃ). What is meant? What is meant is void owing to voidness-as-voidness and not void owing to some other figurative kind of voidness. But if someone should say: `Own essence is individual essence; it is void of that individual essence. What is meant? An idea is called an "essence"; that [essence (bhavo)] is distinguished by the prefix "individual" (sa) in comparison with any other and is thus called "individual essence" (sa-bhavo). Because of the non-existence of any idea whatever it is the non-existence of materiality that is expressed by the words "born materiality is void of individual essence."' It should be argued thus: that being so, the words `born materiality' would be contradicted; for what is devoid of arising is not called `born'. For nibbana is devoid of arising and that is not called `born'. Hence only the born would here be void of birth as individual essence, and instead of continuing to say that `birth and ageing-and-death are void by individual essence' the description would end with `being'. If the term `born' (vijata) were applicable to what is devoid of arising, then `born birth' and `born ageing-and-death' would have to be said. Because the word `born' is not applicable to birth and ageing-and-death, which are devoid of arising, therefore the words `void of individual essence means non-existent' contradict the word `born' since what is non-existent is devoid of arising. And the word `void' for what is non-existent contradicts the Blessed One's use of it above for the word `world' and also the words of the books of logic and linguistics (ñayasaddagantha); and it contradicts many logical arguments. Therefore that assertion should be rejected as rubbish. In many such passages in the Buddhaword as this `Bhikkhus, what sages in the world say is not, of that too I say that it is not; what sages in the world say is, of that too I say that it is … Sages in the world say of impermanent, painful and changeable materiality that it is, and I too say of it that it is' (S iii 138-9), and in many logical arguments, ideas exist in their own moments' (Sdhp 460-1 Se, see PTS edn. Pp. 634-5). < See pp. svii-xviii, xiii, xlviii f. > ---------- According to ÑÄ?ṇamoli then, the Pali Canon Online Database only gives an abridgment of the section in question: "Katamaṃ viparinamasuññaṃ; jataṃ rupaṃ sabhavena suññaṃ, vigataṃ rupaṃ viparinatañceva suññañca, jata vedana sabhavena suñña, vigata vedana viparinata ceva suñña ca jata sañña sabhavena suñña, vigata sañña vipairnata ceva suñña ca jata saá¹…khara sabhavena suñña, vigata saá¹…khara vipairnata ceva suñña ca jataṃ viññÄ?ṇaṃ sabhavena suññaṃ, vigataṃ viññÄ?ṇaṃ vipairnatñceva suññañca jataṃ cakkhuṃ sabhavena suññañ, vigataṃ cakkhuṃ vipairnatañceva suññañca jato bhavo sabhavena [PTS Page 179] [q 179/] suñño, vigato bhavo viparinato ceva suñño ca, idaṃ viparinamasuññaṃ." This can be expanded to include 199 of the 201 dhammas listed in Tr. I §5, omitting the last two members of the Dependent Origination. Metta, Geoff. #90463 From: "sunnaloka" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:32 pm Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sunnaloka Sorry, I didn't realize that the diacritical marks wouldn't display properly in the message.... It looked fine in the text editor. :D #90464 From: LBIDD@... Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:52 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,302 lbidd2 "The Path of Purification" (Visuddhimagga), Ch. XVII 302. 3. [As to prevention:] the clause 'With ignorance as condition there are formations' prevents seeing a maker; the clause 'With formations as condition, consciousness' prevents seeing the transmigration of a self; the clause 'With consciousness as condition, mentality-materiality' prevents perception of compactness because it shows the analysis of the basis conjectured to be 'self'; and the clauses beginning 'With mentality-materiality as condition, the sixfold base' prevent seeing any self that sees, etc., cognizes, touches, feels, craves, clings, becomes, is born, ages and dies. So this Wheel of Becoming should be known 'as to prevention' of wrong seeing appropriately in each instance. **************************** 302. yasmaa cettha avijjaapaccayaa sa"nkhaaraati ida.m kaarakadassananivaara.na.m. sa"nkhaarapaccayaa vi~n~naa.nanti attasa"nkantidassananivaara.na.m. vi~n~naa.napaccayaa naamaruupanti ``attaa´´tiparikappitavatthubhedadassanato ghanasa~n~naanivaara.na.m. naamaruupapaccayaa sa.laayatanantiaadi attaa passati...pe0... vijaanaati, phusati, vedayati, ta.nhiyati, upaadiyati, bhavati, jaayati, jiiyati, miiyatiitievamaadidassananivaara.na.m. tasmaa micchaadassananivaara.natopeta.m bhavacakka.m vi~n~naatabba.m yathaaraha.m. #90465 From: han tun Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:51 pm Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? hantun1 Dear Geoff, Scott, Tep, Alex, Nina, Sarah and All, I was trying to follow this interesting topic, especially when reference was made to Patisambhidamagga. I do not have the English translation of Patisambhidamagga. I have only the Pali text in Burmese, and the Burmese translation. So I could not locate the actual paragraph that was referred to. Now that Geoff had given some text I could locate it. It is No. 3 out of 25 kinds of voidness. "What is voidness in change? Born materiality is void of individual essence; disappeared materiality is both changed and void. Born feeling is void of individual essence; disappeared feeling is both changed and void. Born perception [and so on with 199 of the 201ideas listed in Tr. I §5, omitting the last two members of the Dependent Origination] Born being is void of individual essence; disappeared being is both changed and void." "Katamam vipari.naama-su~n~nam? Jaatam ruupam sabhaavena su~n~nam, vigatam ruupam vipari.nata~nceva su~n~na~nca, jaataa vedanaa sabhaavena su~n~naa, vigataa vedanaa vipari.nataa ceva su~n~naa ca, jaataa sa~n~naa sabhaavena su~n~naa, vigataa sa~n~naa vipari.nataa ceva su~n~naa ca, jaataa sankhaaraa sabhaavena su~n~naa, vigataa sankhaaraa vipari.nataa ceva su~n~naa ca, jaataa vi~n~naa.naa sabhaavena su~n~naa, vigataa vi~n~naa.naa vipari.nat~nceva su~n~na~nca, jaataaa cakkhum sabhaavena su~n~nam, vigataa cakkhum vipari.nata~nceva su~n~na~nca, jaato bhavo sabhaavena su~n~no, vigato bhavo vipari.nato ceva su~n~no ca. Idam vipari.naama-su~n~nam.â€? But I do not have any comments to make. I will just follow your discussions and learn from it. Thank you very much. Yours truly, Han #90466 From: "connie" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 5:58 pm Subject: Vism.XVII,302 nichiconn Path of Purity, pp.701-2: (By way of prevention.) And because the clause "Conditioned by ignorance activities come to pass" inhibits the view that there is a doer; and the clause "Conditioned by activities consciousness come to pass" inhibits the view of transmigration of the self; and the clause "Conditioned by consciousness name-and-form comes to pass" inhibits the idea of density, by showing the break-up of things conceived to be the self; and the clause "Conditioned by name-and-form sixfold sense comes to pass," inhibits such views as the self sees, etc., knows, touches, feels, craves, grasps, becomes, is born, decays, dies: - therefore, as inhibiting also false views, this wheel of becoming is fittingly to be known. re: #90464 #90467 From: upasaka@... Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 4:54 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What do you do? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 9/20/2008 6:47:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: What the Buddha is quite unambiguous about is that it is the mind / consciousness that is never identical to itself. There is no "I" in any of it. But that is the mind, not the body. Emptiness is strictly limited to mental phenomena. From MN121: "And there is just this NON-EMPTINESS: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition". ============================ Every non-emptiness discussed is a matter of perception, not nature, and each non-emptiness is given up one after the other, until the ultimate emptiness is realized, the "emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed," namely nibbana. The Buddha does not teach rupa as existential non-emptiness; all realms are empty. With metta, Howard #90468 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:32 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Dear Scott, Alex & all, --- On Sun, 21/9/08, Scott wrote: >Dear Alex (and Sarah), Regarding the anthology you referenced. I'm having to find each of the phrases within the Paa.li text, which is a bit time consuming. I wonder if it would have been better to have actually referenced (and read?) the text instead of simply cutting and pasting this particular collection. ... S: I think others have responded to this by now. As I said to Alex, there's a treasure trove on 'sabhava' in U.P. You may like to take a quick look at the following, for example (especially the last one): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27373 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29873 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/55031 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/55086 Metta, Sarah ======== #90469 From: "connie" Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 9:55 pm Subject: Re: The Vism's Meditation for Developing Namarupa-pariccheda~nana nichiconn Dear Tep, >> Sarah: with regard to what we take for head hair, body hair, nail and so on, what exactly is experienced through the body-sense would you say? If there is awareness and right understanding of the reality at the moment of touching, say 'head hair', what is known? What is the object of awareness? >connie: Either the concept of 'hair' or one of the three 'tangibles'... the "correct" answer being "earth element". T: By accepting "concept" as a valid object of contemplation (defining, discerning), you now stand alone and away from the hard core DSG members. With respect to the "earth element" (also, the other three dhatus) Ven. Buddhaghosa explains in Chapter XI, 27 that it has to be discerned in brief or "in detail" until it "becomes clear in the correct characteristics". And that to me does not mean reading and considering, or even thinking, about the element. It is much more subtle than the mundane, ordinary uninstructed worldling's contaminated thinking. Here, virtues and concentration play the important role. What is your thought on such discerning process? ................................. connie: Basically, Sarah asked the same thing three times and the answer is "earth element" each time. I just played with the second question a bit... there would be at the moment of touching, awareness of a reality, but still, right after, knowing a concept. I don't know that anyone ever says concepts aren't valid objects... just that they aren't the objects the teachings concern. If concepts were of no use at all, there would be no teachings at all. I think the confusion over the two types of object and the mistaking one for the other is part of our contamination. I think the three branches (virtue, concentration, understanding) grow together in the same way the yoked meditations do or even how there must be the proper balance of faith and all. There is a common sense teaching that it's not right to talk about other people & some might call it a kind of virtue not to, but what do we understand by it? I can't say what Khun Anyone's practice is - not just because it isn't Anyone doing anything but because I hardly know my own minds. I know Khun Sujin's understanding follows the teachings further than mine and that whatever we want to call practice, it must be as understanding, right or wrong, dictates... practice following principle, the way the walk can't outpace the talk & we have to be well grounded before we can fly. I think this is what is meant when it's claimed that understanding is enough. peace, connie ps. It was my own Vism aversion (or burn out if you want to pretty it up a bit) that I meant. I'll think about your 4th question (#90444) : what "making the search" actually and practically (not theoretically) means. Messages 90465 - 90469 of 90469 Yahoo!My Yahoo!Mail Search: #90470 From: sarah abbott Date: Sat Sep 20, 2008 11:15 pm Subject: Photos (and p.s on sabhava) sarahprocter... Dear Lukas, Thanks for adding your good pics to the DSG photo album! Much appreciated - our first member pics from Poland, I believe. Who's next? As usual, I'd like to offer James's assistance if anyone has any difficulty (or excuse!) with this. Metta, Sarah p.s Geoff, good to see you again! Thanks for joining in the Psm/sabhava thread. Also, Alex & all, please look at a helpful message Howard posted before on this topic: #76810 which I'd meant to include last time. ============ #90471 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? egberdina Hi TG, 2008/9/18 : > > In a message dated 9/17/2008 8:46:05 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > "…it is said, 'the world, the world.' In what way, venerable sir, is it > said 'the world'?" > It disintegrates, bhikkhu (Buddhist monk), therefore it is called the world. > And what is disintegrating? The eye, bhikkhu, is disintegrating, forms > are disintegrating, eye-consciousness is disintegrating, eye-contact is > disintegrating, and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition … that too > is disintegrating. The ear is disintegrating … The nose is disintegrating … > The tongue is disintegrating … The body is disintegrating … The mind is > disintegrating … Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition … that > too is disintegrating. It is disintegrating, bhikkhu, therefore it is > called the world." > (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1162) > TG > I can't make head or tail of the idea that the world is called the world because it is disintegrating. Anyway Cheers Herman #90472 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 12:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/9/18 : > Hi, Herman - > Howard: I agree with that, but it implies nothing with regard to ontology. It pertains directly to experience and conditionality. and >> P. S. The following are sutta excerpts that I *interpret* as a teaching of > phenomenalism, especially the 1st: > > ________________________ > > 1) > > "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't > construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an > [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer. > "When hearing... > "When sensing... > "When cognizing what is to be cognized, he doesn't construe an [object as] > cognized. He doesn't construe an uncognized. He doesn't construe an [object] > to-be-cognized. He doesn't construe a cognizer." > (From the Kalaka Sutta) I understand this quote to deny any value in categorising phenomena as being nama and / or rupa. Yet, this is also part of the selfsame sutta. On one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Saketa at Kalaka's park. There he addressed the monks: "Monks!" "Yes, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said: "Monks, whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That do I know. Whatever in the cosmos — with its devas, Maras, & Brahmas, its generations with their contemplatives & priests, their royalty & common people — is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: That I directly know. That has been realized by the Tathagata, but in the Tathagata it has not been established. These statements, IMO, completely affirm the being of beings. > 2) > > "Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, > there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In > reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the > cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be > only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the > heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference > to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there > is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, > you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the > end of stress." > Again, beings are affirmed. The Buddha is asked by Bahiya to give a precis of the Dhamma. The Buddha responds. He addresses Bahiya. He suggests that Bahiya train himself. He refers Bahiya to Bahiya. The Buddha acknowledges the being of Bahiya, and the possibility for Bahiya to not be Bahiya. He suggests a way for Bahiya to be free of Bahiya, and therefore suffering. Sorry, Howard, I do not see how these quotes are free from ontological implications. Cheers Herman #90473 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:35 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 1, no 3. nilovg Dear friends, One citta arises at a time, but each citta is accompanied by several mental factors or cetasikas. The cetasikas assist the citta in performing its function. There are many kinds of cetasikas. Some cetasikas such as feeling or remembrance (saññå) accompany every citta, others do not accompany every citta. Akusala cittas are accompanied by akusala cetasikas such as attachment (lobha), aversion (dosa), ignorance (moha), stinginess or jealousy. Kusala cittas are accompanied by sobhana cetasikas (beautiful cetasikas) such as non- attachment (alobha), non-hate (adosa), mindfulness (sati) or wisdom (paññå). Thus, what we take for “my mind” are ever-changing cittas accompanied by cetasikas. We do not only cling to the idea of “my mind”, we also cling to the idea of “my body”. What we take for “my body” are only different physical phenomena, rúpas, which arise and fall away all the time. We do not feel “our body” through touch; it is only hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion or pressure that can be experienced through touch; different elements that arise and fall away. The realities of our life are only citta, cetasika and rúpa, elements that are impermanent and devoid of self. Citta and cetasika are mental, they experience or know something, they are nåma. Physical phenomena or rúpa do not know anything. Through the teachings we learn that our life consists of nåma and rúpa, but, as Khun Sujin often said, they are “not in the book”. They are realities occurring at this moment. We should find out whether the citta at this moment is kusala citta or akusala citta. When the citta is kusala citta it has to be accompanied by alobha, non-attachment, and adosa, non- aversion or kindness. It may or may not be accompanied by paññå, understanding. When the citta is kusala citta, there cannot be lobha or dosa at the same time. When we perform deeds of generosity, are there also moments of lobha or dosa in between the moments of kusala cittas? What is the motive of our giving? Do we expect something in return? Are we giving “with strings attached”? Do we hope that the receiver will do something for us? Do we give because we want others to have a high opinion of us? Do we want to be known as a generous person? Many times our motives are not pure. ******* Nina. #90474 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:45 am Subject: Survey quotes. nilovg Dear friends, While checking printing mistakes in Khun Sujin's Survey of Paramattha Dhammas I come across passages Iwant to share with you. Discussions welcome. Nina. ----------- quote: Whenever one sees one takes the seeing which is a kind of dhamma for self, one clings to the idea of “I see”. When one hears one takes the dhamma which hears for self, one clings to the idea of “I hear”. When one smells one takes the dhamma which smells for self, one clings to the idea of “I smell”. When one tastes one takes the dhamma which tastes for self, one clings to the idea of “I taste”. When one experiences tangible object through the bodysense one takes the dhamma which experiences this for self, one clings to the idea of “I experience”. When one thinks of different subjects one takes the dhamma which thinks for self, one clings to the idea of “I think”. After the Buddha had realized through his enlightenment the truth of all dhammas, he taught this truth to his followers so that they too would understand that dhammas are not self, not a being, not a person. He taught about paramattha dhammas, ultimate realities, each with their own characteristic which is inalterable. The characteristics of paramattha dhammas cannot be changed by anybody, no matter whether he knows them or does not know them, no matter whether he calls them by a name in whatever language or does not call them by a name. Their characteristics are always the same. The dhammas which arise do so because there are the appropriate conditions for their arising and then they fall away. Just as the Buddha said to the venerable Ånanda : “Whatever has arisen, come into being because of conditions, is by nature subject to dissolution.” Because of ignorance one has wrong understanding and takes the dhammas which arise and fall away for self, being or person. This is the cause of desire and ever growing infatuation with one’s rank, title or status, with one’s birth, one’s family, the colour of one’s skin and so on. In reality, what one sees are only different colours appearing through the eyes, not self, not a being, not a person. The sound one hears is not self, not a being, not a person. What appears through the senses are only different kinds of dhammas which arise because of their appropriate conditions. ********* #90475 From: han tun Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:53 am Subject: For Tep: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? ... Voidness ... hantun1 Dear Tep, > Tep: The su~n~nakatha was based on a sutta (S iv 54) in which the Buddha explained to Ven. Ananda about su~n~nataa, begining with the question : 'The world is void, the world is void is said. In what way does the world void?'. After introducing the sutta, the Ven. Sariputta expounded upon the various types of voidness as I showed in the last message. Han I was looking for the above-mentioned sutta, and I could find the following: SN 35.85 Su~n~na Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html -------------------- Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One, "It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?" "Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. "The ear is empty... "The nose is empty... "The tongue is empty... "The body is empty... "The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty." -------------------- Su~n~nalokasuttam 85. Ekamantam nisinno kho aayasmaa Aanando bhagavantam etadavoca: [su~n~no loko su~n~no loko]ti bhante vuccati, kittaavataa nu kho bhante [su~n~no loko]ti vuccatiiti? Yasmaa ca kho Aananda, su~n~nam attena vaa attaniyena vaa, tasmaa [su~n~no loko]ti vuccati. Ki~nca Aananda, su~n~nam attena vaa attaniyena vaa: Cakkhum kho Aananda, su~n~nam attena vaa attaniyena vaa, ruupaa su~n~naa attena vaa attaniyena vaa, cakkhuvi~n~naa.nam su~n~nam attena vaa attaniyena vaa, cakkhusamphasso su~n~no attena vaa attaniyena vaa yampidam cakkhusamphassapaccayaa uppajjati vedayitam sukham vaa dukkham vaa adukkhamasukham vaa tampi su~n~nam attena vaa attaniyena vaa. Sotam su~n~nam attena vaa attaniyena vaa, [pe] Ghaanam su~n~nam attena vaa attaniyena vaa, [pe] Jivhaa su~n~naa attena vaa attaniyena vaa, [pe] Rasaa su~n~naa attena vaa attaniyena vaa, [pe] Kaayo su~n~no attena vaa attaniyena vaa, [pe] Mano su~n~no attena vaa attaniyena vaa, dhammaa su~n~naa attena vaa attaniyena vaa, manovi~n~naa.nam su~n~nam attena vaa attaniyena vaa, manosamphasso su~n~no attena vaa attaniyena vaa yampidam manosamphassapaccayaa uppajjati vedayitam sukham vaa dukkham vaa adukkhamasukham vaa tampi su~n~nam attena vaa attaniyena vaa. Yasmaa ca kho Aananda, su~n~nam attena vaa attaniyena vaa, tasmaa [su~n~no loko]ti vuccatiiti. -------------------- Han: Is the above sutta you were referring to, Tep? Thank you very much. Yours truly, Han #90476 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:19 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? nilovg Hi Herman, there is a word association in Pali that is lost in the translation. Loko: the world. Lujjhati: to disintegrate. When we cling to a whole of the world, or, the five khandhas, we do not see that they are devoid of self. They have to be analysed by understanding, in order to know them as void of self. Nina. Op 21-sep-2008, om 9:20 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > I can't make head or tail of the idea that the world is called the > world because it is disintegrating. > #90477 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] no lurking today sarahprocter... Dear Ann, We were delighted to see you de-lurk again with such a nice post! --- On Sat, 20/9/08, glenjohnann wrote: >One thing that struck me was a comment about seeing arising naturally (one does not go around looking for it) and sati arising the same way. Sati seems so elusive before we start to learn more about its development - and even when we know that hearing the dhamma correctly and reflecting on it wisely are conditions for for its developoment, along with Panna, it is hard to let go of subtle wanting, searching and trying to create conditions for it's arising. When I read about the arising of Sati and Panna as being just like the arising of seeing or hearing etc. (in the sense of their arising when there are conditions for it), it helped me see more clearly (in an intellectual sense) the "naturalness" of it. .... S: Yes, this is very important. It's useless to want it or search for it or try to make it happen, as you say. ... A: >I have more examples of things that stood out for me, both in the book and the tapes. However, if I post them all at once, it could well lead to more lurking! ... S: Please share them, one at a time. Perhapa a mini-series of quotes from the book and/or tapes you find helpful. Or else your summaries, like here. Whatever encourages you to de-lurk more:-)) ... >I can appreciate the shock was to find your gentle, kind surfing friends in so much trouble. As you point out so well, as the story goes on and on, it is also good to be able to think of it all in terms of the Dhamma - we tend, even having heard and studied the Dhamma, to think of people as "personalities" that have certain characteristics and forget that there are many, many latent tendencies which may or may not manifest themselves in this life. .... S: Yes, it helps so much to remember that they are just long stories and that life is just at this moment - a moment of seeing or thinking, for example. Everyone has their story. A friend at the cafe on the beach was saying today that the village headman had been resting at home when he was called in to keep the peace when things were turning ugly at the Mid-autumn full-moon celebrations, only to end up being arrested too. Another friend was telling me in the surf about how she'd attended the initial court proceedings and how bail had been denied for them all. Then as we were leaving the beach, we saw some family members of the deceased burning paper offerings with a Confucian priest chanting nearby. And just now, as I started writing this, we got a call from Nelson's wife. She's an air-stewardess, but now finds herself visiting Nelson and the other defendants every day in the detention centre, her life turned upside down. .... A: >And that one never knows, in terms of vipaka, what will arise in this life, that may appear to be so far from violence etc. .... S: And then it's interesting to remember that vipaka is just this moment of seeing or hearing, whether in the comfort of one's home or in the detention centre. We tend to think how shocking such an event must be for the defendants, their family members and the family of the deceased, but the real problem is of course the thinking with lobha, dosa and moha on and on. And if we or a friend is suddenly attacked or experiences physical pain or even death, we know deep down that the real cause is past kamma. As Nina said, let it be a reminder to develop as much right understanding of dhammas as possible, while there is the opportunity. Now, we're chatting about the Dhamma just like in those old Sri Lanka days:-). Metta, Sarah p.s We're getting very close to finishing the editing of the series of recordings in KK when you and Glen, Nina, Lodewijk and other friends were with us for KS's 80th birthday. It's a super set. ==================== #90478 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:41 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Scott, Alex & all) - In a message dated 9/21/2008 12:33:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Dear Scott, Alex & all, --- On Sun, 21/9/08, Scott wrote: >Dear Alex (and Sarah), Regarding the anthology you referenced. I'm having to find each of the phrases within the Paa.li text, which is a bit time consuming. I wonder if it would have been better to have actually referenced (and read?) the text instead of simply cutting and pasting this particular collection. ... S: I think others have responded to this by now. As I said to Alex, there's a treasure trove on 'sabhava' in U.P. You may like to take a quick look at the following, for example (especially the last one): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/27373 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/29873 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/55031 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/55086 Metta, Sarah ================================== I just read the first two of these in that order. Had I seen only the first in which Larry kindly provides a report by Bhikku ~Nanamoli, I would have concluded that the pa~n~natti notion and the sabhava notion are at best vague, incoherent mumbo jumbo, and at worst a falling into a pit of atta-view. The second of these involves the writings of Karunadasa kindly presented by Sarah. This is a breath of fresh air, and were one to believe that it correctly presents Theravadin orthodoxy, one would rest at ease. There are a few parts of the material that particularly struck me and that I will quote now for varying reasons: _____________________________ 1) But the Pali Abhidhamma Pitaka did not succumb to this error of conceiving the dhammas as ultimate unities or discrete entities. In the Pali tradition it is only for the sake of definition and description that each dhamma is postulated as if it were a separate entity; but in reality it is by no means a solitary phenomenon having an existence of its own. This is precisely why the mental and material dhammas are often presented in inter-connected groups. In presenting them thus the danger inherent in narrowly analytical methods has been avoided -- the danger, namely, of elevating the factors resulting from analysis to the status of genuinely separate entities. Thus if analysis shows that composite things cannot be considered as ultimate unities, synthesis shows that the factors into which the apparently composite things are analysed (ghana-vinibbhoga) are not discrete entities.13 [Vism 137] 2) [Very interesting, particularly as regards the definition of 'dhamma' that I have seen nowhere else] > And finally Karunadasa also says, “Does not the very use of the term > sabhava, despite all the qualifications under which it is used, give the > > impression that a given dhamma exists in its own right? And does this > not > amount to the admission that a dhamma is some kind of substance?â€? .... S: What you (Michael) omit here are Karunadasa’s answers to these questions. Following on from this last quote, he writes: K: “The commentators were not unaware of these implications and they therefore took the necessary steps to forestall such a conclusion. This they sought to do by supplementing the former definition with another which actually nullifies the conclusion that the dhammas might be quasi-substances. This additional definition states that a dhamma is not that which bears its own-nature, but that which is borne by its own conditions (paccayehi dhariyanti ti dhamma).47 Whereas the earlier definition is agent-denotation (kattusadhana) because it attributes an active role to the dhamma, elevating it to the position of an agent, the new definition is object-denotation (kamma-sadhana) because it attributes a passive role to the dhamma and thereby downgrades it to the position of an object. What is radical about this new definition is that it reverses the whole process which otherwise might culminate in the conception of dhammas as substances or bearers of their own-nature. What it seeks to show is that, far from being a bearer, a dhamma is being borne by its own conditions. "Consonant with this situation, it is also maintained that there is no other thing called a dhamma than the "quality" of being borne by conditions.48 The same idea is expressed in the oft-recurrent statement that what is called a dhamma is the mere fact of occurrence due to appropriate conditions.49 In point of fact, in commenting upon the Patisambhidamagga statement that the five aggregates -- and, by implication, the dhammas -- are devoid of sabhava, the commentator observes that since the aggregates have no self-nature, they are devoid of own-nature.50 It will thus be seen that although the term sabhava is used as a synonym for dhamma, it is interpreted in such a way that it means the very absence of sabhava in any sense that implies a substantial mode of being.â€? 3) [I will, below, relate this item to a notion of mine that some here dislike] "Accordingly the term ‘person’ becomes a common designation (sammuti) given to a congeries of dependently, originated psycho-physical factors.â€?[i.e namas and rupas or paramattha dhammas]." Please note the word 'congeries', for which I provide here the dictionary definition: Main Entry: con·ge·ries Function: noun Pronunciation: 'kän-j&-(")rez Inflected Form(s): plural congeries/same/ Etymology: Latin, from congerere : _AGGREGATION _ (javascript:lookWord('aggregation');) , _COLLECTION _ (javascript:lookWord('collection');) With metta, Howard #90479 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, Herman - In a message dated 9/21/2008 3:20:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi TG, 2008/9/18 : > > In a message dated 9/17/2008 8:46:05 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > > "…it is said, 'the world, the world.' In what way, venerable sir, is it > said 'the world'?" > It disintegrates, bhikkhu (Buddhist monk), therefore it is called the world. > And what is disintegrating? The eye, bhikkhu, is disintegrating, forms > are disintegrating, eye-consciousness is disintegrating, eye-contact is > disintegrating, and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition … that too > is disintegrating. The ear is disintegrating … The nose is disintegrating … > The tongue is disintegrating … The body is disintegrating … The mind is > disintegrating … Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition … that > too is disintegrating. It is disintegrating, bhikkhu, therefore it is > called the world." > (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1162) > TG > I can't make head or tail of the idea that the world is called the world because it is disintegrating. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Neither can I. The "because" is odd to say the least. HERE is a place that a commentary could be useful! Perhaps there are connotations to the Pali 'loka' that would clarify this. ----------------------------------------------- Anyway Cheers Herman ========================= With metta, Howard #90480 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:48 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, Nina - In a message dated 9/21/2008 6:20:05 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Herman, there is a word association in Pali that is lost in the translation. Loko: the world. Lujjhati: to disintegrate. When we cling to a whole of the world, or, the five khandhas, we do not see that they are devoid of self. They have to be analysed by understanding, in order to know them as void of self. Nina. ============================= Ahh, I should have waited for you! This is exactly what I was looking for when I wrote a minute agao to Herman "Perhaps there are connotations to the Pali 'loka' that would clarify this." :-) With metta, Howard #90481 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 6:10 am Subject: Re: The Vism's Meditation for Developing Namarupa-pariccheda~nana dhammanusarin Hi Connie (Sarah, Sukin and others), - Thank you for this interesting and fruitful conversation. Let me replay Sarah's famous three questions one more time : >> Sarah: with regard to what we take for head hair, body hair, nail and so on, what exactly is experienced through the body-sense would you say? If there is awareness and right understanding of the reality at the moment of touching, say 'head hair', what is known? What is the object of awareness? >connie (previous post): Either the concept of 'hair' or one of the three 'tangibles'... the "correct" answer being "earth element". connie: Basically, Sarah asked the same thing three times and the answer is "earth element" each time. T: I am not trying to be a mind-reader, but a common sense tells me that Sarah's premeditated correct answer is "hardness". It is true that a characteristic of the earth element, which is common to several body parts [see a short MN 140 quote below. Sarah, remember, we already abandoned the no-sutta, no-book rule.], is hardness. But hardness is sensed by bodily touch, while earth element is a perception. One can touch a head hair(e.g. by a finger) and sense the hardness, but I am not convinced that such "awareness and right understanding of the reality at the moment of touching" (as Sarah puts it) will lead to seeing no self in the head hair. I am not convinced that it is a right understanding either. A simple practice of contemplation/discerning exercise is given in MN 140; this is much easier to understand than the Vism XVIII, 5-8 ! To me it is 100 times more convincing too. "Anything internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, & sustained [by craving]: head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, membranes, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, contents of the stomach, feces, or anything else internal, within oneself, that's hard, solid, and sustained: This is called the internal earth property. Now both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property. And that should be seen as it actually is present with right discernment: 'This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' [endquote MN 140] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html ............................................ connie: I just played with the second question a bit... there would be at the moment of touching, awareness of a reality, but still, right after, knowing a concept. I don't know that anyone ever says concepts aren't valid objects... just that they aren't the objects the teachings concern. If concepts were of no use at all, there would be no teachings at all. I think the confusion over the two types of object and the mistaking one for the other is part of our contamination. I think the three branches (virtue, concentration, understanding) grow together in the same way the yoked meditations do or even how there must be the proper balance of faith and all. T: Let me give a 1-satang understanding about real-time experience of "touching" that is mental. A meditator does not collect a sample of body parts (head hairs, hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys ...) for touching by his finger :-) while he is meditating in his 'kuti'. He actually meditates on the perception of these body parts, and through mental touching (phassa) and sa~n~na that is supported by concentration, they finally appear to him as earth element as you said. Once they appear to him as earth element, once his doubt disappears, a true knowledge(~nana) will arise thus 'both the internal earth property & the external earth property are simply earth property, ... This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self.' I agree with you 100% about the usefulness of concepts. ........................................... connie: There is a common sense teaching that it's not right to talk about other people & some might call it a kind of virtue not to, but what do we understand by it? I can't say what Khun Anyone's practice is - not just because it isn't Anyone doing anything but because I hardly know my own minds. I know Khun Sujin's understanding follows the teachings further than mine and that whatever we want to call practice, it must be as understanding, right or wrong, dictates... practice following principle, the way the walk can't outpace the talk & we have to be well grounded before we can fly. I think this is what is meant when it's claimed that understanding is enough. T: No doubt, practice follows principle; patipatti after pariyatti, although pariyatti is revisited several times during patipatti until true understanding (finally) arises. Yet, during the first stage of learning pariyatti there is understanding (first, a blurred one, then it becomes clearer and clearer with advanced patipatti and advanced pariyatti). So, in short, you're right. Tep === #90482 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 6:30 am Subject: For Tep: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? ... Voidness ... dhammanusarin Dear Friend Han, - I am again grateful for your thoughtful preparation of the Pali text for me and everyone else who wants to appreciate the deep meaning of su~n~nataa directly from the Buddha's mouth. >Han: I was looking for the above-mentioned sutta, and I could find the following: SN 35.85 Su~n~na Sutta. ... ... >Is the above sutta you were referring to, Tep? T: Yes, sir, it is. Thankfully, Tep === #90483 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:02 am Subject: Re: The Great Ultimate Meaning... the root of ultimate reality? dhammanusarin Dear friends Herman and Alex: - I don't care if you agree with me or not about the true meaning of ultimate (paramattha). But I sincerely and really care about what you think, after having read through (very carefully) the following post. Thanks. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: > > Dear Nina (Scott, Han, Connie), - > > It is not a surprise to see your comment that still sounds as > defensive as usual. > > Nina van Gorkom wrote: > > > > Dear Tep and Scott, > > Op 20-sep-2008, om 17:52 heeft Tep het volgende geschreven: > > > > > But there is an interesting section in this treatise > about "ultimate meaning" of voidness that I think our Abhidhammika > friends here may appreciate : > > > > > > XX, 26. What is voidness in the ultimate meaning of all kind of > > > voidness, which is the terminating of occurrence in > > > [the Arahant], who is fully aware? > > -------- > > N: In this context I think that paramattha would refer: in the > > highest sense. This meaning fits the arahat. > > When we use the word paramattha dhammas it has a different > > meaning as you know. > > Nina. > > > .................... > > T: You may not know what I now know, Nina! > > Let me tell you. I have become more convinced than ever before that > there is only ONE meaning of ultimate ideas(paramattha dhammas) in > the Arahant and only there that paramattha dhammas make great sense. > > In Ptsm, XXI,8 the great ultimate meaning, nibbana, is embraced by > the "great understanding". There are other dhammas (the bodhipakkhiya > dhammas) that become "great" in the Arahant where the great > ultimate meaning is fully understood in the great ultimate sense. > > I have come to believe that the meaning of ultimate sense of the > dhammas has been misunderstood (by most of us) for too long, after > reading the following. > > Ptsm XXI, 8. What is great understanding(mahaa pa~n~naa)? It > embraces the great meaning, thus it is great understanding. > It embraces the great ideas(dhammas), thus it is great > understanding. ... ... the > great faculties ... the great powers(bala) ...the great > enlightenment factors ... the great noble path ... the > great noble fruits of asceticism ... the great direct > knowledges ... the great ultimate > meaning, nibbana, thus it is great understanding. ... > > For your information only (not intended for a debate), > > Tep > === > #90484 From: "Scott" Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:22 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Geoff, (Tep, Han), Thanks for the leg up; sorry I was so slow on the uptake. Here's a summary of what I'll look into (including the commentary by Ven. ~Naa.namoli): G: "cf. Ven. ~Naa.namoli's PTS translation: "What is voidness in change? Born materiality is void of individual essence[1]; disappeared materiality is both changed and void. Born feeling is void of individual essence; disappeared feeling is both changed and void. Born perception...Born being is void of individual essence; disappeared being is both changed and void." Katama.m vipari.naamasu~n~na.m? Jaata.m ruupa.m sabhaavena su~n~na.m. Vigata.m ruupa.m vipari.nata~nceva su~n~na~nca. Jaataa vedanaa sabhaavena su~n~naa. Vigataa vedanaa vipari.nataa ceva su~n~naa ca …pe… jaataa sa~n~naa… jaataa sa"nkhaaraa… jaata.m vi~n~naa.na.m… jaata.m cakkhu…pe… jaato bhavo sabhaavena su~n~no. Vigato bhavo vipari.nato ceva su~n~no ca. Ida.m vipari.naamasu~n~na.m. Scott: Some general definitional ideas from the PTS PED: "Vipari.naama [vi+pari.naama] change (for the worse), reverse, vicissitude..." "Jaata [pp. of janati (janeti)...] 1. As adj. -- noun: (a) born, grown, arisen, produced...2. As predicate, often in sense of a finite verb (cp. gata): born, grown (or was born, grew); become; occurred, happened...3. jaata (nt.) characteristic...as adj. having become...(=bhuuta); being like or behaving as, of the kind of...sometimes to be rendered by an adj. or a pp. implied in the noun..." "Sabhaava [sa+bhaava] 1. state (of mind), nature, condition...2. character, disposition, behaviour...3. truth, reality, sincerity..." "Vigata (vigata -- ) [pp. of vigacchati, in act. (reflexive) & med- pass. function] gone away, disappeared, ceased; having lost or foregone (for -- gone=vi -- gata), deprived of, being without; often to be trsld simply as prep. 'without.' It nearly always occurs in compn, where it precedes the noun..." Sincerely, Scott. #90485 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:02 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Herman and Howard I think you guys need to loosen up and go with the idea that the Buddha is stressing impermanence as he usually does...in order to thwart attachment in other minds. I don't find this strategy puzzling. If the world (the All) is impermanent, there is nothing worth being attached to. If you must technically unravel "why it is called the world, due to impermanence," I suppose it would be easy to correlate conditionality and impermanence...and that what arises doesn't arise unless its also disintegrating or of the nature to disintegrate...including language. Therefore, language could only arise in a "disintegrating venue." But I think this is far over-analyzed. TG In a message dated 9/21/2008 1:20:32 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: > "…it is said, 'the world, the world.' In what way, venerable sir, is it > said 'the world'?" > It disintegrates, bhikkhu (Buddhist monk), therefore it is called the world. > And what is disintegrating? The eye, bhikkhu, is disintegrating, forms > are disintegrating, eye-consciousness is disintegrating, eye-contact is > disintegrating, and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition … that too > is disintegrating. The ear is disintegrating … The nose is disintegrating … > The tongue is disintegrating … The body is disintegrating … The mind is > disintegrating … Whatever feeling arises with mind-contact as condition … that > too is disintegrating. It is disintegrating, bhikkhu, therefore it is > called the world." > (The Buddha . . . Connected Discourses of the Buddha, vol. 2, pg. 1162) > TG > I can't make head or tail of the idea that the world is called the world because it is disintegrating. Anyway Cheers Herman #90486 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:20 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Herman) - In a message dated 9/21/2008 11:03:42 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Herman and Howard I think you guys need to loosen up and go with the idea that the Buddha is stressing impermanence as he usually does...in order to thwart attachment in other minds. ------------------------------------------ Howard: I didn't realize that we were up-tight about this! ;-) As I saw this particular matter, it was a very specific point that was being looked at, namely why the world is called "the world" due to impermanence. Nina has answered that usage question. ------------------------------------------ I don't find this strategy puzzling. If the world (the All) is impermanent, there is nothing worth being attached to. -------------------------------------- Howard: Sure, but that isn't what was being addressed, at least not what I was addressing. ------------------------------------- If you must technically unravel "why it is called the world, due to impermanence," I suppose it would be easy to correlate conditionality and impermanence...and that what arises doesn't arise unless its also disintegrating or of the nature to disintegrate...including language. Therefore, language could only arise in a "disintegrating venue." But I think this is far over-analyzed. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I believe you have misinterpreted the discussion, TG, unintentionally turning it into something far more than it was. :-) ---------------------------------------- TG ============================= With metta, Howard #90487 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... In a message dated 9/21/2008 4:19:30 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Herman, there is a word association in Pali that is lost in the translation. Loko: the world. Lujjhati: to disintegrate. Hi Herman, Howard, and Nina I was going to mention a possible Pali reason for the language in question, but I would have been guessing. Nina seems to think there is a Pali language reason, but unfortunately she does not explain the reason, nor does her subsequent explanation follow any logical consideration of the Sutta in question. So I'll stick with my original explanation, with the idea that there is very likely some "word play" adding to the style of the Sutta. I have to admit though, when I read a Sutta like this, it is for the purpose of using it to detach the mind...and if I think I have understood its purpose, I tend to overlook the "style of the questioning/exchange." You guys are just more thorough...I just hope that thoroughness doesn't add aeons in Samsara. As far as I'm concerned, I've got other issues. LOL TG #90488 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:32 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Herman & Nina) - In a message dated 9/21/2008 11:23:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: In a message dated 9/21/2008 4:19:30 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, vangorko@... writes: Hi Herman, there is a word association in Pali that is lost in the translation. Loko: the world. Lujjhati: to disintegrate. Hi Herman, Howard, and Nina I was going to mention a possible Pali reason for the language in question, but I would have been guessing. Nina seems to think there is a Pali language reason, but unfortunately she does not explain the reason, nor does her subsequent explanation follow any logical consideration of the Sutta in question. So I'll stick with my original explanation, with the idea that there is very likely some "word play" adding to the style of the Sutta. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, of course it is word play. That's very common in the suttas, relating similar sounding words that may be missing actual historical & grammatical connection. ------------------------------------------- I have to admit though, when I read a Sutta like this, it is for the purpose of using it to detach the mind...and if I think I have understood its purpose, I tend to overlook the "style of the questioning/exchange." ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, sure - the style/usage questions are relatively matters of idle curiosity (or would that be "idol curiosity"? ;-)) -------------------------------------------- You guys are just more thorough...I just hope that thoroughness doesn't add aeons in Samsara. As far as I'm concerned, I've got other issues. LOL ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I think we agree on what is important. :-) -------------------------------------------- TG =========================== With metta, Howard #90489 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Howard, Herman In a message dated 9/21/2008 9:21:45 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: I didn't realize that we were up-tight about this! ;-) .................................................................. TG: That's the problem. LOL ............................................................... As I saw this particular matter, it was a very specific point that was being looked at, namely why the world is called "the world" due to impermanence. Nina has answered that usage question. .................................................................... TG: Yea, but not explained as I mentioned in another post. Did Nina's answer really satisfy the question for you? .............................................................................. ..... ------------------------------------------ I don't find this strategy puzzling. If the world (the All) is impermanent, there is nothing worth being attached to. -------------------------------------- Howard: Sure, but that isn't what was being addressed, at least not what I was addressing. ......................................................... TG: Ahhh. You see...I think this is exactly what the Sutta is addressing. I understand what you and Herman were addressing... Not so much the subject content, as the reason for the specific wording. ....................................................... ------------------------------------- If you must technically unravel "why it is called the world, due to impermanence,impermanence," I suppose it would be easy to correlate condi impermanence.impermanence...and that what arises doesn't arise un disintegrating or of the nature to disintegrate.the nature to disintegrate...including lang only arise in a "disintegrating venue." But I think this is far over-analyzed. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I believe you have misinterpreted the discussion, TG, unintentionally turning it into something far more than it was. :-) ---------------------------------------- ............................................................ TG: No, I got point of the discussion. I think you have mis-understood my "hypothetical" explanation above. I even state I think that this outlook is "far over-analyzed." I was just offering it as fodder for thought as a possibility in answering your and Herman's specific issue. Boy, this is way too much for a minor Sutta. LOL. My understanding of the Sutta is that it is saying that "the world is impermanent" as a strategy to detach the mind. End of story. TG #90490 From: "Alex" Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:20 am Subject: Re: The Great Ultimate Meaning... the root of ultimate reality? truth_aerator Dear Tep and all, >--- "Tep" wrote: > > > Dear friends Herman and Alex: - > > I don't care if you agree with me or not about the true meaning of > ultimate (paramattha). But I sincerely and really care about what you > think, after having read through (very carefully) the following post. > Thanks. >>>> I have said long ago on this board that in the suttas, paramattha = ultimate goal rather than ultimate "reality". Somewhere in the suttas the Buddha has stated that Dispassion is the highest Dhamma. Furthermore, considering the "sabbe Dhamma Anatta" - I don't see how any Dhamma (which is caused by causes & conditions) can be "ultimate". In the cosmologist sutta, ==================================== "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything 2 exist?" "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." "Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?" "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Oneness?" "'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Manyness?" "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.048.than.html =========== The Buddha has called these extreme views and has repeated the teachings of Dependent Origination. I believe this sutta refutes the "Dhamma Theory" , especially if it has an ontological, rather than psychological bent. Best wishes, Alex #90491 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, TG ( and Herman & Nina) - In a message dated 9/21/2008 11:40:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard, Herman In a message dated 9/21/2008 9:21:45 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: Howard: I didn't realize that we were up-tight about this! ;-) .................................................................. TG: That's the problem. LOL ------------------------------------------- Howard: ;-) ----------------------------------------- ............................................................... As I saw this particular matter, it was a very specific point that was being looked at, namely why the world is called "the world" due to impermanence. Nina has answered that usage question. .................................................................... TG: Yea, but not explained as I mentioned in another post. Did Nina's answer really satisfy the question for you? --------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, quite. It was along the lines I expected. BTW, that associating of related meaning to words that are only superficially similar in pronunciation is common not only in the Buddhist suttas and commentaries, but also in the Jewish Talmud. ------------------------------------------------ .............................................................................. ..... ------------------------------------------ I don't find this strategy puzzling. If the world (the All) is impermanent, there is nothing worth being attached to. -------------------------------------- Howard: Sure, but that isn't what was being addressed, at least not what I was addressing. ......................................................... TG: Ahhh. You see...I think this is exactly what the Sutta is addressing. I understand what you and Herman were addressing... Not so much the subject content, as the reason for the specific wording. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Okay. The sutta , yes, but Herman & I, no. ------------------------------------------------- ....................................................... ------------------------------------- If you must technically unravel "why it is called the world, due to impermanence,impermanence," I suppose it would be easy to correlate condi impermanence.impermanence...and that what arises doesn't arise un disintegrating or of the nature to disintegrate.the nature to disintegrate...including lang only arise in a "disintegrating venue." But I think this is far over-analyzed. ---------------------------------------- Howard: I believe you have misinterpreted the discussion, TG, unintentionally turning it into something far more than it was. :-) ---------------------------------------- ............................................................ TG: No, I got point of the discussion. I think you have mis-understood my "hypothetical" explanation above. I even state I think that this outlook is "far over-analyzed." I was just offering it as fodder for thought as a possibility in answering your and Herman's specific issue. Boy, this is way too much for a minor Sutta. LOL. --------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm missing something here in what you are after, but, yes, ... much ado. ---------------------------------------------- My understanding of the Sutta is that it is saying that "the world is impermanent" as a strategy to detach the mind. End of story. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: And there's no disagreement on that. It simply isn't what Herman & I were talking about. ;-) ----------------------------------------------- TG ======================== With metta, Howard /Much Ado About Nothing/ (The Seinfeld Sutta) #90492 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? nilovg Hi Howard, Op 21-sep-2008, om 14:48 heeft upasaka@... het volgende geschreven: > Ahh, I should have waited for you! This is exactly what I was looking > for when I wrote a minute agao to Herman "Perhaps there are > connotations to > the Pali 'loka' that would clarify this." :-) -------- N: You understood the way I see it. Fscinating that word associations also happen in the Talmud. The Commentator did not pretend to follow etymology, but wanted to clarify realities. Nina. #90493 From: "Tep" Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:10 pm Subject: Re: The Great Ultimate Meaning... the root of ultimate reality? dhammanusarin Hi Alex (Herman, Nina), - I appreciate your decisive answer which is not a tongue-in-cheek reply, such as 'may be' or 'you have to interpret the meaning of ultimate in the right context'. > >Tep: I don't care if you agree with me or not about the > > true meaning of ultimate (paramattha). But I sincerely > > and really care about what you think, after having read > > through (very carefully) the following post. > > Thanks. > >>>> I was referring to my post #90483 today. ................. Alex: > I have said long ago on this board that in the suttas, paramattha = > ultimate goal rather than ultimate "reality". > T: Then we are in good agreement in regard to the ultimate goal, nibbana, which is only attained by an arahant. > A: Somewhere in the suttas the Buddha has stated that Dispassion > is the highest Dhamma. > T: That's because dispassion (viraago) is another term denoting nibbana : 'Etam santam etam panitham yadidam sabba-sankhaara-samatho, sabbupadhi patinissaggo, tanhakkhayo, viraago, nibbaananti'. ............................. > A: Furthermore, considering the "sabbe Dhamma Anatta" - I don't see how > any Dhamma (which is caused by causes & conditions) > can be "ultimate". In the cosmologist sutta, > T: Alex, any sankhata dhammas are anatta for sure. This is because a conditioned dhamma is aniccam. Any anicca dhamma is dukkha, and hence it is anatta as the consequence (as a truth, not just a strategy). But as we agree above, conditioned dhammas are NOT ultimate; you are right in this regard. Congratulations. ............................. Alex: > The Buddha has called these extreme views and has repeated the > teachings of Dependent Origination. > > I believe this sutta refutes the "Dhamma Theory" , especially > if it has an ontological, rather than psychological bent. T: The sutta clearly affirms, through Dependent Origination, that the Buddha's main Teachings are about "the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering" and "the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering". So, you're right again that His emphasis is not the Dhamma Theory per se, but rather 'dukkha samudayo' and 'dukkha nirodho' that includes the paths. But I am not going to reject the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Why not? Because it is a helpful supplement to the Teachings of the Suttas, speaking from a personal experience after having read 3 of the 7 Abhidhamma books of the Tipitaka. Thank you very much for responding to my serious request. I am glad we are in agreemnt on the "ultimate reality" issue. Tep === #90494 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... In a message dated 9/21/2008 12:23:53 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, upasaka@... writes: TG: Yea, but not explained as I mentioned in another post. Did Nina's answer really satisfy the question for you? --------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, quite. It was along the lines I expected. BTW, that associating of related meaning to words that are only superficially similar in pronunciation is common not only in the Buddhist suttas and commentaries, but also in the Jewish Talmud. Hi Howard I'm curios, Based on Nina's explanation, why is "the world" called 'the world" because it disintegrates? ... Not just in terms of "word play," but in terms of meaning. For the Buddha would not just make frivolous word play unless it had a corresponding meaning. The form of this Sutta is repeated for many other Suttas dealing with other issues. (Oh, and yes, I DO GET what you and Herman are talking about. LOL) TG #90495 From: upasaka@... Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:40 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, TG - In a message dated 9/21/2008 6:08:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Howard I'm curios, Based on Nina's explanation, why is "the world" called 'the world" because it disintegrates? ... Not just in terms of "word play," but in terms of meaning. For the Buddha would not just make frivolous word play unless it had a corresponding meaning. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, of course the world, and every aspect of it, *does* disintegrate, and I would suppose that the Buddha was calling attention to this by using a word association that would have been readily grasped by those who spoke the language. I would consider this a useful teaching technique. ----------------------------------------------- The form of this Sutta is repeated for many other Suttas dealing with other issues. (Oh, and yes, I DO GET what you and Herman are talking about. LOL) TG ============================ With metta, Howard #90496 From: TGrand458@... Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:55 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Howard (and Herman) Thanks for that explanation Howard. From my point of view, Nina's explanation merely gives a "hint" of what's going on, but doesn't really clarify it. You and I basically had already guessed what she proffered already. If she had broken down the Pali and explained in detail how it connected with the Sutta's content, THAT would have explained it to me. Instead, she made a vague reference to the Pali and then went off on a "no-self" tangent that didn't seem to fit the content at all. (If Nina happens to read this and can further clarify it, that would be great.) Its all empty and hollow anyway. :-) TG #90497 From: "Sukinder" Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:05 pm Subject: Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' sukinderpal Dear Tep, =========== > T: No need to hurry, friend. Take you time. > I agree with your new policy of 'no direct reference', Sukin. The big > disadvantage, however, is that we will not have a basis for judging a > view or opinion (whether it is right or wrong). S: Yes, and I think that it can be a problem. But I'll try to remember that without the Dhamma I'd be directionless, and so will keep whatever I understand of the Teachings in mind….. ======= T: > To you I seem be an unfair person because I wrote : "Sukin just gives > his own interpretation, Alex." > > Suk: Don't we all? And if this is so bad, why then criticize those > people who rely on the ancient commentaries, having seen their own > limitations with regard to reading and interpreting the Suttas? > > T: You were criticized because you had given incorrect > interpretations of the suttas that you didn't know much about. I > don't read much ancient commentaries; yet nobody critizes me because > I do not volunteer interpretations of the commentaries. ;-) S: But giving an incorrect interpretation of the Suttas isn't equivalent to saying that I trust my understanding more than that of the Buddha's. Is it not more to do with yours vs. my interpretation? And in this regard I still think that I'm correct, because you have yet to show me how I'm wrong in particular by giving your own interpretation of the same Sutta. You do not fully agree with the commentaries, and I don't think them to be of higher authority over the Buddha's direct words, so you can't compare my reading / interpreting of the Suttas with your not reading / interpreting of the commentaries, I would think. ======= Tep: > In this message #90388 you once again give a strong opinion about > Anapanasati even though 1) you don't practice it, S: Satipatthana is *the* practice, and its importance has always been stressed. That I don't `practice' Anapanasati the way you and others understand it, is because I have my own understanding about it and which does not agree with yours. This does not mean that you and others are in a better position to make a statement about it than I, since from where I stand, you are wrong about it at the level of `theory' to begin with. So the issue concerns the understanding about what Anapanasati is, in principle, and not with whether one has followed the practice or not. Unlike for example, the conventional act of tasting say, mango, where it would be fair to say that I can't be making a value judgment about it if I've never tasted it, when it comes to the Dhamma on the other hand, here since anything must be understood first at the level of suttamaya panna and cintamaya panna, a discussion about it can be initiated even if there has been little or no bhavanamaya panna. And these three must all agree anyway!! Besides, even if it was the case that you have had insight / vipassana while I am talking mostly from pariyatti understanding, it would still require of you to convince me by way of some explanation based on the Dhamma, wouldn't it? ========== T: > and 2) you don't > know either the Anapanasati Sutta or the Treatise 3 (Anapanasati) in > the Ptsm. Would you believe it if I say the Buddha and the Arahant > Sariputta both said that Anapanasati was BOTH samatha & vipassna? S: I am not sure if I understand this correctly, and you will be right if you say that I've not given it much thought. But here it is anyway: Anapanasati having breath as object and this involving rupas is ideal practice for those with the right accumulations to observe all four Satipatthanas. So yes I do believe that Anapanasati stands out when compared with the other of the 40 subjects of meditation! =========== > (1) Suk: I don't mind being accused of this. But I wonder with what > kind of citta you do it. It is obvious that some of us believe that > you and others are giving your own interpretations, not in line with > the intended meaning of the Buddha's words. But have you ever read > anyone of us say the same thing about you or those other people, > namely that you believe in yourselves more than the Buddha? > ========= > (1) T: No, I have not, and will find it to be absurd for anyone to > even think like that. Prove to me first that I ever gave even one > misinterpretation of the suutas, or misquoting the Buddha, or writing > anything like you said. Now, I am wondering what kind of citta you > had while writing such a lie. S: I must be quite dumb or like a kid who just can't get what it is that the adult is saying. So please try and explain it in a different way. But it seems to me that before we can prove the other side wrong, don't we need to first perceive the wrongness? And isn't this the same with everyone else, they argue with you because they think that you are wrong in your interpretation of the Dhamma / Suttas? And my point about `your citta' concerned your accusing me of thinking that I know better than the Buddha, when in fact it was about your interpretation vs. mine. And if I have yet to prove you wrong in the `interpretation', this does not mean that I am *lying* in the meantime, does it? And what citta did I have? Believe it or not, I was trying sincerely to remind you about the perceived akusala so that next time you will be more mindful of it. Presumptuous or even arrogant of me to think and to have said it? Maybe. But was it a lie? I don't think so. ========== > >Tep: > > It is absurd to think that the Buddha would teach them Anapanasati, > > knowing that His disciples could not follow it. > > (2) Suk: I hope my explanation above has clarified my position a > little more. But you may like to ask yourself these questions: "Am I > in the same league as those people?" > "Is the important Teaching to which the Buddha was enlightened, > samatha or vipassana?" > "If the latter, why at any time give more importance to the former, > so much so as to go on and argue in support of it at the expense of > the other? > ========= > (2) T: Okay, Sukin, I play along with you. ;-) > -- No, I am not. > -- Both samatha & vipassana. Several suttas explain that. > -- In the suttas as well as in the Ptsm, both serenity and insight > are extremely important as the path (development). S: It was meant for you to ask yourself. But we can discuss about this all the same, some other time though. ========= > >Tep: > > I advise Sukin to read the following post about > > the various paths in Buddhissm. > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/89407 > > (3) Suk: Frankly, I don't understand the quote from the > Patisambhidamagga, the subject re: the 37 enlightenment factors is > too deep for me. Still I think the "Path" I am talking about, namely > the Noble Eightfold Path, has altogether a different meaning and > implication from the "path" used in reference to the various dhammas > in the quote you cite. My mention of the Path is in terms of > its `function' being that of "understanding Dukkha" and gradually > leading to enlightenment. In your quote, the same thing can't be > meant, can it? But perhaps you will explain how you see it? > > (3) T: I think you simply reject the Ptsm passages on Path (magga), > although you make it sound like it is your fault. > But who am I to expect you to understand my explanation if the great > Arahant's words are not helpful? > You know, the Chief Disciple Sariputta taught several new monks and > helped them to attain Stream-entry? He must be one of the greatest > teachers in the world. S: Tep, I often get the impression from reading your posts that you have the accumulations to be `attentive' and hence able to be quite studious when reading Suttas and other texts, the same with for example, Han. But I think that you need to appreciate that not everyone is like that. In fact, Ken H just mentioned dyslexia, and I think that you might want to consider me as having a mild form of this, a conclusion I made only quite recently. This is one problem. The other is that I *really* have never been able to wrap my mind around the teachings on the 37 enlightenment factors. Metta, Sukin #90498 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:26 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? egberdina Hi TG and Nina (and Howard) 2008/9/22 : > > Hi Herman and Howard > > > I think you guys need to loosen up and go with the idea that the Buddha is > stressing impermanence as he usually does...in order to thwart attachment in > other minds. Thanks for shedding light on the original Pali, Nina. > I don't find this strategy puzzling. If the world (the All) is impermanent, > there is nothing worth being attached to. Believe me, TG, if I loosened up any more I'd be blubber :-) . And be warned, I'm going to query you here as well, because up front, what you say doesn't gel (with me). Impermanence, of itself, is unproblematical, and not a reason to be free of attachment. In many respects, impermanence is actually desirable. Often, we do want things to become different to how they are. Just imagine if rivers didn't run, if there was no day and night, if seeds didn't germinate and develop etc. What is a problem for humans is getting what is not wanted or expected, and not getting what is wanted or expected. > If you must technically unravel "why it is called the world, due to > impermanence," I suppose it would be easy to correlate conditionality and > impermanence...and that what arises doesn't arise unless its also disintegrating or of > the nature to disintegrate...including language. Therefore, language could > only arise in a "disintegrating venue." But I think this is far over-analyzed. > Also, for millions of atheists and the like around the world, the fact of impermanence and disintegration is of extreme comfort. There is enormous peace in knowing that this lifetime is the last one. Isn't that also the holy grail for Buddhism? Where I see impermance fitting into Buddhist teachings, is in undermining a view of an eternal, unchanging soul. I can sympathise with those who believe in consciousness extending into perpetuity, that no greater terror could exist. Cheers Herman #90499 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 10:04 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... Hi Howard, TG & all, --- On Mon, 22/9/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >Howard: Well, of course the world, and every aspect of it, *does* disintegrate, and I would suppose that the Buddha was calling attention to this by using a word association that would have been readily grasped by those who spoke the language. I would consider this a useful teaching technique. ... S: I'd like to refer to some of B.Bodhi's notes on 'world' (loka) which may be helpful: Sutta (1) 22: 94 "Flowers", translated by B.Bodhi: "There is, bhikkhus, a world-phenomenon* in the world to which the Tathaagata has awakened and broken through. Having done so, he explains it, teaches it, proclaims it, establishes it, discloses it, analyses it, elucidates it. "And what is that world-phenomenon in the world to which the Tathaagata has awakened and broken through? Form, bhikkhus, is a world-phenomenon.......elucidates it. When it is being thus explained....elucidated by the Tathaagata, if anyone does not know and see, how can I do anything with that foolish worldling, blind and sightless, who does not know and does not see? "Feelings.....Perception....Volitional Formations....Consciousness..... "Bhikkhus, just as a blue, red, or white lotus is born in the water and grows up in the water, but having risen up above the water, it stands unsullied by the water, so the Tathaagata was born in the world and grew up in the world, but having overcome the world, he dwells unsullied by the world."** ===== * "Lokadhamma. spk: The five aggregates are called thus because it is their nature to disintegrate (lujjanasabhaavattaa). 'Loka' is derived from 'lujjati' at 35:82 [S: 'The World']..." ** "Spk: In this sutta three types of world are spoken of. When it is said, "I do not dispute with the world," it is the world of beings (sattaloka). "A world-phenomenon in the world": here, the world of formations (sa"nkhaaraloka). "The Tathaagata was born in the world": here, the geographic world (okaasaloka)...." ====================== S: Sutta (2) 35:82 "The World" "It is disintegrating, bhikkhu, therefore it is called the world.* And what is disintegrating? The eye...forms...eye-cosnciousness....eye-contact....and whatever feeling arises with eye-contact as condition...The ear....The mind.... It is disintegrating, bhikkhu, therefore it is called the world." ==== * " 'Lujjatii ti kho bhikkhu tasmaa loko ti vuccati'.......On the six sense bases as "the world," see 35:116 [S: 'Going to the End of the World'] ========== S: Sutta 93) 35:116 "Going to the End of the World" " 'Bhikkhus, I say that the end of the world cannot be known, seen, or reached by travelling. Yet, bhikkhus, I also say that without reaching the end of the world there is no making an end to suffering,' I understand the detailed meaning of this synopsis as follows: That in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world - that is called the world in the Noble One's Discipline.* And what, friends, is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world? The eye is that in the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world.** The ear....The nose....The tongue....The body....The mind is......world. That is the world by which one is a perceiver of the world, a conceiver of the world - this is called the world in the Noble One's Discipline.'" ==== * "'Yena kho aavuso lokasmi.m lokasa~n~ni hoti lokamaani aya.m vuccati ariyassa vinaye loko." **"On the six sense bases as 'the world' in the sense of disintegrating, see 35:82. Here they are called the world because they are the conditions for being a perceiver and a conceiver of the world....The six sense bases are at once part of the world ('that in the world') and the media for the manifestation of a world ('that which'). The 'end of the world' that must be reached to make an end to suffering is Nibbaana, which is called (among other things) the cessation of the six sense bases." ================== Hope this helps! Metta, Sarah ========== #90500 From: "Bhikkhu Samahita" Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 9:23 pm Subject: Focused Awareness! bhikkhu0 Daily Words of the Buddha for 22 September 2008 The Blessed Buddha once said: SambÄ?dhe vÄ?pi vindanti, dhammam nibbÄ?napattiyÄ? ye satim paccalatthamsu sammÄ? te susamÄ?hitÄ?. Focused Awareness Even when obstacles crowd in, the state of NibbÄ?na can be won by those who establish awareness by full focus in even equanimity… What is Right Awareness? <...> Have a nice day! Friendship is the Greatest * Bhikkhu Samahita * Sri Lanka :-) .... #90501 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:00 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Vism's Meditation for Developing Namarupa-pariccheda~nana sarahprocter... Dear Tep & all, --- On Sat, 20/9/08, Tep wrote: >I am not an expert in Vism, unlike you and Nina and Larry. I rarely quote from the book. So please do not trouble me by your difficult questions like the followings. In fact, you should answer them yourself. Thank you. >>S: with regard to what we take for head hair, body hair, nail and so on, what exactly is experienced through the body-sense would you say? If there is awareness and right understanding of the reality at the moment of touching, say 'head hair', what is known? What is the object of awareness? ... S: Firstly, I apologise if it seemed that I was looking for a 'book' answer. I was actually looking for what is appearing through the body-sense now. At the moment of touching 'hair' or a 'cushion', I think it's softness that appears, different from, say, the hardness which appears when touching a stone or a computer. In any case, it's all pathavi dhatu (earth element), as Connie said. However, at the moment of awareness, there's no word or idea of 'pathavi dhatu' - just the characteristic of tangible object appears. The point of this was to indicate that the hardness/softness we take for the body is just the same as the hardness/softness anywhere. We call it 'head-hair', 'cushion', 'tree' or 'computer', but actually, what is experienced is just hardness/softness regardless. Some softness we cling to as being part of our body, but actually the different realities, including such rupas, are all disintegrating as soon as they've arisen and there's no body, no tree, no computer, no atta in any of them. So, looking again at your subject heading on "The Vism's Meditation for Developing Namarupa-pariccheda~nana", I believe it refers to the direct understanding of the namas and rupas appearing now. The softness was merely an example of what may appear now and be known - just an element, no atta in it. I hope this clarifies a little. It certainly wasn't meant as a difficult question or call for 'expert' knowledge of anything. Metta, Sarah p.s Btw, no experts here - we're just studying and sharing our limited knowledge together as best we can. =========== #90502 From: sarah abbott Date: Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:34 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... sarahprocter... Dear Tep (& Alex), --- On Sat, 20/9/08, Tep wrote: >Thank you for giving me a chance to quote one of my favorite suttas. Do you know the name of this sutta? ;-)) [A quiz] .... S: Well, it's the Anattalakkhana Sutta which comes to mind, but I'm sure it can be found in other suttas too. What's your answer:-))? ... >>S: "...that trees are real and Sarah is real; but both trees and Sarah are impermanent. .." Hmmmm, did the Buddha teach this or is it your own interpretation, Tep:-)). ........... T:> Ye keci sankhaaraa atiitaanaagatapaccu ppa~n~na, ajjhattaa vaa, bahiddhaa vaa, olaarikaa vaa, sukhumaa vaa, hiinaa vaa, paniitaa vaa, ye duure santike vaa, sabbe sankhaaraa netam mama, neso hamasmi, na meso attaati, evametam yathaabuutam sammappa~n~naaya datthabam. >"All volitional formations, whether past, future or present, internal or external, gross or fine, inferior or superior, far or near, should be seen with one's own knowledge, as they truly are, thus: `This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'." .... S: So far, I don't see anything about 'trees' and 'Sarah' being 'real' and 'impermanent'. ... T:> If you think an external sankhara (e.g. a tree) is not real, try driving your car into it. ... S: Sankhara, whether 'past, future or present, internal or external...' only ever refer to mental factors, to cetana cetasika and all other cetasikas apart from vedana and sanna. .... T:> If you think 'Sarah is not real', then who thinks so if there is no thinker? Answering 'pa~n~na knows, there is no-one (no being, no person) who knows' is a miccha-ditthi. ... S: It is the citta and associated cetasikas which think. Remember from the Vism. (as recently quoted by Nina): >N: ...Text Vis.171. Now it was also asked, 'Whose is the fruit, since thereis no experiencer?' Herein: 'Experiencer' is a convention For mere arising of the fruit; They say 'It fruits' as convention, When on a tree appears its fruit. 172. Just as it is simply owing to the arising of tree fruits, which are one part of the phenomena called a tree, that it is said 'The tree fruits' or 'The tree has fruited', -------- N: As to the expression, ‘ one part of the phenomena called a tree’, the Tiika explains: the ruupas that are taken as the concept of tree (rukkhapa~n~natti). ---------- >Text Vis.: so it is simply owing to the arising of the fruit consisting of the pleasure and pain called experience, which is one part of the aggregates 'deities' and 'human beings', that it is said 'A deity or human being experiences or feels pleasure or pain'. There is therefore no need at all here for a superfluous experiencer.< ***** S: Furthermore, on 'trees' as it has been such a popular topic recently, please be patient as I quote the other passage which I gave recently from Vism XV111 for those (not you) who may have missed it: "28. S: And as for trees and people... " - just as when trunk, branches, foliage, etc., are placed in a certain way, there comes to be the mere term of common usage 'tree', yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is no tree, - so too, when there are the five aggregates [as objects] of clinging, there comes to be the mere term of common usage `a being', `a person', yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is no being as a basis for the assumption `I am' or `I'; in the ultimate sense there is only mentality-materiality. The vision of one who sees in this way is called correct vision." S: So 'trees' and 'Sarah' are just 'common usage' terms. In the ultimate sense, there are only the 5 khandhas, with no basis for 'trees' or 'Sarah' as actually existing in this ultimate sense. *** T:> Attachment(upadana) conditions a self; letting go of self (anatta) through not clinging to the khandhas is the way to abandon self. Seeing 'no self' in the khandhas is a pa~n~na that lets go of the khandhas; it does not follow that there are no Buddhas, no ariya monks, no uninstructed- worldling Sarah. ;-)) *** S: I just quoted (in another post) an extract from: SN 2:26 (6) Rohitassa (Bodhi transl). Here is another quote and note: "However, friend, I say that without having reached the end of the world there is no making an end to suffering. It is, friend, in just this fathom-high carcass endowed with perception and mind that I make known the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the way leading to the cessation of the world." *** "Spk (commentary)gloses loka with dukkhasacca and each of the other terms by way of the other three noble truths. Thus the Buddha shows: "I do not make known these four truths in external things like grass and wood, but right here in this body composed of the four great elements." **** S: In other words, the four noble truths are known by understanding the khandhas as appearing now, the elements as appearing now, such as seeing and visible object, feelings, thinking and so on. If we try to look for the noble truths in 'grass', 'wood', 'trees' and 'Sarah', we'll never understand what the 'worlds' or the 'world's end' are. Metta, Sarah "The world's end can never be reached By means of travelling [through the world], Yet without reaching the world's end There is no release from suffering. "Therefore, truly, the world-knower, the wise one, Gone to the world's end, fulfiller of the holy life, having known the world's end, at peace, Longs not for this world or another." ==================== #90503 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/9/18 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman (& all), > > Let's consider the eye-door. To be precise, it refers to the rupa of eye-sense which is an >essential condition for seeing and other cittas in the same process to arise. What is there to consider? You are telling me about a theory, something you have read. I put it to you there is nothing knowable in any of what you have said above. Cheers Herman #90504 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:24 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Fwd: Sudden Insight In My Dream sarahprocter... Dear Rinze, --- On Sat, 20/9/08, rinzeee wrote: >Sukin, how do I get what is replied (to mine) emailed to me directly, so that I don't have to scan the whole message board? ... S: You could just put your name 'Rinze' into the 'search' on the DSG home page. This will quickly bring up any messages sent to or from you or any others where your name is mentioned:-). It'll also show at the end of the messages and further discussion on your topic. Just an idea.... I hope you keep up your discussions with Sukin and others. Metta, Sarah ========= #90505 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:27 am Subject: Re: More Tales from Big Wave Bay, Hong Kong kenhowardau Hi Sarah, --------- <. . .> S: ;-) Oh, we get "caught out" by the stories time and again like everyone else, I assure you. That's why I find it helpful writing here - it reminds me about the clinging to the long story. Like just now, writing to Jessica, but really it's just seeing and thinking now. Nothing but the understanding of these realities matters. -------- One beautiful aspect of this understanding is that it doesn't stop anyone from functioning in the conventional sense. We can have right understanding and still be interested in our work, friends and family etc. We will actually be a better workers, friends and spouses than we were before! It's a 'win win' situation. :-) ---------------- <. . .> S: > As you say, that's all Ken H, Sarah or anyone else comes down to....various cittas (and molested rupas!). --------------- Oh yes, thanks, I forgot about the rupas! I'll have to change that epitaph. Here's a good one from Nina's Sri Lanka Revisited: "The realities of our life are only citta, cetasika and rúpa, elements that are impermanent and devoid of self." Ken H (R.I.P.) :-) #90506 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:45 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Only for the Wise to See .. Less Book Recitation sarahprocter... Hi Alex, --- On Sat, 20/9/08, Alex wrote: >>--- sarah abbott wrote: > > However, I think the consideration and deep study of realities is >exactly what the Buddha's teaching is about and it is these >paramattha dhammas which the Buddha taught and discussed. > > I don't think we're just interested in "intellectual understanding" >or 'theoretical paramattha dhammas that arise and pass away much >faster than they can blink". I think we're interested in >understanding and being aware of seeing which appears now, visible >object which appears now, thinking which appears now, so that slowly >panna begins to understand the worlds as they really are, not the >make-believe worlds of trees, houses, head-hairs and people which >we've lived in for so very long, in complete delusion. ... A:> We have a fundamental disagreement. I believe that Buddha's path is all about reaching Nibbana rather than reaching "understanding what appears now". ... S: I haven't mentioned "reaching" 'understanding what appears now'. If there is no understanding of what appears now, there will be no "reaching Nibbana". ... A: >Nothing that appears now is nicca-sukha- atta, nothing is worth clinging too. Not even "ultimate" realities which may be mere reifications of certain phenomena over other, due to Mr. Craving ofcourse. ... S: Again, what appears now, Alex? Has there been any suggestion by me that what appears now is nicca, sukha or atta. Has there been any suggestion that what appears now is worth clinging to? Quite the contrary. What I (and others) always stress is the importance of understanding WITH detachment. Actually there cannot be understanding with attachment. .... Check out MN24 sutta. The *Holy* life is lived for "Total Unbinding through lack of clinging" (remember it is Tanha that is origin of suffering). ====== S: Yes. .... A:> "Then is the holy life lived under the Blessed One for the sake of purity in terms of view?" "No, my friend." http://www.accessto insight.org/ tipitaka/ mn/mn.024. than.html# t-2 ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ====== S: Without the stages of purification including ditthi visuddhi (purity of view), there can be no nibbana as the sutta here on the 'Relay Chariots' makes clear. Of course the visuddhis along the way are not the eradication of clinging which only occurs at the last path moment. Nanamoli, Bodhi transl: "But, friend, is purification of virtue.....purification of mind.....purification of view (etc) final Nibbaana without clinging?" - "No, friend.".... " Friend, if the Blessed One had described purification of virtue....mind...view (etc) as final Nibbaana without clinging, he would have described what is still accompanied by clinging as final Nibbaana without clinging...." S: Alex, this doesn't mean that at moments of satipatthana, at moments of vipassana, that clinging arises. It means that there is still the tendency to clinging and clinging still arises after the insight has fallen away. The Buddha makes it very clear in the sutta that without the purifications starting with virtue and ending with purification by knowledge and vision, there is no eradication of clinging: "So too, friend, purification of virtue is for the sake of reaching purification of mind.......purification of knowledge and vision is for the sake of reaching final Nibbaana without clinging. It is for the sake of final Nibbaana without clinging that the holy life is lived under the Blessed One." Metta, Sarah ============ Of course it goes without saying that "purity in terms of virtue, mind, view, the overcoming of perplexity, knowledge & vision of what is & is not the path, knowledge & vision of the way, and knowledge & vision" are important as *stages* not as clinging points. To elevate any of them into position of "an ultimate reality" is clinging which stops the path. Best wishes, Alex #90507 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:57 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 1, no 4. nilovg Dear friends, We read in the “Gradual Sayings” (Book of the Eights, Ch IV, § 3 ) about different reasons for giving: “There are eight reasons for giving. What eight? People may give out of affection; or in an angry mood; out of stupidity; our of fear; or because they think: ‘Such gifts have been given before by my father and grandfather; hence it will be unworthy of me to give up this old family tradition’; or because of thinking, ‘By giving this gift, I shall-- after the body’s break up, after death-- be reborn in a happy realm of existence, in a heavenly world’; or because of thinking, ‘When giving this gift, my heart will be glad, and happiness and joy will arise in me’; or one gives because it ennobles and adorns the mind.” We may give out of affection. The Commentary to this sutta explains the word chanda (wish-to-do) used in the text, that one gives because one likes to give. When we like to give, there may be attachment and partiality. One gives to this person, but not to that person. Husband and wife generally give to each other with attachment. There may also be moments of generosity but there are likely to be many moments of attachment. When true generosity arises, one gives impartially; one does not restrict one’s giving to people one likes, such as husband or wife, or the members of one’s family. When my husband gives me dresses or jewelry, there are likely to be many cittas rooted in lobha: he enjoys seeing me in these dresses and with that jewelry. We may give in an angry mood. When we read this we may think that this is not applicable to us. But we should not only think of anger. The text speaks about dosa and there are many shades of dosa. Dosa can be anger, but it can also be a slight irritation, uneasiness or impatience. The Commentary explains that, having dosa, one gets hold of what is handy and quickly gives it. One may give hurriedly in order to have done with it. We may have to exert ourselves in order to give a gift and this causes tiredness. There is bound to be aversion when we feel tired. Or we may have regret after our giving and then there is also akusala citta rooted in dosa. Do we know the many shades and degrees of dosa? Even now when a sound is harsh or the temperature is unpleasant, dosa is likely to arise. Since we accumulated dosa it can also arise while giving. I prepared banana pancakes for the monks on the occasion of Sarah’s birthday dåna in Colombo. For two hours I was in front of a hot stove in tropical heat, and, although there were also kusala cittas with generosity, there were many moments in between with aversion towards the intense heat, and there were moments of anxiety when I wondered whether the pancakes would be ready in time. Later on attachment to the gift arose and I felt pleased with myself that I had done the job. Thus we see that many akusala cittas arise even while we prepare dåna for the monks. We are so used to akusala cittas that we often do not notce them. In order to have more right understanding of our life it is necessary to learn more about the different types of citta which arise, also about our akusala cittas. They are realities, “they are not in the textbook”. ****** Nina. #90508 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:59 am Subject: Survey quotes 2. nilovg Dear friends, Survey quote: ******** Nina. #90509 From: "rinzeee" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:51 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Fwd: Sudden Insight In My Dream rinzeee Dear Sarah, Thankyou for your thoughts on the matter. I thought I could define in my profile in such away that they could come to my email also. Just that it was so convienient, when I received an email recently, from a DSG member, for a post of mine. Yes, I will try to respond as frequently as possible. Metta Rinze. #90510 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:51 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/9/19 kenhowardau : > Hi Herman (and Alex), > > You are easily pleased Herman! Yes, people who know me say I am very easy going. > You and Alex have been given hundreds of explanations. Each time your > comeback is to quote a sutta and to jubilantly tell us, "Look, the > Buddha said he practised jhana: that proves we all have to do it!" > "Look, the Buddha said "man" "woman" "person" "tree" "standing" > "sitting!" That proves there really are such things!" > > I know you are frightened by the Dhamma (the way it is explained on > DSG) and you want to deny it at every opportunity, but don't you > aspire to a higher level of discussion than that? > But that does not mean I am easily fooled. You would a call a higher discussion what? A denial that there is a discussion taking place, and a denial that there are participants in a discussion. Each one of your posts, KenH, denies what you claim to believe. You are a being that finds comfort in being self-denying. And if that is how you cope, who am I to criticise? We are, after all, in the same boat, and there is no more merit in denying reality than in embracing it. Cheers Herman #90511 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' egberdina Hi Sukin, 2008/9/19 Sukinder : > Dear Tep and Alex, > > =========== > Tep: > > Sukin just gives his own interpretation, Alex. > > Suk: Don't we all? And if this is so bad, why then criticize those > people who rely on the ancient commentaries, having seen their own > limitations with regard to reading and interpreting the Suttas? > I was happy to read these comments of yours. You have expressed an honest truth, we all make our stories. Whether one chooses to ape ancient commentaries, or comment from personal experience, or anywhere in between, this is our kamma. A passive receiving of "received wisdom" is kamma, as much as the most radical of critical attitudes. Cheers Herman #90512 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:09 am Subject: Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Twos (32 - 33) scottduncan2 Dear All, Following on from #90255 two's (30-31) (cy: #90357, #90406): CSCD Vijjaa ca vimutti ca. Walshe DN 33.1.9(32) Knowledge and liberation. (Vijjaa ca vimutti ca.) Olds [ 2.32 ] Vision (vijjaa) and Freedom (vimutti) RD's [ 2.32 ]The higher wisdom and emancipation. CSCD Khaye~naa.na.m anuppaade~naa.na.m. Walshe DN 33.1.9(33) Knowledge of the destruction [of the defilement] and of [their] non-recurrence. (Khaye~naa.na.m anuppaade~naa.na.m.) Olds [ 2.33 ] Knowledge (~naa.na.m) of destruction (Khaye), knowledge of non-reproduction (anuppaade)[ 2.33 ] RD's [ 2.33 ]Knowledge how to extirpate and knowledge how to prevent recrudescence. **olds: [ 2.33 ] khaye ~naa.na.m anuppaade ~naa.na.m withering (waste, destruction, consumption, decay, ruin, loss...mostly in applied meaning with ref. to the extinction of passions and such elements as condition, life, and rebirth) knowing following-after-step knowing ***rd: 2.33Cf. with Sum. V. Asl 407 on this passage. 'Bearing on rebirth' (pa.tisandhivasena), it apparently refers to the doctrine in the statement of which the figure of the palm-tree stump occurs--' so that they are destroyed and cannot grow up again.' See Vin. Texts II, 113. The phrase recurs in the Nikaayas several times. TBC... Sincerely, Scott/connie #90513 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:33 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Great Ultimate Meaning... the root of ultimate reality? egberdina Hi Tep, 2008/9/22 Tep : > > Dear friends Herman and Alex: - > > I don't care if you agree with me or not about the true meaning of > ultimate (paramattha). But I sincerely and really care about what you > think, after having read through (very carefully) the following post. > Thanks. Thank you for inviting my comments, and thank you for making it clear that there are no strings attached to that invitation. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" > wrote: I have snipped only because I didn't know anymore who had said what. So I am only going on my recollection of what was said, and readily accept that I have missed what you intended me to address. But when I read about a scheme (from the Patis) to analyse what is void into different voidnessness and then to clasify that I realise immediately that I am in the company of someone who is trying very hard to be (through knowledge), what they already are. Do you see the insanity in conceiving of one voidness that is different than another, Tep? Cheers Herman #90514 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:42 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sangiiti Sutta Corner: DN 33 Twos (26-29), Commentary, part 2. egberdina Hi Nina, > -------- > Conclusion: It is important to know the difference between what is > convention and what is ultimate truth. If one understands that, in > the ultimate sense, there are mere dhammas performing good deeds and > bad deeds, and mere dhammas that experience the results of these > deeds, doubts will disappear about how kamma of the past that has > fallen away can bear fruit later on, even in a next life. > ----------- > N: How are we doing, Herman? > ------ You may well ask. You do not seem to understand, and neither does Buddhagosa, where conventions come from. I'll give you a hint, conventions arise within groups of people. Yet Buddhagosa, and you repeat what he says, is shameless enough to say that there are conventions, yet the conditions for those conventions are not there. If you disagree, can you please tell me what I have misunderstood about conventions? Cheers Herman #90515 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:54 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 1, no 1. egberdina Hi Nina, 2008/9/20 Nina van Gorkom : > Hi Herman, > Op 20-sep-2008, om 14:24 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > >> Sri Lanka is a country torn by civil war. It is one of the most >> dangerous countries in the world in which to live. The Singhalese, >> regardless of the dana you refer to, cannot comtemplate living >> together with the Tamils. The sangha in Sri Lanka is an ugly thing. If >> you care to listen, it chants "Singhalese uber alles". It is very >> ugly, Nina. Do not forget the past. > -------- > N: I wrote down my impressions almost thirty years ago. I can't help > it if you have a negative view of the Sangha. Every individual has > accumulated kusala and akusala. How can we judge others? Dana is > kusala, it cannot be changed into akusala. I assure you that my evaluation of the sangha in Sri Lanka precedes my negative view of that group. The sangha has been the dominant social group in Sri Lanka for centuries. How can a country where the dominant social group is the Buddhist sangha be engaged in civil war, Nina? How is that Buddhist? How is a policy of "Sri Lanka for the Sinhalese only" dana? Again, I do not dispute the qualities of the wonderful individual people you have met. But one day, rather than telling your husband over breakfast that he doesn't exist, ask him about the reality of politics, what it takes to have an organisation like the United Nations, or a sangha, and how groups subsume the kamma of the individual. Cheers Herman #90516 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:01 am Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, I can address the comment made earlier: A: "Those aren't 'ultimate sabhava containing realities!'...In fact Patis says that ALL is devoid of sabhava nature...As far as I am concerned, !!!anything! !! in Samsara is dependently arisen, has no sabhava (check Patis) and liable to arise-stay-and fall away." Scott: I'd be interested, now that I've sorted through the reference with a little help from my friends, in how you define 'sabhaava'. Here is the Pa.tisambhidamagga quote: "What is voidness in change? Born materiality is void of individual essence[1]; disappeared materiality is both changed and void. Born feeling is void of individual essence; disappeared feeling is both changed and void. Born perception...Born being is void of individual essence; disappeared being is both changed and void." Scott: And here, from ~Naa.namoli's footnote(from the Saddhammappakaasinii, the Commentary to the Pa.tisambhidamagga): Note 1: "'Void of individual essence': here sabhava (individual essence) is saya.m bhavo (essence by itself); arising of itself (sayam eva uppado) is the meaning. Or sabhava is sako bhavo (own essence); own arising (attano yeva uppado). Because of existence in dependence on conditions (paccayayattavuttitta) there is in it no essence by itself or essence of its own, thus it is 'void of individual essence'. What is meant is that it is void of essence by itself or of its own essence. Or else it is the essence that itself has (sakassa bhavo); for each single idea among the various ideas beginning with the earth principle is itself (sako), and 'essence' is a figurative term for idea; and each single idea does not have any other idea called an 'essence', therefore it is void of any essence other than itself: the meaning is that itself is void of another essence. Hence what is meant is that a single idea has a single individual essence...'Bhikkhus, what sages in the world say is not, of that too I say that it is not; what sages in the world say is, of that too I say that it is � Sages in the world say of impermanent, painful and changeable materiality that it is, and I too say of it that it is' (S iii 138-9), and in many logical arguments, ideas exist in their own moments'..." Scott: To me, from the above, this means that 'sabhava nature', as you call it, refers to the fact that no conditioned reality exists by itself - no conditioned reality 'arises of itself'. I think that 'su~n~natta' refers to all conditioned realities. If your definition of 'sabhaava nature' differs from that noted in the Commentary, might you explain it? Sincerely, Scott. #90517 From: "Video_586" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:33 am Subject: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? Video_586 Greetings all, I've heard plenty of views from scholars, commentators, everyday Buddhists and so on (invariably with conflicting views) with respect to the question of whether the Abhidhamma Pitaka actually reifies dhammas or not. To the best of my recollection however, throughout my investigations no one has ever actually presented any evidence of self-referential material from the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself on how dhammas themselves should be understood. Is anyone aware of any? Metta, Video_586 #90518 From: upasaka@... Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:00 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott (and Alex) - Scott, I think your understanding of this matter is correct. The sabhava discussed (and denied) in the PTSM is exactly that of own being and own nature, and it is the "own" that is the reason for the denial. This ontological emptiness is no different, IMO, from the emptiness so emphasized in Mahayana (the origination of which was not far removed in time, I believe, from the origination of the PTSM, or at least the recording of the PTSM) and also perfectly consonant with the early voidness teachings in the Uraga Sutta of the Sutta Nipata such as the following: _______________________ He who does not find core or substance in any of the realms of being, like flowers which are vainly sought in fig trees that bear none, — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. and He who neither goes too far nor lags behind and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," — such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. --------------------------------------- And in the Phena Sutta, to wit: ______________________ Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately. ------------------------------------- And in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, to wit: ____________________ "The world in general, Kaccaayana, inclines to two view, to existence_2_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html#n-2) or to non-existence._3_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html#n-3) But for him who, with the highest wisdom, sees the uprising of the world as it really is,_4_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html#n-4) 'non-existence of the world' does not apply, and for him who, with highest wisdom, sees the passing away of the world as it really is, 'existence of the world' does not apply. and "'Everything exists,'_9_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html#n-9) this is one extreme [view]; 'nothing exists,' this is the other extreme. Avoiding both extremes the Tathaagata_10_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.wlsh.html#n-10) teaches a doctrine of the middle: Conditioned by ignorance are the formations... [as _SN 12.10_ (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.010.wlsh.html) ]... So there comes about the arising of this entire mass of suffering. But from the complete fading away and cessation of ignorance there comes the cessation of the formations, from the cessation of the formations comes the cessation of consciousness... So there comes about the complete cessation of this entire mass of suffering." ------------------------------------- With metta, Howard #90519 From: sarah abbott Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:03 am Subject: Re: [dsg] How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? sarahprocter... Dear Friend, Welcome to DSG! Thank you for your interesting question. --- On Mon, 22/9/08, Video_586 wrote: >I've heard plenty of views from scholars, commentators, everyday Buddhists and so on (invariably with conflicting views) with respect to the question of whether the Abhidhamma Pitaka actually reifies dhammas or not. >To the best of my recollection however, throughout my investigations no one has ever actually presented any evidence of self-referential material from the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself on how dhammas themselves should be understood. Is anyone aware of any? ..... S: Perhaps we could start by looking at the first book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, the Dhammasangani. I hope this is relevant to your line of enquiry. After the Matika, the first section under "Division on Mind and Mental Concomitants" deals with meritorious dhammas (kusalaa dhammaa). A lot of detail is given. As it's relevant to other threads being discussed as well, let me quote from this Division, the "Section on Su~n~nata, Voidness of Atta in the Dhammaa." I'm quoting from U Kyaw Khine's translation here: "(iii) Section on Su~n~nata, Voidness of Atta in the Dhamma.* 121. At that time dhammaa arise, aggregates (khandhas) arise, sense-spheres arise, elements arise, nutriments arise, faculties arise, mental absorption (jhaana) arises, the Path (leading to) Nibbaana arises, powers arise, causes arise, contact arises, sensation arises, perception arises, volition arises, thought arises, aggregate of sensation arises, aggregate of perception arises, aggregate of volitional activities arises, aggregate of consciousness arises, mind-spheres arises, faculty of mind arises, mind-consciousness arises, faculty of mind arises, mind-consciousness arises, the sphere of mental concomitants arises, the element of mental concomitants arises. At that time (in addition to the above), other incorporeal dhammaa which are causally produced. These are meritorious dhammaa. b Detailed Exposition 122. What at that time are the dhammaa that arise? The aggregate of sensation, the aggregate of perception, the aggregate of volitional formations - these at that time are the dhammaa that arise." [etc] [Pali for this quoted section below**] ======== S: In other words, the conditioned dhammas referred to above and elsewhere are just the 5 khandhas. In this particular extract, the dhammas just refer to the kusala cetasikas (wholesome mental factors), which is why just 3 khandhas are mentioned above. (The passage continues with further detail). *The translator adds this note: "In this section, emphasis is laid on the fact that the dhammaa which arise at the time of the arising of the meritorious thought are mental phenomena, consisting of mind and mental concomitants and nothing more. There is no entity of Self (atta) which can be identified with these phenomena. There is no being, person or individual apart from these dhammaa." S: In other words, the Abhidhamma Pitaka, from the outset goes to great lengths to give details of all dhammas to help us see that there is no 'atta', no 'person', no 'thing' existing in anyway. There are just impermanent dhammas, impermanent elements which are either namas or rupas. I'll look forward to your further comments and hope we can encourage you to introduce yourself here and sign off with your name:-). Metta, Sarah **Su~n~natavaaro 121. Tasmi.m kho pana samaye dhammaa honti, khandhaa honti, aayatanaani honti, dhaatuyo honti, aahaaraa honti, indriyaani honti, jhaana.m hoti, maggo hoti, balaani honti, hetuu honti, phasso hoti, vedanaa hoti, sa~n~naa hoti, cetanaa hoti, citta.m hoti, vedanaakkhandho hoti, sa~n~naakkhandho hoti, sa"nkhaarakkhandho hoti, vi~n~naanakkhandho hoti, manaayatana.m hoti, manindriya.m hoti, manovi~n~naanadhaatu hoti, dhammaayatana.m hoti, dhammadhaatu hoti; ye vaa pana tasmi.m samaye a~n~nepi atthi pa.ticcasamuppannaa aruupino dhammaa – ime dhammaa kusalaa. 122. Katame tasmi.m samaye dhammaa honti? Vedanaakkhandho, sa~n~naakkhandho, sa"nkhaarakkhandho, vi~n~naanakkhandho – ime tasmi.m samaye dhammaa honti. ===================== #90520 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:11 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Herman In a message dated 9/21/2008 9:26:46 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Believe me, TG, if I loosened up any more I'd be blubber :-) . ....................................................... TG: LOL .................................................................. And be warned, I'm going to query you here as well, because up front, what you say doesn't gel (with me). Impermanence, of itself, is unproblematical, and not a reason to be free of attachment. In many respects, impermanence is actually desirable. Often, we do want things to become different to how they are. Just imagine if rivers didn't run, if there was no day and night, if seeds didn't germinate and develop etc. What is a problem for humans is getting what is not wanted or expected, and not getting what is wanted or expected. ......................................................................... TG: I have not problem on the surface with what you say here. But I think one of the Buddha's main teachings is that by seeing impermanence DEEPLY, the mind will not be attached to impermanent phenomena (all conditioned phenomena) that will ultimately betray them in so many ways...up to and including death....which is generally NOT considered desirable. No offense, but you've put a rather common place everyday attitude toward impermanence. Of course, with such an attitude, one will not find impermanence as a deterrent to attachment. THATS WHY we are attached because we see it as -- oh so nice. ;-) That's why the Buddha stresses impermanence more deeply and in other ways. Ultimately, it is impossible to "get what you want" because the greatest want is to survive...and it aint going to happen. “…all becomings (things), Wherever and in whatsoever state they be, -- All are impermanent and Ill and doomed to change.â€? (The Buddha . . . Verses of Uplift, pg. 40, Udana, 3.10) Alternate rendering of the above quote… Whatever forms of being exist, in any way, anywhere, All these forms of being are impermanent, Subject to suffering, of a nature to change. (The Buddha . . . The Udana & The Itivuttaka, pg. 49, Udana, 3.10) “Have I not previously declared to you thus, Ananda, how in all things that are dear and delightful there is the nature of diversity, the nature of separation, the nature of otherness? How is it possible, Ananda, in the case of what is born, what is become, what is compounded, what is transitory, -- how is it possible to have one’s wish fulfilled: Oh! May it not perish? Such a thing cannot be.â€? (The Buddha . . . Kindred Saying, vol. 5, pg. 142-143) .............................................................................. > If you must technically unravel "why it is called the world, due to > impermanence, impermanence," I suppose it would be easy to correlate > impermanence. impermanence...and that what arises doesn't arise unles s its also d > the nature to disintegrate. the nature to disintegrate...includin > only arise in a "disintegrating venue." But I think this is far over-analyzed. > Also, for millions of atheists and the like around the world, the fact of impermanence and disintegration is of extreme comfort. There is enormous peace in knowing that this lifetime is the last one. .............................................................. TG: I don't buy this one iota. Sorry. .............................................................. Isn't that also the holy grail for Buddhism? ..................................................................... TG: Only for those who have enlightened the mind to clearly see things as impermanent, suffering, and no-self. The rest of us generally are attached to 'continuing on.' .............................................................. Where I see impermance fitting into Buddhist teachings, is in undermining a view of an eternal, unchanging soul. I can sympathise with those who believe in consciousness extending into perpetuity, that no greater terror could exist. ................................................ TG: Impermanence and conditionality are related and not only due they unroot the idea of an eternal soul, they uproot the idea of any kind of self existing in any way at any time. So they are far more "eventful" than what you describe. As far as your latter comment, it doesn't jibe with the way the Buddha apparently saw it...based on Suttas. The quotes above included. Anyway, have a nice impermanent day. ;-) TG #90521 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:18 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Sarah I didn't repeat your post here but thank you for that posting on "the world." Now that was an explanation that I could get something out of! I'm going to read it again later. :-) TG PS, but I still aint no Abhidhammika. LOL #90522 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:44 am Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? truth_aerator Hi Scott, > Scott: To me, from the above, this means that 'sabhava nature', as >you > call it, refers to the fact that no conditioned reality exists by > itself - no conditioned reality 'arises of itself'. I think that > 'su~n~natta' refers to all conditioned realities. If your >definition > of 'sabhaava nature' differs from that noted in the Commentary, >might > you explain it? > > Sincerely, > > Scott. I agree with what is said above. Every thing arises due to causes and conditions, even "concepts". Concepts are void of self-essence just as any other phenomena. Now, what about nibbana-without-remainder? It doesn't arise, last, and it doesn't cease... What would that make it? Best wishes, Alex #90523 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:06 am Subject: Warning! Don't try this at home! truth_aerator Dear Sarah & Tep, >---sarah abbott wrote: > > Dear Tep (& Alex), > S: So far, I don't see anything about 'trees' and 'Sarah' >being 'real' and 'impermanent'. > ... Tree = Gross Rupa which is far away until the crash, in which case it would be near. Its shape & form is impermanent, especially after the crash... Furthermore, I think that Tep has meant "sankhata" not sankhara aggregate, so please don't conviniently use that. Best wishes, Alex #90524 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:57 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? nilovg Hi TG, I think that Howard answered the matter very well. If you want to know more, I try later on, but first homework from Larry, from Scott/ Connie. That is why I mostly write short posts. They are empty and hollow, anyway. Sorry I misspelled lujjati. p.p. is lugga. comes nearer to loko. Sarah also gave a detailed explanation of world. The world frequently stands for the five khandhas. We better know our 'own' world instead of getting lost in stories about words and terms. Nina. Op 22-sep-2008, om 0:55 heeft TGrand458@... het volgende geschreven: > Thanks for that explanation Howard. From my point of view, Nina's > explanation merely gives a "hint" of what's going on, but doesn't > really clarify it. > You and I basically had already guessed what she proffered already. > If she > had broken down the Pali and explained in detail how it connected > with the > Sutta's content, THAT would have explained it to me. Instead, she > made a vague > reference to the Pali and then went off on a "no-self" tangent that > didn't > seem to fit the content at all. (If Nina happens to read this and > can further > clarify it, that would be great.) Its all empty and hollow anyway. :-) #90525 From: "Tep" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:09 pm Subject: Re: The Great Ultimate Meaning... the root of ultimate reality? dhammanusarin Hello Herman (Scott, Alex, Nina), - It seems to me that you missed a considerable amount of the discussion background. >Herman: >Thank you for inviting my comments, and thank you for making it clear that there are no strings attached to that invitation. I have snipped only because I didn't know anymore who had said what. So I am only going on my recollection of what was said, and readily accept that I have missed what you intended me to address. >But when I read about a scheme (from the Patis) to analyse what is void into different voidnessness and then to clasify that I realise immediately that I am in the company of someone who is trying very hard to be (through knowledge), what they already are. >Do you see the insanity in conceiving of one voidness that is different than another, Tep? ................. T: Your comment about "insanity" is not easy for me to understand. But I don't care to understand it. However, I can explain a little about the various kinds of voidness in the Ptsm below. Similar to understanding, there is the supreme 'maha-pa~n~naa' and there are other kinds of pa~n~naa in different puggalas. Another example is 'concentration'. For example, four kinds of concentration are given in AN 4.41. Ptsm XXI, 8. What is great understanding? It embraces the great ultimate meaning, nibbana, thus it is great understanding. ... The different kinds of voidness may be understood by reading the following examples from Ptsm, XX, 4, 6. What is voidness of formation? The body formation is void of the speech formation and the cognizance formation. The speech formation is void of the body formation and the cognizance formation. The cognizance formation is void of the body formation and the speech formation. What is voidness in change? Born materiality is void of individual essence[sabhaava]; disappeared materiality is both changed and void. Born feeling is void of individual essence; disappeared feeling is both changed and void [repeat for the rest of the 201 dhammas] ... Born being is void of individual essence; disappeared being is both changed and void. What is supreme voidness? 'This dhamma is supreme, this dhamma is best, this dhamma is excellent, this is to say, the stilling of all formations, the relinqusihing of all substrata of being, the exhaustion of craving, the fading away of greed, cessation, nibbana.' ...................... I do not expect any reply. Sincerely, Tep === #90526 From: "Tep" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:44 pm Subject: Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' dhammanusarin Dear Sukin (Han, Nina, Alex), - I am hoping that you allow me to reply to some selected questions/concerns in your email; these are more important than the rest. >Suk: You do not fully agree with the commentaries, and I don't think them to be of higher authority over the Buddha's direct words, so you can't compare my reading /interpreting of the Suttas with your not reading / interpreting of the commentaries, I would think. T: Although I prefer discussing only the Dhamma and the dhammas, it is at times necessary not to ignore the human elements. Thanks, Sukin. It is good to know that, in your opinion, the Buddha's words are more important than the words of the commentators (including yourself). ............. >Suk: Satipatthana is *the* practice, and its importance has always been stressed. T: What do you exactly mean by saying that? ............. >Suk: That I don't `practice' Anapanasati the way you and others understand it, is because I have my own understanding about it and which does not agree with yours. T: How does it agree with the Buddha's words? ............ >Suk: ... when it comes to the Dhamma on the other hand, here since anything must be understood first at the level of suttamaya panna and cintamaya panna, a discussion about it can be initiated even if there has been little or no bhavanamaya panna. T: Oh, that is elementary, my dear Sukin. >Suk: Besides, even if it was the case that you have had insight /vipassana while I am talking mostly from pariyatti understanding, it would still require of you to convince me by way of some explanation based on the Dhamma, wouldn't it? T: Sure, to be fair it would. Remind me again about the specific case you have in mind, and I will try to give the missing explanation to you. ............ >Suk: Anapanasati having breath as object and this involving rupas is ideal practice for those with the right accumulations to observe all four Satipatthanas. So yes I do believe that Anapanasati stands out when compared with the other of the 40 subjects of meditation! T: Our good friend Alex will certainly be gald to hear that confession. Anyone can start with the first tetrad (as given in DN 22) that is equivalent to the first kayanupassana satipatthana. ............ >Suk: ... before we can prove the other side wrong, don't we need to first perceive the wrongness? And isn't this the same with everyone else, they argue with you because they think that you are wrong in your interpretation of the Dhamma / Suttas? T: Right, but again that argument is elementary. ........... >Suk: And if I have yet to prove you wrong in the `interpretation', this does not mean that I am *lying* in the meantime, does it? T: Let's re-examine the original words you gave earlier; isn't it clear that you did lie that other members believe that Tep's interpretations of the Buddha's words are false? : (1) Suk: I don't mind being accused of this. But I wonder with what kind of citta you do it. It is obvious that some of us believe that you and others are giving your own interpretations, not in line with the intended meaning of the Buddha's words. ............ >Suk: Tep, I often get the impression from reading your posts that you have the accumulations to be `attentive' and hence able to be quite studious when reading Suttas and other texts, the same with for example, Han. But I think that you need to appreciate that not everyone is like that. I T: First of all, thank you for reading my posts. I do not believe in accumulations of understanding or attention since these cetasika dhammas are not permanent. Being attentive is a result of conviction, effort, mindfulness, non-distraction, and adverting for the purpose of understanding. >Suk: In fact, Ken H just mentioned dyslexia, and I think that you might want to consider me as having a mild form of this, a conclusion I made only quite recently. This is one problem. The other is that I *really* have never been able to wrap my mind around the teachings on the 37 enlightenment factors. T: Don't put youself down, Sukin. None of the five indriya dhammas I mention above has anything to do with reading problem like dyslexia. The 37 bodhipakkheya dhammas include the five indriyas as well. Maybe you should begin with development of indriya. Then the reading difficulty will be gone ! Tep === #90527 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:58 pm Subject: Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' sukinderpal Dear Tep, I hope that you do not mind that I drop this particular discussion. I would like to avoid any talk related to one another's character, especially in the new thread which I am about to initiate. As suggested before, I expect that the Dhamma questions posed here and elsewhere, these will be answered in the course of our discussion in that other thread. Thanks in advance for your patience. Metta, Sukin --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: > > Dear Sukin (Han, Nina, Alex), - > > I am hoping that you allow me to reply to some selected > questions/concerns in your email; these are more important than the > rest. > #90528 From: "Sukinder" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:01 pm Subject: Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. sukinderpal Dear Tep (and All), I have no plans regarding how this should proceed and am not known to be systematic in thought. So please be patient if you find what I write to be erratic at times. In fact I came up with the first statement below only just now: =========== In our day to day life some experiences come across as being that of "realities" and some of "illusions". The one can be said to distinguish from the other in that these exhibits characteristics while the other does not. Of the former, there are two kinds: `Mental' reality, that which experiences / knows and `material' reality, that which does not experience / know. Any questions or objections, or else is there anything you would like to add to the above? Metta, Sukin #90529 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:06 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' kenhowardau Hi Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi KenH, > > 2008/9/19 kenhowardau : > > Hi Herman (and Alex), > > > > > You are easily pleased Herman! > > Yes, people who know me say I am very easy going. > > > You and Alex have been given hundreds of explanations. Each time your > > comeback is to quote a sutta and to jubilantly tell us, "Look, the > > Buddha said he practised jhana: that proves we all have to do it!" > > "Look, the Buddha said "man" "woman" "person" "tree" "standing" > > "sitting!" That proves there really are such things!" > > > > I know you are frightened by the Dhamma (the way it is explained on > > DSG) and you want to deny it at every opportunity, but don't you > > aspire to a higher level of discussion than that? > > > > But that does not mean I am easily fooled. You would a call a higher > discussion what? Are you serious? Can't you imagine a higher level of discussion than that? ---------------------- H: > A denial that there is a discussion taking place, and a denial that there are participants in a discussion. Each one of your posts, KenH, denies what you claim to believe. ---------------------- There you go again; you can't get past that first, silly, reaction. It might have been clever, or amusing, once to have said, "If you think there are no trees you should try walking into one" or "If there is no self then who is having this discussion, who is sending this email?" (No, actually, I don't think it was ever clever or amusing.) but can't we move on? --------------------- H: > You are a being that finds comfort in being self-denying. And if that is how you cope, who am I to criticise? We are, after all, in the same boat, and there is no more merit in denying reality than in embracing it. -------------------- Sorry, Herman, but I can't take your armchair philosophising seriously. I don't think you take it seriously either. You just like a good natter. Let's start from the beginning, and see if we can get to higher and higher levels of discussion. You say, "The Buddha spoke of people and trees; therefore they must exist." My reply is, "The Buddha was using those terms as conventional designations. He was actually referring to conditioned dhammas (things we previously knew nothing about)." Now I will say something simplistic and you can give a reply: If, as you say, the Buddha was referring to conventional entities when he said all was anicca dukkha and anatta, did he mean tortoises were fleeting? Did he mean chocolate was unpleasant? Did he mean a full tank of petrol was actually empty? Over to you for some sensible answers! Ken H #90530 From: "Tep" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:16 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... dhammanusarin Dear Sarah, - I asked, "Do you know the name of this sutta?" ;-)) [A quiz] .... >S: Well, it's the Anattalakkhana Sutta which comes to mind, but I'm sure it can be found in other suttas too. What's your answer:-))? T: Very good, Sarah, it is the right answer. ............... >S: So far, I don't see anything about 'trees' and 'Sarah' being 'real' and 'impermanent'. T: We should generalize this specific case as follows. Trees and Sarah are external rupas; when I think of trees and Sarah (as meditation objects), they are mental formations. Trees grow by nutriments and they die because of conditions (lack of nutriments, killed by insects and by storm, etc.). So they are impermanent. Trees are sankhara , being formed (coming together) by roots, leaves, branches, trunks, etc. I can meditate on Sarah's body that it is ageing and death is inevitable (impermanent); her body consists of ugly 32 body parts, etc (asubha). Perceptions of head hairs, hearts, livers, etc. are contemplated such that the characteristic 'earth element' can be clearly seen/defined mentally, as explained in the Vism (chapters XI and XVIII). External or internal rupas and sankhara khandhas are real enough for meditation by non-Arahants. They have the three characteristics that can be discerned as explained in many suttas, including the Anattalakkhana Sutta. ...................... >S: Sankhara, whether 'past, future or present, internal or external...' only ever refer to mental factors, to cetana cetasika and all other cetasikas apart from vedana and sanna. T: Such naming scheme and labels are useful only during pariyatti learning. Reciting the definitions does not lead to namarupa- pariccheda~nan and yathabuta~nana dassana thus `This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'. ...................... Thank you for referring to the Vism passages on trees' fruits and Nina's quote of the Tiika: rupas "are taken as the concept of tree (rukkhapa~n~natti)". But that is not the point; the point is that a suitable concept can be used as a meditation subject as well as for discernment of the various dhammas (several concepts are given in the Maha-satipatthana Sutta and Kayagata-sati Sutta). The Vism also confirms this fact that pa~n~natti is useful -- read the chapters on cittavisuddhi. Even the Buddha sometimes used trees in contemplation of impermanence [MN 146]. Other dhammas such as craving, roots, virtues, conviction, etc. are taught by the Buddha using trees in the discernment of the dhammas. Wake up now, Sarah. Tep === #90531 From: "Tep" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:34 pm Subject: Re: Warning! Don't try this at home! dhammanusarin Dear Alex (and Sarah), - Sarah is not yet convinced that she is real. She is not convinced that reality of a (big) tree is easily proved by running into it (as you have suggested). > Alex: > Tree = Gross Rupa which is far away until the crash, in which case it > would be near. Its shape & form is impermanent, especially after the > crash... > > Furthermore, I think that Tep has meant "sankhata" not sankhara > aggregate, so please don't conviniently use that. > That is a good point, Alex. Sankhata as the "formed" or "fabricated", by virtues of the coming together of various components, is better. Quite often I mixed up sankhara khandha with sankhata dhammas. Thanks. Tep === #90532 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:07 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Nina Of course you thought Howard answered well...he said your explanation was good. LOL I, on the other hand, thought his answer was tragically flawed. ;-) Sarah posted something today which seemed like the completion of you post. It made things much clearer for me and I thank both of you for you endeavors. Don't worry about mis-spelling Pali words for me. I probably won't know the difference. Just make sure that you always get that "s" on Dhammas. What's the difference between Lamas and Dhammas? Lamas have no concept of dhammas but dhammas can conceive Lamas. Glad to se you're on the "empty and hollow" bandwagon! What is utterly dependent has "nothing of its own." :-) TG #90533 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:15 pm Subject: On the insanity of classifying voidnesses egberdina Hi all, Voidness is non-being. The notion of being void [of something] implies being non-being. That is insanity. All comments are welcome. Cheers Herman #90534 From: "Tep" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:17 pm Subject: Re: Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. dhammanusarin Dear Sukin (Nina and Scott), - Can you give a statement of objective for this discussion thread before proceeding? Do you want to teach Paramattha Dhamma 101 to new members of this group? A more efficient way is by posting a review of a book on Paramattha-dhamma, chapter by chapter. I just wonder how good a partner in paramattha-dhamma discussion I can be, 'cause I am not a paramattha-learned person. Scott once tried me, and Nina also tried. They must have been quite disappointed. And now Sukin tries. ;-) ............... >Suk: In our day to day life some experiences come across as being that of "realities" and some of "illusions". The one can be said to distinguish from the other in that these exhibits characteristics while the other does not. Of the former, there are two kinds: `Mental' reality, that which experiences / knows and `material' reality, that which does not experience / know. Any questions or objections, or else is there anything you would like to add to the above? T: I think there are important definitions that have to be given right at the beginning. How would you clearly define the followings? : reality; characteristics of a reality; illusion (why does it have no characteristics?); mind and mental; experience; knowing & knowledges; materiality. Aren't these definitions given in Khun Sujin's Paramatthadhamma book? Can't help being skeptical, Tep === #90535 From: "connie" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:29 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... nichiconn Dear Tep, >S: Sankhara, whether 'past, future or present, internal or external...' only ever refer to mental factors, to cetana cetasika and all other cetasikas apart from vedana and sanna. T: Such naming scheme and labels are useful only during pariyatti learning. Reciting the definitions does not lead to namarupa-pariccheda~nan and yathabuta~nana dassana thus `This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'. c: I don't think we should be quick to dismiss recitation or think it's meant to be just a matter of repeating without any consideration (although even that simple first step is an important part of tying the animal to the stake). Just to use the foulness of the body example again, the instructions for this meditation include memorization & reciting forwards and backwards. There's also this interesting little note: Connected Discourses p.473 n551 Appossukko tu.nhiibhuuto sa"nkasaayati. (snip) Spk: He attained arahantship and reflected, "I have attained the goal for the sake of which I did the recitation, so why continue with it?" Then he passed the time in the bliss of fruition attainment. The sutta starts on p.300 but since it's short, i'll copy it here: << Book with Verses, ch.9 #10: Reciting On one occasion a certain bhikkhu was dwelling among the Kosalans in a certain woodland thicket. Now on that occasion that bhikkhu had been excessively engrossed in recitation, but on a later occasion he passed the time living at ease and keeping silent.* Then the devataa that inhabited that woodland thicket, no longer hearing that bhikkhu recite the Dhamma, approached him and addressed him in verse: 785 "Bhikkhu, why don't you recite Dhamma-stanzas, Living in communion with other bhikkhus? Hearing the Dhamma, one gains confidence; In this very life [the reciter] gains praise." [The bhikkhu:] 786 "In the past I was fond of Dhamma-stanzas So long as I had not achieved dispassion. But from the time I achieved dispassion [I dwell in what] the good men call 'The laying down by final knowledge Of whatever is seen, heard, or sensed.'" >> peace, connie Sangiiti Sutta: "Herein there should be a chanting by all in concord, not a wrangling, that thus this holy life may persist and be long maintained." #90536 From: "Alex" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:54 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... truth_aerator Dear Connie, Tep and all, >--- "connie" wrote: > > Dear Tep, > c: I don't think we should be quick to dismiss recitation or think >it's meant to be just a matter of repeating without any consideration >(although even that simple first step is an important part of tying >the animal to the stake). Just to use the foulness of the body >example again, the instructions for this meditation include >memorization & reciting forwards and backwards. There's also this >interesting little note: > The Ven., probably also did visualization while reciting. Furthermore, we need to keep in mind the strength of the faculties. If a person has quick faculties and is Ugghatitannu or Vipancitannu, then perhaps mere reciting will be enough. Some people use example of Ven. Sariputta & Ven. MahaMoggallana as an example of reaching Stream by hearing a short stanza. Well, it is wrong example for us. Not many (if any) people today are quick enough to realize paths & fruites through mere hearing. Those examples (of super quick attainments with minimum practice) are not applicable to us. People repeatedly keep telling us about lack of wisdom/accumulations in us today, yet consider "Arahant-while-cooking-or-reciting" stories relevant. Best wishes, Alex #90537 From: TGrand458@... Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 3:14 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On the insanity of classifying voidnesses TGrand458@... In a message dated 9/22/2008 7:16:25 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: Hi all, Voidness is non-being. The notion of being void [of something] implies being non-being. That is insanity. All comments are welcome. Cheers Herman Hi Herman Void-ness, emptiness, hollowness, coreless-ness, etc., does not mean or imply "non-being" IMO. It means; rather, that due to utter dependence, due to conditioned nature, phenomena/features/whatever arises, has "nothing of its own." Therefore..."IT" (phenomena/features/whatever arises) is void. It is void of "own essence." It is void of self. But I may be insane!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah :-)))))) TG #90538 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:28 pm Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Scott, I think your understanding of this matter is correct. The sabhava discussed (and denied) in the PTSM is exactly that of own being and own nature, and it is the "own" that is the reason for the denial. This ontological emptiness is no different, IMO, from the emptiness so emphasized in Mahayana (the origination of which was not far removed in time, I believe, from the origination of the PTSM, or at least the recording of the PTSM) and also perfectly consonant with the early voidness teachings..." Scott: Perhaps, then, I have been misunderstanding the assertions directed at 'characteristic' (lakkha.na) in the name of su~n~atta. I've never read anyone who espouses the 'emptiness' view to have ever accepted that lakkha.na is acceptable. Would you concur that, while not 'arising of itself', a conditioned (sankhata) dhamma does indeed have its 'characteristic' (lakkha.na)? For example, take materiality (ruupakkhandha)? Sincerely, Scott. #90539 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:30 pm Subject: Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Howard, Me: "For example, take materiality (ruupakkhandha)?" Scott: Forget this, I should have left if off. And I said no more corrections... Sincerely, Scott. #90540 From: "Scott" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:45 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? scottduncan2 Dear Alex, A: "...Now, what about nibbana-without-remainder? It doesn't arise, last, and it doesn't cease... What would that make it?" Scott: An-upaadi-sesa-nibbaana is *the end* of the mental and physical process of existence. This is in reference to the five aggregates. Nibbaana is the asankhata dhaatu. Sincerely, Scott. #90541 From: "connie" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 7:59 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... nichiconn Dear Alex, A: People repeatedly keep telling us about lack of wisdom/accumulations in us today, yet consider "Arahant-while-cooking-or-reciting" stories relevant. c: Not saying there aren't any, but I can't recall any examples of anyone in the texts attaining sitting under trees. Or, for that matter, while crashing into them. I know you said I missed the point about that, but it seems to me if people really could dive into the earth and such, there is something about what's really out there that we're missing / don't understand. peace, connie #90542 From: "rjkjp1" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:30 pm Subject: Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' rjkjp1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: >> >Suk: And if I have yet to prove you wrong in the `interpretation', > this does not mean that I am *lying* in the meantime, does it? > > T: Let's re-examine the original words you gave earlier; isn't it > clear that you did lie that other members believe that Tep's > interpretations of the Buddha's words are false? : > > (1) Suk: I don't mind being accused of this. But I wonder with what > kind of citta you do it. It is obvious that some of us believe that > you and others are giving your own interpretations, not in line with > the intended meaning of the Buddha's words. > ............ > > Dear Tep Well I certainly believe your ideas about Dhamma are largely incorrect, or was Sukin excluding me, I didn't read the original post? Robert #90543 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:43 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] What do you do? egberdina Hi Howard, 2008/9/21 : > Hi, Herman - > > ============================ > Every non-emptiness discussed is a matter of perception, not nature, and > each non-emptiness is given up one after the other, until the ultimate > emptiness is realized, the "emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed," > namely nibbana. The Buddha does not teach rupa as existential non-emptiness; all > realms are empty. > I can only requote from MN121, and let the text do the talking: "He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed. My reading of that: Nibbana is fully what it is. It is fullness. It is not empty of anything. Cheers Herman #90544 From: "Video_586" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:08 pm Subject: Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? Video_586 Greetings Sarah, Thank you for your welcome and your response. ===================== > S: In other words, the Abhidhamma Pitaka, from the outset goes to great lengths to give details of all dhammas to help us see that there is no 'atta', no 'person', no 'thing' existing in anyway. There are just impermanent dhammas, impermanent elements which are either namas or rupas. ===================== The quotation you referred to expressed the "arising" of a dhamma and presumably elsewhere there is corresponding mention of a "passing away" too. From the Abhidhammic perspective, is there any period in which a particular dhamma can be understood to be existent and/or static inbetween the period of its arising and passing away... or is there no period in which the dhamma is deemed to be static with definable and stable characteristics? (As for me, my name is Paul, I'm an Australian Theravadin of nearly 3 years experience as a Buddhist and my primary Internet presence is at E-Sangha under the name 'retrofuturist') Metta, Paul. :) #90545 From: "colette" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] EMPTINESS ksheri3 Hi Herman, I had a piece almost completed last nite about 2:30 a.m. when the screen just suddenly went blank. First let me thank you for your kindness and generosity in extending your love and the possibility of a "god" loving me, as well as your sorrow for humanities loss of Richard Wright, keyboardist for Pink Floyd. Luckily, in the time we had with him in our midst he extended his kindness and muscical expertise to lighten our days/nights a bit. Just in case the screen goes blank again I want to start it out a different way. The movie THE MATRIX; Neo, Mr. Anderson, and Agent Smith are in the subway battling it out. They embrace eachother. Upon hearing the sound of a firing pin making contact with nothing Agent Smith says: "You're Empty" which elicits the reply to the same sounds, from Neo: "So are you". And what is emptiness in a corporate world of robotics? > ...it is the useful fiction by which one thing can > become another. Doorways are the lowest common denominator of dualist > fantasies. colette: Herman, those sentence fragments are some dog'on true wisdom! You should be proud of yourself for having the guts to say things like that <......>. Luckily I'm here to have had the chance to read your wise thoughts concerning "doorways" as if somebody will be telling George Herbert Walker Bush, soon, "Welcome to my nightmare" but that would be a WRATHFUL DIETY, no? Thank you. toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Herman Hofman" wrote: > > Hi colette, > > 2008/9/18 colette : > > Good Morning Herman, > > > > Isn't Emptiness the chief characteristic of any doorway? > > > > No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that the chief charactersitic of > a doorway is that it is the useful fiction by which one thing can > become another. Doorways are the lowest common denominator of dualist > fantasies. Mind and body interface through a ..... you guessed it, a > doorway. <...> #90546 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:52 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? egberdina Hello paul, video_586, retrofuturist, 2008/9/23 Video_586 : > Greetings Sarah, > > Thank you for your welcome and your response. > > ===================== >> S: In other words, the Abhidhamma Pitaka, from the outset goes to > great lengths to give details of all dhammas to help us see that > there is no 'atta', no 'person', no 'thing' existing in anyway. > There are just impermanent dhammas, impermanent elements which are > either namas or rupas. > ===================== > > The quotation you referred to expressed the "arising" of a dhamma > and presumably elsewhere there is corresponding mention of > a "passing away" too. From the Abhidhammic perspective, is there any > period in which a particular dhamma can be understood to be existent > and/or static inbetween the period of its arising and passing > away... or is there no period in which the dhamma is deemed to be > static with definable and stable characteristics? > > (As for me, my name is Paul, I'm an Australian Theravadin of nearly > 3 years experience as a Buddhist and my primary Internet presence is > at E-Sangha under the name 'retrofuturist') > I remember you well. I have had many of my posts summarily altered or removed by you, as well as having been banned without notice by you for questioning your personal position on things, which you have never been reluctant to dispense. Welcome to a site where questioning of dogma is welcome. I hope you come to learn that it demonstrates a complete lack of skill and understanding to summarily silence people. Cheers Herman #90547 From: "Video_586" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? Video_586 Greetings Herman, *sigh* Your post is intriguing for few reasons... 1. How would you know who removed your posts unless they told you? 2. I don't have the authority to ban anyone at E-Sangha 3. I don't care if anyone disagrees with me, only if they don't abide by the Terms of Service Frankly though, if you were this disruptive at E-Sangha, no wonder someone banned you. Right then, detour over... can we get back to the topic at hand, or is squabbling more important than the Abhidhamma? Metta, Paul. :) #90548 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] EMPTINESS ajahnjose Dear Colette, BTW The Matrix is my favour movie. I found it very much related to Budhism. Metta signature Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose --- On Tue, 9/23/08, colette wrote: Hi Herman, I had a piece almost completed last nite about 2:30 a.m. when the screen just suddenly went blank. First let me thank you for your kindness and generosity in extending your love and the possibility of a "god" loving me, as well as your sorrow for humanities loss of Richard Wright, keyboardist for Pink Floyd. Luckily, in the time we had with him in our midst he extended his kindness and muscical expertise to lighten our days/nights a bit. Just in case the screen goes blank again I want to start it out a different way. The movie THE MATRIX; <...> #90549 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:35 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? ajahnjose My Dear Sarah and Paul, The Abhidhamma is NOT for the general or everyday Buddhist. It is most sophisticated and you need a certain level of inteligence and undertanding, mostly phychology. The majority of Monks, including me dont have that superior knowledge and we just trott alone with the suttas and the ceremonials to make people happy with Buddhism and everyday life made simple, with a very SIMPLE DHAMMA. Metta signature Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose --- On Tue, 9/23/08, Video_586 wrote: Greetings Sarah, Thank you for your welcome and your response. ============ ========= > S: In other words, the Abhidhamma Pitaka, from the outset goes to great lengths to give details of all dhammas to help us see that there is no 'atta', no 'person', no 'thing' existing in anyway. There are just impermanent dhammas, impermanent elements which are either namas or rupas. ============ ========= <...> #90550 From: "Video_586" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:04 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? Video_586 Greetings venerable sir, ---------------------- > My Dear Sarah and Paul, The Abhidhamma is NOT for the general or everyday Buddhist. It is most sophisticated and you need a certain level of inteligence and undertanding, mostly phychology. The majority of Monks, including me dont have that superior knowledge and we just trott alone with the suttas and the ceremonials to make people happy with Buddhism and everyday life made simple, with a very SIMPLE DHAMMA. Metta > > signature > Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose ---------------------- Thank you for your wise words. I'm currently at a point in my practice where I'm trying to work out whether the Abhidhamma Pitaka accords with how I understand the suttas of the Sutta Pitaka, and in turn, how much (if any) time I will spend further investigating Abhidhamma. Time is short - I'd prefer to use it well. Depending on the Abhidhamma it is interpreted, I could see the Abhidhamma as providing a useful lower-level detail regarding our experiences which would help experientially realise anatta, but on the other hand could just as easily see the Abhidhamma interpreted as reifying dhammas into actual "things" rather than "events" which to me would not be satisfactory (as I feel it would violate the Buddha's teachings of aniccata and sunnata). To use an analogy from the suttas, I want to grasp the snake correctly so as to not get bitten. Just as I prefer to let the Sutta Pitaka speak for itself, I'd like to give the Abhidhamma the opportunity to do so too, but I will be sure to weigh your advice into my decision making processes. Best wishes for your practice. Metta, Paul. :) #90551 From: "kenhowardau" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:59 pm Subject: Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? kenhowardau Dear Venerable Ajhan Jose and Paul, My knowledge of the Abhidhamma is very basic. What I know could be taught to a willing student in just a few minutes. However, with this knowledge, and some help from my friends, I can understand any sutta you might like to mention. It really is a very potent little knowledge. Respectfully, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Video_586" wrote: > > Greetings venerable sir, > <. . .> > Thank you for your wise words. > > I'm currently at a point in my practice where I'm trying to work out > whether the Abhidhamma Pitaka accords with how I understand the > suttas of the Sutta Pitaka, and in turn, how much (if any) time I > will spend further investigating Abhidhamma. Time is short - I'd > prefer to use it well. > #90552 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:29 am Subject: Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 1, no 5. nilovg Dear friends, The sutta states that one may give out of stupidity, that is, with ignorance. In daily life we often have cittas rooted in ignorance, moha, no matter what we are doing, and thus also while giving such cittas are bound to arise. Moments of true generosity arise, but when these have fallen away, cittas rooted in lobha, dosa and moha are likely to arise. One may give out of fear. This is fear of blame from others or fear of an unhappy rebirth, the Commentary explains. One may give because one follows an old family tradition, and then there may be kusala cittas and akusala cittas at different moments. It is the same when one thinks of a happy rebirth as the result of one’s good deed. One may cling to such result. We can think of anything with kusala citta or with akusala citta and only right understanding can know what type of citta arises. Another motive for giving may be the prospect of having pleasant feeling. Instead of thinking of other people’s benefit we may cling to our own pleasant feeling. Through the teachings we have learnt that pleasant feeling can accompany cittas rooted in lobha as well as kusala cittas, but, when pleasant feeling arises it is hard to find out whether it is kusala or akusala. We should not try to focus our attention on feeling in order to know its nature. It depends entirely on the arising of sati and paññå whether realities can be known as they are. When there are conditions for right mindfulness of feeling, its nature can be known as it is. It is beneficial to realize how little we know about our own feelings. There may be pleasant feeling which is kusala, and then we may cling immediately to this feeling. Different kinds of pleasant feeling arise at different moments and we can easily mislead ourselves with regard to kusala and akusala. We do not like to admit that pleasant feeling is most of the time akusala, but in order to know the truth we must be sincere with ourselves. “Feeling good does not mean that the citta is kusala”, Bhante Dhammadhara reminded us. In society pleasant feeling, no matter what kind, is regarded as good and beneficial. Many people consider pleasant feeling to be the goal of their life, and, when we are sincere, is this not also what we seek, although we understand in theory that kusala is beneficial and akusala harmful? When we develop right understanding our sense of values will change and we shall see the danger of pleasant feeling which is akusala. We cling to pleasant feeling and we take it for “my pleasant feeling”, thus, we cling to ourselves. We cling time and again and hence clinging is bound to arise also while we are, for example, presenting dåna to the monks. The kusala cittas with generosity do not last and after they have fallen away akusala cittas arise so long as akusala has not been eradicated by right understanding developed in vipassanå. --------- Nina. #90553 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:47 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? egberdina Hi Paul, 2008/9/23 Video_586 : > Greetings Herman, > > Frankly though, if you were this disruptive at E-Sangha, no wonder > someone banned you. How nice that after being at dsg for all of one day, you already accuse others of being disruptive. Cheers Herman #90554 From: "dsgmods" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:25 am Subject: Discussion about other lists dsgmods Dear All Please note that discussion about other lists is inappropriate here. Let's stick to discussing the Dhamma. Thanks for your cooperation. Jon and Sarah PS Any comments about this, off-list only. > 2008/9/23 Video_586 : > > Greetings Herman, > > > > Frankly though, if you were this disruptive at E-Sangha, no wonder > > someone banned you. > > How nice that after being at dsg for all of one day, you already > accuse others of being disruptive. > > Cheers > > > Herman #90555 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:08 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? nilovg Venerable Bhikkhu Yanatharo, Op 23-sep-2008, om 6:35 heeft Ajahn Jose het volgende geschreven: > My Dear Sarah and Paul, The Abhidhamma is NOT for the general or > everyday Buddhist. It is most sophisticated and you need a certain > level of inteligence and undertanding, mostly phychology. The > majority of Monks, including me dont have that superior knowledge > and we just trott alone with the suttas and the ceremonials to make > people happy with Buddhism and everyday life made simple, with a > very SIMPLE DHAMMA. Metta -------- N: I quite understand your point of view. But what about this: Abhidhamma is not in the book, as Khun Sujin always says. We can make people happy when we very gently explain about their different cittas, so that they can learn more about these cittas. When they present dana, they can come to see that there are not only wholesome moments but also moments of attachment or even aversion. Without having to use the word Abhidhamma we can let them see that it is so beneficial to know their cittas. This can be a very simple dhamma. With respect and best wishes, Nina. #90556 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:29 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? sarahprocter... Hi Paul, --- On Tue, 23/9/08, Video_586 wrote: >The quotation you referred to expressed the "arising" of a dhamma and presumably elsewhere there is corresponding mention of a "passing away" too. From the Abhidhammic perspective, is there any period in which a particular dhamma can be understood to be existent and/or static inbetween the period of its arising and passing away... or is there no period in which the dhamma is deemed to be static with definable and stable characteristics? .... S: That's a good question. Whilst dhammas can be understood to be existent and with definable characteristics, like a wave, there is no time at which they are 'static' or 'stable' in the sense of being unchanging. Let's take cittas (moments of consciousness and accompanying mental factors), though they are said to have an arising, presence and dissolution, there is a continual change occurring. The impermanence is of course a characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. On this point, B.Bodhi et al give this Guide note in C.M.A. (translation of Abhidhammattha Sangaha). [Btw, if you're wishing to become more familiar with the Abhidhamma, this is a very useful reference text.]: Ch VI, guide to #6 "The life-span of a citta is termed, in the Abhidhamma, a mind-moment (cittakkha.na). This is a temporal unit of such brief duration that, according to the commentators, in the time it takes for lightning to flash or the eyes to blink, billions of mind-moments can elapse. Nevertheless, though seemingly infinitesimal, each mind-moment in turn consists of three sub-moments - arising (uppaada), presence (.thiti), and dissolution (bhanga). Within the breadth of a mind-moment, a citta arises, performs its momentary function, and then dissolves, conditioning the next citta in immediate succession. Thus, through the sequence of mind-moments, the flow of consciousness continues uninterrupted like the waters in a stream. "....The Vibhaavinii [S: commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha] points out that the sub-moment of presence is a stage in the occurrence of a dhamma separate from the stages of arising and dissolution, during which the dhamma "stands facing its own dissolution" (bhangaabhimukhaavathaa)......Many commentators take the presence moment to be implied by the Buddha's statement: "There are three conditioned characteristics of the conditioned: arising, passing away, and the alteration of that which stands" (A.3:47/i,152). Here the presence moment is identified with "the alteration of that which stands" (.thitassa a~n~nathatta)." ... S: If we take an example, such as seeing consciousness, it arises, is in a state of flux and falls away immediately conditioning the next citta. Even so, it has its particular characteristic of experiencing what is visible. It's a conditioned dhamma which is anicca, thereby dukkha and anatta, beyond anyone's control. It is only by understanding its characteristic as distinct from that of say, visible object or thinking about what is seen, that gradually the understanding will grow which can eventually understand the impermanence of dhammas directly. Please let me know if any of this answers your question or not. I'd also be interested to hear about anything more behind the question such as whether you're questioning dhammas as having characteristics or what. Metta, Sarah p.s.Thx for introducing yourself. Jon's also from Australia (Adelaide) and I see you're getting to meet some of the other vocal Aussie members:-)). ======= #90557 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:13 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? sarahprocter... HI TG, (Howard & all), --- On Tue, 23/9/08, TGrand458@... wrote: >I didn't repeat your post here but thank you for that posting on "the world." Now that was an explanation that I could get something out of! I'm going to read it again later. :-) ... S: Thx for mentioning it. ... PS, but I still aint no Abhidhammika. LOL ... S: Let's see if we can knock down some of those walls then:-). There is a chapter in 'Survey' which you might care to read, titled 'The World' (ch 23). It can be found here: http://www.abhidhamma.org/survey6.pdf Here's the first paragraph or two to give you a taste: "The World ............. "Cittas can be classified as mundane, lokiya, and supramundane, lokuttara. First of all we should understand the meaning of the world, loka, according to the discipline of the ariyan, as the Buddha explained in the “Kindred Sayingsâ€?( IV, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Second Fifty, Ch IV, § 84, Transitory). We read: “Then the venerable Aananda came to see the Exalted One... Seated at one side the venerable Aananda said to the Exalted One: “ ‘The world! The world!’ is the saying, lord. Pray, how far, lord, does this saying go?â€? “What is transitory by nature, Aananda, is called ‘the world’ in the ariyan discipline. And what, Aananda, is transitory by nature? The eye, Ã…nanda, is transitory by nature, visible object is transitory by nature, seeing-consciousness is transitory by nature, eye-contact is transitory by nature, pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or indifferent feeling arising owing to eye-contact, that also is transitory by nature. (The same is said with regard to the other doorways.) “What is thus transitory, Aananda, is called ‘the world’ in the ariyan discipline.â€? "For the ariyan, the person who has attained enlightenment, the transitoriness of realities is natural, but this is not so for the person who does not realize yet the arising and falling away of realities. Someone cannot become an ariyan if he does not see the arising and falling away of the realities which appear. The Buddha said to Aananda that whatever is transitory by nature is the world in the ariyan discipline. The world is everything that arises and falls away. The dhamma that does not arise and fall away is not the world; it is distinct from the world, supramundane, lokuttara. This is nibbaana." **** S: If you're interested, we could go through the whole chapter slowly, looking at any parts which you disagree with. Any disagreements so far? A little later in the same chapter, there is a little more from the Atthasaalini on the meaning of loka (world) and lujjana(dissolving/crumbling) which you might find interesting too: "The “AtthasaalinÀ?(I, Book I, Part II, Ch II, the Couplets, 47, 48) states about lokiya and lokuttara: 150 “In the expression “worldly phenomenaâ€?, the cycle of rebirth is called “the worldâ€? (loka), because of its dissolving and crumbling (lujjana). States which are joined to the world by being included therein are termed “worldlyâ€?. To have passed beyond the worldly is to be supramundane, literally “ulteriorâ€? (uttara dhamma). Dhammas which have passed the worldly, being not included therein, are termed lokuttara dhamma.â€? " .... S: And here's the Pali for this last paragraph for those who like more than a little peppering of Pali: "Lokiyaa dhammaa ti loko vuccati lujjanapalujjana.t.thena va.t.ta.m. Tasmi.m pariyapannabhaavena loke niyuttaa ti lokiyaa. Tato utti.n.naa ti uttaraa. Loke apariyaapannabhaavena lokato uttaraa ti lokuttaraa." **** Metta, Sarah ======= #90558 From: "rinzeee" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:26 am Subject: Re: Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. rinzeee Dear Sukin(and All), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinder" wrote: > Dear Tep (and All), Sukin: I have no plans regarding how this should proceed and am not known to be systematic in thought. So please be patient if you find what I write to be erratic at times. In fact I came up with the first statement below only just now: In our day to day life some experiences come across as being that of "realities" and some of "illusions". Rinze: Carefull Sukin, if you are not systematic, and do not choose the correct terminology appropriate, you are bound to get a barrage of questions thrown at you, that will throw your discussion with Tep off the track! In fact, a Deva, approached Lord Buddha once and asked something similar to the effect that: "Life is tied all over with knots, inside and out. How do we untie ourselves?" (Anto gata bahi gata etc…) (Or something to that effect, Life is problematic in short). And Lord Buddha went something like – "Sila, Samadhi, Panna / Dana, Sila, Bhavana / Sotamayapanna, Cintamayapanna, Bhavanamayapanna" – taking the whole of the Dhamma into perspective. And you will see a particular order in which He taught. Not a sequential order as such, but an order of priority – this is the foundation for this, if not for this, this will not arise – something of that sort. If you will note, All of His Teaching IS Paticca Samuppada, Dependent Arising! Even for the N8FP factors to arise, there are the 37 enlightenment factors, which aught to be developed in harmony, starting with Faith (the foundation), and they all climax in Path Consciousness. Take this idea of "illusion" that you state (for example). Is it the idea of illusion as understood by the Mahayana sect? (that the Tree is NOT THERE, even though we see it in reality?). Metta Rinze #90559 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:07 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? egberdina Hi TG, 2008/9/23 : > Hi Herman > > > Impermanence, of itself, is unproblematical, and not a reason to be > free of attachment. In many respects, impermanence is actually > desirable. Often, we do want things to become different to how they > are. Just imagine if rivers didn't run, if there was no day and > night, if seeds didn't germinate and develop etc. What is a problem > for humans is getting what is not wanted or expected, and not getting > what is wanted or expected. > > ......................................................................... > > > TG: I have not problem on the surface with what you say here. But I think > one of the Buddha's main teachings is that by seeing impermanence DEEPLY, the > mind will not be attached to impermanent phenomena (all conditioned > phenomena) that will ultimately betray them in so many ways...up to and including > death....which is generally NOT considered desirable. > I agree with you generally, but I do not think it is death as such that people fear, just like people don't generally fear going to sleep, or losing consciousness in other ways. > > No offense, but you've put a rather common place everyday attitude toward > impermanence. Of course, with such an attitude, one will not find impermanence > as a deterrent to attachment. THATS WHY we are attached because we see it > as -- oh so nice. ;-) That's why the Buddha stresses impermanence more > deeply and in other ways. I think that here is a good place to differentiate between chaotic and predictable impermanence. Chaotic impermanence is definitely a deterrent to attachment, and that is why most people avoid scenarios in which it can happen at all costs. Serious meditation and mindfulness are such scenarios. I agree with your sentiments about oh so nice and my common place attitude, but I have unapologetically lost all appetite to experience chaotic impermanence. I will leave challenging the boundaries of predictability to those more courageous than myself. > > Also, for millions of atheists and the like around the world, the fact > of impermanence and disintegration is of extreme comfort. There is > enormous peace in knowing that this lifetime is the last one. > > .............................................................. > > > TG: I don't buy this one iota. Sorry. > That's fine. Obviously for you any realisation at this time that birth was finished would be an anguished experience. The great thing about liberating insights of any kind is that they cannot happen against the will. > > .............................................................. > > > > Isn't > that also the holy grail for Buddhism? > > ..................................................................... > > > TG: Only for those who have enlightened the mind to clearly see things as > impermanent, suffering, and no-self. The rest of us generally are attached to > 'continuing on.' > Happily, no-one has nibbana thrust upon them :-) > > Where I see impermance fitting > into Buddhist teachings, is in undermining a view of an eternal, > unchanging soul. I can sympathise with those who believe in > consciousness extending into perpetuity, that no greater terror could > exist. > > > TG: Impermanence and conditionality are related and not only due they > unroot the idea of an eternal soul, they uproot the idea of any kind of self > existing in any way at any time. So they are far more "eventful" than what you > describe. > > > As far as your latter comment, it doesn't jibe with the way the Buddha > apparently saw it...based on Suttas. The quotes above included. > > > Anyway, have a nice impermanent day. ;-) > Thanks, it was eventful in many unpleasant ways, and thank Christ, it's over :-) Cheers Herman #90560 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:21 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See sarahprocter... Hi Herman, --- On Mon, 22/9/08, Herman Hofman wrote: >>S: Let's consider the eye-door. To be precise, it refers to the rupa of eye-sense which is an essential condition for seeing and other cittas in the same process to arise. ... H:> What is there to consider? You are telling me about a theory, something you have read. I put it to you there is nothing knowable in any of what you have said above. ... S: Try covering your eyes or closing them tight and tell me what is seen. Metta, Sarah ======== #90561 From: "Video_586" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:27 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? Video_586 Greetings Sarah, Thank you once more for the excellent response which I feel has indeed answered my question nicely. It leaves me feeling suitably more comfortable about the way the Abhidhamma presents itself than I would have had it indeed been the case that it actually 'reified dhammas'. The quotations provided, the phrasing and such, all conform with my understanding of aniccata, as learned from the Sutta Pitaka. You asked... >I'd also be interested to hear about anything more behind the >question such as whether you're questioning dhammas as having >characteristics or what. That's a tricky question that for me comes down to the old chestnut of 'ultimate realities' versus 'conventional designations'. If something is in flux (to use the term you used earlier and that I often use when trying to express my understanding), the only ultimate reality at work seems to be aniccata. To attribute to, or derive characteristics from a dhamma, seems to me as if such characteristics could only be conventional designations at best. Whilst aniccata is omnipresent, the conventional characteristics of a dhamma would be transient, continuously subject to change. Are you able to tell me then whether the Abhidhamma treats the characteristics of dhammas as "paramattha dhamma" (ultimate characteristics) or simply as conventional designations to assist with recognition of particular classifications of dhammas? As you can see, I do have certain reservations about claiming that characterists, let alone dhammas, truly 'exist'. In this respect, I'm very much influenced by SN 12.15: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html --------------------- "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view. "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.... (and so on, through the D.O. sequence). ------------------ ... as well as this extract from MN 121: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.121.than.html ------------------ "He discerns that 'Whatever disturbances that would exist based on the effluent of sensuality... the effluent of becoming... the effluent of ignorance, are not present. And there is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' He discerns that 'This mode of perception is empty of the effluent of sensuality... becoming... ignorance. And there is just this non-emptiness: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Thus he regards it as empty of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present: 'There is this.' And so this, his entry into emptiness, accords with actuality, is undistorted in meaning, pure — superior & unsurpassed. "Ananda, whatever contemplatives and priests who in the past entered & remained in an emptiness that was pure, superior, & unsurpassed, they all entered & remained in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed. Whatever contemplatives and priests who in the future will enter & remain in an emptiness that will be pure, superior, & unsurpassed, they all will enter & remain in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed. Whatever contemplatives and priests who at present enter & remain in an emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed, they all enter & remain in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed. "Therefore, Ananda, you should train yourselves: 'We will enter & remain in the emptiness that is pure, superior, & unsurpassed.'" ------------------ Metta, Paul. :o) #90562 From: sarah abbott Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:31 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: More Tales from Big Wave Bay, Hong Kong sarahprocter... Hi Ken H (& 'willing students'), --- On Mon, 22/9/08, kenhowardau wrote: K:> One beautiful aspect of this understanding is that it doesn't stop anyone from functioning in the conventional sense. We can have right understanding and still be interested in our work, friends and family etc. We will actually be a better workers, friends and spouses than we were before! It's a 'win win' situation. :-) ... S: Yes, and I don't think this is a point to take lightly either. If one has the idea that, for example, walking should be done in slow motion or that the only real practice is on the cushion, it can be a real impediment to 'normal' functioning as you describe. Even crashing into trees (or other surf-boards - another typhoon here btw) can be a 'win win' if there's right understanding. ... K:> Oh yes, thanks, I forgot about the rupas! I'll have to change that epitaph. Here's a good one from Nina's Sri Lanka Revisited: "The realities of our life are only citta, cetasika and rúpa, elements that are impermanent and devoid of self." .... S: :-). You just wrote to Ven Y and Paul: "My knowledge of the Abhidhamma is very basic. What I know could be taught to a willing student in just a few minutes. However, with this knowledge, and some help from my friends, I can understand any sutta you might like to mention. It really is a very potent little knowledge." S: I'd like to read this 'few minutes' worth'. Maybe a mini-series? Assume there are some willing students amongst us:-). Metta, Sarah ========= #90563 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:35 am Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? scottduncan2 Dear Paul (and Sarah), P: "...That's a tricky question that for me comes down to the old chestnut of 'ultimate realities' versus 'conventional designations' ...Are you able to tell me then whether the Abhidhamma treats the characteristics of dhammas as 'paramattha dhamma' (ultimate characteristics) or simply as conventional designations to assist with recognition of particular classifications of dhammas?..." Scott: If, for example, cognizing visible object is the characteristic of eye-consciousness, and eye-conciousness is empty of seeing, how can there be seeing? Sincerely, Scott. #90564 From: "colette" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] EMPTINESS ksheri3 Good Morning Ajahn Jose, Hollywood does it all the time: they, the writers, intermix actual doctrines into their scripts. A person with a knowledge of the Yagkusa in Japan would be shocked to see the Kill Bill movies or the movie BLACK RAIN starring Micheal Douglas. Also, the axioms that Buddhism puts forward are highly useful and universal therefore they remain TIMELESS. Since this is huge amounts of money they're dealing with then they've got a lot of work to do so that they can cover up the charades that are needed to be played in working with those amounts of cash. In another thread you speak of the Abhidahamma as being a specialized treatise. I agree completely that IF the individual does not have a certain level of sophistication in the aspect of psychology and psychiatry then the Abhidhamma is not the "bag of worms" to be playing around with. IN FACT, I am, at this very moment, dealing with a neophyte in another forum who thinks that he can use the terminology of "Mind Games" to mock me and the Mind-Only Schools of Buddhist psychology and practice; last night I warned him about mocking me and my friends that way. <...> toodles, colette --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Ajahn Jose wrote: > > Dear Colette, BTW The Matrix is my favour movie. I found it very much related to Budhism. Metta <...> #90565 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/9/23 sarah abbott : > Hi Herman, > > --- On Mon, 22/9/08, Herman Hofman wrote: >>>S: Let's consider the eye-door. To be precise, it refers to the rupa of eye-sense which is an essential condition for seeing and other cittas in the same process to arise. > ... > H:> What is there to consider? You are telling me about a theory, > something you have read. I put it to you there is nothing knowable in > any of what you have said above. > ... > S: Try covering your eyes or closing them tight and tell me what is seen. > I was pleased to read this. But then I remembered. starship dsg : cadet's log : april 4, 2002 : msg 12436 Captain Sarah: Personally, when I consider cakkhu pasada (eye-sense/base) or any of the bases, I don't find it very helpful to think about the organs, circles, locations at all. What we're attempting to understand (even intellectually) in the case of cakkhu pasada, is the rupa which arises and falls away momentarily-- when the eyes are open--and if this occurrence is 'impacted' by visible object (another momentarily arising rupa) and they condition seeing (momentarily arising nama) to arise, then there is the experiencing of visible object through the eye sense. I don't think it's necessary to think about or try to locate just where eye sense or other senses are, because it is bound to be a long conceptual story as you say. Perhaps it just depends on whether it helps to break down the idea of organs and other concepts or builds them up further, as perhaps it does for us. I found the discussions on ayatanas and the 'meeting place' on the needle point very helpful for considering the precise conditions required for a moment of seeing now. ==== That was six and a half years ago. Have you genuinely changed your position and eyes (as organs) are now identical with eye-sense, or if I continue with the thread, will I end up being told that eyes are actually only concepts ? If so, my reply will be the same. starship dsg : cadet's log : april 6, 2002 : msg 12483 cadet Herman: Dear Sarah, I have been finding it a little difficult to take you seriously lately. What about this to renew my confidence? Take a conceptually sharp pencil (both the sharpness and the pencil), stab it repeatedly into both your conceptual eyes for about 5 minutes (it doesn't matter whether you take a wet or dry approach at this time), and then share with us the precise conditions required for seeing now. For the less advanced, don't try this unless you have survived on air sandwiches for more than two months. Herman Cheers #90566 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:58 am Subject: Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, Ch 302 and Tiika. nilovg Visuddhimagga Ch XVII, Ch 302 Intro: The Visuddhimagga texts on the Dependent Origination repeat all the time the causes of the past that give fruits at the present, and the causes at the present that will give fruits in the future. From the first link which is ignorance conditioning kamma- formations, up to the last link which is old age and death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair, it is shown that it all occurs because of conditions. Each of the links in the Dependent Origination conditions the following link and there is no self to be found. As we have read in the verse given by the Tiika (after Vis. 298): < States [dhammas] originate from [other] states as causes...> This is emphasized in the following section, with the purpose of preventing wrong view of self. ----------- Text Vis. 302: [As to prevention:] the clause 'With ignorance as condition there are formations' prevents seeing a maker; -------- N: The Tiika states that in showing that formations are conditioned by ignorance, it prevents seeing a maker or doer, and the question ‘who is accumulating kamma (abhisa”nkharoti)’ is not a clever one. -------- Text Vis. : the clause 'With formations as condition, consciousness' prevents seeing the transmigration of a self; -------- N: As the Tiika states, it prevents seeing a self who transmigrates from one becoming to the next becoming. ---------- Text Vis. : the clause 'With consciousness as condition, mentality- materiality' prevents perception of compactness because it shows the analysis of the basis conjectured to be 'self'; -------- N: The Tiika explains that when the five khandhas are not analysed (and taken separately), there is remembrance of a group (ghanasa~n~naa) one takes for self. In showing consciousness as condition for mentality-materiality, this prevents perception of compactness just as splitting a pair of twin plants. When naama and ruupa are taken as a whole, one does not see their different characteristics and takes them for self. --------- Text Vis.: and the clauses beginning 'With mentality-materiality as condition, the sixfold base' prevent seeing any self that sees, etc., cognizes, touches, feels, craves, clings, becomes, is born, ages and dies. ------- N: The sixfold base refers here to the six aayatanas that are internal: the aayatana of the eyesense, and the other senses, and the sixth which is manaayatana, mind-base, including all cittas. When objects impinge on the senses, there are conditions for the arising of cittas that experience these objects. Citta, arising because of its appropriate conditions experiences objects just for a moment and then falls away. The Tiika adds : (prevent seeing any self ) that is sad, laments, is afflicted. The Tiika refers to the words: conditioned by birth, ageing, dying, sadness etc. come into being, and explains that the fact that sadness, etc. are conditioned, shows that they are beyond control (avasa vatti), not in anyone’s power. -------- Text Vis.: So this Wheel of Becoming should be known 'as to prevention' of wrong seeing appropriately in each instance. -------- N: The Tiika states that wrong understanding is prevented by counteracting it in many different ways. --------- Conclusion: There is no self who chose to be in the cycle of birth and death, and no self who can eliminate the cause of rebirth. As we have read in Vis. 162: When there is birth there have to be ageing, dying, sorrow, lamentation and affliction, and these are beyond control, as the Tiika states. It all occurs because of conditions. So long as ignorance and clinging have not been eradicated, there is a cause for rebirth. But when we listen to the Dhamma, carefully consider it and are mindful of naama and ruupa, the conditions are being developed leading to the end of dukkha. -------- Nina. #90567 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:10 am Subject: Quote Survey. nilovg Dear friends: here is a quote about the world which disintegrates each moment of citta: Nina. #90568 From: Nina van Gorkom Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:25 am Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 1, no 1. nilovg Hi Herman, Op 22-sep-2008, om 13:54 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > How can a country where the dominant > social group is the Buddhist sangha be engaged in civil war, Nina? How > is that Buddhist? How is a policy of "Sri Lanka for the Sinhalese > only" dana? > > Again, I do not dispute the qualities of the wonderful individual > people you have met. But one day, rather than telling your husband > over breakfast that he doesn't exist, ask him about the reality of > politics, what it takes to have an organisation like the United > Nations, or a sangha, and how groups subsume the kamma of the > individual. -------- N: In this list we do not discuss politics, but we can speak about the deeper causes that makes life in this world takes its course. I quote from Kh Sujin's Survey: This is really worth considering. And see also this: You may remember that the theme of this seminar was world peace. Ven. Dhammadhara had a very good remark about the real cause of war and peace: < The theme of the seminar was: “World Peace through the Dhamma”, but actually, each day during the seminar the topic was the development of right understanding in daily life. Bhante Dhammadhara remarked that the cause of the problems in Sri Lanka and in the world are in reality the defilements which arise on account of what is experienced through the five senses and through the mind. Being freed from defilements means real peace. The arahat who has eradicated all defilements is truly at peace.> What is our world now, the citta now while we read posts? Suppose you read a post of mine and you have aversion, can you prevent aversion from arising? Can you control it? If we cannot control our own cittas how can we control others? We cannot manage the world, we cannot prevent wars, but we can do the best we can and help others. Lodewijk said that certainly we can contribute to the harmony in society, in politics. But when things do not work out the way we want, we know that whatever arises does so dependent on conditions. This saves us from despair. You wrote: I told him about your post and also that you do not believe in rebirth (Sorry if I misunderstood) and he said: tell him my husband knows bloody well that he does not exist, that he is just a composition of conditioned namas and rupas. He does know that there will be rebirth. ****** Nina. #90569 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:01 am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the insanity of classifying voidnesses upasaka_howard Hi, TG (and Herman) - In a message dated 9/22/2008 10:15:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, TGrand458@... writes: Hi Herman Void-ness, emptiness, hollowness, coreless-ness, etc., does not mean or imply "non-being" IMO. It means; rather, that due to utter dependence, due to conditioned nature, phenomena/features/whatever arises, has "nothing of its own." Therefore..."IT" (phenomena/features/whatever arises) is void. It is void of "own essence." It is void of self. But I may be insane!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah :-)))))) ----------------------------------------- Howard: Well, of course you are! We ALL are! But you are also, IMO, quite correct. :-) ---------------------------------------- TG ===================== With metta, Howard #90570 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:06 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? upasaka_howard Hi, Scott - In a message dated 9/22/2008 10:30:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, scduncan@... writes: Dear Howard, Regarding: H: "Scott, I think your understanding of this matter is correct. The sabhava discussed (and denied) in the PTSM is exactly that of own being and own nature, and it is the "own" that is the reason for the denial. This ontological emptiness is no different, IMO, from the emptiness so emphasized in Mahayana (the origination of which was not far removed in time, I believe, from the origination of the PTSM, or at least the recording of the PTSM) and also perfectly consonant with the early voidness teachings..." Scott: Perhaps, then, I have been misunderstanding the assertions directed at 'characteristic' (lakkha.na) in the name of su~n~atta. I've never read anyone who espouses the 'emptiness' view to have ever accepted that lakkha.na is acceptable. Would you concur that, while not 'arising of itself', a conditioned (sankhata) dhamma does indeed have its 'characteristic' (lakkha.na)? For example, take materiality (ruupakkhandha)? ------------------------------------------ Howard: I would go further than that. I would say not only that "a conditioned (sankhata) dhamma does indeed have its 'characteristic' (lakkha.na)" but that it IS a quality (lakkha.na), and there is no question that qualities are distinguishable - hardnesses, for example, are not warmths. ------------------------------------------- Sincerely, Scott. =========================== With metta, Howard #90571 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:39 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Paul) - In a message dated 9/23/2008 5:29:53 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Paul, --- On Tue, 23/9/08, Video_586 wrote: >The quotation you referred to expressed the "arising" of a dhamma and presumably elsewhere there is corresponding mention of a "passing away" too. From the Abhidhammic perspective, is there any period in which a particular dhamma can be understood to be existent and/or static inbetween the period of its arising and passing away... or is there no period in which the dhamma is deemed to be static with definable and stable characteristics? .... S: That's a good question. Whilst dhammas can be understood to be existent and with definable characteristics, like a wave, there is no time at which they are 'static' or 'stable' in the sense of being unchanging. Let's take cittas (moments of consciousness and accompanying mental factors), though they are said to have an arising, presence and dissolution, there is a continual change occurring. The impermanence is of course a characteristic of all conditioned dhammas. =============================== As may not surprise you, Sarah, I like the foregoing very much. With metta, Howard #90572 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:43 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Only for the Wise to See upasaka_howard Hi, Sarah (and Herman) - In a message dated 9/23/2008 7:22:23 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: Hi Herman, --- On Mon, 22/9/08, Herman Hofman wrote: >>S: Let's consider the eye-door. To be precise, it refers to the rupa of eye-sense which is an essential condition for seeing and other cittas in the same process to arise. ... H:> What is there to consider? You are telling me about a theory, something you have read. I put it to you there is nothing knowable in any of what you have said above. ... S: Try covering your eyes or closing them tight and tell me what is seen. ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Answer: Visible object/sight. The content has changed, but there is still seeing and seen. ----------------------------------------------- Metta, Sarah ======================= With metta, Howard #90573 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 9:17 am Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... truth_aerator Dear Connie and all, >---"connie" wrote: > > Dear Alex, > > A: People repeatedly keep telling us about lack of >wisdom/accumulations in us today, yet consider "Arahant-while- cooking->or-reciting" stories relevant. > > c: Not saying there aren't any, but I can't recall any examples of >anyone in the texts attaining sitting under trees. Tell that to Buddha! Tell that to Ven. MahaMoggallana or many other Arahats who went to secluded places, developed Jhana and became Arhats. "Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples, out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, Ananda. Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message to you all." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.152.than.html ""And what more is to be done? There is the case where a monk seeks out a secluded dwelling: a forest, the shade of a tree, a mountain, a glen, a hillside cave, a charnel ground, a jungle grove, the open air, a heap of straw. After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore... [he then abandons hindrances, develops jhanas and realizes triple knowledge (Arhatship)]. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.039.than.html "For seven days I sat in one spot, absorbed in rapture & bliss. On the eighth, I stretched out my legs, having burst the mass of darkness [reached Arhatship]." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.03.02.than.html Best wishes, Alex #90574 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:22 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Concept Permanent and unconditioned? TGrand458@... Hi Sarah In a message dated 9/23/2008 4:13:42 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, sarahprocterabbott@... writes: “Then the venerable Aananda came to see the Exalted One... Seated at one side the venerable Aananda said to the Exalted One: “ ‘The world! The world!’ is the saying, lord. Pray, how far, lord, does this saying go?â€? “What is transitory by nature, Aananda, is called ‘the world’ in the ariyan discipline. And what, Aananda, is transitory by nature? The eye, Ã…nanda, is transitory by nature, visible object is transitory by nature, seeing-consciousnes“Then the venerable Aananda came to see the Exalted One... Seated at one side the venerable Aananda said to the Exalted One: “ ‘The world! The world!’ is the saying, lord. Pray, how far, lord, does this saying go?â€? “What is transitory by nature, Aananda, is called ‘the world’ in the ariyan discipline. And what, Aanan "For the ariyan, the person who has attained enlightenment, the transitoriness of realities is natural, but this is not so for the person who does not realize yet the arising and falling away of realities. Someone cannot become an ariyan if he does not see the arising and falling away of the realities which appear. The Buddha said to Aananda that whatever is transitory by nature is the world in the ariyan discipline. The world is everything that arises and falls away. The dhamma that does not arise and fall away is not the world; it is distinct from the world, supramundane, lokuttara. This is nibbaana." **** S: If you're interested, we could go through the whole chapter slowly, looking at any parts which you disagree with. Any disagreements so far? .............................................................. TG: Huge disagreements. Of course the commentary is taking a predisposed biased view by interjecting that the conversation is about "realities." "Realities" in your book translates to "Dhammas." Then we're dealing with t theory about "Dhammas." That theory has the view that "Dhammas" are "Ultimate Realities with their own characteristics." In addition, Dhammas arise and "their own thing" and immediately fall away....not in accordance with Dependent Origination principles IMO. Again, these "realities" are vire as having "their own essence." All of this BAGGAGE is attached to this commentary by the interjection of the term "realities" and all its come to mean. Now, the first line of the above commentary is unintelligible. Its just bad and incomplete English...as "transitoriness is NATURAL period. I think what they meant to say was that it was "understood" by the ariyan. The second sentence is a proposition not in line with any teaching in the Suttas I am aware of. In essence, and as propoganda, the seccond line is saying -- unless you follow "our Dhammas theory" you can not be enlightened. LOL This is so typical of virtually every religious sect of virtually any religion. I.E., you must see it "our way" or you are doomed..... So, instead of letting the Sutta speak for itself, we are infusing new concepts within that Sutta and BASING practice on those new concepts. Well, as you can see, I won't be your easiest student. ;-) Perhaps I can dissuade you of these pernicious cankerous intrusions into the Dhamma. (Yes, Dhamma can be spelled without an "s". LOL) TG #90575 From: "connie" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 11:34 am Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... nichiconn Dear Alex, > A: People repeatedly keep telling us about lack of wisdom/accumulations in us today, yet consider "Arahant-while-cooking-or-reciting" stories relevant. > > c: Not saying there aren't any, but I can't recall any examples of anyone in the texts attaining sitting under trees. A: Tell that to Buddha! Tell that to Ven. MahaMoggallana or many other Arahats who went to secluded places, developed Jhana and became Arhats. c: I knew that was a stupid (poorly phrased) thing for me to say (even though none of the quotes you've answered with give me an example & I still don't recall one on my own), but please do let me know where to find Buddha or those arahats (outside of the texts & people talking about them) and I'll drop everything else & do anything in my power to even see them, let alone hear them speak. Assuming I don't run into any trees on the way, of course. Come to think of it, while I used to like hopping trains, I don't think my knee's up to it any more, so I'd better not be throwing myself into any of those, either. A: "Practice jhana, Ananda." - mn.152 c: Untranslated, that sentence reads "jhaayathaananda". I'll agree with "Meditate, Aananda" but not "Practice jhana" as the translation. Nor will I deny that jhaana is included in 'meditation'. Either way, whatever Aananda did under trees, he's still not an example of "Arahant-while-sitting-practicing-jhaana-under-trees". Likewise, your A: "After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to the fore... [he then abandons hindrances, develops jhanas and realizes triple knowledge (Arhatship)]." - mn.039 c: Even the first jhaana is not attained as long as one isn't "secluded from unwholesome states", which I, as a rule, am not. But not to despair - even for one such as I there can be moments of mindfulness & if I understand it right, these are likely to lead to a foundation for jhaana. That is, at any moment of right mindfulness, there is also calm. Accumulations again. Do we even know what that mindfulness is, though? A: "For seven days I sat in one spot, absorbed in rapture & bliss. On the eighth, I stretched out my legs, having burst the mass of darkness [reached Arhatship]." - thig.03.02 c: Again, "in one spot" doesn't mean "under a tree", but no matter. If you care to read a fuller version of the seven year old Uttamaa's story, see the Sisters corner #68640, 68641. I think from her story one can argue that jhaana can be an added boost 'to reach the summit', evenso, mindfulness & a proper grasp of the doctrine must be established first. peace, connie #90576 From: "Tep" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:39 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... dhammanusarin Dear Connie (Alex), - Let's discuss what recitation actually means in ordinary non- religious setting versus reciting the Dhammas as part of pariyatti or patipatti by a good Buddhist. >T: Reciting the definitions does not lead to namarupa- pariccheda~nana and yathabuta~nana dassana thus `This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self'. c: I don't think we should be quick to dismiss recitation or think it's meant to be just a matter of repeating without any consideration (although even that simple first step is an important part of tying the animal to the stake). Just to use the foulness of the body example again, the instructions for this meditation include memorization & reciting forwards and backwards. T: Reciting or reviewing the Buddha's Dhammas with inspired confidence is helpful in developing saddha. Ptsm IV, 3 : When he avoids faithless persons, and reveiws Suttas that inspire confidence, the faith faculty is purified in him in these three aspects. ... And that is in good agreement with your interesting quote : connie: << Book with Verses, ch.9 #10: Reciting ... 785 "Bhikkhu, why don't you recite Dhamma-stanzas, Living in communion with other bhikkhus? Hearing the Dhamma, one gains confidence; In this very life [the reciter] gains praise." [The bhikkhu:] 786 "In the past I was fond of Dhamma-stanzas So long as I had not achieved dispassion. But from the time I achieved dispassion [I dwell in what] the good men call 'The laying down by final knowledge Of whatever is seen, heard, or sensed.'" >> Tep === #90577 From: "Tep" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 1:05 pm Subject: Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' dhammanusarin Dear Sukin, - You might have missed some little things. >Suk: I hope that you do not mind that I drop this particular discussion. I would like to avoid any talk related to one another's character, especially in the new thread which I am about to initiate. T: The questions I asked you below have nothing to do with personality issues. I think they are useful for you to consider. ............. >Suk: Satipatthana is *the* practice, and its importance has always been stressed. T: What do you exactly mean by saying that? ............. >Suk: That I don't `practice' Anapanasati the way you and others understand it, is because I have my own understanding about it and which does not agree with yours. T: How does it agree with the Buddha's words? ............ But if you don't really want to repond to the above questions, I will certainly accept your decision. :-) Tep === #90578 From: "connie" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:59 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... nichiconn T: Let's discuss what recitation actually means in ordinary non-religious setting versus reciting the Dhammas as part of pariyatti or patipatti by a good Buddhist. c: I don't know that I've any more to say on the matter right now, but lead on if you do, Tep. peace, connie #90579 From: "Video_586" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:48 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? Video_586 Greetings Scott, > Scott: If, for example, cognizing visible object is the > characteristic of eye-consciousness, and eye-conciousness is empty > of seeing, how can there be seeing? Thank you for the challenging question. "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness." SN 12:44 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.044.than.html This may simply be reflective of my ineptitude regarding Abhidhamma terminology, but to me "eye-consciousness" and "seeing" are synonymous and both point to the same transient event, so the question (as I understand it) is circular. Metta, Paul. :o) #90580 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:13 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On the insanity of classifying voidnesses egberdina Hi TG and Howard, 2008/9/23 : > > In a message dated 9/22/2008 7:16:25 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, > hhofmeister@... writes: > > Voidness is non-being. The notion of being void [of something] implies > being non-being. That is insanity. > > > > Void-ness, emptiness, hollowness, coreless-ness, etc., does not mean or > imply "non-being" IMO. It means; rather, that due to utter dependence, due to > conditioned nature, phenomena/features/whatever arises, has "nothing of its > own." Let's compare/contrast your version of voidness versus MN121's version. You refer to phenomena and say they have nothing of their own. But still, in order to deny the own-being of the phenomena you have to know the phenomena, right? You are knowing a something, right? But somehow you say this something is not itself, it is utterly dependent. But that is not apparent from the phenomena, surely. So apart from the phenomena, which you need to know in order to deny, you posit something on which it is utterly dependent? And would could that be? Something else that is not itself, but utterly dependent on something else that isn't itself either? So, in short, your version of emptiness is infinite regress, aka absurdity or my translation, insanity :-) The Buddha's version is "This is empty of what is not there". "There IS this" How utterly simple, unconvoluted and profoundly logical. There is no denial of what there is, there is denial of what there isn't. And rather than going into and enumerating the infinite list of possibilities of what there isn't, which would be insanity, no, there is just this, and it is is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Therefore..."IT" (phenomena/features/whatever arises) is void. It is > void of "own essence." It is void of self. > Certainly, whatever arises is void of A self, an abiding soul, just as the Buddha's instruction to Bahiya make plain: there is no "I" in seeing etc. But that in no way means that a phenomena wasn't what it was, or that it arose without knowable conditions, which each in turn were what they were. And those conditions are always a being. Phenomena come into the world through beings. Dhammas are specific to beings. > > But I may be insane!!!! hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah :-)))))) > I agree with Howard, you are insane, but so is he and so am I. And we are a little less insane if we do not deny being a being. After all, in the same way that the Buddha was having his chat with Ananda, so are we, right? Cheers Herman #90582 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:25 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... truth_aerator Dear Connie and all interested, >---"connie" wrote: > A: Tell that to Buddha! Tell that to Ven. MahaMoggallana or many >other Arahats who went to secluded places, developed Jhana and >became Arhats. > > c: I knew that was a stupid (poorly phrased) thing for me to say >(even though none of the quotes you've answered with give me an There is even less evidence that merely reading the Books will allow most people (if not all living today) to achieve paths and fruits. If one is Ugghatitannu, then sure. Mere hearing of a line may make you a stream enterer, if not higher. But unless we have became stream enterers from hearing one or few discources, we can forget about being top 2 classes (Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu). >example & I still don't recall one on my own), but please do let me >know where to find Buddha or those arahats (outside of the texts & Tell me about any Arahats from KS teaching. Any anagamis? Is she more knowledgeble than her students? Is she an Arahant? An Anagamin? > A: "Practice jhana, Ananda." - mn.152 > > c: Untranslated, that sentence reads "jhaayathaananda". I'll agree Notice jhaayatha. Please don't play this semantics game. Jhana IS the path to awakening MN36 and in MN109 it was Ven. Ananda who has said that the Buddha has praised 4 Jhanas. >with "Meditate, Aananda" but not "Practice jhana" And what did "Meditate" mean in Pali Canon? Almost always if not always it is equalled with 4 Jhanas. Even sattipatthana implies Jhana in the begining as a way to remove the hindrances. >as the translation. Nor will I deny that jhaana is included >in 'meditation'. Either way, whatever Aananda did under trees, he's >still not an example of "Arahant-while-sitting-practicing-jhaana- >under-trees". Likewise, your Thank you for giving me another opportunity to practice compassion. Ananda couldn't achieve anything higher than Stream Entry (despite all the good 'perfections' he had) while all the less burdened (with duties) friends were already Arahats. Only when the Buddha passed away + MahaKassapa's exhortion did the Ananda achieved Arhatship. I am sorry for those who don't understand these things. I guess this is what happens to Kali Yuga (or whatever it is called). > > A: "After his meal, returning from his alms round, he sits down, >crosses his legs, holds his body erect, and brings mindfulness to >the fore... [he then abandons hindrances, develops jhanas and >realizes triple knowledge (Arhatship)]." - mn.039 > > c: Even the first jhaana is not attained as long as one >isn't "secluded from unwholesome states", correct. And it IS crucially helpful for insight to happen to remove hindrances that obstruct vision and insight. The less hindrances you naturally have, the less meditative (jhanic) development you need. Heck, a path moment may be enough... For Ugghatitannu and such caliber of induvidials. >Do we even know what that mindfulness is, though? After Jhana, especially 4th, there is superpower mindfulness. The only way to be able to talk about it is to experience it. > A: "For seven days I sat in one spot, absorbed in rapture & bliss. On the eighth, I stretched out my legs, having burst the mass of darkness [reached Arhatship]." - thig.03.02 > > c: Again, "in one spot" doesn't mean "under a tree", but no But this is a plain example of "not moving" (legs were used again only on the 8th day) and being in Jhana (rapture & bliss may refer to 1st or 2nd Jhana). >matter. If you care to read a fuller version of the seven year old >Uttamaa's story, see the Sisters corner #68640, 68641. I think from The sutta is clear. It wasn't arhatship while cooking, and something tells me that she wasn't reading any dhamma books as dhamma books weren't generally published at that time. Best wishes, Alex #90583 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:34 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? truth_aerator >--- Ajahn Jose wrote: > > My Dear Sarah and Paul, The Abhidhamma is NOT for the general or >everyday Buddhist. It is most sophisticated and you need a certain >level of inteligence and undertanding, mostly phychology. The majority >of Monks, including me dont have that superior knowledge and we just >trott alone with the suttas and the ceremonials to make people happy >with Buddhism and everyday life made simple, with a very SIMPLE >DHAMMA. Metta > > signature > Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose > > Dear Bhante, "Simplicity is ultimate complication." - Leonardo DaVinci (I think). Sometimes what may appear to be a "simple and conventional sutta" is not really simple, nor conventional. Best wishes, Alex #90584 From: Ajahn Jose Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:23 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? ajahnjose My Dear Nina, Khun Sujin has a very charismatic and extremelly understanding of the abhiddhama, she may happy some people with simple explanations, but if She gets into the really greety and deepennes of he Abhiddhama, that people will not have a clue what She is talking about. Metta signature Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose --- On Tue, 9/23/08, Nina van Gorkom wrote: <...> N: I quite understand your point of view. But what about this: Abhidhamma is not in the book, as Khun Sujin always says. We can make people happy when we very gently explain about their different cittas, so that they can learn more about these cittas. When they present dana, they can come to see that there are not only wholesome moments but also moments of attachment or even aversion. Without having to use the word Abhidhamma we can let them see that it is so beneficial to know their cittas. This can be a very simple dhamma. With respect and best wishes, Nina. #90585 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:44 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? truth_aerator Dear Bhante and all, >---Ajahn Jose wrote: > > My Dear Nina, Khun Sujin has a very charismatic and extremelly >understanding of the abhiddhama, she may happy some people with >simple explanations, but if She gets into the really greety and >deepennes of he Abhiddhama, that people will not have a clue what >She is talking about. Metta > > signature > Venerable Yanatharo, Ajahn Jose It is interesting that Buddha could suit his teachings to the audience for maximum effects. A number of suttas say that many people not only understood but became awakened after the sermon. What about KS? We all should take notes if she is an Arahant, especially with 4 discriminative knowledges. If something sounds too verbose, too complex, too pompous, it flashes red flags to me. Best wishes, Alex #90586 From: "Tep" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:50 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... dhammanusarin Dear Connie, - --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > > > T: Let's discuss what recitation actually means in ordinary non- religious setting versus reciting the Dhammas as part of pariyatti or patipatti by a good Buddhist. > > c: I don't know that I've any more to say on the matter right now, but lead on if you do, Tep. > > peace, > connie > I am sorry for the misleading introductory remark for the discussion pertaining to that particular message. What I wrote earlier is about the recitation that is useful for Buddhists. The ordinary non-religious recitation is well understood by anyone (including children), so there is nothing to say. Tep === #90587 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:56 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... truth_aerator Hello Connie & Tep, >"connie" wrote: > > > T: Let's discuss what recitation actually means in ordinary non- >religious setting versus reciting the Dhammas as part of pariyatti >or patipatti by a good Buddhist. > > c: I don't know that I've any more to say on the matter right now, >but lead on if you do, Tep. > > peace, > connie Reciting the texts can lead to maggaphala, especially for Ugghatitannu type induvidials. Are we Ugghatitannu? Thus is this applicable to us? Best wishes, Alex #90588 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 5:57 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. egberdina Hi Sukin, 2008/9/23 Sukinder : > Dear Tep (and All), > > > I have no plans regarding how this should proceed and am not known to > be systematic in thought. So please be patient if you find what I > write to be erratic at times. In fact I came up with the first > statement below only just now: > Thank you for starting this thread. > =========== > In our day to day life some experiences come across as being that of > "realities" and some of "illusions". Yes. > > The one can be said to distinguish from the other in that these > exhibits characteristics while the other does not. > No, an absence of characteristics is unknowable. Because it is characteristics that are what is known. Illusions are different to realities in that they turn out not to be what was expected. > Of the former, there are two kinds: `Mental' reality, that which > experiences / knows and `material' reality, that which does not > experience / know. I think you have dived straight into your pet theory here, without so much as looking out the window to see what is really happening. :-) You stipulate a fundamental dualism here between knowing and not knowing , without saying why that is your basis. Why not start with what is obvious, and add or delete as is needed by the reality that we are trying to understand. What would be wrong with starting instead in the following way, which seems to me far more intuitive? There is the reality of experiences. Cheers Herman #90589 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:16 pm Subject: Re: Q. [dsg] Sri Lanka Revisited, Ch 1, no 1. egberdina Hi Nina and Lodewijk, 2008/9/24 Nina van Gorkom : > Hi Herman, > Op 22-sep-2008, om 13:54 heeft Herman Hofman het volgende geschreven: > You wrote: doesn't exist, ask him about the reality of politics..> > I told him about your post and also that you do not believe in > rebirth (Sorry if I misunderstood) and he said: tell him my husband > knows bloody well that he does not exist, that he is just a > composition of conditioned namas and rupas. He does know that there > will be rebirth. > I would truly like to wish Lodewijk well, but it would be quite insane to wish well-being to a non-being, wouldn't you say? I'm left speechless. There's a first time for everything :-) Cheers Herman #90590 From: "Tep" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:30 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... Stay Away from People Who Lack the Faculties dhammanusarin Hi Alex (& Connie), - Sometimes, a person's self confidence can obstruct his/her development of the Faculties(Indriyas). > Alex: > > Reciting the texts can lead to maggaphala, especially for > Ugghatitannu type induvidials. > > Are we Ugghatitannu? Thus is this applicable to us? > > > Best wishes, > .............. T: The great Arahant Sariputaa said : "When he avoids faithless persons, cultivates, frequents and honours faithful persons, and reviews Suttas that inspire confidence, the faith faculty is purified in him in these three aspects." "Assaddhe puggale parivajjayato, saddhe puggale sevato bhajato payiruupaasato, pasaadaniiye suttante paccavekkhato, imehi tiihaakaarehi saddhindriyam visujjhati.' ... ... 'When he avoids persons with no understanding, cultivates, frequents and honours persons possessed of understanding, and reviews the behaviour of profound knowledge, the understanding faculty is purified in him in these three aspects.' 'Duppa~n~ne puggale parivajjayato, pa~n~navante puggale sevato bhajato payirupaasato, gambhira~naa.nacariyam paccavekkhato, imehi tiihaakaarehi pa~n~nindriyam visujjhati.' [Ptsm IV, 3] ------------------------------ T: Yes, his teaching applies to us. In order for it to work we have to avoid 'some people' who lack faith or energy or mindfulness or concentration or understanding, or all of the five Indriyas. ;-) Tep === #90591 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 2:38 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On the insanity of classifying voidnesses TGrand458@... Hi Herman In a message dated 9/23/2008 6:14:26 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: You refer to phenomena and say they have nothing of their own. But still, in order to deny the own-being of the phenomena you have to know the phenomena, right? You are knowing a something, right? But somehow you say this something is not itself, it is utterly dependent. But that is not apparent from the phenomena, surely. So apart from the phenomena, which you need to know in order to deny, you posit something on which it is utterly dependent? And would could that be? .................................................... TG: I am not denying the phenomena. I am denying the deluded view of the phenomena. As to WHAT the phenomena are utterly dependent on...the answer is conditions. Conditions that are also empty, etc. ............................................................... Something else that is not itself, but utterly dependent on something else that isn't itself either? .................................................................. TG: There you go! That's the ticket! .............................................................. So, in short, your version of emptiness is infinite regress, aka absurdity or my translation, insanity :-) ...................................................................... TG: LOL I can see you're not going to make this easy. ;-) "Conditionality" is the key. Infinite regress is not necessary. When the principles and mechanics of conditionality are understood, the mind understands that phenomena of the present, past, and future are all coreless, empty, void, etc., due to Dependent Arising. The principles of the past are no different than what is happening now. .......................................................................... The Buddha's version is "This is empty of what is not there". "There IS this" How utterly simple, unconvoluted and profoundly logical. ............................................................................ TG: There are one or two Suttas where the Buddha does speak about "being empty of something" as merely its absence. However, generally, the term is dealing with the issue of nonself and applying it to such things as the Five aggregates...such as the quotes below... “…whatever kind of form...whatever kind of feeling…whatever kind of perception…whatever kind of volitional formations…whatever kind of consciousness there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: a bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) inspects it, ponders it, and carefully investigates it, and it would appear to him to be void, hollow, insubstantial. For what substance could there be in form… feeling…perception…volitional formations…consciousness?â€? (The Buddha . . . CDB, vol. 1, pg. 952 -- 953) “Friend Sariputta, what are the things that a virtuous bhikkhu (Buddhist monk) should attend to?â€? “Friend Kotthita, a virtuous bhikkhu should carefully attend to the five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself. What five? The form aggregate subject to clinging, the feeling aggregate subject to clinging, the perception aggregate subject to clinging, the volitional formations aggregate subject to clinging, the consciousness aggregate subject to clinging. A virtuous bhikkhu should carefully attend the these five aggregates subject to clinging as impermanent, as suffering, as a disease, as a tumor, as a dart, as misery, as an affliction, as alien, as disintegrating, as empty, as nonself. When, friend, a virtuous bhikkhi carefully attends to these five aggregates subject to clinging, it is possible that he may realize the fruit of stream-entry.â€? “But, friend Sariputta, what are the things that a bhikkhu who is a stream-enterer should carefully attend to?â€? (The same formula is repeated all the way up through Arahantship...i.e., full enlightenment.) (Ven. Sariputta . . . CDB, vol. 1, pg. 970 – 971) .......................................................................... There is no denial of what there is, there is denial of what there isn't. .......................................................................... TG: There is never a denial of what is there. But there is the calling of what is there as "void, empty, hollow, coreless, selfless, etc. due to "their" conditional make-up. When we think of an object as "its own thing," we are seeing it in a deluded way. The Buddha is teaching us to see that the things that appear...are not "themselves." This is the deepest part of the Buddha's teaching IMO. Things are "not-self" due to the "mechanics" of conditionality and the principles thereof...not because they are made up of Dhammas. (The latter not intended to reflect your viewpoint.) .................................................................... And rather than going into and enumerating the infinite list of possibilities of what there isn't, which would be insanity, no, there is just this, and it is is only this modicum of disturbance: that connected with the six sensory spheres, dependent on this very body with life as its condition.' Therefore...Therefore..."IT" (pTherefore..."IT" (phenomena/fea > void of "own essence." It is void of self. > Certainly, whatever arises is void of A self, an abiding soul, just as the Buddha's instruction to Bahiya make plain: there is no "I" in seeing etc. But that in no way means that a phenomena wasn't what it was, or that it arose without knowable conditions, which each in turn were what they were. And those conditions are always a being. Phenomena come into the world through beings. Dhammas are specific to beings. ..................................................................... TG: Yes and no. Hint: Don't over-shoot the mark by thinking that when the Buddha calls the Five Aggregates "void" he is saying they aren't there. He is just saying they are void of self...which has profound and extremely deep implications. Phenomena DO arise...but generally speaking, to the unenlightened mind, they are NOT what they appear to be. Our minds create a make-believe world of subject and object and give all sorts of identities to things that in actuality, have no such identity...except in our imagination...and from our deluded perspective. TG #90592 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:40 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: MN36. Buddha about Jhana 'That is the path to Awakening.' egberdina Hi KenH, 2008/9/23 kenhowardau : > Hi Herman, > >> >> But that does not mean I am easily fooled. You would a call a higher >> discussion what? > > > > Are you serious? Can't you imagine a higher level of discussion than > that? You would like to have an abhidiscussion? :-) > ---------------------- > H: > A denial that there is a discussion taking place, and > a denial that there are participants in a discussion. Each one of your > posts, KenH, denies what you claim to believe. > ---------------------- > > There you go again; you can't get past that first, silly, reaction. > It might have been clever, or amusing, once to have said, "If you > think there are no trees you should try walking into one" or "If > there is no self then who is having this discussion, who is sending > this email?" (No, actually, I don't think it was ever clever or > amusing.) but can't we move on? No, we can't. Because your version of abhidiscussion denies the reality of discussion. With that sort of logic, anything goes, and in your case, it always does. > > --------------------- > H: > You are a being that > finds comfort in being self-denying. And if that is how you cope, who > am I to criticise? We are, after all, in the same boat, and there is > no more merit in denying reality than in embracing it. > -------------------- > > Sorry, Herman, but I can't take your armchair philosophising > seriously. I don't think you take it seriously either. You just like > a good natter. > > Let's start from the beginning, and see if we can get to higher and > higher levels of discussion. You say, "The Buddha spoke of people and > trees; therefore they must exist." My reply is, "The Buddha was using > those terms as conventional designations. He was actually referring > to conditioned dhammas (things we previously knew nothing about)." > > Now I will say something simplistic and you can give a reply: > > If, as you say, the Buddha was referring to conventional entities > when he said all was anicca dukkha and anatta, did he mean tortoises > were fleeting? Did he mean chocolate was unpleasant? Did he mean a > full tank of petrol was actually empty? > > Over to you for some sensible answers! > You completely gloss over what conventional designations and what conventional designations are. I will answer your simplistic questions, and I hope that you answer my simple question. What are the conditions for conventional entities and designations to be there? 1] He meant that knowing tortoises was fleeting, it was not the being of tortoises he was refering to. 2] He meant that craving for chocolate would eventually lead to unpleasantness. 3] He meant that knowing a full tank of petrol was empty of it's own being, but rather that it was dependent on a being refering to the being full with petrol of a tank. I hope you see the pattern in the Buddha's meaning. It is consciousness of any kind that is anicca, dukkha and anatta, not what there is consciousness of. I hope that was highbrow enough for you :-) Cheers Herman #90593 From: "Alex" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:41 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... Stay Away from People Who Lack the Faculties truth_aerator Dear Tep, >--- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Tep" wrote: > Hi Alex (& Connie), - > > T: Yes, his teaching applies to us. Of course, I've never said that teaching itself doesn't apply to us. Sutta study is a must, a must. However, we must keep in mind that not every single instruction is enough for us today by itself. Sure, in some sutta the Buddha has said that there are various occasions on which one may achieve awakening, where one of the cases was 'reciting'. Reciting may work, for Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu induvidials but some may need more. Best wishes, Alex #90594 From: "Tep" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:20 pm Subject: Re: Warnings .... Stay Away from People Who Lack the Faculties dhammanusarin Dear Alex (Connie), - Your clarification below is pretty good. "Alex" wrote: > >Of course, I've never said that teaching itself doesn't apply to us. Sutta study is a must, a must. >However, we must keep in mind that not every single instruction is enough for us today by itself. Sure, in some sutta the Buddha has said that there are various occasions on which one may achieve awakening, where one of the cases was 'reciting'. Reciting may work, for Ugghatitannu and Vipancitannu induvidials but some may need more. .................. T: I am in close agreement with what you wrote above. It is true that each person has his/her own path to Awakening that is relatively easier for some and more difficult in others. Tep === #90595 From: TGrand458@... Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:48 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? TGrand458@... In a message dated 9/23/2008 6:35:01 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, truth_aerator@... writes: Dear Bhante, "Simplicity is ultimate complication."Simplicity is ultimate complicatio Sometimes what may appear to be a "simple and conventional sutta" is not really simple, nor conventional. Best wishes, Alex Oh yes!!! Beautiful Alex. I guess we're not supposed to just compliment a post so I need to add something with content...so...may the Dhammas be with you! TG #90596 From: Sukinder Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:58 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tep - Sukin discussion. On the nature of Reality. sukinderpal Dear Tep and Rinze, ============ Tep: Can you give a statement of objective for this discussion thread before proceeding? Do you want to teach Paramattha Dhamma 101 to new members of this group? A more efficient way is by posting a review of a book on Paramattha-dhamma, chapter by chapter. I just wonder how good a partner in paramattha-dhamma discussion I can be, 'cause I am not a paramattha-learned person. Scott once tried me, and Nina also tried. They must have been quite disappointed. And now Sukin tries. ;-) Sukin: No I do not have in mind to talk in terms of Paramattha dhamma, let alone teach it to anyone. And even though the influence would most definitely be there, one main objective, while avoiding reference to the Abhidhamma, is to determine how well grounded both of us are with regard to things we keep asserting and making statements about. Besides, I don’t see any difference between Abhidhamma and the other parts of the Tipitaka when it comes to the Truth being conveyed. So Tep, I don’t think that this is going to be the same as what you experienced in the past. And even though I did refer to Nina’s ADL previously, that was not to teach you ‘about’ Paramattha dhammas, but more to do with trying to found a correct base for studying about the way things are, for which purpose I happen to consider her book to be quite good. With regard to your statement about ‘not being a paramattha-learned person’, I am now also motivated to try to convince you that the knowledge about paramattha dhammas is knowledge about the way things are and this has to do more with ‘attitude’ towards one’s moment to moment experience, than some ‘theory’ to acquire. I’ll admit though, that it would be easier for me if I took one of Nina’s or A. Sujin’s books as reference, as I said, I don’t have any set direction to follow. Besides, I don’t have much confidence in my own understanding to think that I will be able to explain anything better. But since this is also an exercise whereby I am testing out my own understanding, I’ve decided to go ahead with it. So please also don’t feel that I am taking the role of a ‘teacher’ or anything. ============= >Suk: In our day to day life some experiences come across as being that of "realities" and some of "illusions". The one can be said to distinguish from the other in that these exhibits characteristics while the other does not. Of the former, there are two kinds: `Mental' reality, that which experiences / knows and `material' reality, that which does not experience / know. Any questions or objections, or else is there anything you would like to add to the above? T: I think there are important definitions that have to be given right at the beginning. How would you clearly define the followings? : reality; characteristics of a reality; illusion (why does it have no characteristics?); mind and mental; experience; knowing & knowledges; materiality. and (Rinze: Take this idea of "illusion" that you state (for example). Is it the idea of illusion as understood by the Mahayana sect? (that the Tree is NOT THERE, even though we see it in reality?).) Sukin: I paused at all those words, especially at ‘characteristic’ and ‘illusion’. I was hoping that you would not question them; since I thought that they were already ‘in use’ and understood by each person to whatever degree. In fact I was thinking also about people in general who have begun to ask the kind of questions of themselves’ such that it can be said that these people have ‘some idea’ about those concepts already. But I’m glad Tep that you question this, since this is the kind of spirit I am looking for. ;-) It is important that we define terms, but since I am in fact trying to get to the root of what these terms mean in experience, I think that better than give a definition now, we can learn more as we go along. What do you think? And Rinze, since I see to some extent the limitations in ‘philosophizing’, and since I will be talking more in terms of understanding present moment experiences, this I hope should then discourage certain lines of enquiry. I have no fear about being thrown at with a barrage of questions. But if this should happen, I’ll probably end up in some cases, not obliging. ;-) Frankly though, I don’t want anyone else to be more than just passive observers here, since I don’t have the stamina to write so much. Even with Tep alone, I would rather that he and I not be involved in any discussion beside this one. But please don’t take me wrong, I value your opinions very much and would have liked it for example, that we all met and discuss this in person, rather than having to type, which is a laborious thing for me to do anyway. Besides we already have another discussion going between us, and the thought of having to type a response to that one is already making me feel weak. ;-) But to answer your question let me just state that by illusion I mean any experience of the outside world that is seen to some extent as being dependent on the mind’s conceiving of it. This I believe is appreciated to some extent by people outside of Buddhism as well. If on the other hand you are asking about my own understanding, I’d say that anything informed by ignorance and more particularly wrong view is illusion. For example, if one in not knowing that ‘seeing’ experiences only visible object / color, one thinks instead that one ‘sees a tree’, this is ‘illusion’. This and the fact that there is in fact no ‘self’ is something outsiders don’t know. But perhaps you are trying to draw my attention to distinguish between ‘illusion’ and ‘concept’? If so, I’ll say that I did consider using ‘concept’ at first, however because I was thinking also about the ‘outsider’ who has yet to make the concept / reality distinction and therefore also know that ‘self’ is also an illusion, I thought to take that particular first step instead. ========== Tep: Aren't these definitions given in Khun Sujin's Paramatthadhamma book? Can't help being skeptical, Sukin: If you are, please continue to ask. And if you still want me to define those terms above, let me know. But I am also hoping not only to being questioned, but also to hearing anything you might suggest as alternative. Metta, Sukin #90597 From: "Scott" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:59 pm Subject: [dsg] Re: How does the Abhidhamma Pitaka view dhammas? scottduncan2 Dear Paul, Regarding: "Dependent on the eye & forms there arises eye-consciousness." SN 12:44 "...Cakkhu~nca pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati cakkhuvi~n~naa.na.m." P: "...to me "eye-consciousness" and "seeing" are synonymous and both point to the same transient event, so the question (as I understand it) is circular." Scott: This is not necessarily a circular question, depending on your understanding, Paul. The sutta quote is a good example of abhidhamma in the suttas. How do you understand 'cakkhuvi~n~naa.na'? Sincerely, Scott. #90598 From: "Herman Hofman" Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 8:29 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Warnings .... No Sarah, no Ken H ... egberdina Hi Sarah, 2008/9/19 dsgmods : > Dear Tep (& Alex), > > ... > S: "...that trees are real and Sarah is real; but both trees and Sarah > are impermanent..." Hmmmm, did the Buddha teach this or is it your own > interpretation, Tep:-)). > He did often suggest to those with an ear to hear to seek out the foot of trees. Oh dear, what could he possibly have meant? We'd surely be lost without a higher understanding of this :-) Cheers Herman #90599 From: upasaka@... Date: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:28 pm Subject: Re: [dsg] On the insanity of classifying voidnesses upasaka_howard Hi, Herman (and TG) - In a message dated 9/23/2008 8:14:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, hhofmeister@... writes: You refer to phenomena and say they have nothing of their own. But still, in order to deny the own-being of the phenomena you have to know the phenomena, right? You are knowing a something, right? But somehow you say this something is not itself, it is utterly dependent. But that is not apparent from the phenomena, surely. So apart from the phenomena, which you need to know in order to deny, you posit something on which it is utterly dependent? And would could that be? Something else that is not itself, but utterly dependent on something else that isn't itself either? So, in short, your version of emptiness is infinite regress, aka absurdity or my translation, insanity :-) ============================ Not insanity but an emptiness that is a thoroughgoing as anything could ever be - an emptiness that "goes beyond," beyond intellectual grasping and beyond the samsaric, imagined realm of separate conditions. It is an Indra's Net of infinite reflections within reflections - without foundation. Reality is not something simple, graspable, discrete and self-existent. It does not consist of dhammas that are separate, self-existent "realities". It is a seamless "un-thing" beyond the range of our avijja-based conceptualization. With metta, Howard